An antidote against Anabaptism, in a reply to the plea for Anabaptists: or Animadversions on that part of the libertie of prophesying which sect. 18. p. 223. beareth this title: A particular consideration of the opinion of the Anabaptists. Together with a survey of the controverted points concerning 1. Infant baptism. 2. Pretended necessitie of dipping. 3. The dangerous practice of rebaptizing. By Jo. Reading, B.D. and sometimes student of Magdalen Hall in Oxford.

AN Antidote against Anabaptisme: OR, Animadversions on that part of the liberty of Prophe∣cying which sect. 18. pag. 2. 3. beareth this Title, A particular Consideration of the opinion of the ANABAPTISTS:

—Their denying Baptisme to Infants,* 1.1 although it be a Do∣ctrine justly condemned by the most sort of Christians, upon great grounds of Reason]

WE say, That denying Baptism to In∣fants, is justly condemned by all true Christians; we cannot understand them to be such, who renounce their Saviour Christ by a pretended Bap∣tisme in their rebaptizing never war∣ranted by pre••••p••, or example in ho∣ly Scripture, or those who by their Doct•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and make void their Baptisme by a kind of self-excommunication.

Again we say, That to condemne the Doctrine of Ana∣bapt••sts upon great grounds of Reason, seems to lay too nar∣row a ground, and possibly too unsound a foundation for our profession;* 1.2 specially, if we consider what is here said, Sect. 10. Num. 2. concerning the pretended authority of Rea∣son, and following his guide so far as his Reason goes along with him,—Or, which is all one, he that follows his own Reason, &c. which guidance by Divine Revelation, and I know not what other good means he meaneth,* 1.3 he saith, hath great advanta∣ges —But to leave ambiguities of words, and confusion of senses; we affirm, That the word of God is our ground and guide in matters of Faith and Religion (which even the greatest pretenders to humane authority, and undervaluers of holy Scriptures, do acknowledge in their soberer fits) and that the Spirit of God illuminateth the elect whom he cal∣leth, guideth, and enableth to obedience, against the dictates of carnall reason,* 1.4 and the corrupt affections of flesh and blood. If he mean any other Divine Revelation then that which is consonant to the known and invariable Rule of Gods word, I know not what greater advantage Satan could desire for leading beguiled souls to hell blindfold, then to find them following their own reason, and putting their sal∣vations upon pretended revelations, our faith is on Gods truth, not humane Reason; which, in this life, is not so ab∣solutely purged from the contagion of sin, ignorance and error, since the Apostles being furnished with infallibility of Spirit, but that it is subject to some errors: and therefore though we disclaim all blind obedience to man in acts of Religion, yet we submit to God in believing every thing which he saith;* 1.5 adoring his Truth, which we cannot by any strength of humane Reason examine. Moreover we say, seeing that only may, and can be the ground of our Faith, which cannot erre, or be false; and seeing that we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone, Ephes. 2. ••0. we cannot consent to be taken off from that infallible certainty, and to be set upon the moveable and loose sand of onely Great grounds of Reason, or any thing lesse known,

certain, and infallible then the holy word of God, which we know cannot deceive us.

It will neither be unpleasant nor unprofitable to draw a short Scheme of plea for each party,* 1.6 the result of which possibly may be, that though they be deceived, yet they have so great excuse on their side, &c.]

Surely unpleasing to God it is to make sport with matters of so high concernment, and to play with holy things (for so this plea must be, except you are in earnest for the Ana∣baptists) or for ••ear or favour of men, so to temporize, as thereby to endanger (as much as you can) the Cause and Truth of Christ. And how it can be either pleasing to any good Christian, which displeaseth God, or profitable which causeth any to erre from the truth in pleading for that which you acknowledge to be a Doctrine justly condemned— I confesse I understand not. Possibly Ioash would here have replied to such a short Scheme of plea,* 1.7—Will ye plead for Baal?

That their error is not impudent or v••••cible.]* 1.8

To say an impudent error, is but an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and impro∣priety of speech, which in more exact expression I suppose you would render, they are not impudent in defence of their error; If so, I onely appeale to experience. As for that which you say—They have so great excuse on their side, that their error is not—vincible, seems a contradiction in the adject; who believes any error to be invincible, who belie∣veth that Christ (the Truth. Iohn 14. 6.) hath sufficiently delivered that heavenly light in the Gospel, which (though God permit it sometimes to be clowded) shall shine clear, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; but it shall put to flight and overcome every darkness of error, specially in things pernitious, and about the foundation. I say not, to the sense of those whom God justly giveth over to strong delusions, tha•• they may perish who receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved; but to the Goshen and Israel of God, appointed to salvation: How else should it be,* 1.9 that our faith should be the Victory that overcometh the world, except it be in the invincible truth and faith in him

who h••th overcome the world? Iohn 16. 33. For by World, Christ here meaneth and com••re••en••eth leth all that which is contrary to the salvation of the Elect, specially those false∣hoods and errors, which Satan by any means broacheth to corrupt and overthrow the true Faith. See Heb. 11. 1, &c. Mat. 16. 8.

The Baptisme of Infants rests wholly on this Discourse.* 1.10]

If that were true, your plea for A••abaptists were lesse condemnable; but the contrary will appeare in due place.

But whether they have originall sin or no—* 1.11]

Indeed the Pelagians (an old Sect of Hereticks) denied that Infants were born in originall sin: And Celestius affirmed, That Adams sin hurt onely himself,* 1.12 but not mankind. And others, that Infants are born in the same state in which A∣dam was before his transgression: But the holy Scripture plainly condemnes this Heresie. See Iob 14. 4. Psalm 51. 5. Iohn 3. 5. 1 Cor. 15 50. Rom. 5. 12. 1 or. 15. 22. Eph. 2. 3. So do all the Reformed Churches, and Papists too, vid. Bellar. l. 4. de amissione gratiae, & stat. peccati. Besides woful ex∣perience teaching us▪ that children die▪ demonstrateth,* 1.13 that they brought that guilt into the world with them which sub∣jected them to the sentence of death, and participation of the punishment of Adams sin, which could not be, except they were partakers of his guilt, because God is just. That they have contracted the guilt of Adams sin, you confesse, pag▪ 230.* 1.14 Num 16.

—Infants cannot by any act of their own,* 1.15 promote the hope of their own salvation, which men of reason and choyce may, by acts of vertue and election.* 1.16

Faith and hope of salvation are not of our selves, but the gift of God, Eph. ••. 8. And what hope infants have or acts of reason, how God applieth the merit of Christ•• to

Infants, who became an infant that he might also save them; is a secret u••known to me and therefore I do neither anxi∣ously enquire, nor rashly determine.

That men of reason and choyce may promote their hope of salvation by acts of Vertue and Election, must cautiously be understood; seeing they neither can do any thing here∣to, as they have reason or election; both which are naturall▪ and so corrupted, that they are utterly inactive to any moral good, without the help of Gods preventing and quickning grace supervenient. The Scr••pture is expresse: You hath he quickned who were dead in trespasses and sins,—and were by nature the children of wrath,* 1.17 even as others, &c. It is nei∣ther of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.* 1.18—And where he said, Work out, or finish your salvation,—we may not think it dependeth on our works, or of our own ability; for, saith he, it is God which worketh in you both to wil and to do, of his good pleasure. Lest we should think our selves excused from our uttermost ende∣vour, whom he hath made voluntary agents, and in some part repaired in our regeneration, he requireth that we work, that we receive not that grace in vain, that we so run that we may attain; yet that we may not think that this is, or can be by any choice or ability of our own, he telleth us presently, it is God which worketh in us, all which he requireth of us; and so good works which follow the ••ustified person, being fruits of our calling and election, give us a comfortable hope thereof. Yet is it most true that God alone according to his abundant mercy (not our merit) hath begotten us ag••in to a lively hope, 1 Pet. 1. 3. and that if we do these things, we shall never fall.* 1.19

You say again,* 1.20 That God requires nothing on mans part, but that its efficacy be not hindred.]

This Proposition, though plausible, yet is unsound, as may appear by that which hath been said: to which I add; It is indeed required, that we do not ponere obicem, by un∣beliefe, impenitency, contempt of Gods ordinance, &c. but he that saith,* 1.21 Cease to do evill, saith also, Learn to do well. So the Apostle exhorteth—To give all diligence to make your

calling and election sure: for if ye do these things ye shall never fall. And indeed this is the end of our implantation into Christ by Baptism,* 1.22 that we should walk in newness of life; and no doubt•• but God requireth of his Israel, that they should not quench the Spirit, or ponere obicem, in that he said, Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and harden your necks no more, Deut. 10. 16. Yet he requireth them to fear the Lord their God, to walk in all his ways,—to keep all the commandements of the Lord—v. 12. 13. And into the same covenant are children admitted by baptism, which bindeth them on their first abilities to perform the same, though for the present they are no more active then circumcised Infants were, who were received and sealed into the present covenant of future faith and obedience.

Then (you say) there is a necessity that they should be brought to baptism,* 1.23 there being an absolute exclusion of all persons unbaptized.]

There is a necessity of Baptism in respect of Gods or∣dinance,* 1.24 which bindeth us to administer it: but we affirm not such a necessitatem medii, that all they should be abso∣lutely excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven, who die with∣out baptism,* 1.25 as many infants do. That uncharitable opini∣on we leave to the maintainers therof, we have no warrant so to judge: and therefore we say, that not the bare privation, but the contempt of the Sacrament cond••mneth; of which Infants cannot be guilty. So that if you clearly mean a ne∣cessitatem medii in respect of the externall ministry of man, your Proposition is not true, nor owned by us: but if you mean a necessity in respect of our duty in baptizing infants, or their spirituall baptisme by regeneration, we so farre consent; but then we cannot excuse your medium for an homonomia, which concludeth not an absolute exclusion of all persons unbaptized; is apparently fals, in the example of the ••enitent Thiefe, saved but not baptized, and in charity to be concluded so, in elect children dying before they are bapti∣zed: so that if our Arguments for baptizing children were no better, you might confidently say as you do in the Epi∣log••e of your Plea,* 1.26 They have been encouraged in their error

more by—our weak arguings•• then by any truth of their cause, or excellency of their wit.

You say—Internall (means of bringing them to an eter∣nall happiness) they have none:* 1.27 for grace being an improve∣ment and heightning the faculties of Nature, in order to an heightned and supernaturall end, grace hath no influence, or efficacy upon their faculties, who can do no naturall acts of un∣derstanding—]

What acts of understanding elect Infants dying have, I cannot determine, but I am confident all considering Readers will abominate and loath this bold and uncharitable censure. Who admitted you into the secret of God•• councel, concer∣ning the state of Infants, whom either he preserveth to age, or taketh away before they could be baptized? It is better resol∣ved, toa worse end, by your self, p. 231. Num. 16. Many thou∣sand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable soul unto himself.—And here in the very next place you affirm, That God hath made a promise of the holy Ghost to Infants as well as to men.—Reconcile these two, and your self to your self, if you can. First, you say,—Grace hath no in∣fluence or efficacy upon their faculties, who can do no naturall acts of understanding: And next you affirm, that God hath made a promise of the holy Ghost to Infants as well as to men. I demand, Doth God perform every one of his promises? Do you mean by the Holy Ghost, the gi••ts and graces of Gods holy Spirit regenerating the elect to the Kingdome of Heaven? Can any be saved without such grace? can the holy Ghost be inactive, and without effectuall influence in any soul? Doth God give in his good time, and measure, his grace of Regeneration to all the elect▪ that is, a powerful influence on them to regenerate, sanctifie, and finally save them? Doth God save any Infants? These things being concluded on, I would fain learn how it can be true, that children have no internall means of salvation: or that Gods Spirit hath no in∣fluence upon their faculties? Doth the reasonable soul of an Infant express an admirable influence on the bodily faculties, by a naturall instinct for its preservation; and shall not the Creator, the Spirit of Almighty God, have much more

active influence on the soul of the elect to save it, though there appear none, or very slender acts of understanding to the judgement and sense of man.

This your Proposition will appear false, if we consider infants circumcision; those could do as few acts of under∣standing, as infants now can: neither can any man without high impiety affirm, that Gods grace had no influence or ef∣ficacy on them whom he did not in vain command to be sea∣led into his covenant. It is well observed by our party, that the Sacraments are not bare resemblances, or memorials of things past, neither naked signes or testimonies of grace re∣ceived; but also Canales grati••••,* 1.28 whereby God ordinarily de∣riveth to us those Rivers of living Water•• Ioh 7. 3. and both delivereth and sealeth unto us the grace which they repre∣sent; so that these holy signes are not empty, void of, or without the things signified, although the things are recei∣ved after one manner, and the signes after another; one is given by God alone, without the observation and knowledge of man, and the other onely by the ministry of man, and be∣fore men: As at first Iohn Baptist baptized with water, and Christ baptized with the holy Ghost, though he baptized not with water, but his Disciples and substi••utes; neither did Iohn baptize with the holy Ghost, but Christ: So is it now, ••hrist baptizeth elect infants by the secret i••fluence of his holy Spirit, the fruits whereof appear in their season, and his Ministers, according to his appointment, baptize with water.

To all this (you say) the Anabaptists give a soft and gentle answer.]* 1.29

Sure you do but, herein, la••dando praecipere•• and by saying they do so, rather shew them what they should do, then us, what they do. M. Fisher in his Position at the Disputation at Ashford in Kent,* 1.30 stiled the maintainers of Pedobaptism, an evill and adulterous generation. this is one of their soft and gentle answers. Mr. Francis Cornwell in his Sermon at Crambrook in Ke••t, called Pedobaptism an Antichristi••n I••novation,* 1.31 a humane Tr••••ition &c. Mr. Cha. Bl••ckwood, Title-page, calleth his Pamphlet agai••st us, The storming of

Antichrist.* 1.32 Iohn Spislbury calleth Pedobaptism, Baptism administred and received in a false Antichristian estate, and by the power of Antichrist. Edward Barber calleth it Anti∣christian and abominable. And before he saith, concerning Mark 10. 14. This place is put in to be read at the sprinkling of children, for the Whore hath sweet words, &c. Is this, as you say for your Clients, to give a soft and gentle answer? or a Boyish manner of contest, to call Whore, and all ill names, where they have not other power to prevail? Let all judge who have any sense of humanity, whe••her this be a soft and gentle answer, to call his mother Whore, and the worst of such, Antichristian: whereas in spight of calumnies, with o∣ther reformed Churches, the Church of England hath ex∣cluded Popery, and what she could, banished that mysticall Whore out of her communion. But this is their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.33 to conclude their Scene where they have no evicting reason against that which they dislike to pronounce it Anti∣christian. And who is so ready to cast this odious Livery up∣on others, as the most Antichristian? I might hereto add many more the like instances of Railers at Infant-baptism,* 1.34 calling it▪ Idolatrous, of the Dragon and Beast, none other then a ceremony of Antichrist,* 1.35 a Satanicall Institution, &c. but that we have too much of our own at home. It is the quali∣ty of the Beast to open his mouth unto blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his Name and his Tabernacle and them that dwell in Heaven: But we like not our cause the worse, because such rail at it; but wish them to consider where the Railers place shall be, 1 Cor. 6. 1••.* 1.36

You say—The Argument from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite Considerations.] Pag. 228. Num. 13.

It will, I doubt not at last prove so strong, that neither you, nor any other Advocates shall ever be able to over-throw it: for that which circumcision was in the Old Testament, Baptism is in the New, which succeeded it, and hath the same end and use, that is, to be a seal of the Righteousnesse of Faith, Rom 4. 11. the same Faith in the same Christ: and there••ore the Apostle tells t••e Colossians that they w••re Cir∣cumcised in Christ,* 1.37—in that they were buried with him in

Baptism:* 1.38 so that Baptism is our Circumcision, or Sacra∣ment, whereby the same things are confer••ed and confirmed: an in-let for us into the visible Church of Christ, a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, and free remission of sins by Faith in him into whom it implanteth us.* 1.39 But you say,

Figures and Types prove nothing,* 1.40 unless a Commandement go along with them, or some express to signifie such to be their purpose.]

We answer, 1.

They signifie something which is their end; and the argument à typo ad veritatem, holds good from the signes in the Law, to the things signified in the Gospel: as Children were typically baptized under the law, under the Cloud,* 1.41 and in the red Sea, •• Cor. 10. 1, &c. and their wash∣ing with rain from the cloud, prefigured our washing in Baptism, and by the Spirit. And the red Sea, in which the Aegyptians were drowned, and Israel saved, was an Em∣blem of Christs blood, in which all our ghostly enemies are drowned, and we saved.

2. Here is a meer ignoratio elenchi, and mistake of the question in hand, which is not whether Circumcision were a type and figure of Baptisme, but whether Baptisme so suc∣ceed Circumcision, as a Seal of the Righteousnesse of Faith. That such sorts of persons (to wit, young and old) within the covenants, as had right to the one, have the like right to the other, which we affirm.

3. Where you say, Vnless a Commandment go along with them, &c▪ First, we say, that where the question is mistaken, we are not in reason bound to answer untill it be rightly stated, and so may wave all that you infer concerning the D••luge & Paschal Lamb▪ &c. as meerly impertinent to our present con∣troversie. Secondly, concerning a command for baptizing, you doubt not, nor we for baptizing of Infants; seeing that where the Reason and Equity of the Law remains, there the Law, for substance, is still in force, though not for every circum∣stance: Now nothing can reasonably be alledged, why chil∣dren have lesse use of Reason now, then they who then li∣ved, had ••nder the Law; or why they should for pre∣sent want of the use of reason, be now lesse capable of the

Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, then they were who lived under the Law? But you say further,

—Supposing a correspondence of Analogie between Circum∣cision and Baptism,* 1.42 yet there is no correspondence of Identitie.

This Bull deserves some baiting, were we not treating of sacred things; therefore I onely say, If correspondence i••∣port answering unto, in some similitude and likeness, ther•• can be no correspondence of identity, for no like is identically the same with that to which it is like.

For although it were granted that both of them (Circumcisi∣on and Baptis••) did consign the Covenant of Faith.]* 1.43

Speak you this as a matter doubtfull? Is not the Scripture evident? Do you also call the truth thereof in question? See Rom. 4. 11.

There is nothing in the circumstance of childrens being cir∣cumcised,* 1.44 that so concerns that mystery, but that i•• might very well be given to children, and yet bap∣tism to men of reason.]

This Argument is a childish caption:* 1.45 We say that Baptism succeeded Circumcision in substance, not in circumstance; in the end and use, as hath been said, and whereof we shall say more anon: To what purpose do you argue from the cir∣cumstance? But you say,

Circumcision left a Character in the flesh,* 1.46 which being im∣printed upon Infants, did it work upon them when they came to age?]

We answer: 1. That the word Character may be taken for a∣ny sign,* 1.47 or note distinguishing one thing from another: so Baptism may be also said to be a character, distinguishing Christians from unbelievers, not as an absolute quality, but as a relative thing: as •• tessera militaris by which God wil own his who fight under the Banner of Christ, and by which the baptized have a comfortable assurance that they are marked for the children of God when they believe in Christ, accor∣ding as it is written,* 1.48—In whom also after that ye beleeved, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise; which is the earnest of our I••heritance.—2. Your instance importeth onely ••

circumstantiall, not a substantiall diff••rence: Now the varie∣ty of signes vary not the thing signified: It is the same Christ, the same Faith, under the Gospel and under the Law; though the Sacraments by God appointed for the one and for the other, were much different: And the ends of Cir∣cumcision and Baptism are the same; to implant us into Christs visible Church; to be an in-let and door to the same; to seal up the admitted to faith, repentance, mortification, and newness of life: which work is as truly done to the baptized Christian when he cometh to age as it was to the Israelite circumcised, to wit, to and in them that belie∣ved and repented; to others the work was so farre from being done, that t••at very seal of Gods Covenant which they bare in their flesh, served for a witnesse against the soul of the ••ovenant-breaker to his greater condemna∣tion: and so it is proportionably with the baptized Apostate: which may be a warning to your Clients, to repent before it be too late. You say again,

—It is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason,* 1.49 that they may be capable both of the word of the Sacrament, and the impress made upon the Spirit.]

We answer: 1. This weakly follows from unsound pre∣mises; was there no word added to Circumcision? How doth that appear? Was there not a word of Institution? Genes. 17. 10, 11, 12. Was not the reason of the Covenant de∣clared to Abraham?* 1.50 Did not he, and others, preach the same to all of age to be circumcised, as Proselytes, and to the circumcised infants when they came to age capable of Doctrine? so doe we to the baptized: but to persons of years we preach the Gospel first, and then baptize them; in∣fants we baptize first, and instruct them when they come to be capable.

2. That it is requisite that the persons baptized should be capable of Reason, that they may be capable both of the word, &c.]

We say 〈◊〉〈◊〉 also, they m••st be capable of Reason, ei∣ther in act, that they may presently understand t••ose things; or in habit, that they may afterward understand the same;

to what end else should we baptize infants,* 1.51 or why were they circumcised into future faith, repentance, and newness of life? We utterly dislike Popish baptizing of Bels, Chur∣ches, Altars, &c.

3. We say further. That Covenants between man and man, require that both parties expressly understand & know the tenour, substance, and particulars of the same; but in Covenants between God and his Creatures, that Rule doth not universally hold; for here God stipulateth and princi∣pally transacteth with the creature according t•• that which he will have done, or do in, or by them. So he established his Covenant with Noah and his seed after him, and with every living creature, the Fowle, Cattell, Beasts, &c. Gen. 9. 10. How much more rationally may ••e make covenant with infants, though yet without the actuall use of reason? A∣gain, sometimes such covenants are made between men, as that the parent or parents covenant for, or in stead of their children because they are not yet of age to understand the words and purport of the covenant, and it standeth good. How much rather may God covenant with an infant, whose mouth and Advocate, Christ Jesus, said expressly, Suff••r little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, Mark 1••. 14▪ Luke 18. 16. I demand, quo jure, by what right is the Kingdom of Heaven theirs? What, by descent from naturall parents? Nay, but that which is born of the flesh, is flesh, John 3. 6. And fl••sh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 15. 50. It must therefore be by the free covenant of God with them, out of which it can belong to none by right of any infant-inno∣cency, seeing all are conceived and born in sin,* 1.52 the children of wrath, but for the grace and covenant of God with them, which they yet understand not, yet is it valid and eff••ctuall to their salvation, as we may also understand in case of Cir∣cumcision, in which the circumcised Child understood as little what was said, or done, as the baptized infant now doth, and yet it was Gods covenant with them, Gen. 17. 7▪ 10, 11, 12. and effectual for them. To conclude, if you mean that it is requisite that none should be admitted to bap••ism,

but those that have the actuall use of reason, that is, men and women of years, you beg the question.

—of the Sacrament,* 1.53 and the impress made upon the Spirit.]

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

Since therefore (say you) the reason of this parity does wholly fail,* 1.54 there is nothing left to inferre a necessity of com∣plying in this circumstance of age any more then in the other annexes of the type.]

It wholly holds in substance for ought you have said to the contrary:* 1.55 and therefore your following instances are frivolous. As concerning baptizing the eighth day, we an∣swer, 1. That whereas God appointed no set day for bap∣tism, * 1.56 we have the greater liberty to do it at the most conve∣nient season, on the first, second, third, fourth, &c. or on any day, so that we neither contemn Gods ordinance, nor unnecessarily delay it. 2. As hath been noted, baptism suc∣••••eded circum••ision, not in every circumstance, but in the

thing signified,* 1.57 in the end and use. 3. This your argument is a fallacious and childish caption: à fallacia accidentis, from the subject to the accident, from the substance to the circumstance, as the learned Dr. Featly observeth, such a fallacy is this.

What the Jews were comm••nded in the fourth Comman∣dement, that we Christians are bound to perform: But the Jews were commanded to keep holy the seventh day from the creation; Therefore we Christians are bound to keep that day.

Such is this Paralogism.

If Baptisme succeeded Circumcision,* 1.58 then children ought to be baptized the eight day: it no more followeth, then that children ought to be baptized in the same part where th••y were circumcised: it will follow rather,

That because Circumcision was administred to the infant as soon as it was capable thereof, or could receive the Sacrament without danger, therefore children ought to be baptized as soon as conveniently they may.

But you say,

The case is clear in the Bishops question to Cyprian, for why shall not infants be baptized just upon the eighth day, as well as circumcised? If the correspondence of the Rites be an Argument to inferre one circumstance which is imper∣tinent and accidentall to the mysteriousnesse of the Rite, why shall it not inferre all?]

The case is as clear in the Question of Fidus the Presbyter, (whom you call Bishop) as it is in your objecting it. Fidus made a querie, or rather affirmed,* 1.59 that Infants ought not to be baptized on the second or third day, but that the law of an∣cient circumcision ought to be considered; so that he thought

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

the new•• born infant might not be baptized within, ••r before the eig••••h day: Cyprian answereth: There is one e••uality of the Divine gift to all, whether they are in••ants or old men: for as God is no accepter of persons, so neither is he of ages, bu•• he shews himself in an even-ballanced equality, alike to ••ll, as to their attaining heavenly grace—if to grievous of∣fenders, and to those who have before that much sinned against God—and no man is prohibited baptism and grace, how much less ought the infant to be prohibited, who being new-born, hath committed no sin, onely that in Adam. —He hath in his first nativity been infected with the con∣tagion of ancient death. But concerning the cause of in∣fants who you say are not to be baptized at two or three dayes old, and that we are to consider the law of ancient cir∣cumcision, so that y••u think that a child born may not be baptized before the eighth day; all that were in our Coun∣cell are of a far different judgment; for no man consenteth to that which you thought was to be done: but we all ra∣ther judged, that the mer••y and grace of God is to be de∣••ed ••o no man born. Let the Reader judge bow clear the case is in the Bishops question to Cypri••n. To the rest of your Arguments we say you dispute ex non concessis: We do not say that ••••e correspondence of Rites inferre the circumstances, but the substance•• but errors are fruitfull, and one absurdi∣ty grante••, many easily follow. For that you say from your own fancy, which you run away withall.

And then also f••m••les must not be baptized, because they were not ci••cumcised.]

We answer, 1. As we have said before, baptism succee∣ded circumcision not in every circumstance (which your selves justi••ie in that you baptize women) but in the sub∣stance, * 1.60 the thing signified, the end and use: or as others say, in the inward mystery, in the promises, in use, in effects. 2. God expressly ••estrained circumcision to males, Gen. 17. 10, 1••, 14. y••t the females were comprehended in the males: and to be born of circumcised parents▪ was to them in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of circumcision, and so were they born to God, and in his account Daughters of Abraham, Luke 13. 16. and so

within his covenant of grace and mercy: and the sealing of males was then limited to the eighth day; but now in baptism the circumstances of sex, age, and a fixed day, are not ex∣pressly mentioned, but we have a generall commandement to baptize all, without exception to any time, sex, or age. 3. Though women were not capable of circumcision, and therefore it was not enjoyned them, yet the female is as ca∣pable of baptism as the male, and therefore without excep∣tion to sex, they who are all one in Christs account, must e∣qually be baptized into him. 4. Circumcision and Baptism agreeing in substance, did yet differ in many circumstances. First, in the Rite or Ceremony. Secondly, in the manner of signifying: For Circumcision held out grace in the Messias then to come; but baptism presenteth it in Christ exhibited. Thirdly, in the particular testimony annexed to make good the promise: for then God promised, not onely a covenant with his Church, but a p••culiar place for the same, the land of Ca••aan, untill the coming of the promised Seed: but baptism hath no particular promise of this, or that fixed place. Fourthly, in the manner of binding; Circum∣cision did oblige the circumcised to the observation of the whole Law,* 1.61 Morall, Ceremoniall, and Judiciall: but baptism bindeth us onely to the observation of the Morall ••aw; that is, faith, repentance, and newness of life, according to the holy Rule of Gods will revealed in the Moral Law, from the curse whereof,* 1.62 in respect of non-performance, we are deli∣vered in Christ, into whom we are baptized. Fifthly, in their appointed continuance; Circumcision was appointed onely for Abrahams posterity; and to continue onely unto the coming of Christ:* 1.63 but baptism was instituted for all Nati∣ons and times unto the worlds end▪ Lastly,* 1.64 in circumstance of sex and age,* 1.65 so far as circumcision was limited to males and the eighth day. So that to argue, as you do, from the sub∣stance to the circumstance,* 1.66 or that which is accidentall, is fal∣lacious, and captious, as hath been shewed.

You say—Therefore as Infants were circumcised, so spiri∣tuall Infants shall be baptized &c.]

This you think a right understanding of the business;

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

And this seems to have been the sense of the primitive Church,* 1.67 for in the age next to the Apostles, they gave to all baptized persons milk and honey, to represent unto them their duty, that though in age of understanding they were men, yet they were babes in Christ, and children in malice, &c.]

Indeed we read of such a custome in Tertullians time,* 1.68 but

that was two hundred years after Christ: but I find not the sense of the Church therein by him expressed to your purpose.* 1.69 And Hierom mentioneth the same custom, but gi∣veth no such sense as you pretend to; it being well known that he was for Infant-baptism. And it appears not by any thing you here cite or say, that such a custom proveth any thing against Baptism of Infants, for whom milk and hony is fitter nourishment then for the strong, 1 ••orinth. 3. 2. Hebr. 5. 12, 13. Your other conjecture is but feebly groun∣ded; yet you say,

But to infer the sense of the Pedo-baptists is so weak a manner of arguing, that Augustine, whose device it was (and men use to to be in love with their own fancies) at the most pre∣tended it but as probable, and a meer conjecture.]

To which we answer,* 1.70 1. That things which Christ com∣manded to his Apostles, could not be Augustines, or any humane invention, but a divine Institution, such was bapti∣zing of Infants, as will appeare in due place. And this is the ground of this whole controversie. 2. That it was none of Augustines device or fancy, with which he was therefore in love, as being his own, Augustine his self clearly testifieth. S. Cyprian (saith h••) not composing any new decree, but holding the most firm faith of the Church, to correct their error, who thought that an infant might not be baptized be∣fore he were eight days old; he, with certain his fellow-Bi∣shops, was of this sense, that a new-born infant might rightly be baptized. As for the words of Cyprian, we have cited them a little before. Cyprian with a Conncell of 66. Bishops, re∣solved so, not out of any then new-born opinion, or decree, but maintained that which was of old, the firm faith and do∣ctrine of the Church which was long before him:* 1.71 And Cy∣prian* 1.72 flourished about the year of our Lord 222, and was crowned with martyrdom under the persecuting Emperour Valerian, about the year 260.* 1.73 And St. Augustine flourished

about the year 410.* 1.74 and died about the year 430. So that had Augustine (as you say) devised it, it must have 150 years years before Augustine was born, been devised by Augustine, which had been a singular device indeed. Origen of whom you say Augustine had this tradition of Baptizing Infants (pag. 237. N. 25) saith, because we are all conceived and born in sin, the Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles to administer Baptism to little children. Now Origen lived a∣bout the same time with Cyprian.* 1.75 How you can reconcile your self (in that you here affirm that Pedobaptism was Augustines device, and yet confesse that Augustine had it from Origen, who died so many years before Augustine was born) I say not to the truth, but to your self, I do not understand. Iustin Martyr, whom Tertullian mentioneth as an Ancestor (he lived under the Emperour Antoninus Pius) and Irenaeus speaketh of Infants baptized in his time. Ire∣naeus speaking of Christs Baptism and entrance into his pub∣lique Ministery, saith, He sanctified every age by that simili∣tude which was to himself, for he came to save all by himself; I say all, who by him are regenerate to God, infants and little ones, boys, young men and old: therefore passed he through every age, for infants he became an infant, sanctify∣ing infants, &c. This Irenaeus was so ancient, that he saw Po∣lycarp who was an hearer of some of the Apostles of Christ. It was therefore none of Augustines device.

3. Whether this be true which you affirm, that Augustine at the most pretended it but as probable, and a meer conjecture (to baptize infants, as infants were circumcised) let Augustine speak for himself (who saith) If any man in this thing look for

Divine authority, although that which the universal Church holdeth, being no Decree of any Councell, but hath been always observed, that we must rightly believe to have been delivered no otherwise then by Apostolicall authority: yet we may truly apprehend of what value the Sacrament of Baptism of Infants may be, from the circumcision of the flesh, which the former people received. Abraham was ju∣stified before he received it; as also Cornelius was endued with the gift of the holy Ghost before he was baptized, &c. why therefore was he commanded thenceforth to circumcise every male child on the eighth day, seeing they could not yet believe with the heart? &c. but because the Sacrament it self, is of i•• self of great moment: so untrue is it that Au∣gustine either devised Infant-baptism, or so slightly pretended to it, as you report. But you go on,

And as ill successe will they have with their other Argu∣ments as with this]* 1.76

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

From the action of Christs blessing Infants, to inferre that they are to be baptized, proves nothing so much, as that there is great want of better Arguments.]

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

The conclusion would be with more probability derived thus:* 1.77 Christ blessed children and so dismissed them, but bap∣tized them not, therefore infants are not to be bap∣tized.]

'Tis a pretty argument wherein both Antecedent and Conse∣quent are lame;* 1.78 'tis true and granted, that Christ in his own person baptized them not; but how prove you that he bap∣tized them not by some one of his Disciples? What; be∣cause 'tis not written? The Apostle may give you satisfa∣ction herein, who saith,—There are also many other things which Iesus did, the which if they should be written every one,* 1.79 I suppose that even the world it self could not contain the books.* 1.80 How invalid is the Moderators Agument, à non scripto, ad non factum? Can there be a sound conclusion from rotten premises? Christ blessed children and so dismissed them, but baptized them n••t, therefore Infants are not to be baptized.

—Antonii gladios potuit contemnere, si sic omnia dixisset.—

Would it not as well follow à non scripto? Jesus granted the Centurions request, and cured his servant, and so for ought we read dismissed them, but baptized them not, Mat. 8. 10, 3. Christ healed the sick of the palsie and dismissed him; but for ought we read baptized him not, Matth. 9. 2, 6, 7. M••rk 2. 23. 5. 11, 12. He healed the woman of the bloody issue▪ but for ought we read baptized her not, Mat. 9. 22. Mark 5. 34. So the Ruler of the Synagogues daugh∣ter, Matth. 9. 25. Mark 5. 4, 42. So he dismissed the man out of whom he had cast many Divels, Luke 8. 38, 39. we read not that he baptized him. So he pronounced par∣don, accepted the repentance, and dismissed the penitent sin∣ner in peace, Luke 7. 50. It were too long to repeat all. So he cured the lame at Bethesda, Iohn 5. 8. Where (though so neer the convenience of water) we read not that he so much as once spake of Baptism to him; neither when finding him in the Temple he said to him,—thou art healed,* 1.81 sin no more lest a worse thing come unto thee, can any therefore reasona∣bly conclude those men and women of years whose bodies Christ cureth, whose repentance he accepteth, whose faith his self testifieth (who cannot be deceived) were not, and

therefore are not (though of years) to be baptized? He that had his time of doing those favours to them, was free to take his time of enjoyning their baptism: And how could you prove that these children were not baptized before or after they were brought to Christ? Before you censure our Arguments as invalid and weak; do your self the right to cosider your own.

—As we are sure that God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized]* 1.82

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

Quid ego festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum, was the question of Tertullian (lib. de Bapt.)* 1.83 he knew no such danger from their originall guilt, as to drive them to a laver, of which in that age of inn••cence, they had no need, as he conceived.]

Whether infants can make haste to baptism,* 1.84 I appeale to experience: Whether they are innocent and have no need of baptism, as Pelagius affirmed, I appeal to your own con∣science. Do you think there is no danger from infants ori∣ginal guilt which maks them stand in need of the laver of re∣generation for the remission of their sin? If you do not, why do you urge against us an authority which your self consen∣teth not unto? To let pass what Tertullian meant when he affirmed such a necessity of baptism, as that he said, It is prescribed that no man shall be saved without baptism; which he inferreth from Iohn 3. 5. pray teach me what he meant when he said; Man from his beginning circumvented, so as that he would transgress Gods command, therfore was condemned to death, whereby he also made all mankind, being infected from his seed, a traduction (or derivation from one to another) of his own damnation: Think you damnation no danger? or did not Tertullian know what he wrote? How he forgat himself and the truth when he would have children come to Christ onely then when they could learn and know Christ, where∣as Christ said, Suffer little children to come unto me,* 1.85 and for∣bid

them not; I can give no better account, then for other his errors; onely let the Reader note, that in the same place he affirmeth, that the unmarried also are to be deferred, and not baptized untill they are married,* 1.86 or setled in continency; but I spare this: We look for truth, and shall be glad to own and embrace it, in what Author soever we find it; but against the truth we are bound to none: onely we may note, that if Tertullian spake in the fore-cited place concerning Infan••••, that Pedobaptisme was in his time in use in the Church; and so it must appear most false, which you before said, that it was Augustines device.

What need all this stirre? As infants without their own con∣sent, without any act of their own, and without any ex∣terior solemnity,* 1.87 contracted the guilt of Adams sin, and so are liable to all the punishment which can with ju∣stice descend upon his posterity, who are personally inno∣cent, so infants shall be restored without any solemnity, or act of their own, &c.

What need this stirre you make to trouble the peace of Christs Church? Why trouble you your self with our stir to do that which Christ commandeth us? Shall we suffer the wolf quietly to take away sheep from Christs flock (as we daily see by the sleepy cowardize and dangerous silence of some temporizing Pastors, who possibly have learned from that old Courtier Crispus—

—qui nunquam direxit brachia contra

torrentem) nay, but we know there is a dangerous silence. See Ezek. 3. 18. Ester 4. 14. But to the matter, we say, that as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive, 1 Cor. 15. 22. which being restrained according to the Apo∣stles intention, to the faithfull and elect, might reasonably conclude, that as all men, even the faithfull and elect, were by naturall propagation condemnable in Adam, God justly imputing to his whole posterity that his act, whereby he not onely made his own person guilty, but also corrupted his na∣ture: so are they by regeneration saved in Christ, God mer∣cifully imputing his merits to them for their justification: so that, as they were condemnable for that they did not in

their own persons commit, so shall they be saved by that which Christ, not they, did freely without the works of the Law: but of what consequence is solemnity? Would you have our fall in Adam, and repair in Christ run literally pa∣rallell, even to circumstances? But what manner of arguing this were, we have often said. How many ridiculous conse∣quences would you thence inferre? concerning a man, a wo∣man, and a Serpent, and no more in the Scene: a garden, a fruit, &c. But remembring that we are speaking of sacred things, we resolve,* 1.88 that a Sacrament which is instituted of God to this end, that it may be a solemn receiving into the Church, and a severing, or sign of distinguishing the whole Church, & all her parts, from all other Sects, ought to be mi∣nistred solemnly, that others may take notice of the same, and that it may be the stricter bond to the baptized when they come to years, to hold them into faith, obedience, re∣nunciation of the world, impious desires, and carnall affecti∣ons, into which condition they were solemnly, and before ma∣ny witnesses admitted by baptism.

And it is (you say) too narrow a conception of God Almigh∣ty,* 1.89 because he hath tied us to the observation of the Ce∣remonies of his own institution, that therefore he hath tied himself to it.]

We never had that conceit,* 1.90 you mistake the matter: we say not that God is tied to his own Ordinances, as if he could no otherwise save any, but that we are tied to Gods Ordinances, because they are the revealed will of God, which man is bound to obey. And though God be the most free Agent, and not tied, yet it doth not hence follow, that baptism is not the ordinary means of regeneration, to which we are tied. God hath not in your sense tied himself to the baptism of persons in years, as may appear in the penitent thief, who unbaptized was saved, Luke 23. 43. It is so in his other ordinances.—It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe, 1 Cor. 1. 21. There∣fore ordinarily faith is by hearing the word, Rom 10. 17. yet God hath not so absolutely tied it to preaching, but that he could at his pleasure convert Saul breathing threatnings,

Acts 9. Neither is he tied to the Eucharist: would you conclude hence that men and women of years are not tied to be baptized, hear the word, or receive the Lords Supper, because God, and his free grace are not tied to these exter∣nall and ordinary means? If not, what meaneth that your medium (Go •• hath not tied himself) and what can it more conclude against Infants baptism, then against the bap∣tism, hearing, receiving the Eucharist by persons of years?

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

Many thousand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable soul to himself.]

We answer:* 1.91 The admitting of the one is not always the ex∣cluding of all other and we question not Gods power here∣in, but his will; here is an Ignoratio elenchi. What think you of the validity of that Argument which is from Gods pow∣er to his will? He can open the eys of the blind, and convert the hearts of temporizers, and professed enemies of his Church and Truth, I would I were assured that he would now do so.

But (you say) nothing is more unreasonable, then because ••e hath tied all men of years and discretion to this way, therefore we of our own heads shal carry infants to him that way with∣out his direction.

Here is again a fallacious arguing: You take the thing in question for your medium: The question is, Whether bap∣tism of Infants be a divine or humane institution, upon which dependeth wholly whether we ought or ought not to baptize Infants? Now you would prove that we ought not to carry infants to Christ by baptism, because he appointed or directed us not so to do; but (as you say) we do it of our own heads: Nay, but confining sacramentall administrations 〈…〉〈…〉 or other circumstance, by Christ never

limited or enjoyned, is will-worship, and mans invention. This your conceit is so poor and low, that a puny Sophister would be ashamed of it.

Onely this (you say)* 1.92 that God hath as great a care of In∣fants, as of others, &c.]

Here is another argument as feeble as the fore-going: What? because God hath as great a care of them as of o∣thers, therefore we must have no care of them in the applica∣tion of the ordinary means? so hath he a care for their bo∣dily preservation and ••ustenance; doth that prove that we ought not to feed or cloath them? God re••••••ctively ca∣reth for all the Creatures,* 1.93 he giveth to the beast his food, Psal. 147. 9. Were it good Georgicks to say, Trouble not your self to fodder your cattle, or loose them from their stall that they may drink? Who knoweth not that God hath ap∣pointed ordinary means, although he can do it without such means and though he say not that he will not otherwise preserve them, but leave them to the dictates of common reason to conclude?

—God (you say) will by his own immediate mercy bring them thither where he hath intended them; but to say that therefore he will do it by an externall act and ministe∣ry, —is no good Argument, &c.]

Prove that one Assertion, That God will by his own im∣mediate mercy save Infants, and have no means used there∣to, and you have the Cause: but Christ hath appointed bap∣tism for the ordinary means to bring people into his visible Church, that they may be saved: that he doth otherwise, that is, by an immediate act of mercy save some, to whom his all-disposing providence hath not given time or means, as in Infants dying before they were or could be baptized; this varieth not the Rule, for our question is not concerning them, and to say that therfore he will do it by an external act, because he will save them, or bring them thither w••••ther he hath intended them, by his own immediate mercy, is no good Argument, you may lay your life on't. Immediatly signifi∣eth without means, so that Immediately by means is a con∣tradiction in the adject: this were to my sense so farre from a

good argument, that I should doubt whether such a Dispu∣tant were awake, or not: Immediatly by an external act and ministery? none of ours ever so reasoned.

And why cannot God as well do his mercies to infants now immediatly, as he did before the institution either of cir∣cumcision or baptism?

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

However (you say) there is no danger that Infants should perish for want of this externall ministery,* 1.94 &c.]

Not to dispute Gods secret counsels, we say, the danger will be to the desp••er and neglecter of Gods Ordinance; wherein Tertullians Assertion may serve for a reason:* 1.95 Be∣cause saith he) he shall be guilty of a mans destruction, who shall omit to do that which he freely might have performed.

For (say you) Water and the Spirit in this place (John 3. 5.) sig••ifie the same thing; and by water is meant the effect of the Spirit, cleansing and purifying the soul &c.]

It is true that Calvin, Oecolampadius, and some others, do not think that Christ doth there precisely speak of Baptism, but that he either opposed it to Pharisaicall washings and purifications; to which possibly Nicode∣mus, with whom he then discoursed, might be too much addicted: Or, that those words are simply to be interpreted concerning Regeneration;* 1.96 but Iustin Mar∣tyr, Chrysostome, Theophilact, Cyril, Euthymius, Au∣gustine, Rupertus, B••naventure, Musculus, B Aretius, R. Roll••c, Pelargus, and others expound these words concerning Baptism, the Sacrament of Regeneration; the present speech of Christ being concerning Regeneration:

and it is most probable that Christ therein respected the common order of the Church, mentioning the Spirit and Water;* 1.97 to shew that we must be baptized if we will be sa∣ved; yet 'tis not the water but Gods holy Spirit which wash∣eth away our sins: Neither doth he so simply and necessa∣rily tie the grace and efficacy of Gods Spirit to the Sacra∣ment of Baptism, as if none could be saved without Bap∣tism, and that God could not extraordinarily and immedi∣ately save. Whatsoever Papists say to the contrary to assert their bloody decree and cruell doctrine concerning Infants dying without Baptism: yet their Schoolmen, and they, in their more sober fits, confesse, that God hath not absolutely tied his grace to the Sacraments. Christ ••aith, He that shall believe and be baptized, shall be saved;* 1.98 but in the Antithesis he saith not, Whosoever shall not be baptized, shall not be sa∣ved; to shew us, that faith alone may sometime be suffici∣ent to salvation, as in the penitent Thief; but nothing can suffice without faith;* 1.99 because without it, it is impossible to please God. And because faith onely apprehendeth Christ, in whom alone there is salvation, Acts 4. 12. To con∣clude, it doth not appear, that Water and the Spirit in the fore-cited place, Iohn 3. 5. signifie one and the same thing. Although Christs Baptisme with the Spirit, (which gives the effect of Baptism) were more excellent then Iohn Baptists,* 1.100 or any Ministers of the Gospel: for so is it still, and yet no sober man will deny, that the water in baptism and the Spi∣rit, do differ, as the externall sign and inward grace thereby signified. You say further,

—You may as well conclude, that infants must also passe through the fire, as through the water, &c.]

This assertion might better have suited with the dream of some ••anaticall Iacobite:* 1.101 What will not such an advocate say for his Clients? I appeal to your own conscience▪ may we as well conclude against Gods word, as for it? God ex∣pressly

saith, Deut. 18. 10. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to passe through the fire; and it is above all rationall controversie, that he in∣stituted baptizing with water, who said, Baptize all Nations, without any exception at all to infants: this is a poor trick of yours to elude Scripture: And where doth Peter say the same thing, that we may as well conclude that infants must also pass through the fire, as through the water? No, no Peter by the Spirit of truth speaketh another thing, indeed intimating by those words, 1 Pet. 3. 2. Not the washing of the flesh, but the confidence (as we translate,* 1.102 but the answer) of a good conscience toward God—the effects of the inward baptism; which the Syriac in his Paraphrasticall interpretation of that place, ma∣keth more clear,* 1.103 but confessing God in a pure conscience: as when in the peace thereof we call upon him with an holy se∣curity of his hearing us, which can be onely in the inward Baptism, which the Spirit of Iesus giveth by faith and san∣ctification, wherein we have peace toward God in the assu∣rance of our justification, Rom. 5. 1. Rom. 8. 15, 16. So that the sum is, that the outward sign, the water and washing of the body in baptism, is not sufficient to salvation, if the Spirit of Iesus give not the inward effect thereof; and therefore it is dangerous to live securely in sin and unbelief, as too many do, in vain confidence that they must needs be saved, because they have been baptized into the visible Church of Christ: No, but the externall sign availeth not where the inward grace thereby signified is wanting. So in the preaching of the Gospel, & administration of the holy Eucharist, mans mini∣stery can nothing prevail to the receivers salvation, without Gods Spirit giving the inward effect: so that Peter briefly tou∣cheth the power & use of baptism, recalling us to the testimo∣ny of a good conscience, & that confidence therein which can endure the sight of God and his Tribunal, and flye unto him in all wants through C••rist. But this Scripture is fanatically perverted by Schuincfeld & others, who would hence cōclude against the effect of the Sacrament in the elect, whereas the Apostle affirmeth not, that the institution of Christ for baptizing the body with water, is vain or effectless; but se∣cretly

admonisheth carnall Gospellers, that they rest not in their security, but cons••lt their own consciences, whether they find there the effect of their baptism: so that he ne••ther saith, that infants may as well pass through the fire as through the water, as you trifle; nor is this place any thing to the purpose in this question of Infant-baptism: so that your fol∣lowing confused Hypotheses are of no value or use, except to puzzle the Reader to find out what you mean, which he hardly shall: Therefore when you express your self more orderly and clearly, we owe you an Answer.

This (you say•• no more inferres a necessity of Infants Bap∣tism, then the other words of Christ inferre a necessity to give them the holy Communion, Nisi comederitis carnem filii hominis, &c.]

This is another argument of Anabaptists à pari: if in∣fants (say they) are to be baptized, they are also to be ad∣mitted to the Lords Supper. But in this agument there is a Sophisma ••lenchi:* 1.104 for first it wants the condition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; if we follow your sense concerning spirituall infants, taking in∣fants for spirituall or re••enerate persons in the major, and for those who are literally infants in the minor: and it wan∣teth also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. There is no question but that bapti∣zed infants have right to the holy Cōmunion, as they have to strong meat, but not a capacity as such, or while they are in∣fants: and God hath in express terms restrained the Lords supper to those who can actually apprehend, remember, & de∣clare forth Christs death, 1 Cor. 11. 26. which because infants cannot do, we give them not the Communion. Secondly, God hath denounced a grievous curse, or punishment a∣gainst any that shall pre••ume without due examination of himself, to eat of that bread & drink of that cup: but not so concerning Baptism, it being the seal of our new-birth and reception into the visible Church and Covenant, which hat•• no such condition annexed, as may justly exclude Infants in respect of any present non-performance thereof. But the Lords Supper is the Seal of our growth in grace, and spiritu∣all strength, instituted for the confirmation of our admit∣tance into, and our continuance in the Church of Christ▪

whose death and passion for our redemption, we thereby shew forth and commemorate, for our spirituall perfection, nourishment, and strengthening in faith and other graces of his Spirit,* 1.105 for our assurance, that God having once received us into his favour, will continue his mercy to us in Christ: By these disparities the invalidity of the Pleaders Argument may appear. And if it were true which he further saith, that the wit of man is not able to shew a disparity in the sancti∣on, &c. yet the wisdom of God is able, and hath declared this difference in holy Scripture; and the same can shew more then the wit of man can discern, and hath shewed more then the learned Pleader doth, or will understand, who I conceive, doth not yet know all that the wit of man, or all the world can inform him of; but is it not better even for those who have been in the Mount with God, to cast the veil of modest humility over those excellencies which they have received, and with which they shine to others admi∣ration, then to ostent them to the contempt of others? The Apostle of Christ was rap't up into the third Heaven, and yet professed—we know in part,* 1.106 and we prophesie in part,—1 Cor. 13. 9.

But you further say,—Since the ancient Church did with an equall opinion of necessity, give them the Communion, &c.]

That which you said a little before,—They are as ho∣nest and as reasonable that doe neither, to wit, baptize infants, or give them the Comunion, as those that understood the Obligation to be Parallel, we may very well believe and wish, that either of them may prove honest hereafter. But to that which you say, That the ancient Church did with an equall opinion of necessity give them the Communion, I answer, 1. with Tertullian, That is of the Lord and true, which was first delivered;* 1.107 but that is extraneous and false which is af∣terward received in. And with Cyprian, We ought not to

heed what some before us have thought was to be don••; but what Christ did, who was before all: for we ought not to fol∣low the custom of men, but the truth of God. 2 Your own rule must binde you, (though it cannot others w••o consent not thereto) they who reject tradition when 'tis against them, must not pretend it at all for them, pag. 237. Numb. 25. 3 It is considerable in that custome of the church, as some o∣ther incoveniences,* 1.108 which Augustine saith, It is (saith he) one thing which we teach, and another which we endure; one thing which we are enjoyned to command, and another thing which we are commanded to amend; and untill we amend, we are compelled to endure it. And again, who is eaten with the zeal of Gods house? why, he that endeavour∣eth and desireth to amend all that ••e sees amisse; he resteth not; if he cannot amend it, he endureth it, he sigh's: the grain is not tossed out of the floor; it endures the chaff, that it may enter into the granary when the chaff is winnowed out. 4 We adhere not so to tradition, that we universally receive all that which was done or said of old: things delivered by some, but not generally received by the Church, we esteem but superstructions of particular men, or superseminations, which possibly may spread farre, as many pernicious opinions have done; yet no sober man ever took them for Apostolicall, or so much as Ecclesiasticall traditions: we neither reject any tradition which appeareth to be Apostolicall (if not pe∣culiar to their times, or suited peculiarly to certain times, places, or persons nor do we rashly receive any tradition for such, except we are certain that the Scripture determineth nothing against it, or where strong consequence from thence justifieth it. 5 We conceive Augustines rule herein to be good: In those things (saith he) concerning which divine Scri∣pture determineth nothing certainly, the custome of Gods people, or institution of our ancestors are to be held for a law—other∣wise, endlesse contention will arise— also we must beware that the calm of charity be not clouded by the storm of contention. 6 We will not rashly dissent from reverend

antiquity, wherein it dissenteth not from the truth: we love peace with all who hold that in fundamentalls at least, and therefore will follow Augustin's advice, in that he piously saith concerning his reader—where (saith he) he knows his errour, let him return to me;* 1.109 where mine, let him recall me: our rule being, that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11 1. be yee f••llo∣wers of me, even as I also am of Christ: more no good man will require, nor render lesse to Ancestors. 7 Lastly we say that the Scripture which you cite, Ioh. 6. 53. except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you; is not spoken concerning a Sacramentall, but a spiri∣tuall feeding; and although* 1.110 some of the Iesuites and other Papists contend against us herein, yet‖ 1.111 some of the most so∣ber of them acknowledge that those words are not to be un∣derstood concerning eating or receiving the Lords super; which ours generally maintain: you might do your self right to joyn with us, and not with the most eager Iesuites con∣cerning the spirituall feeding of infants to eternall life by the merit of Christ applyed to them for their Union with him, and salvation in and by him, we willingly accord: the man∣ner of effecting by the secret power of the holy Ghost, we enquire not after, because it is not revealed; but for the rea∣sons alleaged, we give them not the communion.

Next you say—If Anabaptist shall be a name of disgrace, why shall not some other name be invented for them that deny to communicate infants, which shall be equally disgracefull, &c?]

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

That the discourse of S. Peter,* 1.112 which is pretended for the intitling infants to the promise of the holy Ghost, and by conse∣quence to baptisme, which is supposed to be its instrument and conveyance, is wholly a fancy, and hath in it nothing of certainty ordemonstration, and not much probability.]

We answer: your words carry a dangerous shew of blas∣phemy, but we desire to allow them the fairest interpretation which can be made of them, and suppose you meant not to say (as the connexion of your words imports) that S. Peters discourse is wholly a fancy, &c. but either that the pretence from these words intitling infants to the promise of the holy Ghost, and so by consequence to baptisme, or as you after affirme, that baptisme is not the meanes of conveying the holy Ghost,* 1.113 some of these you take to be wholly a fancy. To which we re∣ply; that we neither affirme, nor conceive that these words of S. Peter had a promise for infants as such, to receive the extraordinary, and visible gifts of the holy Ghost which then flourished in the primitive Church, and which men of yeares commonly after baptisme then received; but that promise was for present addressed to S. Peters hearers which were prickt in their hearts and said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, men and brethren what shall we doe? and to whom Peter said, repent and be baptised every one of you, &c. to which he encourageth them by three arguments or motives: first from Gods abundant mercy in the remission of their sins, however grievous. Secondly from his gracious benificence, as well in giving, as forgiving, and ye shall receive the gifts, &c. for your confirmation. Thirdly from the extent of Gods federall promise; for the promise is to you and your children•• that promise is recorded Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my co∣venant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee, &c. these words S. Peter re∣lateth to, when he perswaded them to receive baptisme the seal of Gods new convenant with them in Christ, a seal of the same righteousnesse of faith in Christ;* 1.114 and he bringeth down infants right to the seal of the covenant with Abrahams car∣nall seed (that is, circumcision) to their right to the seal of the covenant with his spirituall seed under the gospel, that is

••aptisme for the remission of sins: so that if S. Peters argu∣me••t may passe with you for demonstration, and not be mis∣taken for a fancy, this shew's the right and title which in••ants have to baptisme, grounded on the sure promise of God, which the Apostle well knew was first sealed with in••ant-circumcision, as well as circumcision of proselyted men of yeares; and therefore applyeth it to the seal of the promise under the gospel, to wit baptisme: Be baptized every one of you: who? all those to whom the promise of God is: that is, you and your children, for the promise is to you and them. But you say,

This is a promise that concerneth them, as they are reasonable creatures, &c.

This is a reasonlesse assertion: for if baptisme concern them as they are reasonable creatures, then all such are concerned herein:* 1.115 and so the promise which S. Peter there mentioneth, is to all reasonable creatures Iewes, Turkes, Painims, for these are all reasonable creatures, and may in their conversion have a title to it, in proportion to their nature: The argu∣ment is fallacious à non causâ pro causâ (except the causa sto∣lida, or causa sine quâ non) though none but reasonable crea∣tures have interest herein, yet all reasonable creatures have it not; neither alwayes; as in unbelief, impenitency, or out of the covenant, as infants of unbelieving parents: it is not their reason, but Gods covenant which gives them interest in the promise of salvation and all things thereto subordinate and belonging. Note here, to what unreasonable conclusions willfull errour will lead men at last: what more perverse, then in the prosecution of their dislike to infant-baptisme,* 1.116 to allow more to children of professed enemies of Christ, as Turkes and Iewes, then to infants of Christian parents with whom God made his covenant of grace and mercy? They affirme that even infants of Turkes and Iewes are sanctified in the moment of their birth,* 1.117 but will not allow children of believing parents baptisme, which is but the externall seal of the covenant, which the very reprobate may, and doth some∣time receive at their hands, who cannot judge of any per∣sons finall estate: and who knowes not, that sanctification

is incomparably greater and more excellent then the external seal: this man can give▪ that God onely can give, and giveth it to the elect only; and without that, the externall seal shall availe nothing. But you go on.

Besides this, I say, the words mentioned in S. Peters Sermon (which are the only record of the promise) a••e interpreted upon a weake mistake: the promise belongs to ••ou, and to your chil∣dren; therefore infants are actually receptive of it in that ca∣pacity.]

Certainly Gods promise is of that invincible stre••gth that whosoever pleads against it, none (no not the gates of hell) shall ever overthrow it: and as certainly the inference was strong once, upon the same ground, when God had made the promise to Abraham and his seed; and therefore, and then his infants in that capacity were receptive, actually receptive, of the seal of the same righteousnesse of faith: and certainly infants do no lesse belong to the covenant and Church of God,* 1.118 then those that are of yeares of discre••ion, which is evident by Gods promise made unto Abraham, I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy s••ed af∣ter thee—this is my covenant—every male child among you shall be circumcised—he that is eight dayes old shall be cir∣cumcised— the very same promise doth S. Peter rehearse and expound. Act. 2. 39. for to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are a farre off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call: for indeed, by one spirit we are all ba∣ptised into one body, whether we be Iewes or Gentiles, &c. And let the reader marke,* 1.119 that after the Apostle had exhorted e∣very one of them to be baptised for the remission of sins,* 1.120 he deriveth not the ground and reason thereof from their age, nor from their repentance, nor from their years of discre∣tion, but from the promise of God, which was no lesse to their children in that very capacity, then to themselves: for the signe of the covenant, Baptisme, appertaineth to them al∣so, as being partakers of the common salvation in Christ, Lastly, how our infants have forfeited or lost the capacity, which 'tis most certaine the infants of Iewes had, I know nor, nor will the pleader ever make it appeare to us. You say fur∣ther,

But he, that whenever the word (children) is used in Scri∣pture shall by (children) understand infants, must needs believe, that in all Israel there were no men, but all were infants: and if that had been true, it had been the greater wonder they should overcome the Anakims, and beat the King of Moab, and march so farre, and discourse so well, for they were all cal∣led the children of Israel.

We know the word (children) importeth not alwayes in∣fants;* 1.121 what then? because it doth not in every place of Scri∣pture signify infants, therefore doth it not any where, no not where infants are spoken of? the promise before specified was to all Israel, and their infants, and unto them the seal of the covenant and promise appertained; but because the men of wisdome and valour were included under the name of children, were there no infants among them? or doe you not take a child of eight dayes old (when it was by Gods com∣mand and covenant to receive the seal) to be an infant? and why not now? seeing the promise is as well and sure to us, who (though then farre off) have now by the free mercy of God, been called to the saving knowledge of the gospel: for that promise of God to Abraham, did not so belong to his seed according to the flesh, as that it appertaines not unto us al∣so: for the Apostle clearly testifieth, that it was not given to Abraham or his seed through the law, but through the righte∣ousnesse of faith— and he was the father of all them that be∣lieve, though they be not circumcised,* 1.122 that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also— and again he saith—they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham: so Christ said that Zache converted to the same faith,* 1.123 was that day the son of Abraham: and indeed the eternall covenant which God made with Abraham's seed, that he would be their God, is not chiefly verified in his carnall seed, for very few of them for some hundred years last past have been Gods people, but rather professed enemies to those that are: and therefore that covenant must be understood of Abraham's children accord∣ing to that promise, which is as sure and well to us who be∣lieve, as ever it was to the Israelites: and so we and our chil∣dren are as justly to be reckoned children of Abraham, and

heirs of that promise, as they ever were: and if within the covenant, and heires of the same promise, what incapacity barreth our children from the same priviledges thereto sub∣ordinate, and from the seal of admittance unto the same, more then barred the carnall or naturall children of Abra∣ham from the seal of the covenant, which then was in use?

And for the allegation of S. Paul,* 1.124 that infants are holy if their parents be faithfull, it signifies nothing but that they are holy by designation, just as Ieremy, and Iohn Baptist were san∣ctified in their mothers womb, that is, they were appointed and designed for holy ministeries, &c.]

We answer, whether you mean literally by holy ministries, the office of priest or prophet;* 1.125 or mystically, a royall priest∣hood, to offer up spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God by Iesus Christ, that which you affirme will appeare very false; for many of the children of believers, are neither priests, pro∣phets, nor so sanctified as to offer up spirituall sacrifice acce∣ptable to God: now the Apostle saith not, else were some of your children unholy;* 1.126 but, now are they holy, without exception of any: so that his words being in••allibly true, there must be some such holinesse there intended, as universally concernes all that are born of believing parents; which cannot be true in your sense of disignation to holy ministries, nor in the o∣ther sense concerning sanctification by the spirit of adoption and regeneration peculiar to the elect of God: nor is it to be understood, as some think, of a meer political cleannesse (see∣ing that, out of the Church also, there is a difference be∣tween the legitimate and spurious children) it must be un∣derstood therefore of a federall, or ecclesiasticall holinesse, to which reprobates (if born of believing parents, or at least of either parent being a bel••ever, and within the covenant) may have right as well as the elect: so had Ismael, Esau, and millions more; as well as Isaack and Iacob, by this federall or ecclesiasticall holinesse they have right unto the seal of initiation, and admittance into the Church; whereas they who are born of both parents without the Church, are coun∣ted unclean, that is, Gods promise and the seal thereof ap∣pertaine not unto them: neither may they be baptised, untill

growing up and being instructed, they repent and embrace the faith of Christ, and it is not improbable which some say, that the form of the Apostles speaking seemeth derived from the Leviticall law;* 1.127 in which it was ordained, that some per∣sons should for a time be barred (as unclean) from comming within the tents of Israel: so the children of infidels are un∣clean, and not presently to be admitted into the Church by baptism which is the doore and inlet thereto, ever standing open to the clean: and as under the law, some beasts were clean and some unclean, that is by a Leviticall or ceremonial cleanesse, or uncleanesse, for it was neither spirituall, nor civill:* 1.128 so the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. understandeth an eccle∣si••sticall holinesse, that is, a Church-priviledge, to be admit∣ted to baptisme: so that indeed the Pleader weakly mistaketh when he concludeth, that just so the children of Christian pa∣rents are sanctified, that is, designed to the service of Iesus Christ, and the future participation of the promises: but he saith further,

And as the promise appertaines not (for ought appeares) to infants in that capacity and cons••stence,* 1.129 but only by the title of their being reasonable creatures, and when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty, &c.]

No colour or proportion can appeare to the blind, or those who willfully shut their eyes,* 1.130 nor any truth, be it never so evident to them on whom is the curse Isai. 6. 9. 10. As for that you say concerning the title of their being reasonable creatures,* 1.131 I referre the reader to that which hath been answe∣red, Numb. 19. Onely adding here: if the promise of God appertaine to infants onely as they are reasonable creatures, what was the priviledge of the Iew, or what profit was there of circumcision?* 1.132 the Apostle saith, much every way: and what is the advantage of the believing Christians child, and Gods covenant with them? what, no more then of Turkes, and Iewes?* 1.133 where is then that promise, I will be a God unto thee, and thy seed, interpreted by S. Peter, the promise is to you and your children, and to as many as the Lord our God shall call? what, is it of force only to men and women of yeares; where's the infants part? where is his priviledge of federall

holynesse, as being borne of believing parents? What must they be interessed onely when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty? That is the act of understanding, ••aith and repentance? In those acts, the persons and children of Turks and Iews have a right in the same promises; you can∣not exclude any person from baptism, who believes in Christ, repenteth, and desireth baptism at your hands: Thus you make the promise of God concerning the children of the faithfull of no effect, by your tradition and vain opinion. But to amend this, you say,

Baptism is not the means of conveying the holy Ghost.]

I suppose you mean the ordinary gifts and graces of the holy Ghost, as faith, love, hope, sanctity, &c. if not, there may be a double fallacy in your assertion: First in the term (conveying) and next in the term (holy Ghost) both whi••h may be homonymically intended; and then your discourse is meerly captious; and to discover it, is a sufficient answer: and indeed by your following words▪ (God by that miracle did give testimony, &c.) it seems you mean, that baptism is not now the ordinary means of conveying the holy Ghost, that is, the gift of miracles unto the baptized: if so, here is both an homonymia, and an ignoratio elenchi: Your reason being reducd to a Syllogisme, you might take these words (the ho∣ly Ghost) for the ordinary gifts and graces of God, necessa∣ry to salvation, in the one proposition, and for the extraor∣dinary in the other, and so the question were mistaken; which is not whether baptism be an ordinary means of con∣veying the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost into the baptized, as speaking divers unstudied languages, curing the sick, raising the dead, casting out devils, &c. which we affirm not; but whether baptism (as the word preached) be not the external ordinary means by God appointed, to seal us up to a lively hope in Christ, to beget faith, and to engage us to repentance and newness of life? to which, all that you here tri••le concerning imposition of hands, and in∣sinuation of rite to confirmation, is nothing to purpose; neither is the case of Cornelius and Peters argument there∣on,

any waies advantagious to you: for, you confess it a mi∣racle; and how then is it pertinent to our present question? You say, that God by that miracle, did give testimony, that the persons of the men were in great disposition to heaven, and therefore were to be admitted to those rites, which are the ordi∣nary inlets into the kingdom of heaven: I then demand, if that argument be good, Are not children of believing pa∣rents to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary in∣lets into the kingdom of heaven, seeing they are also in great disposition to heaven whom Christ blessed, and proposed for paterns to all that shall enter therein? But we answer, 1. That the great disposition which you talk of, was not so much the gift of miracles, as the persons inward baptism by the spirit of regeneration and sanctification: for the gift of miracles is not of it self, any certain argument of salvation: see Matth. 7. 22, 23. but this was a sufficient warrant to Pe∣ter to baptize them, as being marked out thereby for the vi∣sible Church at least, into which elect and reprobate may come. 2. To the main we answer. That as by delivering a key,* 1.134 putting in possession of an house is not only signified, but also livery and seis••, the conveyance and chirogrophum are passed, confirmed and actually made sure: So in bap∣tism by water, the washing which is wrought by the blood of Christ,* 1.135 is not only figured, but also at last fulfilled in the elect by Christ. 3. In a right use of the Sacraments, the things therby signified are ever held out and convey'd together with the signes, which are neither fallacious, empty, nor void of a due effect, or without the thing represented (because they are of God, who cannot deceive, and is able to give the effect) if the receiver do not ponere obicem: therefore the Sacra∣ments are rightly called the Channels or Conduits of grace, that is, the ordinary means to convey the graces of God in∣to the receivers.* 1.136 4. God confirms his mercies to us by the Sacraments, wherein the Minister, by Gods own deputati∣on, beareth his person or place in the Church, as well as in preaching the word, so that what they doe (who are his Ministers) by his appointment, he doth, both in respect of the institution and effect. So the Lord is said to have anoin∣ted

Saul,* 1.137 whereas Samuel anointed him: so Jesus made and baptized more disciple then Iohn, whereas Iesus baptized not,* 1.138 but his disciples, by his assignement: Therefore although these signes neither convey grace, nor confirm any thing to them for good who keep not the Covenant (for God made no promise to them) yet are they means to convey the gra∣ces of God to those that do. To conclude, we affirm not that baptism conveyeth Gods grace to all that are baptized, but to the elect only, as that whereof he hath made a pecu∣liar promise to them; and that so certain as are those things which God himself sealeth, covenanteth for, and testifieth in heaven and earth; as 'tis written, There are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy Ghost— and there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood.—Now if we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.* 1.139 Under the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word must be confirmed, and taken for sure;* 1.140 how much more when we have by Gods blessing, the same witnesses of our faith, who are also the promisers (workers and sureties of our salvation?

But from thence (you say) to argue, that wherever there is a capacity of receivinig the same grace, there also the same signe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be ministred, and from thence to infer poedo-baptism, is an argument very fallacious, &c.]

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

They that are capable of the same grace, are not alwaies ca∣pable of the same signe: for women under the law of Moses, although they were capable of the righteousness of faith, yet they were not capable of the signe of circumcision.]

I would gladly be resolved, quanta est illa propositio? is your meaning, Some of them that are capable of the same grace, are not alwaies capable of the signe thereof? If so, alta pax esto: We say so too: for infants, being capable of the same grace which is exhibited and received in the Lords supper, are not alwaies (that is, while they are chil∣dren) capable of the same signe, because they cannot exa∣min

themselves, nor shew forth the Lords death: and wo∣men n••t only under the Law, but now also have and ever will have for ought you can say, th•• same incapacity of cir∣cumcision; what makes this to conclude childrens incapa∣city of baptism? this is to argue à genere ad genus▪ though women had not a capacity of that signe, they have a capaci∣ty of baptism; infants had then a right to that whereof they had a capacity: let them have so still, and the contro∣versie is ended. You further say,

The gift of the holy Ghost—was ordinarily given by im∣position of hands, and that after baptism.]

By this it appears,* 1.141 that your foregoing argument was fal∣lacious, you intending the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, which we pretend not to; and what is this dispute to us now, or to the present question, seeing they are long since ceased? But beware your lying too near a wind, and men∣tioning crisme, or confirmation and sanctifying the holy Apo∣stles, displease not your clyents, and you be taken for an a••bodexter. But you say,

After all this, lest these arguments should not ascertain their cause, they fall on complaing against God, &c.]

Tell true, and shame the devil: where? to whom? when? which of all the reformed Churches ever did so?* 1.142 We clear∣ly affirm that God is ever, and alike to be believed, whether by signes, or by words which signifie his will: we say not that Go•• ••id more for the children of the Iews; but that your pee∣vishness, denying children baptism, would have it seem so. Do we then complain against God, when we complain of the Anabaptists abridging children of that which God hath allowed them? How vain and malitious is this calum∣ny of yours? But you say,

He made a covenant of spiritual promises on his part, and ••piritual and reall services on ours.]

What are these real services, and whose? if of children, what can they, as such, perform? but you say, this pertains 〈…〉〈…〉 when they are capable, but made with them as∣soon as they are alive (that is in the mothers womb) what this? this covenant? so the words seem to import: nay,

but undeniably Gods covenan and spiritual promises on his part, presently belong to them who shall be saved, for many of them presently die: or mean you by (this) spiritu∣al and real services on our part, belong to children when they are capable? Surely then they cannot have this cove∣nant made with them as soon as they are born, otherwise then by baptism; because for the present they can perform no∣thing real: If you mean spiritual and real services of pa∣rents in relation to their covenanted infants, as such, they cannot yet teach them: they can only present them to the Church, that the publick seal of Gods covenant being set to them, they may according to their true interest in her ex∣ternal communion, be thereby marked, and known for parts and members of the same•• and this indeed pertaineth to chil∣dren when they are capable, that is, as soon as they are born. That which you infer to shew a disparity between Christian infants, and the Iews babes, is frivolous: for thoug there appear some shew of difference in circumstance, as the particular promise of the inheritance of Canaan, &c. yet for substance there is none; there being as real a promise of blessings to Christians and their children in every kind:* 1.143 for godliness hath the promise of this life, and that which is to come, and the present seal of faith marketh them for Gods peculiar people; the effect whereof being wrought and perfected by the spirit of Iesus in their regeneration, the wo•••• is done in them (and no otherwise was it in the Iews children) for he is not a Iew which is one outwardly, neither is that circum∣cision, which is outward in the flesh;—but circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, Rom. 2. 2••, 29. Col 2. 11. 12. and the Iewish children were no otherwise sealed then into the same faith of Iesus, nor otherwise saved, then by faith in him, neither less saved then we and our child••en.

This (say you) is the greatest vanity in the world]* 1.144

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

following assertion, and reason offered for proof.

Shall not (say you) this promise, this word of God be of suf∣ficient truth, certainty, and efficacy, to cause comfort, unless we tempt God, and require a signe of him?]

Yes, Gods promise is of sufficient truth and certaine effi∣cacy thereto: therefore we baptize our children: and it had been sufficient on Gods part, and it must have been on ours, had he not seen good further to confirm us by a seal set to his promise; or had he not required more of us, as our duty and a condition and seal of his covenant with us & our chil∣dren: for as Augustine saith, how much available,* 1.145 even with∣out the visible Sacrament of baptisme, is that which the Apo∣stle saith Rom. 10. 10. with the heart man believeth unto righ∣teousnesse, and with the mouth Confession is made unto salva∣tion, was declared in the penitent thiefe: but then it is invi∣sibly fulfilled, when not any contempt of religion, but a point or moment of necessity, excludeth or preventeth baptisme: for it might have seem'd much more superfluous in Cornelius and his friends to be baptized, who had already received the gift of the holy Ghost, then in the thiefe: yet they were bapti∣zed: and in that act, the Apostolicall authority is extant, as also the necessity of obeying God in his ordinance: now how childish and perverse is that cavill—unlesse we tempt God, and require a signe of him? Do you account obedience to God and his holy ordinances, to be a tempting of God? is bringing children to Christ (which he commandeth) and that by baptisme (which you confesse is the ordinary inlet into the kingdome of heaven) to require a signe of him, or is it to receive a signe of him by his own appointment? and what certainity of comfort could we concieve, if on the con∣trary, we should wilfully disobey, neglect, and contemn Gods ordinance, as your clients do? were it not rather to tempt God, if (as much as in us lies) we should shut up the doore and inlet into his kingdome against infants? man can do no more to shut them out, then by denying them baptisme: 'tis true, that God can, and often doth save them without our ministry, as when death preventeth our bapti∣sing them: but to neglect the ordinary means of our own or

others salvation, and to put it on the extraordinary power of God, is to tempt God: if I should ask you, why you eat, or feed your infants, seeing God can preserve you and them without food? you would easily say, to neglect the ordinary means, were to tempt God, so 'tis here. But you say.

A wicked & adulterous generation seeketh after a signe▪ &c.]

Possibly,* 1.146 Mr. Fisher at his Ashford- conference was be∣holding to you for this opprobrie, and abuse of holy Scri∣pture: but we entreat you seriously and timely to consider the severity of the Judge who hath said concerning any that take his name in vain,* 1.147 I will not hold him guiltlesse▪ and whe∣ther pernicious playing with holy Scripture, and willfull perverting the sense thereof, fall not under the sentence of self-destruction:* 1.148 consider the terrors which Christ useth Matth 12. 38, 39. and Matth. 16. 4. the thing which the Scribes & Pharises required, was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which word,* 1.149 though it signify divers things, as may appeare by comparing Mat. 14. 3. & 26. 48. Luk. 2. 12. Rom. 4. 11. 2. Thess. 3. 17. yet is it more then manifest,* 1.150 that they required a miracle, and that extraordinary,* 1.151 and above all those divine works of Christ,* 1.152 which hitherto they had ever seen,* 1.153 as casting out devils,* 1.154 raising the dead, &c. they required a signe from or out of heaven,* 1.155 Matth. 16. 1. Mark. 8. 11. and then Christ an∣swered, a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a signe; that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a wonder;* 1.156 which words are often joyned to expresse the same thing; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 commonly signifies a prodi∣gie, or monster. Suidas gives it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, praeter ordinariam rationem formatum, praeter naturam genitum: such a signe as begetteth admiration and amaze∣ment in the beholders; and so the Syriack Ioh. 4. 48, expresseth it by a word comming of that verbe which signifieth, to be amazed, or very much to admire: now I appeale to your conscience; do we seek any such signe or miracle from hea∣ven, when we bring chil•••• to be baptized? is not this froathy-Rethorick? you confesse baptisme to be the ordinary

inlet into the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 me of heaven; and is an ordinary thing a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••onsider also the pe••••ons of whom Christ spake; 〈…〉〈…〉 wicked and an adult••rous generation: for 〈…〉〈…〉 to be Abrahams children•• yet neither 〈…〉〈…〉 or works, but degenerating from him, 〈…〉〈…〉 he••d•••••••• ye are of your father the devil: if 〈…〉〈…〉 generation be such, consider who makes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 so; and whether you have any commission to judge them wick∣ed who professe true faith and obedience to Iesus Christ, and his holy gospel, in all things, that any shall, or can make appeare to us to be the truth? But you say

The truth ••ont is, this argument is nothing but a direct quar∣relling with almighty God.]

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

Now since there is no strength in the doctrinall part,* 1.157 &c.]

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

Because other parallel expressions of Scripture do determin and expound themselv••s to a s••nse that includes not all persons absolutely, but of a capable condition, as, Adorate ••um omnes gentes, & psal••i••e D••o, &c.]

Suppose all that granted•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 then? you would inferre that infants have not a condition capable of baptisme, be∣cause some other places of Scripture are relating to capahci¦ty; what makes this against the baptisme of in••ants, w••o

beeing within Gods covenant are therefore capable of the seal thereof, as they were under the law, although even then the Scripture saying psallite Deo omnes, &c. said that to those only who could sing to God and praise him, and not unto infants of eight-days old to be circumcised? who know's not, that God commanded severall things with respect to se∣verall capacities? doth the incapacity in respect of one command, conclude an incapacity of all? women were not capable of circumcision, nor of the office of teaching in the congregation, nor of execution of priestly offices; yet they also could and ought to sing to the Lord, and were of that part of nations commanded to praise the Lord. Psal. 148. 12. Psal. 149. 3, 5. Ex••d. 15. 20, 21. Iudg. 5. 1. Infants had not a capacity of singing praises to God, they had of cir∣cumcision, and therefore they were then circumcised, though they could not sing: infants cannot sing now, therefore that precept, sing unto the Lord, &c. concerneth them not for present; but they can be baptized as such, therefore that precept baptise all nations, reacheth unto them; you say more,

As for the conjecture concerning the family of Stephanas,* 1.158 at the best it is but a conjecture, and besides that it is not proved that there were children in the family: yet if that were granted, it followes not that they were baptized, because by (whole fami∣lies) in scripture is meant all persons of reason and age within the family]

Admit that to be conjectural, and we take it for no more;* 1.159 yet it is no light conjecture, (the Syriac gives it & filij domus ••jus omnes, speaking of the keeper of the prison, Act. 16. 33.) that children were baptized with the rest of the family: for though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there also may signify any domestick, yet cer∣tainly it signifieth a child also, and children were usually domesticks: but it can be no more then a light conjecture of Anabaptists, that there were no infants in this family, or that of Stephanas which Paul baptized; howsoever it can be no conjecture, but certaine truth, that in all nations there ever were and still are, a great part infants; and it is more then conjecturall, that the Apostles did as Christ commanded

them, saying baptize all nations; as for that which you say, in Scripture is means all persons of reasons and age within the family, because it is said that the ruler at Capernaum belie∣ved, and all his house: is that proposition universall? doe you affirme that by whole families, is ever meant all persons of age within the family,* 1.160 and such only? if so,* 1.161 your assertion is apparently false; but if your proposition be particular, it falleth short of our cause;* 1.162 for what can it hurt it, if by all, or whole families in Scripture, sometimes is meant all per∣sons of reason and age? deale ingenuously then; do you affime that by whole, or all,* 1.163 the Scripture doth alwayes meane, persons of reason and age? what doth God, when he said to Abraham—and in thee all the families of the earth shall be blessed;* 1.164 doth he meane only all persons of age? are children in their nonage excluded from the blessing in Christ? Nay but the Apostle saith expresly, the promise is unto you, and to your children:* 1.165 and such Christ blessed, and of such is the kingdome of heaven.* 1.166 Doth the Scripture, Genes. 7. 21•• saying all flesh dyed—every man—* 1.167 meane onely all of rea∣son and age?* 1.168 were the infants excepted? many places of Scri∣pture may shew the vanity of this your assertion: but if your proposition be particular,* 1.169 that is, that sometimes the Scripture by whole families means persons of reason (that is who have the use of reason) and age: we can grant it you. I adde; somtimes, all, signifieth only a great part; as Mat. 10. 22 ye shall be hated of all men for my name sake: that is of many: times in the Hebrew manner of speaking it signifies, none, or not any one:* 1.170 as Psal. 147. 20. he hath not done so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to all, or every nation: that is, not to any; so Exod. 12. 43. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. every son of a stranger shall not eate thereof, that is none: now would you have the sense of Christs words goe and baptize all nations, to be, go and baptize some nations, or a major part of the nations? the evidence of the truth is against that, as well as against the other, go and baptise none; but you would faine have it, go and baptize those that are persons of reason and age within the nations: shew us any such precept of Christ, and we will obey it; in the meane time we must do that which we know he commanded us,

that is, baptize all nations, all against whom we finde no ex∣ception: and why should we look for exception in families, seeing we find none mentioned by our Saviour in nations? but you would have here, a limitation to capacity, which you think infants have not: first we say, shew us any Scri∣pture-proofe for such limitation: secondly we say that al∣though the incapacity of an infant limit a command where there appeareth a present impossibility of doing that which God in generall commandeth (as where he saith believe, re∣pent, confesse your sins, sing unto God, praise him, &c) for God commandeth no impossibilities: yet where it is possible that the command may be fulfilled, there lieth no such limi∣tation: now you will not say that 'tis impossible for infants to be baptized: if you say they ought not to be baptized untill they can actually believe, repent, &c. we must answer you with your own; this is unmanlike to build upon such slight and aery conjectures, as are humane fancies, to forbid infants baptisme; and when you can bring us no solid ground for that you would have,* 1.171 to beg the question. But you say,

Tradition by all meanes must supply the place of Scripture: and there is pretended a tradition Apostolicall, that infants were baptized, &c.]

You seem here to speake three things: first, that when we cite traditions, we use them in place of Scripture, or for defect of Scripture-proofe: which to deny, is confutation enough untill you can shew which of us so pretend to tradi∣tion Secondly in your following words you pretend, that we sometimes reject Apostolicall tradition (for of that you speake) to which we say, that when the quaestion is concer∣ning a tradition of the gospel or Apostles,* 1.172 as Epiphanius speakes, we receive it; and with an ancient Council wish that those things may be done in the Church, which were delive∣red by divine Scripture or Apostolical tradition; which we adde hereto, though we have no reason to admit of all that is al∣ledged

for such: as for those things which the Apostles deli∣vered in complyance with particular times, places, or per∣sons, as anointing with oyl, saluting with an holy kisse, love-feasts, &c. they were necessary then and to that people who had been long accustomed thereto, of whom a gospel-Church was now to be gathered; but they were neither uni∣versally prescribed, neither do they concern us now. Next we say with S. Augustine; the whole Church holdeth by tradition the baptism of infants; and that beeing continually observed, we justly believe to have been delivered and confirmed by Apostolicall tradition. But you say,

So farre as it can appeare, it relies wholly upon the testimony of Origen; for from him Augustine had it, &c.]

Yet before you affirmed, that infant-baptisme was Au∣gustin's device;* 1.173 how had Augustine it from Origen if it were Augustin's device? That it was neither his device, neither that it relyeth wholly upon the testimony of Origen, many other testi∣monis by us alleaged, make manifest; as Dionysius, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Ambros Ierom, Cyril, Gre. Nazianzen, Basil, &c. as also ancient, Councils, as that of ••arthage An••. 407. the Milevitan. An••. 420, &c. to conclude, we rely no upon the testimony of man, though we reverence holy antiquity, but on the command of Christ and the Apostles practises, ba∣ptising whole nations without any appearing exception to infants of believing parents; and therefore you following in∣ferences either nothing concern, or nothing hurt us. You say further,

There was no command of Scripture to oblige children to the susception of it.]

No command to children to oblige them! a dainty ca∣ption: neither was there any command to infants to oblige them to the susception of circumcision; for they could nei∣ther act nor understand that or any other command: The command was to the parents for present, and to children for the future: therefore, if you meane that there was no com∣mand of Scripture to oblige us to the baptizing of infants, the contrary appeares Matth. 28▪ 19. But you require ex∣presse termes: we rejoyne; what expresse termes in Scripture

have you to prove that there is an holy Trinity in the unity of the deity? or for the abrogating the Iewish Sabbath, and observation of our Lord-day Sabbath, or for womens recei∣ving the Lords supper, or for your rebaptizing, or dipping over head and ears? But you say,

The necessity of pedobaptism was not determined in the Church till in the eighth age after Christ; but in the year 418. in the Milevitan Councel—never till then]

What necessity speak you of? de necessitate medii, in re∣spect of infants salvation, as if they could not be saved with∣out it? we maintain it not; if you mean such a necessity on our part,* 1.174 as bindeth us to obedience, that is, to baptize infants of believing parents; we say with S. Augustin, the custom of our mother the Church in baptizing infants is not at all to be despised, or by any means to be esteemed superfluous, nor to be believed any other then an Apostoli∣cal tradition; the ground hereof is laid down, l. 3. c. 24. Con∣tra Donat. before by us cited, to which I refer the reader; the sum is, That whatsoever is universally observed in all Churches, and no man can say by what Councel it was de∣termined, or when it began, must be thought to have descen∣ded from the tradi••ion of the Apostles themselves, and therefore we hold it as we are commanded, 2 Thes. 2. 15. and we believe it is necessary to be held, because 'tis so com∣manded. That which you say, that it was not determined in the Church till in the eighth age after Christ, and but in the year 418 in the Milevitan Councel, will easily appear false: for the Councel of Carthage in Cyprians time, who flourish∣ed about the year 250. determined that children might be baptized, and that even before the eight day, against the o∣pinion of Fidus, as was before noted out of Cyprian;* 1.175 but you say that infant-baptism was not determined in the Church untill the Milevitan Councel.* 1.176

1. I demand, Doth a determination by a succeeding Coun∣cel exclude a determination of the same thing by a forego∣ing•• or doth it conclude a thing to be no Apostolical tra∣dition? What think you then of our Christian Sabbath? will you say that the abrogation of the Iewish Sabbath, that

our Christian Sabbath might succeed, was not an Apostoli∣cal tradition, or that it was not sufficiently determined in the Church untill about the year 364. because then there was a Canon made for the same in the Councel of Laodicea?* 1.177 Nay but the practice of the Apostles was a sufficient deter∣mination thereof: And truly, Ecclesiastical Canons (as also municipal Laws and Statutes) may with good reason be made for confirmation of things rightly and long before suf∣ficiently determined, where some emergent opposition to the former, requireth a due revisal, and further expression, interpretation, or confirmation of the same.

2. I say, that there needed no determination by a general Councel, before any opposition was made publickly against a received custome of the Church; but so soon as it was questioned and openly opposed by the Pelagians, then the second Milevitan Councel was called against Pelagius and Celestius. It were but a weak argument against an Apo∣stolical tradition, if we should find little or no mention thereof in any writer, in some ages of the Primitive Church; seeing that besides that there were some of them obscure, generally without Ecclesiastical Writers; what necessity can be alleadged, that in every age some writers must make particular mention and rehersal of all Apostolical traditions or practices of the Church, when a uninterrupted peace thereof sufficed, and no opposition gave occasion of provi∣ding for defence? Indeed when any turbulent and disobedi∣ent spirit of contradiction brake out to disturb the peace and unity of the Church, then the Ministers disputed, preach∣ed, or wrote, as need required, or Councels were called, which could not come together from divers Nations with∣out much trouble and charge; and therefore they were not assembled except in case of some urgent necessity; and then their Canons were agreed upon for suppressing of emergent errors, and that in all reason; for what need ar∣ming without an enemy?* 1.178 to make Statutes, provisions, Or∣dinances or Canons without some present danger, might pos∣sibly teach men to offend, or erre, who without such occa∣sion, had not minded it at all. The first Apostolical Synod,

had an apparent cause;—certain men—taught the bre∣thren, saying, Except ye be circumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved:* 1.179 Then the Apostles and Elders ••ame together to consider of this matter. So the four first Councels had their several occasions. The Nicen Councel was called by Constantin, to suppress the damnable heresie of the Arians. The Councel of Constantinople was called against Maedonius and Eunomius denying the deity of the holy Ghost (in the reigne of Gratian and Theodosius.) The Councel of Ephesus (in the reigne of Theodosius the younger) against Nestorius and Caelestius; and the Calcedon Councel was gathered against the heresie of Eutychus; and Dioscorus: so was the Councel of Gangris against Eustathius: The first Councel of Carthage against the rebaptizing Donatists; the Arelatense was occasioned by their appeal: and the second Milevitan Councel was called against Pelagius and Caelestius his great Factor, denying infants original sin and baptism: So that the non determination of a thing for many ages in the Church, the Church constantly holding and pra∣ctising it, proves nothing, but that no body opposed it all that time; and had Pelagius's heresie concerning infant-baptism, after the Milevitan Councel,* 1.180 and after the writings of Ierome, Augustin, Optatus and others, still slept, I know not why any man should now have written, or spoken a∣gainst it.

I grant (you say) it was practised in Africa before that time, and they or some of them thought well of it; and though that be no argument for us to think so, yet none of them did ever before pretend it to be necessary, none to have been a precept of the Gospel: St. Augustin was the first that ever preach'd it to be absolutely necessary, and that was in his heat and anger against Pelagius, who had warmed and chafed him so in that question, that it made him innovate in other doctrines possibly of more concernment then this.]

You grant the practice of infant-baptism in Africa, and that some of them thought well of it. It hath been proved that an ancient Councel there established it, as a custome of the Church derived from the practice or tradition of the

Apostles, obeying Christ's general precept to baptize all na∣tions▪ that none of them before Augustin pretended it to be necessary, cannot be true; for they would not have pra∣ctised a thing of so high concernment, except they had held it to be necessary on the part of the administrers. Further I say that the Churches of Africa were of a very ancient plantation,* 1.181 as were also the Churches of Asia, of which was Iustin Martyr, by birth a Samaritan, which is of Asia the greater,* 1.182 and he was for infant-baptism; above all contro∣versie, the sound of the Apostles preaching went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world;* 1.183 and there∣fore all the Christian Churches were first planted according to the Gospel and traditions of the Apostles,* 1.184 among which we have shewed infant-baptism to be one: for good cause therefore they thought well of it, and so do we. That none of them did ever before Augustine, pretend it necessary, is apparently false; for it was in liking and use in Cyprians time, as hath been proved; therefore if Augustin were the first that ever preached it to be absolutely necessary to sal∣vation, and in his heat against the Pelagians did something innovate, it hurteth not our cause, who do not affirm so rigid a necessity of baptism, as we have said formerly. But you sa••

—Nor at all in other places; we have the testimony of a learned Pedobaptist Ludovicus Vives, who in his annotations upon S. Augustin de. C. Dei l. 1. c. 27. affirms, neminem nisi adultum antiquitùs solere baptizari.]

That infant-baptism was not at all practised in other pla∣ces, is very untrue, as appeareth by that which hath been al∣leadged out of Ireneus,* 1.185 who was of France, and Iustin Mar∣tyr, Ierom, Ambrose, &c. That which you cite out of Ludo∣vicus Vives, nominem nisi adultum antiquitùs solere baptiza∣ri; I suppose you may read in some index or marginal note, or in Bellarmin with a little change;* 1.186 the words of Vives in the cited place are—ne quis fallatur hoc loco; nemo olim sacro admovebatur baptisterio, nisi adultâ jam aetate, &c. lest any should be deceived in this place, none anciently was moved to the sacred font, but such as were come to full age, &c. Cer∣tainly

Augustin spake there concerning those who being of years, could understand what the sacred mystery signified,* 1.187 and could desire the same: What is the cause (saith he) why we should spend times in exhorting them, wherein by speaking we endeavour to enflame the baptized either unto virgin inte∣grity, or vidual continency, or unto a conjugal fidelity, &c. he meant not such words to infants. What did vidual con∣tinency, or conjugal fidelity concern infants, as such? and L. Vives words immediately following intimate the same; The image of which thing (saith he) we yet see in our baptizing of infants. If this were not his meaning, as it was Augu∣stins, it was frivolous enough, and such as I cannot easily believe so learned an Author, and so well acquainted with Augustins sense, and judgement in this matter could be guil∣ty of;* 1.188 possibly his olim, related to the baptism which was administred in ecclesià constituendâ (when the partition wall being broken down, and the natural branches broken off, that others might be graffed into Christ) which was, and could no otherwise be then by instructing people in the faith of Christ, and then baptizing them, that their chil∣dren might afterward be baptized,* 1.189 as being within the co∣venant by their fathers priviledg,* 1.190 and their own, as being children of believing parents; so that in the constituting a Christian Church, the Ministers first, and most general work of administring baptism, was with persons of years (by their preaching to them) converting to the faith, but in ecclesiâ constitutâ it is much otherwise: our general work of administration of baptism is with infants of enchurched parents; we seldom meeting with any Turk, or Pagan, or Iew converted, and desiring baptism; to conclude, if L. Vives by you cited, had been of your opinion (to spare the men∣tioning the authority of Ireneus, Cyprian, Augustin, Ierom, &c. or the African or other Councels, who much better knew the custom of the ancient Churches then Lud. Vives could) we can ballance Vives with Polydor Virgil,* 1.191 another

learned Author, who saith, As infants among the Jews were circumcised the eight day from their nativity, so are they for the most part, with us baptized, which yet the English do in the very day wherein they are born, that which S. Cyprian—by many reasons proveth may be done,

But (you say) besides that the tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical, we have very good evidence from antiquity, that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church, that infants ought not to be baptized, and this is clear in the sixt Canon of the Councel of Neocaesarea, &c.]

It is proved to be Apostolical, and therefore (above con∣troversy) if can be proved: You talk of very good evidence from antiquity, that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church, that infants ought not to be baptized▪ and this, you say, is clear in the sixt Canon of the Councel of Neo••aesarea: so then, it is likely that one testimony is very good and clear evidence for you; and shall not many, and of them, some more ancient, witnesses be good for us? Origen, Ireneus, Cyprian, with the whole Councel of Carthage, held about anno 258. were more ancient then the Councel of Neocaesa∣rea held about the year 316. and those, as hath been shew∣ed, were the for infant-baptism,* 1.192 as many others also express. Augustin, as we have before noted (on Num. 13) calleth it ecclesiae fidem ••irmissimam, and fundatissimum morem, the most firm faith of the Church, and the most grounded custom. And again, that which was delivered by Apostolical authority. But let us now behold how clear it is in the sixt Canon of the Councel of Neocaesarea which you alleadged. The Canon saith, A woman with child may be baptized when she please; for the baptism of her that is to be delivered, in this matter concerneth not the infant to be born, because every ones own choice or purpose is manifested or declared by his own con∣fession, the mothers baptism doth not so concern the infant that is to be born, as if that needed not to be bap∣tized when 'tis born: The woman must for the present make her confession of faith, whereby she may declare her

choice; and so must the child for his own part, when he comes to age,* 1.193 and can shew that he embraceth the Christi∣an faith. Mark how clear this Canon makes it, that In∣fants ought not to be baptized. Here's not one word ••or∣bidding infant-baptism, the whole scope being rathe•• to shew that the infant must be baptized for himself; because the mothers baptism (in whose womb he then was) cannot excuse him from being baptized. Add hereto that which some observe, That regeneration by baptism, presupposeth a precedent natural birth, which the unborn child hath not; therefore the unborn infant cannot be regenerate in his mothers baptism:* 1.194 Indeed it gives him a right hereto, if he have none by the fathers side, 1 Cor. 7. 14. So that if any man list to think that the Councel spake Gospel; yet it will no more thence follow, that infants ought not to be baptized, because they cannot yet make confession of their faith,* 1.195 then that all that which is said of the adult, is precisely to be applyed to infants for present, as that 2. Thes. 3. 10.—This we command you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat—which concerneth infants no otherwise then when they should be able; but in the mean time would you not have them eat? you know that though the rule bear a shew of universality▪ yet it concern∣eth persons of age and ability, not infants; so here, the Ministers interrogating persons of years to be baptized, was simply necessary; for how else should it have been known whether they were fit to be admitted into the Church priviledges by baptism? that therefore they did not admit infants to baptism, because they did not examin them, fol∣lows not, except you could shew that they admitted none to baptism but persons of years, which is the question in hand, and therfore may not be a medium to prove your as∣sertion by: as for asking them questions to be answered by Sponsors, Godfathers and Godmothers, we shall speak anon.

And to supply their incapacity by the answer of a Godfather, is but the same unreasonableness acted with a worse circum∣stance: and there is no sensible account to be given of it.]

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

That which some imperfectly murmur concerning stipulati∣ons civil performed by Tutors in the name of their Pupils, is an absolute vanity, &c.]

Have a care that you be not answered with à turpe est Doctori, &c. Do you not vainly argue, that in the use of God-fathers, &c. God is tyed, and Christian Religion transacts her mysteries by proportion and compliance with the Law of the Romans;* 1.196 concerning which something hath been answered before; I only add here, that God neither commanding nor forbidding God-fathers, it is no vanity to obey authority herein: But to disturb the peace of the Church, and make schismes for things in their own nature indifferent, and commended to us by venerable antiquity, is not only vain, but impious: And how is God tyed, where he neither forbids nor commands? To the rest we say not that Christian Religion must transact her mysteries by complyance with Roman Laws, or humane customs; but that in some things she may, in things circumstantial, and no waies repugnant to the word of God. You say fur∣ther,

I know God might,* 1.197 if he would, have appointed God-fathers

to g••ve answer in behalf of children, and to be fideiussors for them, but we cannot find any authority or ground that he hath; and if he had, then it is to be supposed he would have given them commission to have transacted the solemnity with better circumstances, and given answers with more truth.]

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

2. Whereas you would bespatter this custom of imputa∣tion of will-worship and untruth in the users thereof; I say first, That whatsoever God hath commanded or forbidden in holy Scriptures, that is necessarily to be observed; and this faithfull word we must hold fast, Tit. 1. 9. But those things which he hath neither commanded nor forbidden, neither expresly, nor by necessary consequence, fall under the general rule belonging to things arbitrary and indiffe∣rent, Let all things be done decently and in order, •• Cor. 14 4••. which then only can be when we unanimously and u∣niformly do that which a general consent and constant practice of the Church warranteth; not that which every private spirit liketh or disliketh: There can be no decency without order, nor order in confusion of practices: there∣fore God having left many things circumstantial, arbitra∣ry as to the authority of the Church, we ought to tender her unity, and reverence her authority; the contempt whereof hath opened so wide a dore to schism as now troubleth the Christian world▪ Secondly, there may be falshood in some mens answers, though no fault in the order which God will,* 1.198 it being his perfection that he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; God that cannot lie, Tit. 1. 2. and it is the inviolable holyness of his will, that he will not, neither can will any evil; and it is certainly true which Fulgentius saith,* 1.199 As there is no sin in him, so there is no sin of him.

For the question (you say) is asked of believing in the present; and if the God-fathers answer in the name of the child (I do believe) it is notorious that they speak false and ridiculously; for the infant is not capable of believing, &c.]

For answer,* 1.200 we may say with Augustin, Who knows not, that to be baptized, is in, or for infants, instead of be∣lieving? And again, they are borne to Church, and al∣though they cannot run thither on their own feet, yet go they on others feet, that they may be healed: our mother the Church lendeth them others feet, that they may come, others heart that they may believe, others tongue that they may confess, that for as much as in that they are sick, they are more grievously burthened with anothers sin (that is, which they acted not in their own persons) so when these are cured, they may be healed or saved, another confessing for them. But I demand, Why may we not here with better reason understand present, for future believing, then you do children of believers•• holyness, which the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. 14. pronounceth in the present) by a designation to the service of Iesus, Christ, and the future participation of the promises?

But Augustin saith very well,—

If the Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments,* 1.201 they should not at all be Sacraments; but by reason of this likeness, they oftentimes receive the very names of these things themselves; therefore as af∣ter a certain manner, the Sacrament of Christs body is

the body of Christ; the Sacrament of Christs blood, is the blood of Christ; so the Sacrament of faith, is faith: Now to believe, is nothing else but to have faith; and so when 'tis answered that the infant believeth, who hath not yet the affection of faith; we answer, that the hath faith in respect of the sacrament of faith; and that he conver∣teth to God, in respect of the sacrament of conversion; because even that very answer appertaineth unto the ce∣lebration of the Sacrament; as the Apostle speaketh of baptism it self; We are, saith he, Buried with him by bap∣tism into death; he saith not, we signifie burial, but altoge∣ther saith, We are buried—therefore he called the Sa∣crament of so great a matter, by no other name then of the thing it self: So that faith, though it be not yet such as consisteth in the will of believers, yet the very Sacra∣ment of that faith, makes a (baptized) infant faithfull, or a believer: For as 'tis answered that he believeth, so is he called a believer; not signifying that thing in the very mind, but in respect of his receiving the Sacrament of that very thing; to wit, of believing, and giving his name to Christ.

But what unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance,* 1.202 is there for God-fathers thus answering—All this I steadfastly believe (wherein though possibly there may be untruth, because the Sponsor doth not as he professeth, steadfastly believe, yet so may there also be, when persons of years answer for themselves, that they believe) seeing the lawfulness of baptizing infants, is affirmed on conditi∣on of their parents believing, and Church-priviledge, which is often testified personally by the very parents, Grand-fathers, Grand-mothers, and sometimes in defect, or necessary absence of such, by some fellow-believers testi∣fying for them, and the childs priviledg and baptism: but your sensible account is, that they speak false and ridiculous∣ly; if you can bear the eccho of your own words, we there∣in answer you; yet for the sober readers sake, we further

answer after Augustin,* 1.203 treating of the same argument, Let no man whisper to you ••ther doctrines; this the Church ever had, ever held, &c. doubtless the custom is very ancient; Histories tell us of it in the time of Higin••s, who was co∣etaneous with Polycarp a disciple of S Iohns, they lived under the reigne of Antoninus Pius, about the year 140. some think it came into the Church from the custom of those who were Catechumenists, who being examined be∣fore they were admitted to baptism,* 1.204 concerning their faith and repentance, were not only to answer in their own per∣sons, but to have sponsors as witnesses of their faith, con∣version, and baptism. It is not improbable which some here propose, that—As children were baptized when their Christian parents had formerly made confession; so sureties confessed in relation to themselves, that they might be fit to stand as a kind of parents, &c. Seeing therefore this custom is nothing repugnant to holy scripture, nei∣ther hath in it any appearance of evil, but rather of profit and edification, though it be not of the essence of baptism, but a ceremonial circumstance, 'tis foolish and impious to quarrel it, and for it to break unity and disturb the peace of the Church. But you say,

—The infant is not capable of believing, and if he were, he were also capable of dissenting;* 1.205 and how then do they know his mind?]

If it be necessary to baptism that the baptizer know the mind of the person to be baptized, how can you baptize men of years? You will say they express their minds, and so we baptize them. I grant you may know their words, their minds you cannot; because they may dissemble. If you say you are in charity to believe the best; once more we say, Be but as charitable towards infants, of whom you can know no actual evil, nor shew any just cause why you should suspect it for the future. And I pray how could

the Priest under the Law know the minds of children to be circumci••ed? To conclude, 'tis nothing material whether we know the infants mind, 'tis behoofull that we know his priviledg, as being born within the Church and Covenant of God, which giveth him a sufficient right to the seals thereof. But you say,

Tertullian gives advice that baptism of infants should be deferred till they could give account of their faith.]

I answer, 1. Tertullian speaking of deferring baptism, lest they should rashly give it, as to persons out of the Co∣venant, or unbelievers, instanceth specially children; that is, extraneorum, non foederatorum, as the learned Fra. Iuni¦us interpreteth the same: so that this concerneth not our present question which is of children of Christians. 2. This shews then that the practice of infant-baptism was none of Augustins device, as you charge him, seeing it was in use in the time of Tertullian. 3. But let us hear the rest of Tertullians advice;* 1.206 was it only concerning the deferring infants baptism? Let them come when they can learn, when they are taught whither they come, let them be made Christians when they shall be able to know Christ—nay but presently he saith, For no less cause the unmarried also are to be delayed, in whom the tentation is prepared, both in virgins by their maturity, and widows by their going up and down untill they are either married or confirmed in constan∣cy —Will you follow Tertullians advice herein? But what if they never marry, must they never be baptized? If not, give us leave to decline it in the other, or to take it in the sense he meaneth it, as may appear in that he speci∣fieth widows, who being at that age, are necessarily to be supposed either baptized after their first marriage, or out of the Covenant.

And the same (you say) is also the Councel of Gregory Bi∣shop of Nazianzum, &c.

Gregory Nazianzen in his fortieth Oration (which you cite in your margent) saith,* 1.207 Sow when the time of sowing is—plant prune thy vine when the season is, &c. But at all times intend thy salvation, and think that any time is seasonable, or appointed for baptism: among other ages of man be instanceth in Infancy. Hast thou an Infant (saith he) let not wickedness take away the occasion, let it be sanctified from its infancy, let it be dedicated to the Spirit from it tender years: fearest thou the seal in respect of the infirmity of Nature? How poor a spirited mother art thou, and of how little faith? But Anna promised Samuel unto the Lord before he was born, &c. You say concern∣ing Gr. Nazianzen, that his reason taught him that which was fit, (true, for he allowed Infant-baptsm) yet he was over-born with—the opinion of his Age, &c. So far also I consent as this relates to that they thought, that Infants dying without Baptisme, should neither he glori∣fied nor punished. That which you further say, although he allowed them to hasten in case of necessity, falleth under a double consideration: First, in respect of those times ap∣pointed for Baptism in the primitive Church, to wit, Easter, and Whitsontide, or Pentecost, which he mentioneth: But when he cometh to the question, whether Infants should be baptized, he answereth positively; By all means, if any dan∣ger urge,* 1.208 and sheweth it from the Analogy between Cir∣cumcision and Baptism. He taketh away the objection from the years at which Christ was baptized, which was indeed to be deferred untill the fulness of time for the worlds redemption was come: and that we are not to imi∣tate all the actions of Christ. To that which you say— Yet in another place he makes mention of some to whom Bap∣tism was not administred, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by reason of In∣fancy; we say you utterly mistake: for Nazianzen in the same Oration speaking of delay in performance of that du∣ty,* 1.209 reckons up severall sorts of those whose Baptism was deferred; some for sloth, or insatiable desire of sinning; others are not in ability to receive it, either for their infan∣cy, or some sudden and violent accident, disabling

them so that they cannot receive this grace if they would. True, infants have neither ability nor will to come to Bap∣tism; nor can those (though of years) who are accidentally disabled: they have not power, though they have a will to come. What is this to our deferring Infants Baptism in the Rule, which in some cases may reasonably and law∣fully be done. As for example, Suppose an infant neer some Mahumetan border were found, and the parents not known, we may and ought to demur. But what makes this against baptizing infants of parents known to be with∣in the Church? But you say,

To which if we add that the parents of S. Augustine, S. Hie∣rom, and St. Ambrose, although they were Christian, yet did they not baptize their children before they were 30 years of age, it will be very considerable in the Ex∣ample, and of great efficacy for the destroying the sup∣posed necessity or derivation from the Apostles.

This may make a formidable noyse in some vulgar ear;* 1.210 'tis true which Mr. Homes notes, pag. 188. that the opini∣ons or practices of some few, conclude no more against the generall tenet and practice of the Church, then the Hills and Vallies do against the roundness of the world. But to what purpose do you propose any of these examples to your clients imitation? If not, why inferre you them? Possibly the parents of some great and excellent men, might erre in such omission of duty; or there might be some in∣vincible lets or obstructions to their desires: however you would not have your childrens Baptism deferred 〈◊〉〈◊〉 years. To the particulars I say,* 1.211 Possidonius in the life of Augu∣stine, saith, that he was born of honest and Christian pa∣rents, and that he received of St▪ Ambrose, Bishop of Mi∣lan, both the wholesome doctrine of the Catholick Church,* 1.212 and the Divine Sacraments. But Augustine saith, he belie∣ved and desired baptism from his childhood; the cause of

the delay thereof he putteth on a sudden great sickness,* 1.213 and his fathers unbelief: but if the parents were then Chr••stian when he was born,* 1.214 and either understood not▪ or neglected his Baptism, what is this to our cause? I know nothing hence following but that, if so they neglected, they were culpable. We read of his dangerous estate while he was a Maniche, and his mothers constant and importunate tears and intercession for his conversion, as her sorrow for the delay thereof; which at last happily obtained, accor∣ding to that which the Prelate answered her, It cannot be that the son of those tears should perish. After his con∣version he seriously learned, and happily taught others, not to defer infant baptism, as may appear by that which hath been alledged out of him.

As for St. Hierom, they also say that both his parents were Christian, and that he was diligently taught and brought up of them at home, and that with Bonosus pre∣sently even in his Parents embraces, and Nurses gentle lan∣guage he received in Christ, and presently he was instru∣cted in the rudiments of Christian p••ety, which very pro∣bably importeth his infant-baptisme, rather then that he had any Nurses at his being 0 years old. That which E∣rasmus who gathered his story out of other Authors) af∣ter saith on Hieroms Epistle to Damasus,* 1.215 that he would follow the faith of that Citie in which he had received the garment of Christ, as the same Erasmus gives the sense in the life of Hierom, proves not that he was not baptized before he was 30 years old: for Hieroms words are to this sense, because the Eastern Churches have rent the seamless Coat of Christ (by their schismes) so that it is hard there to know where the Church is, therefore I thought it meet that I should consult with Peters Chaire, and the faith commended by the Apostles mouth (Rom. 1.) thence now requiring food for my soul, where long since I tooke on me the garment of Christ. What was it which he called Peters Chair? What the Citie of Rome? Was that faith which the Apostle commended onely there, or then when Hierom wrote in all the Western Church? his words concer∣ning

the Eastern Churches divisions by reason of the Ari∣an faction, and the following, concerning the great di∣stance at which Hierom (being then in Syria, near Anti∣och) was, make it plain, that he spake of the Western Church in which he was baptized, probably in oppido Stridonis, where he was born, not in Rome: As for Erasmus's opi∣on of his being baptized in Rome, 'tis grounded but upon an opinor. I think (saith he) he meaneth it not of his Priesthood, or orders. And what solidity is there on these conjectures, to conclude that Hieroms parents, though Christian, defer'd his baptism until he was 30 years old? or what wil it advantage you if it were true? there may be such lets to sealing, as to Israel in the Wilderness, and God bare with them 40 years together, yet they should have circumcised the male children at eight dayes old upon a severe penalty, Gen. 17. 14. an inevitable necessity varieth not the rule.

Concerning the last instance in Ambrose,* 1.216 I find that his Father was Deputy, or Governor of France; but whe∣ther Christian or not,* 1.217 I find nothing in Paulinus who wrote his life, and you avouch no Author for that you say. We read that after he was chosen Bishop of Milan, after Auxentius▪ the Arian, by the joynt suffrages of the discordant parties; and being (though much against his own will) confirmed in that charge by Valentinian the Emperor, he was baptized; and with the Church held Infant-baptism against Pelagius and the Donatists, upon this ground, Because every age is subject to sin, therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament; let the reader mark how this also is very considerable in the example, and of what great efficacy it is for the destroying the supposed necessity, or derivation from the Apostles, as the pleader saith: But seeing he can raise no stronger batteries against it, he might more easily and certainly conclude, that it will stand whether he will or no.

But however (saith he) it is against the perpetual analo∣gie of Christian Doctrine to baptize infants]

This is gallantly spoken,* 1.218 if he could tell how to prove it, or any part thereof.

Besides that Christ never gave any precept to baptize them, &c.]

This is his Argument; all that for which Christ never gave any precept for the doing it, and which neither him∣self nor his Apostles (that appears) did, is against the per∣petual Analogie of Christs Doctrine; but Christ never gave any precept to baptize them, &c▪ ergo.—I answer, This foundred••Argument, lame on both feet, doth poorly charge: 1. 'Tis not true that all is against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine for which no express pre∣cept of Christ, or practice of himself or his Apostles ap∣pears; for there are many things circumstantial and indif∣ferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, which yet on second thoughts you will not say are against the perpetu∣al Analogie of Christs Doctrine: I might instance the po∣stures, or numbers, or sexes, or places where, in the recei∣ving the Lords Supper: Where do you read of any com∣mand of Christ, or practice of himself or Apostles, that the Communicants should stand, or sit, or kneel, or lie down; one of these (or if you can think of any other) must needs be; shew us either precept or practice obliging to either; where is any precept of Christ obliging to a set or determined number of Communicants: where are we commanded to administer to women? where is any pre∣cept obliging to a place? who knows not that these and the like things are left under the general rule, Let all things be done decently, and in order? which observed they are not against the Analogie of Christs Doctrine. Again, what think you of the Sabath, is that which we now doe therein against the Analogie of Christs Doctrine, because we find no express precept or practice of Christ or his Di∣sciples for the translation of it? That it is and ought to be the Christian Sabbath, is grounded on necessary con∣sequence, but no express precept. 2. It is also notorious∣ly false, that Christ never gave any express precept to bap∣tize all Nations, without any exception to infants within the Covenant; and who knoweth not that infants ever were and are a great part of every Nation; what then?

though he never said in so many syllables, or by naming in∣fants, go and baptize them also, is it not sufficient to name all Nations without enumeration of particulars? Indeed he needed not give such an express ••ommand concerning children, seeing that he sent them to administer this seal of the new Covenant and Sacrament of initiation, who were in the old, their selves sealed in their infancy by cir∣cumcision, and so used to that Doctrine of childrens being within the Covenant with believing parents, and the dai∣ly practice of their initiation and reception into the com∣munion of a visible Church, that it might have seemed ve∣ry superfluous to say any more then Go baptize all Nati∣ons There is also much difference, Inter ecclesiam consti∣tuendam, & constitutam; the Apostles business was ge∣nerally to baptize Heathens and converted unbelievers; but we have to deal with a Church constituted; therefore faith and repentance, were so often mentioned in the sto∣ry of the Apostles practice; but we living in a setled Church, have to deal with baptizing infants who cannot yet actually believe or repent: But in that no particulars are mentioned in Christs universal command to baptize, it sheweth that all within the Church-priviledg and Cove∣nant of God are included. Again, whereas you require a command in terminis for baptizing infants, I demand, Where doth he in terminis say, Baptize men of years, or Kings, peasants, rich, poor, high, low, men, women, Ci∣tizens, Countrey-men, Fishers, Husbandmen, Threshers, Shooemakers,* 1.219 Taylors, Shop-keepers, or Mechanicks? He commandeth that all be baptized, of what sex, age, con∣dition or estate whatsoever they be, which appertain to any Nation.* 1.220 So in general Prescripts, Laws, Grants, and Franchises, the rehersal of particulars is not requisite; be∣cause such things pass on the whole kind therein contain∣ed, and will that the censure or priviledg concern all par∣ticulars within that general, except in case of any exemp∣tion of some specified particular, or exception made by him who made the Covenant, or granted the Priviledges. We cannot find 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in these very words in any place

of Scripture,* 1.221 Baptize Women, or administer the Lords Sup∣per to women yet from these general prec••pts, Baptize all Nati••ns—take ••at▪ this is my body— and—drink ye all of it (now it is—evident that the twelve Apostles only were then present when he instituted this Sacrament,* 1.222 and that he spake and administred it unto them only,* 1.223 yet I say we all, without quarrel about it, baptize women, and re∣spectively administer the Lords Supper to them, as in∣cluded in the general precepts; and why are we not con∣tented with a general precept including childrens baptism, seeing no exception of the Covenant-maker can appear to the contrary? Lastly we say again, that the reason why Christ gave his Disciples no express or peculiar command concerning baptizing infants, but included them in the general, was because the Apostles were so well acquain∣ted with childrens reception into the Church-priviledges, and sealing into the same, that they could not reasonably make any question of baptizing infants, having a general command to baptize all Nations, infants being under the Law circumcised;* 1.224 and knowing moreover that the grace of God was not more strict or restrained in the new Testa∣ment then in the old; but contrarywise, more diffused or large; and therefore a greater and more difficult question might have been concerning the baptism of women, there being neither analogie from circumcision, nor particular precept to induce them to baptize them; but that they knew that the general precept was authority sufficient, without specifying particulars in terminis. You say more,

All that either be or his Apostles said concerning it, re∣quires such previous dispositions to baptism, of which infants are not capable, and these are faith and repen∣tance]

Your whole scope is fallacious: form your Argument,

Christ and his Apostles in all that he or they said concer∣ning baptism, r••quired saith and repentance, as previous d••••positions to baptism, but no infant can believe or re∣p••••t; ergo▪ infants are not previously disposed to, or capa∣b••e of baptism, according to that Christ or his Apostles

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

1. A previous disposition in the subject, we may under∣stand eithe•• as a self-disposing by some intrinsecal and in∣ward faculty, or as a being extrinsecally disposed and fit∣ted by some other power, to a capacity or receptibility of something which yet it hath not, neither was capable thereof before such a disposition: Now this in our pre∣sent instance presupposeth, or speaks some change of the mind by illumination, faith, remorse of conscience, pur∣pose of leading a new life, and desire to be implanted into Christ and the communion of Saints by baptism; and so it is internal; or professing of that endeavour of know∣ing the mysteries of the Gospel, saith and repentance testi∣fied before men; and so these dispositions are external,

or expressed to men whom it may concern; these are ne∣cessary in persons of years coming to baptism.

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

And not (say you) to instance in those innumerable places that require faith before this Sacrament, there needs no more but this one, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved—]

I answer, 1. Deal fairly, dispute ad idem; and shew me one place of Scripture which universally requireth faith before this Sacrament, and you shall be excused for the innumerable places which you speak of: We can shew that the rule holds not universally that faith must precede the Sacraments: for though Abrahams faith preceded the seal thereof, yet Isaaks seal preceded his faith: Mr. Cal∣vin expresseth the reason hereof:

Why (saith he) doth in Abraham the Sacrament follow faith, and in Isaak

his son it goeth before all understanding? because it is meet that he, which being in full-grown age is recei∣ved into fellowship of the Covenant, from which he had hitherto been a stranger, should first learn the con∣ditions thereof: but an infant begotten of him, need∣ed not so, which by right of inheritance, according to the form of the promise, is even from his mothers womb contained in the Covenant.

And certainly in this respect God calleth the infants of covenanted parents, sons and daughters born unto him,* 1.225 Ezek, 16. 20. & 23. 37. be esteeming them his children who are born of those parents to whom God made the promise to be a God unto them and their seed after them; which promise as tru∣ly concerns us and our children, as it concerned Abra∣ham and his. 2. If the argument be good from that place, Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized; faith is first named, and then baptism: ergo, faith must precede baptism: Why shall not the Argument from other places be good to the contrary? as Iohn 3: 5. Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God: Baptism is first named, and then regeneration; therefore baptism must precede regenera∣tion. So again Ephes. 5. 26. Washing with water, that is, baptism is mentioned before the word, ergo, we must first be baptized, and afterward receive the word. 3. If this argument were good, how many men and women of age, must by the same reason be denyed baptism? For all have not faith; but the truth is, that to be born in the Church, is unto, or in infants instead of profession of faith and re∣pentance, as to the outward seal, for which we contend; and profession of faith and repentance, is to and for the adult instead of the same, for their right to the desired seal (so was it to Ismael, and Esau whom God hated) because they were born of covenanted parents. 4. Sure it is that Christ in the forementioned place, speaketh of men and women of years: For you confess that infants as such, cannot believe; and what then must follow if your cruel principles were true? Christ saith, But he that believeth

not, shall be damned: If this were as you would have it, spo∣ken concerning infants also, what should become of all those that die in their infancy? what are they damn'd? Here appears an inexcusable perversness of these men, who when children are proposed to their interest in general terms granted them, there they would exclude them, ex∣cept they shew a particular warrant; and baptize all Na∣tions, without a baptize infants, shall not advantage them for the seal of their admission into Christs visible Church: But where a general rule is mentioned, from whence they are in reason and all charitable construction to be exempt∣ed, there it must include them for their disadvantage, e∣ven to damnation, without any particular warrant for such inteterpretation. Mr. Cobbet observeth well, That the Covenant-priviledges of grace,* 1.226 are ever to be expoun∣ded in favour of the principal or less principal counter∣parties, unless any exception be made of persons or privi∣ledges by him which was the Covenant-maker. To avoid this, you must either acknowledg that the place you cite, is either to be understood of those of years who contuma∣ciously reject the Ordinances of God, being hardned in wilfull blindness and unbelief, and so that it doth not con∣cern children, as such; or else you must allow infants some secret seeds of faith and regeneration, and so you shall justly acknowledg their capacity of baptism.

Plainly (you say) thus, faith and baptism in conjunction, will bring a man to heaven; but if he have not faith, baptism shall do him no good.]

True in those (who though baptized) as Simon Magus,* 1.227 are yet but in the gall of bitterness; but this is a meer ig∣noratio elenchi, hence to conclude against infants baptism; our question not being whether all that are baptized shall be saved; but whether children of believing parents ought

to be baptized; which if you would thus disprove, who∣soever have not a sa••ing faith that the Sacrament may do them good, may not be baptized; but children have not such faith, that baptism received may doe them good: ergo, children are not to be baptized: your rea∣soning would appear unreasonable, both Propositions being false or fallacious. The Major, because baptism is but the external seal of admission into the visible Church, into which elect and reprobates may enter, as it were into the outward Court of the Temple. And if sa••ing faith finally doing the baptized good, or, which is the same, if the inward baptism by the holy Ghost, were the rule by which the baptizing Minister must proceed, what man were sufficient for that Office? The examples of Si∣mon Magus, Iudas, Demas, &c. shew enough that the most discerning men may be deceived in others fair pro∣fession; and who can foresee the final estates of men and women baptized? I cannot reasonably think that you take all those for elect, whom your selves baptize, or that your baptism shall doe them all good. And if you di∣spute 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.228 concerning one and the same faith in se∣veral degrees, that is, if you mean the seeds or habit of faith; that Minor is false; for elect infants have the seeds of faith in baptism, though they be not formed in them, yet by the secret working of the spirit, the seeds thereof for a time lying hidden in them, shall flourish and shew their growth in them in newness of life. If you mean it of actual faith,* 1.229 that want of that condition, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, discovereth the Paralogism: And we say infants want of actual faith in present infancy thereof incapable, conclu∣deth nothing against their having of it in mature age; and so as little against their baptism. I cannot conclude so well as in Augustins words; But (some may say) the things do some men no good; what must the Medicine therefore be neglected, because some mens pestilence is incurable?

So that if baptism be necessary, then so is faith, and much more; for want of faith damneth absolutely.]

I demand then, Do infants believe? Why do ye deny them baptism? or because they have not faith, do you conclude them all damned who die in their infancy? That were a damnable assertion; and to pay you with your own coyn, Against the perpetual analogie of Christs Doctrine, who commanded infants to be brought unto him, bless them, and positively affirmed, that Of such is the Kingdom of heaven, Further I say, If your Proposition be universal, it is notoriously false; for all want of faith doth not abso∣lutely damn: For 1. They who pray for faith, or the in∣creases thereof, (as the Disciples did) want faith, yet were they not damned; he that hungereth and thirsteth for the righteousness of faith, wanteth the same; for hunger and thirst are of emptiness: yet Christ pronounceth such blessed.* 1.230 2. He that now believeth not, may hereafter be∣lieve: It was Pauls case;* 1.231 had you seen him persecute the faith and faithfull in ignorance and unbelief, would you presently have devoted him to absolute damnation? Judg not, that you be not judged: I know no man living that wanteth not faith; and I pray the good Lord to help my unbelief, and exhort you otherwise to express your fan∣cies, that they prove not snares to weak and afflicted con∣sciences.

Then (you say) it is sottish to say the same incapacity of reason and faith, shall not excuse from the actual suscep∣tion of baptism, &c.]

A very acute and witty assertion indeed; but we answer, 1. By this principle you might have been as blasphemous against Gods Ordinance in circumcision, had you lived under the Law. 2. We say not but that infants by their incapacity, are excused from actual susception of baptism, for they cannot act thereto: But parents are not excusa∣ble, if they contemn or neglect their parts in sealing those that are joynt heirs of the Promises and Covenant of God with them and their children; because they have a capa∣city to promote and effect it:* 1.232 and this appeareth in the History of Moses, Exod. 4. 24, 25. We very well know that

infants cannot come and desire the Seals, their present in∣capacity excuseth them from that they cannot possibly do; but their parents or friends can intreat it for them, and present them to it: so that infants have a passive capacity; they cannot profess faith and repentance; but their parents professing of the same, interesseth them in all those exter∣nal Church-priviledges whereof they are capable: and so to be born in the Church, is to them and for them, instead, and in place of their profession. What your terms of reasonably and humanely received, do mean, if to any pur∣pose, want interpretation.

The conclusion (you say) is, that baptism is also to be de∣ferred till the time of faith.]

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

Since faith is necessary to the susception of baptism,* 1.233 &c.]

True in adultis; what is this to our present question con∣cerning infants? We have often said that this your ar∣guing a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, is falla∣cious, and not passable among young Sophisters▪ and we owe no other answer then denying the consequence. Our contest is about Infant-baptism, wherein we say a present actual faith is not required: It is necessary, or at least the profession thereof in those who present to, or ad••inister baptism; we cannot say so of infants, to whom God doth not yet give the use of reason: therefore they cannot first believe and after receive the Seal,* 1.234 as Abraham did: But therefore they are to be baptized that they may attain faith and salvation: So the word preached profiteth not, if it be not mixed with faith in them that hear; yet is the preaching thereof an effectual means whereby God will work faith in the hearers: To conclude, Baptism profiteth not without faith; yet is it an effectual means whereby God worketh regeneration and salvation, therefore none with∣in

his Covenant are to be barred from it. It is not impro∣bably conjectured by some, that therefore the Disciples forbad them to bring children to Christ, because they thought children have not faith, nor can any teach them, who are 〈…〉〈…〉 capable of doctrine: Possibly they did not y••t understand the abolition of the old Seal for the intro∣duction of the new,* 1.235 nor how baptism was to succeed cir∣cumcision; that was sometime after disputed and deter∣mined, Acts 1••▪ ••, 2. but Christ was much displeased with it, rebuked them, and seriously protested, that of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Whatever can be said to take off from the necessity of actu∣al faith all that,* 1.236 and much more (you say) may be said to excuse from the actual susception of baptism.]

True in adultis, but most ••alse in in••ants; I ••m weary of telling you of your fallacious arguing, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simplicitèr: Again, if here by actual suscep∣tion of baptism, you mean that infants are to be excused from it, we have answered in the ••oregoing paragraph; if you mean from administration of infant baptism, we de∣ny your assertion, and expect proof.

The second device (you say) was of Calvin and his.* 1.237]

You said before that some said infants have imputative faith, and by the number you now attribute it to Calvin; indeed Mr. Calvin saith, as I have noted, That infants are baptized into future repentance and faith, which although they be not yet formed in them, yet by the secret operati∣on of the spirit, the seed of either lieth hid in them: and in the same chapter he saith as Paul there reasoneth, That the Iews are sanctified of their parents; so in another place he teacheth. That the children of Christians receive the same sanctification of their fathers: Also in the same chapter he saith—not that I mean rashly to affirm, that they be indued with the same faith which we feel in our selves, or that they have at all knowledg of faith (which I had rather leave in suspence, &c.) but concerning imputa∣tive faith, I find neither device nor approbation of Cal∣vins. Why did you not rather say that this device was

P. Lombards (who mentioneth the Imputative faith you speak of) or some of the following Schoolmen?* 1.238 Or Polydor Virgil who in his fourth book concerning the Inventors of these things cleareth Calvin from this invention, saying —Seeing infants, by reason of their age, cannot testifie their own faith, as Cyprian saith, it was provided•• from the begin∣ning, that they should profess their faith by o••hers, that a•• ano∣thers fault, to wit Adam ••ur first parents sin was evil to them, in so much that from their birth they were subject to originall sin, so others endeavour might be good to them, who therefore (as Ambrose saith in his second book concerning the calling of the Gentiles) believe and are baptized by anothers confes∣sion. Or why do you not rather lay the invention hereof to Iustin Martyr,* 1.239 who living long before any of these, saith,* 1.240 They are made worthy of the good things of Baptism, by their faith who present them to be baptized? The Reader may hence gather how little Calvin said for imputative faith, and if he had affirmed any such thing, yet how un∣true it is, that Calvin, or any of his, invented it. But the pleader saith further,

Can an infant sent into a Mahumetan Province, be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a man, then if he had not been baptized? Pag. 241.

Yes, caeteris paribus: for though the Sacraments work not the same effect in all receivers, yet Gods holy Spirit deserteth not his ordinance in the elect, though for causes ever just, though most unknown to us, it doth not always alike shew its power in the recipient. It is true, that the seal and ministration of man can nothing profit where God giveth not the inward Baptism by his holy Spirit; though the inward may save without the outward, as hath been noted: but your supposition being rightly laid concerning an elect infant baptized, and so carried away, you must

grant that God, whose election can by no means be defea∣ted or made voyd, will give and make effectuall the means to the end, that is, salvation, whether by acquainting the party baptized with his will declared in his word preached to him, or by his secret work within him, if he will take him away in infancy: in the adult, coming to the knowledg of Gods covenant in Christ, and of his own sealing in in∣fancy, it must make him more confident of his implantati∣on into Christ, then if he knew that he never had been baptized. What then? Must this be by vertue of baptism by water onely, or the externall ministration thereof? No, but by the power of Gods Spirit working on his ordi∣nance, and accomplishing his own decrees, do we follow your supposition, dividing preaching of the word to such when they come to years, from the precedent seal? Tru∣ly such a strange invention were absolutely without Art, without Scripture, reason or authority, I would say, as is your argument here alledged against infant-baptism, but that you call it Demonstrative and Vnanswerable: but consider how to overcome before you cry victory. To an∣swer your supposition; suppose that an infant were not by any habituall faith so much as disposed to any actuall belief without a new master; what could this conclude more then that it is necessary to the actuall faith of an in∣fant come to fit years, that he be taught the doctrine of faith, repentance, &c. which we constantly affirm: what makes this against infant-baptism? We unanimously con∣fess, and solemnly profess, that the infant, so soon as it shall be able to learn, ought to be, and shall be taught the mysteries of eternall life and salvation by Christ: so your demonstration proves but a poor fallacie: you utterly mistaking or willingly dissembling the question. We af∣firm not that the Word ought to be divided from the Sa∣crament whereof new-born infants are capable, but that the word is to be preached to them, & they are to be instru∣cted in all the Rudiments of Christian Religion, so soon as they shal be able to learn: I only add hereto, what have you said in this your so much applauded argument against in∣fant-baptism,

which might not as reasonably and religi∣ously have been urged against infant-circumcision? Could they if sent into Painim-Countreys with all the terms of your supposition, have been more disposed to an actual be∣lief without a new Master? yet they had, and we have right to the seal of the righteousnesse of Faith, not for any excellency or ability to produce any good and saving effect in our selves, b•••• through the merits of our Saviour, the free mercy of God, and the right of our Fathers, with whom God made his Covenant for their persons and po∣sterity. Next, you say,

To which also this consideration may be added,* 1.241 That if bap∣tism be necessary to the salvation of infants, upon whom is the imposition laid?]

Concerning Baptism in generall, 'tis considerable which Tertullian saith, The Lord himself who owed no repentance, was baptized; and was it not necessary to sinners? his rea∣son will reach (possibly beyond his opinion) to infants al∣so, except we should say with Pelagius, that they are not sinners. Further we say, that Baptism, the ••aver of rege∣neration, is necessary to the salvation of infants; yet in case of privation or impossibility, they are saved by the pe∣culiar and extraordinary goodness and providence of God. So that the necessity of Baptism, as hath been avowed, is not absolute, as if none could be saved without it; but ne∣cessary on our part, who are to obey the ordinance of God. God is not tied to his ordinance, but we are: he can other∣wise save, but we cannot be saved in the contempt thereof God (saith Tertullian) hath bound faith to the necessity of Baptism; therefore Cornelius and those that were with him, after they were sanctified by the holy Ghost, were yet baptized;* 1.242 neither is the visible sanctification super∣fluous,

because the invisible preceded; seeing God alone giveth the one, and appointeth man to do the other for a seal and confirmation of his covenant. You say more,

To whom is the commandement given? To the Parents or to the children? Not to the children, for they are not capable of a law; not to the parents, for then God hath put the salvation of innocent babes into the pow∣er of others, and infants may be damned for their fa∣thers carelesness or malice, &c.]

You trifle here; you know that we hold no such necessi∣ty of the means, as hath been said; your foundation therefore failing, nothing of your superstructure can stand. If men neglect or contemn the ordinance of God to∣ward their infants salvation, they do as much as in them lieth,* 1.243 to shut them from heaven: but yet the foundation of the Lord remaineth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his though men neglect to mark them, who cannot help themselves thereto, yet the Lord knoweth all his,* 1.244 and is not unjust to punish the childs involuntary de∣fect for the parents voluntary neglect, which God will se∣verely punish, though the child shall be held guiltless thereof, as may appear in the fore-recited example of Mo∣ses; which might perswade conside••ing men to beware of denying children baptism (for if the neglect be such a sin, what is the contempt therof?* 1.245) to which their parents faith giveth them right; not as an efficient, principall, or meri∣torious cause of infants salvation, but as a sign and seal of Gods good will towards their children, whose providence causing them to be born of such parents sheweth that he vouchsafeth them the priviledge of his covenant: and how horrible a presumption is it for man to take away that which God pleaseth to give?

It follows (say you) that it is not necessary at all to be done to them to whom it cannot be prescribed as a law, and in whose behalfe it cannot be reasonably intrusted to others with the appendant necessity.]

We have said enough concerning the necessity you stil harp on, and fear to weary the Reader by telling you, we

hold no such absolute necessity as we have expressed; but that it follows not that it is necessary at all to be done, &c. is evidently false, as may appear in circumcision, which was enjoyned the parents, not the children; as untrue is your second branch (in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably en∣trusted to others— for the infants circumcision was rea∣sonably entrusted to the parent under this necessity—The uncircumcised man-child—that person shall be cut off from his people, Gen. 17. 14.

And (you say) if it be not necessary, it is certain it is not reasonable.]

Stay and prove that it is not necessary, before you build up many conclusions upon that which never was, nor will be granted you. We have shewed how 'tis necessary.

It is nowhere in terms prescribed.]

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

Either baptism produc••th spiritual effects, or it produ∣ceth them not,* 1.246 &c.]

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

That which produceth no spiritual effects, is not to be contended for; but baptism produceth no spiritual effect; ergo, it is not to be contended for: Who knows not that 'tis accidental to baptism to produce no spiritual effect in the baptized? This is for mans unbelief and forsaking the Covenant, by wilfull sinning which doth ponere obicem, and make the Ordinance of none effect to salvation:* 1.247 If we should thus dispute, That which causeth wrath is evil; but the Law causeth wrath,* 1.248 ergo, the Law is evil: the Fal∣lacy were the same:* 1.249 For it is accidental, and through mans disobedience that the Law causeth wrath; of it self it is good and holy, right and pure: so here, though baptism produce no good spiritual effect in the reprobate (or not

ex opere operato) yet by the institution of God▪ whose spi∣rit worketh on his Ordinance, it doth.

What are we nearer heaven if we are baptized?]

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

But if—baptism does do a work upon the soul, producing spiritual benefits and advantages, these advantages are produced by the external work of the Sacrament a∣lone, or by that as it is helped by the co-operation and predispositions of the suscipient.

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

If (you say) by the external work alone, how doth this differ from the opus operatum of Papists, save that it is worse?

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

For they say the Sacrament does not produce it's effect but in a suscipient disposed by all requisites and due prepa∣rations of piety, faith and repentance.]

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

But this opinion saies it does of it self, without the help or so muc•• as the coexistence of any condition but the meer reception.]

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

But if the Sacrament does not do its work alone, but per modum recip••ent••s, according to the predispositions of the

suscipient, then because infants can neither hinder it, nor do any thing to further it, it does them no benefit at all.]

You might have pleaded the same against circumcision, with as good success: They could neither hinder it, nor do any thing to further it; did it therefore do them no benefit at all? But who faith it is per modum recipientis, &c. which is not properly expressed according to the pre∣disposition, Per modum speaks a cause, ad, or secundum, a condition: We say that the Sacrament doth work accor∣ding to the dispositions of the receivers, because God gives that to infants which makes them fit to be baptized, giving them by his own Covenant with his believieving parents, federal holyness, and so a right to the external initiatory seal of his Covenant with them: Whether it do them good or no, whether it produce a spiritual good effect or no (that is to regeneration and salvation) a right they have to the external seal, as being born within the Church, and that as soon as they are born; we understand not any o∣ther predisposing cause in the infant to be baptized, as if he were able to contribute any thing to his receptibility, more then the unborn Iacob was in relation to the love of God, which indeed never found any cause but it self;* 1.250 yet ere the children were born, God loved Iacob and hated Esau. Further we say, as we shall be saved secundum opera, but not propter opera: Good works are in the regenerate ex∣cellent signes of justification and salvation future, they cannot be the causes of either; they follow, they cannot precede justification: So we may say that baptism works according to the dispositions of the suscipient, which are not in infants, faith, profession, repentance, &c. which God gives not to infants, but to persons of years; but as to their right to baptism by his Couenant: what other predispositions are in them are secret, and known to God above. And so your exploded fancy and dream of a notable advantage vanisheth.

Either baptism (you say) is a meer Ceremony, or it implies a duty on our part. If it be a ceremony only, how doth it sanctifie us, or make the comers thereunto perfect? If

it implys a duty on our part, how then can children receive it, who cannot do duty a•• all?]

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

This way of ministration, makes baptism to be wholly an out∣ward duty, a work of the Law, a carnal Ordinance, it makes us adhere to the letter, without any regard of the spi∣rit, &c.]

This Rhetorick would somthing better becom him that ca∣reth not what, but how much he saith. All these vain and injurious expressions, are meer aspersions: and call you this an Argument considerable? wherein appears either matter or form thereto pertinent? For the rest (which in some other man I should take for some aegri insomnium) we say if you mean by Mystery, the spiritual baptism my∣steriously

signified by the outward ministration, to which you seem to drive, 'tis evident that it doth not alwaies ac∣company it (except you will say that the Sacrament justi∣fieth ex opere operato,* 1.251 which a little before you would have pinned on our backs) which appears in Iudas,* 1.252 Simon Ma∣gus, and all others who fall away: And as certainly false is it, that it never follows in order of time; common experi∣ence shewing that the spiritual seed sowed in baptism, ma∣ny times, and in many of the baptized, lieth long before it actually appeareth, either in any outward effects, in∣ward signes of calling, or fruits of regeneration; as in A∣braham faith preceded, and circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith, followed: so in Cornelius, a spiri∣tual sanctification preceded, and baptism followed; but in Isaak circumcised the eight day, the seal preceded, and faith and sanctity followed:* 1.253 So in Infant-baptism the seal and laver of regeneration goeth before, and actual faith followeth it in season, if they hold fast the faith of Christ. You say again,

Baptism is never propounded, mentioned or enjoyned as a means of remission of sins, or of eternal life, but some∣thing of duty, choice, and sanctity is joyned with it, in or∣der to production of the end so mentioned. Know you not that as many as are baptized into Christ Iesus,* 1.254 are bap∣tized into his death, &c.]

Good reason that such things should be propounded, mentioned and enjoyned to those who converting to the faith in years capable of Doctrine, require the seal of Gods Covenant; and certainly so was it to Proselytes to be circum∣cised; but you cannot reasonably think, that they proposed or enjoyned Infants to be circumcised any such things: and it were as vain to propose any of these to Infants now to be baptized: Therefore we seal them now, and pro∣pound these like things to them when they be capable: Now the Scripture speaking to men or women of under∣standing, propounds to them their present duty who are to be baptized, or who are baptized, as faith, repentance, walking in newness of life, mortification; and (as hath

been said) the Apostles in the ecclesiâ constituendâ had mostly to do, being to endeavour the calling and conver∣sion of the Gentiles, who before were aliens from the Covenant of God: But in ecclesiâ constitutâ, we rarely meet with any first to be taught, and then to be sealed; the children of Christian parents having Church-privi∣ledg, are now baptized first (as in the setled Covenant under the Law they were first circumcised) and when they come to ••it years, instructed: And what then do all your impertinences disadvantage our cause, seeing elect infants in their baptism, are implanted into Christ, and in due time walk-in newness of life?

This is indeed truly to be baptized, both in the Symbole and the M••stery: Whatsoever is less then this, is but the Sym∣bole, only a meer ceremony, &••.]

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

Plainer yet; Whosoever are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ▪ have put on the new man: But to put on this new man▪ is to be formed in righteousness, and holyness, and truth &c.]

All this plainly makes for infants baptism, who being na∣turally flesh and blood, such as cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven, conceived and born in sin, children of wrath, must indeed put on Christ Jesus that they may be saved: These prem••ses we willingly adhere to; but your conclusion is li••ble to a non sequitur; because it is either fallacious, disputing ab adultis ad infantes, which wanting the condition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, becomes an ignoratio elenchi, and mistaking or mispursuing the Question, or begging it in those terms (remaining in the present incapacities) which cannot be granted. I answer two things, 1. God can give capacity of regeneration, and newness of life to any age; That he doth not give it to infants, cannot appear to us: The contrary doth; for he giveth the spirit of sanctificati∣on to some infants, in, and from the womb; for many dy∣ing young, are saved, which being conceived in sin, and born the child••en of wrath•• they could not be, without re∣generation

and sanctification: And truly when I consider what marvelous instinct God giveth to the new-cast young of beasts, to take the brest (as well as to new-born infants) for their bodily preservation, I cannot but conceive that the good God gives infants (on whom he ha••h set his own image, which consisteth in understanding, sanctity, im∣mortality, &c.* 1.255) some admirable, though to us secret, light of mind, and capacity of that which is subordinate to the preservation of their immortal souls. 2. Children under the Gospel have no less capacity then children under the Law had, who yet received the seal of the same righteousness of faith in their infancy, and were circumcised to newness of life. Rom. ••. 29. But you say,

—And then have they but one member of the distinction used by S Peter, they have that baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh; but they have not that baptism which is the answer of a good conscience towards God, which is the only baptism that saveth us—]

I answer, 1. You vainly dispute è non concessis; 'tis not granted, nor can it ever be proved that elect children in baptism are not formed new in righteousness and holyness; and so your superstruction concerning their having only that baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh; but not the rest necessary to salvation, is frivolous. 2. The answer of a good conscience toward God, is an effect of the in∣ward baptism by the spirit of Jesus, peculiar to the elect. Now if your reason hence taken, for the exclusion of in∣fants from baptism, the external seal, were good; by the same reason none but the elect, or those who have the an∣swer of a good conscience towards God, must be admitted to baptism▪ and whom then might you with good conscience baptize? certainly but few; and for ought you can cer∣tainly know, none: For in these last and worst dayes, what know you, but that they who fairly profess faith and re∣pentance, &c. may yet notwithstanding be meer hypo∣crites? And where is then their answer of a good conscience toward God? 3. I say, what secret light, and sw••et confidence elect infants have in God, I know not; sure I am they have that which is and shall be sufficient to their salvation in

Christ, though they die before man can teach them more: and why shall man exclude them from the external Seal of Gods Covenant with them (as being born within the Church) of which they have as evident (and a more easie) capacity then children had of circumcision? God gives Infants the incomparably greater and more excellent part, sanctity and sealing to salvation; and shall man presume to deny the less and subordinate part, the external Seal of Christs visible Church, whereof Reprobates, born within the Church, have a capacity? 4. Faith, good conscience, repentance, &c. are in the elect those fruits, whose seeds were sowen in baptism; and (as hath been said) were it rea∣sonable to say, we may not sow untill the fruits thereof ap∣pear? Nay, but we therefore sow in hope, that we may in due season see and reap the fruits thereof. 5. Whereas you say that the answer of a good conscience towards God, is the only baptism that saveth us; I answer, 1. It is not the answer of a good conscience that saveth any man, though a good conscience be an excellent signe of our salvation by Christ;* 1.256 for, Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ, by whom also we have access by faith, &c. 2. Your reasoning is fallacious, your medium being homonymical: For, allowing you the signe for the cause, yet if that (which saveth us) though it may be true, if understood concerning persons of years, and as good conscience, an undoubted effect of regeneration, is opposed to the bare seal thereof, without any inward ef∣fect of the spirit. I say if it be understood of Infants, as in your sense, excluded from a capacity of good conscience, or the acts thereof, it is very false, except you will also ex∣clude all Infants from salvation, which were against the ex∣press doctrine of Christ.

As infants (you say) by the force of nature cannot put them∣selves into a supernatural condition (and therefore say the Poedobaptists, they need baptism to put them into it) so if they be baptized before the use of reason, before the works of the spirit, before the operation of grace, before they can throw off the works of darkness, and live in righteousness & newness of life, they are never the near.]

I answer, 1. Neither can men of years by the force of na∣ture put themselves into a supernatural condition, supposing you mean subordinate to salvation; and what then can the use of reason without the works of the Spirit, advantage them hereto? Shall not they therefore that have the use of reason be baptized? 2. What do you herein say which might not as well have been objected against the circumcision of infants? Would you have concluded them never the neer, because at eight dayes old they had not the use of reason to know what or why it was so done u••to them before they could throw off the works of darkness, and live in righteousness and newness of life?

3. If you will have none baptized before the works of the Spirit, before the operations of grace, &c. when and whom may you baptize? For the wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof,* 1.257 but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. God can, and doth sanctifie infants (as in the elect infants, dying such must be granted, if you have so much reason or charity as to think that at least some of them are elected and saved) and he can and doth sanctifie in age, sometimes in the very last act thereof, as appeared in the penitent thief; how then will it follow that infants are never the neerer if they be baptized before the use of reason, &c. 4. We must understand that baptism compre∣hendeth first, the sign water, and the whole ceremony, sprinkling, washing, or dipping into water in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost. Secondly, the things themselves signified by the visible and externall things, which are sprinkling of the blood of Iesus on the baptized for the remission of sins, mortification of the old man, quickning the new man into certain hope of resurre∣ction to eternall life to come. Thirdly, the commande∣ment & promise of Christ▪ whence the sign hath authority and power of sealing and confirming these things unto the baptized. They then that say baptism is an externall sign and washing of the body,* 1.258 and therefore a bare and effectless sign, do fallaciously dispute, dividing that which

God (who cannot deceive us) hath joyned together, by gi∣ving us order to baptize, and be baptized for the re••••ssion of sins freely for Christs sake, into whom we are implan∣ted by Baptism. How false then must ••t be which you, up∣on the matter, affirm that we shall be never the neerer, if we cannot contribute somthing to the efficacie of Baptism in the use of our own reason? Certainly Gods Sp••••••t ac∣companieth his ordinance in the elect, sooner or later: If the reprobate be never the nearer salvation for his baptism, that is accidentall, & maketh nothing against the effectuall ••ea∣ling of the elect to eternall life in their baptism. There are many sorts of hearers of the Word; some like the stony ground,* 1.259 some like the thorny, some like the high-way; shall the Apostasie, unbelief, and barrenness of the greater part, make the ordinance of God of none effect to belie∣vers? To conclude,* 1.260 it is but the outward ministration which is committed to us; the capacity or incapacity, fruit∣bearing or sterility of receivers, belongs to God to judge of, not to us; we must do our duty, and leave the issues to to him. But you say,

From the pains of hell they shall be saved by the mercies of God and their own innocency, though th••y die in puris na∣turalibus, and baptism will carry them no further.]

What? Popery and Pelagianism twisted together? If you speak of childrens salvation by the mercies of God to his elect, so far we accord: if you say by their own inno∣cency, that Pelagians and Donatists taught, who affirmed that infants were born without originall sin, and therefore would not have them baptized. Against this heresie the second Milvetian Councel determined Canon 2. as hath been noted. For that you say they shall be saved though they die in puris naturalibus, that is, such as they are by nature without regeneration, it is against the express word of God, as may clearly appear, in that all are conceived and born in sin, the children of wrath by nature: That which is born of the flesh is flesh,—and flesh and blood can∣not inherit the kingdom of God, that is, such as it is by, and in the state of corrupted nature; therefore except the in∣fant

be regenerate, he cannot enter into the kingdome of God.* 1.261 That which you say, that Baptism will carry in∣fants no further, then from the pains of hell, smels strong∣ly of Pope••y: They say that children dying without Bap∣tism, shall have poenam damni▪* 1.262 non sensus, that is, they shall be free from hell fire, but that they shall not enter into heavenly joys: But Augustine so far said well, there is not to any, any middle place, that he can be any where but with the Divel, who is not with Christ. Certainly the Scri∣pture mentioneth onely heaven for the elect and blessed, and hell for the reprobate and damned.

For that Baptism that saveth us is not onely the wash∣ing with water, of which onely children are capable, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, of which they are not capable till the use of reason, till they know to chuse the good and refuse the evill.]

If you mean by washing with water, baptism according to Christs institution administred; we say also it is not that onely (which is the Ministers part to give) which saveth us, but the power and grace of Gods Spirit inwardly bapti∣zing, sanctifying, regenerating and cleansing us from our sins by the pretious blood of Iesus that saveth us: Now that infants are not hereof capable till the use of reason, is evidently false, if you but hold these three Principles; 1. That no unregenerate unclean person can be saved▪ 2. That all mankind is born in sin, Rom. 5. 12. 3. That some infants dying before their use of reason, are saved. That which you say, that infants are capable of washing with water (that is of baptism, or else you trifle) we ass••••t to, and desire you to say no more; infants of believing pa∣rents, that is of professed Christians, are capable of bap∣tism: for the rest we contend not, we refer the effect there∣of in particulars to God, who alone knoweth his elect, and ••ow and when to give them the inward f••uit of his own ordinances: we neither affirm that all the baptized shall be saved, neither can we or you determine which shall, and which shall not, but indifferently, as charity re∣quireth, hope well of every one whom we baptize, con∣cerning

whom we can say nothing to the contrary. But you say,

All vows made by persons under other names, stipulations made by minors, are not valid till they (be) by a superve∣ning act after they are of a sufficient age to ra••ifie them.]

To which we answer, 1. though all be not valid in such case, it is enough that some are: 2. Your assertion, if granted, that is, that all vows or (which is more then you affirm) if no vows made by persons under others names, or stipulations made by minors, or persons in their minority, are not valid untill by a supervening act after they are of sufficient age to ratifie them they are confirmed: what could this make against our duty of Infant-baptism? the case being much different between stipulations of men, and the covenant between God & man, as hath been shewed, & as appeared in circumcision which was with Infants eight days old. Mr. Cobbet well observeth,* 1.263 that the covenant of grace is as well a testament, 1 Cor. 11. 25. Heb. 9. 15, &c. Now a testa∣ment may be, and useth to be made in reference to little ones without knowledge: nor do any use to deny a childs right in the Testators will,—because it understood not the same: and that many Infants with whom God made the covenant, Gen. 17. dying such, were yet saved: and that they restipulate in their Parents knowing acceptance of the covenant, and professed owning of it upon the Covenant terms, as wel on their childrens parts as their own: & they restipulate in a passive reception of the Covenant condition & bond to after imitation of their father Abrahams faith & obedience. Again, our question is not concerning the ra∣tification or effect of Infant-baptism, by their act or acts, to make it good to themselves and effectuall, when they come of age; but concerning a Church-priviledge on Infants part, which is to be admitted unto the externall seal of Gods Covenant with his Church, it being to Parents and their children; and this dependth on Gods institution to appoint it, and his inward working to make it good: Se∣condly, in the confirmation of children come to age, they then professing faith, obedience, repentance, newness of

life, &c. into which in their infancy they were bap∣tized, that is, then ratified which others promised and stipulated for them, as concerning outward, profession, which is in your language a supervening act, to make the former appear valid▪ Thirdly, the question is not concerning the final effect of baptism in particulars bap∣tized, which cannot fall under the Ministers cogni∣zance (it being kept in heaven in the archives and secret counsel of God) but concerning their right to baptism,* 1.264 who are born within the verge and precincts of the Church. Whether such infants doe afterwards believe, repent, and amend their lives to salvation by Christ, or not, we cannot foresee, nor have we any exception to supersede or limit our duty of administring the outward seal of baptism: For as much as children born of Chri∣stian parents and within the Church, are thereby partakers of the Covenant of grace, even they who are not partakers of the grace of the Covenant. Fourthly, we answer, That children in Gods account, do vow, confess, and avouch the Lord in their parents vowing, confession, or avouch∣ing him, as they did of old; which the learned Mr. Cobbet observeth from Deut.* 1.265 26. 17, 18. where we read—Thou hast avouched the Lord this day, to be thy God, and to walk in his waies, &c. and the Lord hath avouched thee this day, to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee— and Deut, 19. 10, 11, &c. Ye Stand this day all of you before the Lord your God: Your Captains and your Tribes, your Elders and your Officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives and strangers—that thou shouldest enter in∣to a Covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day, that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaak, and to Jacob, &c. whereof see Gen. 17. 7. Though therefore some stipulations made in minority and nonage, bind not the person under age, except he confirm it when he com∣eth

to age, yet you will not say that the same is not valid if made by Parents, Governors, or Guardians for chil∣dre••: and so in some publick Covenants and Acts of one City or State, with another, which concern the present and future ages, the infants within that City or State, as being in minority free Denisons, are bound by the same Covenant and Act, though as such, they could neither trans∣act, speak, nor consent to the same, but all was agreed on and done by their Parents or Commissioners of years thereto designed,* 1.266 in their own and childrens name: which may apear in Israels Covenant with the Gibeonites, which, though the stipulators were beguiled, yet Israels children were bound to, and when Saul out of a perverse zeal, a∣bout 380* 1.267 years after, would needs violate, how binding that Covenant was, God declared in a severe judgment on Sauls Family, and all Israel. But upon this invalid suppo∣sition you build another quere.

—Why were it not as good they stayed to make it, till that time, before which time if they do make it, it is to no purpose? this would be considered.]

It would, or should be considered, that it is very dan∣gerous playing thus with the sacred Ordinances of God: You confess that baptism is the only inlet into the Church of Christ; and is it to no purpose to be let into his Church and Covenant, out of which you say there is no salvation? 'Tis true that all are not saved that are within the Church and Covenant, but no man is s••ved out of it. God hath appointed baptism to be a seal and token of our receiving and entrance into the Church; is it to no purpose to obey him in his Ordinances? God would not only have all the Citizens of his Church thus enfranchised, but those who are not baptized when they may,* 1.268 he will not have reckoned in the number of his Church: And say you, 'tis to no purpose to have children marked for mem∣bers of Christs Church? Baptism is Gods mark whereby he will have his people discerned from all other false Churches and Sects; and think you 'tis to no purpose to have Gods mark set on children, that they may not with

a perishing world be toucht by the destroyers? Yet you say,

Our way is the surer way; for not to baptize children till they can give an account of their faith,* 1.269 is the most pro∣portionable to an Act of Reason and humanity, and it can have no danger in it.]

How often hath Satan in tempting to sin, misled the incaucious with this suggestion, there can be no danger in it, 'tis the surer way? 'tis neither reasonable nor humane wilfully to act his part, and as much as in us lieth, to shut infants from the kingdom of heaven; and so to doe that which much angred Christ in the daies of his flesh; to wit, to barr or forbid children to come to him; this would be considered.* 1.270 And why is it more proportionable to an act of reason and humanity to defer childrens baptism, then in due time to baptize them? Infants were circum∣cised long before they could give any account of their faith, and yet that act was proportionable to reason; and Moses was near a sad affliction for delaying it. You say further,

For to say that infants may be damned for want of bap∣tism,* 1.271 &c.

I know no Protestant that ever said so: but take heed you damn not your selves by teaching contempt of the Sa∣crament: We are well satisfied that the privation there∣of shall not condemn infants,* 1.272 it not being their fault if they want it; it may be, and certainly is theirs, who teach men to deny it them: And then consider in the inviola∣ble justice of God, whose the damnation will be. We cannot conceive that a meer privation of circumcision con∣demned those Hebrew babes who died before the eighth day; because God is unchangeably just, who confined their sealing to that day; yet you will grant that it was a great sin (except in case of evident and inevitable necessity, as during Israels marches in the Wilderness) a great sin I say of parents to neglect the administration thereof (for God never threatned any punishment, such as is mention∣ed, Gen. 17. 14. but in respect of great sin) much more was it obstinately to deny it them: It is certainly true

which hath been noted out of Augustine. There may be conversion of the heart without baptism; but it cannot be in the contempt of baptism; for it can by no means be called the conversion of the heart to God, when the Sacra∣ment of God is contemned.* 1.273 And so take your dirt back a∣gain into your own faces which you cast at ours, Whosoe∣ver will pertinaciously persist in this opinion of Anabaptists, and practice it accordingly, they pollute the blo••d of the ever•• lasting Testament; and in the ••postles sense; Heb. 4, 5, 6. They crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to open shame, who being once baptized (and thereby planted together in the likeness of his death, Rom. 6. 4 5. Who having once died, dyeth no more, death hath no more do∣minion over him) will yet be baptized again. The Apo∣stles saying, It is impossible for those who were once enlight∣ned (that is, baptized, as the Syriac Interpreter rendreth it, and as we shall make it appear more anon)—If they fall away, to renew them again unto repentance, seeing they crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame:* 1.274 How do they crucifie him afresh to them∣selves, that is, as much as in them is? Why, 1. They are said so to do, who iterate, or again do, or resume that which is a re∣semblance or similitude of Christs suffering, who died but once: for in a reiterating it, we declare or intimate the first to be void; and so if we will have a new baptism, we must have a new Christ, and he must in our Symbole suffer, as if one Christ, or his once suffering were not sufficient for our redemption. And is not this to pollute the bloud of the everlasting Covenant and Testament, and to crucifie again the Son of God. Secondly, this may be said in respect of reciduation or falling away from Christ (as they do who renounce their baptism by which they were implanted in∣to him, by receiving another baptism) because the merit of Christs Cross being abolished and made void, by which

they were once renewed, it must needs be that Christ should be crucified again and put to shame,* 1.275 that they might be renewed by a fresh, or new merit of the Cross; which seeing it cannot be, the Apostle possibly would in∣fer that it was impossible that they which are once sealed and regenerate, should ever fall away, and that therefore all Christians should do their uttermost endeavour that they may be like good ground, near the blessing, and that they may not want an iterated renovation, which no man can possibly attain.

As for the rest of your revi••ings, though we have no cause to be troubled at your dogged eloquence; yet for their sakes who are weak, I shall endeavour to shew the injurious falshood thereof: You say that we in baptizing infants, dishonour and make a Pageantry of the Sacrament, &c. We answer to this puted calumny, 1. You may as well in this your Theomachy, and fighting against Gods Ordinance, object the same against Circumcision of In∣fants, if incapacity of present giving account of their faith, as you pretend, can make the Sealers of infants lya∣ble to your unjust censure: for infants could then no more give an account of their faith then now they can. 2. Infants have a capacity of the holy Ghost (as hath been proved in the examples of Ieremy and Iohn Baptist, &c.)* 1.276 yea such a measure of sanctification, and so certain a regeneration,* 1.277 working in them all such things as God knoweth to be necessary to their salvation; or himself supplying all those things, as that Christ both pro∣nounceth their propriety in the Kingdom of heaven,* 1.278 and proposed them as patterns to all those who should enter thereinto. Therefore the Apostles Argument being good, from the extraordinary and visible gifts of the holy Ghost (gifts of miracles flourishing in the primitive Church, and marking many receivers to a capacity of baptism, which yet might then be had without any interest in the King∣dom of heaven) who can forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we? It must as certainly hold from the gift of regenera∣tion,

and the spirit of sanctification, which is in many in∣fants, because many infants, dying such, are saved: And now in your judgment doth the baptism of such as are sa∣ved dishonour the Sacrament (the outward seal which man can give, and wicked men receive) who have received the thing signified, the inward seal of Gods holy spirit, which none but himself can give, and none but the elect receive? Or do you dishonour your self, who were so admitted into the Church, the Church our holy Mother, who ma••gre the Devils malice, and the powers of hell, by Infant-baptism bringeth an holy seed to Christ, Christ himself commanding us to baptize all, without excep∣tion to any estate, sex, age, or condition, that either are within the Church as born of Christian parents, or in their conversion, profession of faith and repentance, desire to be admitted into the same: Adde hereto that Christ particularly cautioned for children, left any should despise them, openly declaring, that of such is the kingdome of heaven: And yet the doing of this duty is dishonour to the Sacrament, and Pageantry with you:* 1.279 But, If of every idle word which men shall speak they shall give an account in the day of judgment, it concerneth them speedily to repent of these blasphe∣mous calumnies, lest it prove a black and dismal day to them, in respect of these things for which they can give no better account then their own fancies and o∣thers.

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

I say, 1. Can you be assured that none of these who are baptized in infancy, and no otherwise, are regene∣rate and saved? Whence have you either such know∣ledg or commission so to judg? You say the Anabap∣tists

say so; so said the Pharisees concerning those that believed in Christ—This people who knows not the Law,* 1.280 are cursed: But what warrant is this for you to blaspheme for company?

2. God be blessed that we who believe one God, one Mediator, one Faith, one Baptism which we received in our infancy, have such a testimony of Gods holy spirit, effectually working faith, repentance, morti∣fication, and a comfortable measure of sanctification in us, as that we know you speak untruth in that you say, that Poedobaptists ineffectually represent a Sepultur•• into the death of Christ, and please themselves in a signe without an effect, &c. God be blessed, which accor∣ding to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a lively hope—wherein as we need not be beholding to you for testimony,* 1.281 so neither are we to regard what you say against it. With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of mans judgment—but he that judgeth me is the Lord;* 1.282 therefore judg nothing be∣fore the time. He that saith that baptism is a bare signe only, fallaciously concludeth, dividing things which God hath joyned together.

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

4.* 1.283 We please not our selves with a signe without effect; if you doe, rest not in that state, lest you and your stingie leaves without fruit, withering, become fuel for the fire which goes not out, to fill up the measure of im∣pious calumny. You say,

They invocate the holy Ghost in vain, doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a stone or a tree.]

1. I wonder what they will be ashamed to say, who blush not at such assertions? 'Tis true that the Apostle

useth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be illuminated, for to be baptized, as the Syriac Interpreter gives it,* 1.284 Hebr. 4▪ 6. Hebr. 10. 32▪ and that the Greek Fathers so commonly used the word: and it is no improbable conjecture, that there was an allusion to the Hebrew manner of speaking; who by one and the same word express illumination, and a River or Source of water, and by a Metaphor, Illumi∣nation of the mind: For they who are baptized by water, and the spirit of Jesus, are in Gods good time and the measure he knows fit, illuminated, and find not only a River of elementary water, but of that wa∣ter which floweth to eternal life, whereof Christ spake, Iohn 7. that is, the spirit of illumination and sanctification.

2. I would desire you again consider, is the case all one, or alike, when we pray that God would be pleased to illu∣minate, sanctifie, and save an elect infant for whom Christ shed his precious bloud,* 1.285 for whose salvation he came from heaven, became an infant, and man of sor∣rows to the death, whom he blessed, of whom he said, Of such is the kingdom of heaven, and except ye be∣come as one of these, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven; Is I say, the case all one when we pray ac∣cording to Gods word and promise, for these, as if we should pray God to illuminate, sanctifie and save a stone, or a tree? hath a stone or tree any habitual faith, or reason, or any capacity of the holy Ghost, illumination, or sanctification? Do any creatures un∣der the degrees of man, bear the image of their Crea∣tor, in immortality, sanctity and light of understan∣ding? Would God you could be ashamed of blasphe∣ming, and laying such pernicious stumbling-blocks be∣fore the blind to make them fall.

Since (you say) there is no direct impiety in the opinion (of Anabaptists) nor any that is apparently con∣sequent to it, and they with so much probability do, or may pretend to true perswasion, they are with all means, Christian, fair and humane, to be redargued, or instructed.]

I hoped that the Plea being ended,* 1.286 the Pleader would have come to himself again; but this and another strain promise no more but a lucid interval.

I answer, As to your charitie towards the persons of the Anabaptists: I also with they may by all Christian, fair, and humane means, be reproved, convinced, or instructed: but that there is no direct impietie, in their opinion, nor any that is apparently consequent to it,* 1.287 is apparently unture, for that which is displeasing to Christ, is directly impious; and such is with-holding. Infants from him: that which is uncha∣ritable, is direct impietie; and such is that opinion which barreth Infants from the Seal of Gods Covenant with them, and the Communion of Saints; as also in that it damneth so great a part of the world; presupposing that God had no Church in the world for so many hundred years, as Infant-Baptism hath been the general inlet to the same; except a little while in the schism of Pelagians and Donatists; and again, when the same Heresie revived in Germany,* 1.288 in Charls 5. his reign, and now again in these distracted and calamitous times: much more hath been, and might be said herein; but I shall be so far from being their accuser, that I heartily pray the Lord to open their eyes that they sleep not in death: only I say to the Pleader who would so courteously vail others impietie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. —Lastly, you say that you think

That there is much more truth then evidence on our side, and therefore we may be confident as for our own particu∣lars, but not too forward peremptorily to prescribe to others, much less to damn, or to kill, or to persecute them that only in this particular disagree.]

That we may be confident of the truth on our side, I assent: likewise, that none be too forward peremptorily to prescribe, except where the Word of God and necessary consequence from thence prescribeth; that none should persecute,* 1.289 kill, or much less for opinions less then blasphe∣mous against God, or destructive to Religion, and salvation of souls, (saving to Supreme Authoritie their lawful right)

I also assent to: but can by no means be of your opinion, that there is less evidence then truth on our side; as any ways intimating a defect of evidence: therefore I say, 1. That evi∣dence, sensu forensi, in common sense of controversies, or matters of judicature, importeth sufficient proof: so we say that witnesses give in evidence; that is, not alwayes in ter∣minis, and express words, as in actions of case is requirable; nor as they say, ore rotundo, as to say, Verres is a Thief. &c. but from considerable circumstances, or necessarie conse∣quences sufficient to evince, and to inform to sentence. This evidence on our side you will not denie in this case, nor (I suppose) affirm that falshood hath more proof or evi∣dence in Scripture then truth. 2. Sometimes we speak of evidence in relation to the partie or parties to be informed; in which, not only his or their capacitie is considerable, but also other circumstances; as the Informers expression, which possibly may be defective; the Informeds attention, for want whereof, that may not appear which were other∣wise sufficiently evident. Again, In case of Gods judgment o∣ver the disobedient given over to strong delusions, that they should believ lyes and be damned,* 1.290 who received not the love of the truth (of it self evident enough) that they might be saved: hereof sec Isa. 6. 9, 10. Mat. 13. 13, 14, 15. To a blind man, or one that winketh in the clearest & most evident light, no colours or proportions are evident; because men if blind cannot, if obstinate & schismatical, wil not see & understand.

3 There is a notius natura, and a notius nobis: if in the evidence you speak of, you mean the first, and that errour and falshood is more known in nature, that is manifestly false; for the truth is first and best known in nature. If you mean the second, that is, that we less know the truth then the evidence; what blame you in our cause, or advan∣tage your Clients? If you say we see no evidence, nor can the blind see the Sun; what can you gain hereby? it may be, and certainly is, that the Gospels light is hid to some, the Apostle will tell you to whom, and why, 2 Cor. 4. 3, 4. It is hid to them that are lost, in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the

light of the glorious Gospel of Christ—should shine unto them —we undertake not to make the truth evident to every gain-sayer and despiser thereof, but say of such an one, as Elisha for his servant at the beleaguered Dothan, 2 King. 6. 17. Lord, I pray thee open his eyes that he may see. The most manifest light of the Gospel had not evidence enough with the Pharisees,* 1.291 whom Christ pronounced blind; and it con∣cerned them chiefly which he said, they have winked with their eyes, &c. an unbeliever may doubt of any truth, and then it is not evident to him. The old Academicks were wont to question the testimonie and evidence of their own senses with a quid si falleris? being not confident of the truth of that they saw with their eyes, and heard with their ears. Carneades doubted of all things; yet certainly many things were evident of themselves to those who could and would see and know manifest truths, though not to him. 4. They who deny convincing evidence in Gods Word, not only erre not knowing the Scriptures, but tacitely accuse the Wisdom and Providence of God for mans salvation, of insufficien∣cie: for how shall matters of controversie concerning faith and manners he decided without sufficient evidence? and if you think there is not sufficient evidence in Scripture to keep us from errour, and to direct us in the way of truth and sal∣vation, in what other rule, or testimonie will you place such evidence as you would have? what in Traditions and unwrit∣ten verities?* 1.292 where shall we seek these, among our ad∣versaries? nay, but no man can be edified by that which is destructive; or in Enthusiasms and Revelations? but what evidence can there be in those things, whose authority cannot be proved, and whose truth cannot be infallible? nothing less then that which cannot be false, can be the ground of faith and religion: whatsoever falleth below that supreme certaintie, is but opinion at most. Now the Word of God only is infallible, because he cannot lye, Tit. 1. 2. and therefore his Word is profitable for doctrine, for re∣proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works, 2 Tim. 3. 16, 17. 5 If it be rejoined, that in our pre∣sent

question, and some other cases, the Scripture saith no∣thing expresly and positively to evidence the truth.* 1.293 I an∣swer, I with Tertullian, I am confident to say, that the Scriptures themselves were▪ so disposed by the will of God, that they might administer matter to Hereticks; seeing that I read, there must be Heresies, which could not be without Scriptures. 2 That is Scripture truth which the Scripture proposeth or enjoineth, by necessary consequence, though not in express words; and whosoever disbelieveth or diso∣beyeth•• that, so far he rejecteth the Scripture, in his errour and ignorance of Scripture. So the Sadduces denyed the resurrection of the dead, among other vain arguments, so principally a non scripto, because Moses (whose writings only,* 1.294 they received) did not in terminis, or express words, and syl∣lables, say, the dead shall rise again: now though that is true, Moses did not expresly say so; yet our Saviour told them that there∣in they erred, not knowing the Scriptures, Mat. 22. 29. where he meaneth not express words of Scripture, but necessary conse∣quence: for certainly,* 1.295 they knew the express letter, yet thought they had not evidence enough from Scripture, because they found nothing there in terminis, against their errour, which Christ yet justly chargeth on them —Ye do erre, not knowing the Scriptures, —as touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Iacob? Well, what express Scripture is here to prove the resurrection of the dead, that Christ should charge those that denyed the same with errour and ignorance of Scrip∣tures? Truly no more then we find for Infant-baptism, in appearance much less; yet thus he who could not be decei∣ved, chargeth them; because denying necessary consequence they required express words: now the consequence was thus, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, therefore the dead shall rise again.

To the folding up of all, I might repeat sundry things which as necessarily conclude our Infant-baptism, as Infants circumcision into the same faith: Gods Covenant with Abraham and his spiritual seed, that is, all Beleevers: Christs honouring Infants with sacred embraces, proposing them as heirs and patterns designed for the Kingdome of heaven; the extent of Gods federal promise to us and our children; childrens capacitie of the inward baptism, signified in the external sign: whole Families and Nations baptized, of which children are,* 1.296 and ever were a great part; Christs absolute command to baptize all Nations, without any tit∣tle of exception to Infants; Infants-federal and ecclesiastical holiness by their parents, and their own right: But that I would not be irksom to the prudent and pious Reader, to whom I heartily wish a right understanding in all things, constancie in the truth, and unitie of the holy Spirit, that we may all meet in Gods eternal kingdom of glory.

AMEN.

A SURVEY OF The Controverted Points, CONCERNING INFANT-BAPTISM, &c.

THE SECOND PART.

CHAP. I.

Infants of Christian Parents ought to be baptized.

I Need not be long in describing this Sacrament;* 1.297 only I say that Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament,* 1.298 succeeding Circumcision the Seal of the Old,* 1.299 appointed by Christ for our Inlet into his Church,* 1.300 our implantation into Him,* 1.301 and the similitude of his death and resurrection, in which the water sanctified by the word,* 1.302 representeth the blood of Christ, sealeth and exhibiteth to the Elect all the

benefits of his inestimable merits,* 1.303 death, passion, and resur∣rection, to our regeneration,* 1.304 remission of sins, and cleansing our bodies and souls from them all;* 1.305 though not presently so,* 1.306 that we have no sin; yet so,* 1.307 as that believing in Christ we have no guilt of original or actual sin imputed to us to condemnation:* 1.308 for the water, by the Ordinance of God, touching the body,* 1.309 the Spirit of Jesus baptizeth body and soul.* 1.310 Hence Baptism is said to save us, 1 Pet. 3. 21. the end of Baptism is,* 1.311 that being baptized we might be illu∣minated; being illuminated,* 1.312 we might be adopted sons of God; being adopted, we might be perfected, that we may become immortally blessed.* 1.313 In our being baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we do as it were, by a solemn Oath or Covenant, declare and protest, that we are wholly devoted to one God in Trinity of Unitie; and God on his part herein testifieth, that by this Seal of his Covenant, he receiveth us into the participa∣tion of his free mercies in Christ, and into the holy commu∣nion of his Church, the body of Christ, 1 Ioh. 5. 7, 8.

The Protestant Church holdeth, That the subject of Baptism are all they who either are, or (professing faith, re∣pentance, &c.) desire to be admitted into the Church and Covenant of God: and that Infants of Christian Parents, being within the same, ought to be baptized, forasmuch as the Covenant and Promise of God is to Parents and their children.

The Pelagians and Donatists (long since condemned of Heresie by the Church) and now again of late, the Ana∣baptists deny the baptism of children to be lawful, until they come to years that they may be taught, and profess their faith, and repentance, and desire of baptism, upon these and the like grounds:* 1.314

Christ saith— Go therefore and teach all Nations, baptiz∣ing them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy

Ghost:* 1.315 therefore Teaching must go before Baptism; and con∣sequently Infants may not be baptizd before they be taught

Unto which we answer, 1 That in the cited place there was not intended an exact and compleat model of Christs commission to the Apostles; for there is no mention of the Lords Supper: Christ only nameth the two more usual things for making or initiating disciples for the gathering of a Church, that is, teaching for them who were capable, ther∣of, and baptizing for them and their children not yet capable of doctrine; that having their names given unto Christ, and being admitted into his school, they might as they grew up to capacitie, be instructed concerning the mysteries of sal∣vation in Christ: neither was this the first institution of baptism; for when Christ spake these words, he was about to ascend up into heaven: he had some years before that time appointed baptism among the Iews converted to the faith, and confirmed it by his own reception of baptism, not that he needed it, or had any sin to be washed away therein; but to sanctifie the element of water by his sacred body,* 1.316 to the use and end of baptism; that is, to appoint for us a laver of regenera∣tion: and in the cited place (being to leave the world) he enlarged the commission of baptism on the receivers part; as if he had said, Hitherto ye were not to go into the way of the Gentiles, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel: but now go and call the Gentiles also, go baptize and teach all Nations the mysteries of the Gospel, as I have taught you: now therefore the order and laws of Baptism are not hence to be derived.

2. Christ then sent his Disciples to convert and baptize those Gentiles, who possibly had not so much as heard of Christ, much less of faith in him, and baptism into his Church: it was necessary therefore that the Apostles should first instruct them what they were to do in baptism, and why: but when the parents were baptized and instruct∣ed, so that there were Churches setled among the Gen∣tiles;

then their children were also to be baptized into the same Covenant of God, which runneth to covenanted pa∣rents and their children; which before their parents sealing and admission into Christs Church might not be:* 1.317 so that (as hath been often noted) we must distinguish between a Church to be constituted and setled, and a constituted or setled Church: as also between persons of years, and Infants presented to baptism. In a Church to be constitu∣ted and converted from Iudaism or Pag••••sm, those that are of years must necessarily first be taught, and afterward baptized; but in a constituted or setled Church, Infants are first to be baptized, and then to be taught when they are able to learn: no otherwise was it in circumcision which was the former Seal of the same Covenant and righteous∣ness of Faith,* 1.318 into which we are now, under the Gospel, baptized. When Abraham according to Gods command∣ment, came to circumcise the men of his family, doubtless he first instructed them, and preached to them the reason, use, and end of that sacrament, according as the Lord said, Gen. 18. 19. I know him that he will command his children, and his houshold after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord: but when Isaac was born, he did not expect till he was come to years of discreetion to learn, but circumcised him on the eighth day, Gen. 21. 4.

3 In the cited place,* 1.319 the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth also make Disciples; which was to gather a Church both by preaching the Gospel, and administration of Baptism, the Sacrament of initiation, and first entrance of Infants thereto. So these two means are expressed in the very next words of Christ—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. that is, Baptizing them in the Name of the Fa∣ther, Son, and Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded. Some do well observe that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to teach them that are strangers to doctrine, that they may become Disciples (and so in any humane school also, scholers are entered or admitted, before they are therein

taught,)* 1.320) but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to teach them that are Dis∣ciples. So Mat. 27. 57. it is said of Ioseph of Arimathea, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—who also was Iesus Disciple. And so the same word is expounded Ioh. 4. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to make Disciples—the Pharisees•• heard that Iesus made and baptized more Disciples then Iohn. And so the Hebrews from their word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 didicit, assuevit, derive their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Talmid, a Disciple or Scholar. So that here appeareth no such necessitie of the order (by our adversaries pretended to) as can conclude that none may be baptized, but such as are first taught.

4 If the order of those words must determine the order of the actions, then by the same reason,* 1.321 repentance must be before faith; for Mark. 1. 15. it is said, Repent ye and be∣leeve the Gospel. So Rom. 10. 9. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, &c. thou shalt be saved. Doth it follow therefore a man may make confession of Christ with his mouth to salvation, be∣fore he believeth in him in his heart? and indeed if the or∣der of words may determine in what order we must act in this business, then from other places of Scripture it may be concluded that Baptism must precede teaching, as Mark. 1. 4. Iohn did baptize in the Wilderness, and preach the bap∣tism of repentance, and Mat. 28. 19, 20. when Christ had said—baptizing them, &c. he presently inferreth teach∣ing them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded. So Ioh. 3. 5. the water is named before the Spirit, and Eph. 5. 26. the washing of water, that is, of baptism, is named be∣fore the word.

5 Christ doth not in the cited place, in one syllable prescribe or limit the Apostles, whom they should baptize, and whom not, but only enjoineth that they baptize all Nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the H. Ghost, teaching them to observe all those things which he had formerly taught them: his principal end being there to command them to preach and to set to the Seal of the Gospel-covenant; mentioning no particulars, but intimating, that all those that were of capacitie should be taught; and that

those that were not of present understanding (yet if born of such persons as had given their names to Christ)•• should be admitted to the seal of the righteousness of faith in Christ, that they might be instructed when, and as they were able to learn.

There are two conditions of Baptism,* 1.322 Beleeve and Repent, which seeing Infants, as such, cannot do, their baptism ought to be deferred until they can.

We answer, 1 These are the conditions, If the question were concerning persons of years to be baptised; but it is concerning Infants, on whom no such condition is, or can reasonably for the present, be laid.

2 The argument is impious and ridiculous, as if one should say, the condition of eating is labouring, which see∣ing Infants cannot do, let their eating or feeding be defer∣ed till they can. The Apostle saith, If there be any that will not labour, let him not eat, 2 Thess. 3. 10. Who (of any sense) doth not understand that of those that can, and will not?* 1.323 and why not so in believing and repenting, seeing that God requireth impossibilities neither in things temporal nor spiritual?

3 As in the baptism of those who are of years, a previ∣ous faith is required, so is a subsequent faith of those who are baptized Infants, which if they afterward have not, they forfeit the benefit of the Seal which they received.

4 Though Infants, as such, cannot have actual faith, yet have they the seeds thereof in baptism, covered or shut up in the habitual beginning of grace, which Christ both can,* 1.324 and doth work in them. Nor is it simply necessary that the Sacraments should in the same moment in which they are administred, effect all things which they figure or represent—yea a dilatory paction hath place, when in the making thereof there is some invincible let to present performance,

as want of the present use of reason is to infants faith, re∣pentance, and obedience to the Gospel, unto which they are by Covenant bound in their baptism: and indeed to be within the Covenant gives the Infant a just capacitie to the seal of the same: Now Infants of believing and baptized parents are within the Covenant, Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39.

Christ was not baptized in his Infancie, although the Deitie hypostatically united,* 1.325 dwelt in him fully; but deferred the same untill he was about 30 years of age: therefore what ever habitual faith or seeds of grace can be pretend∣ed to for infants, they ought not to be baptized until they come of years to know what they do.

We answer, 1 Christ requireth not that we should imi∣tate him in all that he did, which is proposed to us for do∣ctrine, but not for imitation: for example, he was both cir∣cumcised (as being of the seed of Abraham under the Law, the righteousness whereof he was to perform, Mat. 3. 15.) and also baptized: if we should be so, Christ should profit us nothing, Gal. 5. 2.

2 The time was not come at the birth of Christ, for the repealing of the seals of the ceremonial Law,▪ nor was the seal of the new Covenant to be instituted untill the time drew near wherein he was to publish it by preaching the Gospel,* 1.326 and accomplishing the great work of our redempti∣on in his bloud: therefore he that was Saviour both of Iews and Gentiles, was circumcised in his Infancie, and baptized as soon as that Sacrament was instituted.

3 They that herein require imitation of Christ, intimate a necessitie of deferring baptism untill the age of 30 years,* 1.327 which our Antagonists (that I know of) do not pra∣ctise.

4 A bare example without a precept doth not bind to imitation: Christ administred the communion with unlea∣vened bread after supper, in an upper room to twelve men only and no women: but seeing we find no precept in the Gospel which commandeth us to do the same, we believe we are not bound by that example.

5.* 1.328 There was neither neglect, contempt, nor danger in so long delaying Christs Baptism; there must needs be some of all these in the delay of our childrens Baptism: Christ had no sin, but we have both Original and Actual: he not only foreknew, but foreordained (as God) the manner and time, as of his nativity, so also of his death: We neither know nor can appoint the time of our departures hence; therefore we may not defer our childrens Baptism; they may suddenly dye

6. Christ would not before that age be baptized, and enter into his publike Ministry, among other causes, for this al∣so, that the truth hereof might answer the type preceding in the Levitical Priests, who although they were received into the Colledge of Priests at five and twenty, yet were they not admitted to exercise their Ministry until they were thirty years old, Numb. 4. 3.

The Lords Supper may not be given to Infants,* 1.329 by reason of their incapacity: On the same ground neither ought Baptism the other Sacrament.

We answer, That the reason why we may not administer the Communion to Infants, is because God hath given an express command,* 1.330—Let a man examine himself, 〈…〉〈…〉 let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup— And there followeth a dreadful reason,—For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnati∣on to himself, not discerning the Lords body: Now Infants can neither examine themselves, nor discern the Lords body, because they cannot understand the institution, end, use and condition of that Sacrament: Therefore we do not admi∣nister it unto them until they can be instructed therein. No such limitation can be shewed concerning Baptism; for though Faith and Repentance be mentioned as conditions of Baptism and Remission of sins, and Salvation to persons of years; yet the case is far otherwise with Infants•• who though they cannot (as such) actually believe and repent, yet we doubt not of their Remission of sins and salvation: nei∣ther could those Infants who were circumcised actually be∣lieve and repent, yet that barred them not from the Seal of

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

the same Righteousness of Faith. Again, that which is said Mark 16. 16. is very considerable (as hath been noted) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that be∣lieveth not shall be damned: It sheweth that the condition of believing is proposed to persons of years, who may be∣lieve, or obstinately reject the Gospel, which Infants (as such) cannot do: and therefore it cannot for present con∣cern them, without involving them all in the sentence of damnation; which opinion were damnable and Antichristian, Christ having positively pronounced for them—Of such is the Kingdom of God:* 1.331 To Infants, to be born within Gods Covenant, and to receive the Seal thereof obliging them to future Faith, Repentance and Obedience, is instead of all these. Lastly, Baptism is the Seal of Initiation, En∣trance and Admittance into the Church; that therefore we give Infants, that when they shall be capable of the Sacra∣ment of Confirmation (the Lords Supper) they may re∣ceive that also.

The Spirit acknowledgeth no other means of Regeneration then the incorruptible Seed,* 1.332 the Word of God, 1 Pet. 1. 23. which seeing Infants cannot receive,* 1.333 they cannot be re∣generate; therefore their Baptism is effectless to Regene∣ration.

We answer,* 1.334 The major appeareth false by Tit. 3. 5. St. Pe∣ter speaks there only of those Believers who had been taught by the preaching of the Gospel,* 1.335 comprehending under it the Seal thereof, Baptism, the Laver of Regeneration, which is taught in that Word as a means of Regenera∣tion.

Faith must go before the Sign or Seal thereof;* 1.336 as Abra∣ham believed first, and then received the Seal, Circum∣cision; Therefore until Infants can actually believe, they must not be baptized.

We answer, That if we speak of persons of years, they must first believe, or make profession of their faith; because by Baptism they are to be admitted into the Covenant of God, and Communion of his Church, to which they were formerly Aliens and Strangers: But it holdeth not in Infants

born of Christian Parents, they being already within the Covenant and Church, and so having present right to the Seal thereof: So in Isaac's Circumcision at eight days old, the Seal went long before the faith or profession there∣of.

God bringeth not the blinde into his Covenant,* 1.337 but enlighten∣eth them, that they may know the will of God for their Salvation: But Infants, as such, are not capable of Illumination; therefore they are not to be baptized.

We answer: 1. God calleth the poor, maimed, halt, and lame unto the great supper, that is the Communion of Christ, Luke 14. 21.

2. The Greek Divines were wont to call Baptism 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Illumination; and it can be no less then impious pre∣sumption to affirm, That God doth not in the Baptism of Elect Infants, secretly infuse such a light as he knoweth suf∣ficient to their salvation; seeing that it is certain, that as God dwelleth not in all that know him,* 1.338 Rom. 1. 21. so neither do all those presently know him in whom he dwelleth by the spirit of illumination and regeneration (until they have received such a further measure of the Spirit which is of God, that they may know the things which are freely given to them of God, 1 Cor. 2. 12.) which appears, in that Elect chil∣dren are saved; which, without the Spirit of Regenerati∣on, none can be, Iohn 3. 3, 5. and doubtless the soul of an In∣fant in Gods divine presence in heaven, hath therein more il∣lumination then the most knowing mortal in the world hath.

3. Neither did the Apostles their selves presently under∣stand all these things necessary to salvation which Christ taugh them; neither did he propose Doctrines to them a∣bove their present capacity:* 1.339 —I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now: He patiently expected their future abilities; with a—What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know,—John 13. 7. which both Peter and the rest had experience of, when the promised Comforter taught them, and brought all things to remembrance which Jesus had said unto•• them,* 1.340 and the Spirit of Truth guided them into all truth;* 1.341 and shall we

not believe that God will graciously bear with an Infants present defect of understanding, which himself gives him by degrees, and in such measure and time as his self ap∣pointeth?

4. As Faith and Confession sufficed the penitent Thief, without Baptism; so Baptism, the Seal of the Righteous∣ness of Faith and Repentance sufficeth an Elect Infant, dy∣ing without confession of Faith, and actual Repentance; and the living, until he come of age and ability to know and make profession.

With the heart man believeth unto Righteousness,* 1.342 and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation, Rom. 10. 10. But Infants can do neither of these; therefore they pro∣fane the holy Seal, who give it to them who cannoe be profited thereby.

We answer. 1. The same might have been objected a∣gainst circumcision, where the Seal sufficed, until the sealed came to years and ability to believe and confess. 2. The Apostles speaks there concerning persons of years, it nothing concerns Infants, as such. 3. If giving the Seal to those who cannot be profited thereby, be profanation of the same, how often do you prophane the holy Seal? How can any meer man know whom to baptize, though of years, and whom to put by? None can foresee mens final estates but God alone. We know that Iudas and Simon Magus were bapti∣zed, though whatsoever they confessed with their mouth, 'tis certain they did not believe with their heart unto righ∣teousness. Did their Baptizers profane Baptism? If not, how maliciously is this objected against us, baptizing Infants of Believers, Christ himself expresly avowing them as subjects of his Kingdom?

The Seals of the New Testament are perfect and spiritual:* 1.343 But Infants are carnal; and, The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2. 14. There∣fore these Seals agree not to, and with Infants present in∣capacity.

We answer, The Apostle there speaks concerning the un∣derstanding of divine mysteries, not comprehensible of pro∣fane

and carnal men: Now Infants being carnal, as born of flesh,* 1.344 want Regeneration, that they may become spiritual, and enter into the Kingdom of God; and because they are by corrupted nature imperfect, therefore they ought to be admitted to the ordinary means by God appointed to make them perfect.

The Apostle biddeth us,* 1.345 Draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water, Hebr. 10. 22. Which seeing Infants cannot for present do, the washing of their bodies with the pure water of Baptism belongeth to others who can have a good conscience, not to them.

We answer, The Apostle there sheweth, what we who are baptized, and of age ought to do, and with what con∣fidence, not who ought to be baptized; and so it nothing concerneth Infants till they come of age.

Baptism which saveth us,* 1.346 is with the testimony of a good conscience:* 1.347 This Infants cannot have who have no know∣ledge; Therefore Infants ought not to receive that Ba∣ptism which cannot save them.

We answer, 1. The Apostle speaks not there of the sub∣ject of Baptism, but of the fruits and effects thereof in those who are of ripe years; the fruits which indeed Elect In∣fants, if living, shall here reap in due time; and into which they are for present sealed: Now the outward Administra∣tion of the sign of the Covenant (concerning which our pre∣sent question is) is one thing, and the inward effect thereof another:* 1.348 As it is also in the Word preached, the Admini∣stration must be indifferently to all, Mark 16. 15. whether stony, thorny, highway, or good ground, Gods Seeds-men must diligently sow; the fruit and efficacy will be to Belie∣vers only, Hebr. 4. 2. but that no meer man can fore∣see.

2. What Illumination Infants have by the secret working and influence of Gods holy Spirit, belongeth to Gods secret councel, and therefore not to our inquest.

3. Sanctification, more then Ecclesiastical, in order of

time doth not always precede the Seal and Sacrament there∣of, as may be proved from Infant Circumcision, but by the Sacrament which implanteth us into Christ, and which is therefore the washing of Regeneration and Renovation, the seeds of Faith, Sanctity, and good conscience are sowed in us, which by a powerful and secret working of the Holy Ghost, sheweth it self in due season; without which work of the Spirit, the Gospel most powerfully preached, and Sacra∣ments duly administred to the most knowing men and wo∣men, could bring forth no better effects, then a favour of death, unto death and condemnation: Seeing then the ef∣fect to Sanctification and Salvation is neither in the Minister, nature of the Water,* 1.349 and Washing therewith, but in the Ordinance of God; nor in the capacity or ability of the most prudent sons of men, but in the sole working of Gods gracious Spirit; why should any rest in opere operato, the work it self done? or deny it to any within the Church, needing Regeneration,* 1.350 that they may be saved?

Christ joyneth these two together,* 1.351 Teach and Baptize; and, Believe,* 1.352 Repent, and be Baptized: But Infants are not capable of Faith and Repentance; Therefore they ought not, as such, to be Baptized.

We answer, Here is an Ignoratio Elenchi in the mistake of the Question; which is not, Whether that teaching ought to be divided from Baptism, which we affirm not: but the contrary; persons of years ought first to be taught to be∣lieve and repent, and then to be baptized: But our que∣stion is not concerning the Baptism of Adults, or persons ca∣pable of these things for the present, but of Infants; here again the question is mistaken, and therefore such disputes are fallacious. It is true, the water without the Word can make no Sacrament, nor give any sacramental effect; there∣fore neither young nor old may be baptized, where the Gospel is not first preached and received: For Baptism is a seal of the Gospel; but believing Parents have been taught,

received the Gospel, and been sealed into Gods Covenant; therefore they ought to present their children to Baptism, who are joynt Covenanters with them. Again, Baptism is administred with the words of institution by Christ ap∣pointed; take away the Word, and what is the Water but ordinary water? The Word is added to the element, and makes the Sacrament—Whence is this so great vertue of the Water, that it but toucheth the body, and cleanseth the heart, but by the Word; not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. Moreover, though God taught Abra∣ham concerning the Sacrament of Circumcision, and so he was circumcised and all his Males, yet he circumcised Isaac at eight days old; & so long before that word of faith could be preached to Isaac, he received the same Sacrament and Seal of the same Righteousness of faith in Christ, in whom be∣lieving we also are saved. Men of ripe years were first in∣structed concerning the institution, end and use of Circumci∣sion, and then received the Seal; but Infants (as such, not capable of instruction) first received the Seal of Faith; and if they lived to years, then they were taught, yet the Word and the Seal were not parted in either: So is it in Infant-Baptism now.

Those Infants whom Christ blessed,* 1.353 and of whom he pro∣nounced, Theirs, or, Of such is the Kingdom of heaven; were such as were fit to be taught: for so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also signifieth: And Christ in the persons of children, blesseth those that were such in humility and innocency, not in age.

We answer,* 1.354 'Tis true, that in their persons Christ com∣mended humility and innocency; and also shewed their inte∣rest in the Kingdom of heaven, saying, Of such is the King∣dom of Heaven; that is, of such persons, and of persons of such quality;* 1.355 for he proposeth Infants for a patern: Now as they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which sometimes signifieth a Son or Servant of years; yet not always, as common use of that word shews,* 1.356 Matth. 2. 13, 14, 20. Luke 2. 21, &c. so are the same called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Luke 18. 15. which without contro∣versie properly signifieth Infants lately born; as Luke 2.

12, 16. Acts 7. 19. 1 Pet. 2. 2. new born babes; and some∣times children in the womb; as Luke 1. 41, 44. that which is said,* 1.357 2 Tim. 3. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—: From a childe thou hast known the holy Scriptures, is as much as the Greeks proverbially said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and the Latines, à teneris unguiculis, from thy tender years; that is, so soon as it was possible for thee to learn: so Psal. 58. 3. The wicked are estranged, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the womb, they go astray 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ab utero, as soon as they are born speaking lyes: So Psal. 22. 9. Thou didst make me hope 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when I was upon my mothers breasts; that is,* 1.358 very soon, very yong. The Syriac, 2 Tim. 3. 15. translateth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from a childe (from thy tender years, so soon as it was possible for thee to learn) by a word in∣differently signifying Infancy, Childhood, or Youth; but that Luke 18. 15. the same render by the word which signi∣fieth Infants, 1 Tim. 2. 15. Acts 7. 19. 1 Pet. 2. 2. and Mark 10. 16. it is said that Christ took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them— which sheweth, that they were little portable children; had they been of mans growth, though never so humble or innocent, they would have been too heavy to have been carried in the arms. Last∣ly, there can be no rational doubt, but that he blessed In∣fants, properly so called, who took on him Infancy to save them: Nor may we think that they are less then blessed of Christ, who are saved by his blood, as Infants are.

That which God Commandeth not in some express precept concerning his worship, is not any better then mans in∣vention, Will-worship, and may not be done: But Infant-Baptism is no where in Scripture commanded in any ex∣press Precept; Therefore it is no better then mans in∣vention, Will-worship, and may not be done.

We answer, 1. By demanding, quanta est major Propo∣sitio? if it be universal, the sense running thus, All that is Will-worship, which is not commanded in some express Pre∣cept; it is evidently false: For there is no express Precept for many things left arbitrary, and falling under the Rule of Decency and Order, which yet are not Will-worship.

Next we say, That the substance and Institution of Gods

worship, must have an express precept for it, or it will fall under the notion of Will-worship; but in the circumstan∣ces and accidents it is not alwayes so; for example, had not Christ somewhere commanded to baptize, it had been Wil∣worship for any man to have instituted that Sacrament: but though Christ say nowhere baptize children at seven dayes, six months, seven years; or though he say nowhere Baptize women;* 1.359 yet neither of these are Will-worship, be∣cause the substance and institution of Baptism is groun∣ded on his express command;* 1.360 age and sexe are acci∣dents. Lastly, If the major proposition be particular, the rule is well known,* 1.361 Of meer particulars nothing is con∣cluded.

2 There was an express command for the sealing of A∣brahams sons in their generations, in their infancie, Gen. 17. 7. &c. and Believers are expresly the sons or children of Abraham, Gal. 3. 7. that is, his spiritual seed, who have no less priviledge in things belonging to falvation, then his car∣nal seed. And the Apostles who were Jews and brought up amongst them, who were sealed in their infancie, did not (that we read of) so much as ask Christ any question what they were to do with Infants: and Christ giving them no prohibition concerning them, he did thereby sufficiently in∣timate, that he having not repealed the law of sealing In∣fants into his covenant, would have them proceed accord∣ing to the Analogie of the first seal of his covenant. The greater doubt might possibly have been concerning bapti∣zing of females, who were not formerly sealed, the doubt concerning the Gentiles sealing, being removed by an ex∣press precept, Baptize all Nations, Mat. 28. 19.

3 On this very ground on which Anabaptists deny In∣fant-baptism,* 1.362 the old Sadduces denyed the resurrection of the dead, because they found it not expresly written in the books of Moses, which only, they received. See what hath been answered to the Pleader near the end.

4 Although we read not in terminis, and so many words and syllables in holy Scripture, Baptize Infants, yet we read it in most firm and evident consequence, if we but hold

these three certain conclusions. 1 That Children are con∣ceived and born in sin, the children of wrath. 2 That God would not have them perish, but rather be brought into the holy communion of Christ and his Church, that they may be saved▪ 3 That he hath appoin••ed no other exter∣nal ordinary means, to us known, for Infants regeneration, but baptism.

5 If the matter must be put upon express words of Scrip∣ture, let our Antagonists shew us where they are expresly forbidden to baptize Infants? where is there any syllable express, or probable for re-baptizing any? where have they any express precept for dipping over head and ears? where have they any express precept for their long prayers, for baptizing women, or administring the communion to them? shew us any express precept for the change of the Sabbath.

That which we read not expresly mentioned in Scripture that the Apostles did,* 1.363 that we may not do: but we read not in express words in Scripture, that the Apostles ever baptized Infants, therefore we may not baptize them.

We answer, 1 If your principle were true, it might thence be concluded, that the Lords Supper may not be administred to women, for we no where read in express words, that the Apostles ever administred it unto them.

2 Express words in Scripture are not alwayes necessary to prove a thing which necessary consequence doth con∣clude: we have no express words in Scripture naming an holy Vnitie, in Trinitie and Trinitie in Vnitie, most undeni∣able consequence we have Mat. 28. 19, 1 Ioh. 5. 7. Again, we have no express word that the Apostles were baptized; for Christ himself baptized none, Ioh. 4. 1. &c. and we read not where, or when Iohn Baptist baptized them; yet certainly they were baptized: we read not expresly that the Apostles in baptizing mentioned the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost; but most certain consequence concludeth it; because Christ so appointed it, and it was of the essence of the Sacra∣ment: and why should we more tie the baptism of Infants

to express words, then any of these fundamental things are tyed? and on the like consequential grounds, why should we doubt whether the Apostles did indeed usually baptize Infants of Christians,* 1.364 because it is not expresly written; see∣ing that many other words,* 1.365 matters, and actions of the A∣postles, and Christ himself, were not written?

3 Christ expresly commanded to baptize all Nations, in no one syllable, title, or word therein excepting Infants, who are and ever were a great and numerous part there∣of: and that which concerneth all alike, concerneth every part thereof.

When Peter was asked what was needful to be done for the Iews prickt at heart,* 1.366 Act. 2. 37, 38. he said, Repent and be baptized: but Infants can neither actually repent, nor contribute any thing towards their baptism: there∣fore they ought not to be baptized. And again, Mat. 3 they confessed their sins and were baptized, which In∣fants cannot do.

We answer, 1 Forasmuch as Infants cannot actually (as such) repent or confess, it concludeth that these things for the present, concern not Infants; (for no impossibilitie is reasonably enjoined any) but belong to persons of years, or those who were not yet sealed into the communion of Christs Church, and it is apparent that unto such Peter spake: as far as his words concerned Infants is also express, —be baptized every one of you in the name of Iesus Christ for the remission of sins—for the promise is to you and to your children; What promise? why that Gen. 177. To what children was that promise made? what, to those who had been children, but were now of years to be taught, believe and repent? No, but to those first who were to be sealed the eighth day after they were born; who certainly could then no more actually believe, or repent, then can our Infants now: therefore 'tis plain to those who will understand, that per∣sons of years to be taught, must first repent, &c. but In∣fants, to whom the promise, covenant, or seal thereof joint∣ly belongeth, must be sealed as joint-covenanters with their Parents, before they can actually believe or repent: for

why else after this exhortation to repentance and baptism, doth he mention their children? were they no wayes liable to this double precept, repent and be baptized every one of you? who? they only who can actually for the present re∣pent? nay, but Peter knew well that children of whom he spake, could not do that, by reason of their present want of the use of reason: yet he knew they had need of remission of sins by Christ, and that the promise of God was made to them (without which 'twere but vain for men to seal) and as firmly concerned them, as their enchurched parents, and therefore he mentioned them.

There appears neither act nor habit of regeneration in In∣fant-baptism,* 1.367 until they be taught the Word; neither any more promptitude to learn it, then is in unbaptized children coming to years; therefore their baptism is effect∣less, and consequently unlawful.

We answer, 1 The Kingdom of God cometh not with ob∣servation, Luk.* 1.368 17. 20. and the internal acts of the Spirit are secret: for what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of a man which is within him, 1 Cor. 2. 11.

2 If outward appearance be a good argument to the de∣nying of internal acts and habits; you might by the same me∣dium as well conclude that Infants are not reasonable crea∣tures: Infants inspired by Gods Spirit may be said to be Be∣lievers, as they are said truly to be rationals; that is, actuprimo, non secundo: and they confess and avouch the Lord, in their Parents avouching of him, as appeareth, Deut. 26. 16, 17, 18. Deut. 29. 9, 10, 1••, 12, 13, 14, 15.

3 It is not true, that baptized Infants have no more promptitude to learn the mysteries of salvation when they come to years to be taught, then other unbaptized children, have caeteris paribus: for the H. Ghost doth not desert his own ordinance in the Elect; though for causes very just, yea, when most unknown to us, it doth not alwayes alike shew its power: as for the reprobate, the seal or administra∣tion of man can nothing profit him who abuseth it, and where God ever denyeth inward baptism by his holy Spi∣rit of sanctification.

Reprobates who cannot be profited by baptism,* 1.369 ought not to be baptized, lest we add to their condemnation: but of Infants some are such, and we cannot say which of them, offered to baptism is elect, and which not: therefore see∣ing we cannot distinguish them, nor can they express themselves, we ought not to baptize them untill they can.

We answer, If the major proposition in this argument be universalis negans, it is most false; for Simon Magus and Iudas, who were not profited by their baptism, were yet rightly baptized; If particular, though granted, it would conclude nothing against Infant-baptism; for by the same reason they may deny baptism to persons of years: for alas, many of them are Reprobates. Neither can any meer man distinguish between the one and the other, seeing that whatever profession of faith and repentance men make, 'tis possible they may dissemble or fall away. Now we in charitie, hope the best, where the contrary is not manifest, and therefore deny them not baptism, who doe but profess faith, repentance, and desire of baptism: and if we can have as much charitie to innocent Infants, we must also al∣low them baptism, who being born of Christian parents, are within Gods covenant of Grace. And indeed the fi∣nal estate of Infants or aged people, being alike secret and known to God alone; we must perform our ministrie re∣spectively, and leave the fruit and issue thereof to God: so in preaching the Gospel, the sincere Milk of the Word, 1 Pet. 2. 2. we do often as it were, draw out the brest like the mother of the living child, 1 King. 3. 20, 21. to some dead (in belief, sins, and trespasses) laid in our bosome; who know not who shall profit by it, nor to whom it shall prove a favour of death unto death; that must be left to God, but we must instantly preach the Gospel.

When the Eunuch said to Philip,* 1.370 Act. 8. 36: see here is wa∣ter, what doth let me to be baptized? be answered, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest: therefore he that believeth not may not be baptized: such are Infants.

We answer, 1 It is manifest enough that Philip spake to a man who could hear and read,* 1.371 and was then something in∣structed in the Gospel of Christ: what doth this concern Infants?

2 Infants have now as much capacitie of baptism, as un∣der the Law they had of circumcision; both had faith, as reason, in the feed, though not in the fruit: and the sacra∣ment of baptism now performeth the same to us, which cir∣cumcision did to them: as that was to them a sign of their receiving into the Church and people of God, so is baptism to us,* 1.372 the first mark which severeth and distinguish∣eth the people of God from the prophane and wicked aliens.

Faith ought not to be separated from the seal thereof;* 1.373 there∣fore Infants, who cannot actually beleeve, ought not to be baptized until they can.

See what hath been said Obj. 12. to which we here add, that this proposition is true concerning persons of years; but concerneth not Infants in whom we cannot know Gods present work: but in baptism, the seed of faith, regenerati∣on, mortification, and newness of life is sowed in them: and all know that precedence concludeth not separation. Last∣ly, we say that if faith and baptism must so indivisibly be united, as that none may be baptized but they who do a∣ctually believe, whom might our adversaries baptize, or whom put by, though of years? If they say they profess faith, there is much difference between professing and actual believing: and I much fear that many will too late find as much distance between justifying faith, and temptation of securitie, as is between heaven and hell.

Such are to be baptized as confess their sins,* 1.374 Mat. 3. 6. as gladly receive the Word. Act. 2. 41. as give heed to the Word preached, Act. 8. 6. but this Infants cannot do, therefore they are not to be baptized.

We answer, The affirmative may from such places be concluded, Such ought to be baptized: but the negative cannot (therefore none but men so qualified may be bap∣tized) it no more followeth, then if you should say, Cor∣nelius

and those that were with him when Peter preached,* 1.375 received the holy Ghost in the extraordinary gifts thereof; therefore none but such as have received the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost may be baptized: nay, but though it wel concluded affirmatively for them, that they were to be baptized; it cannot conclude negatively against others, that they may not be baptized who have not received such gifts.

If baptizing Infants be grounded on circumcision,* 1.376 the males only must be baptized: but that is not true, for females also ought to be baptized.

We answer, Here is a fallacia accidentis, an arguing from the substance to the circumstance: whereas bap∣tism succeeded circumcision in substance, not in eve∣ry circumstance: The substance was; that was a seal of faith, and Church-priviledge; so is this; that was administred to all that would join in the faith of Abraham, and their children as being in Gods covenant; so must it be here: in that was sealed to the Covenanter the promise of grace and mercie by Christ, which is alwayes one and the same; so here; that signified mortification, and a promise on mans part, of faith and obedience to God; so it is here: that was the inlet to Gods Church, the Sacrament of initia∣tion, admission,* 1.377 and engraffing into the Church; so is bap∣tism: so they agree,* 1.378 1 In the end, Rom. 4. 11. Tit. 3. 5. 2 In signification, Col. 2. 11, 12. Deut. 30. 6. Ier. 4. 4. Rom. 2. 29. Mark. 1. 4. Rom. 6. 3. 3 In the effect. In circumstance they differ, as hath been formerly shewed.

Though Christ took little children into his arms and blessed them,* 1.379 yet he baptized them not: therefore, though we may pray for our Infants, yet we may not baptize them.

We answer, 1 If you speak of Christs baptizing perso∣nally, he baptized none, Ioh. 4. 2. but it followeth not that therefore none ought to be baptized.

2 It cannot appear that Christ commanded not some of his Disciples to baptize those Infants, neither that ever he commanded them not to baptize Infants.

3 If it could appear that these Infants were not now baptized, there might be some obstruction and let

which we know not; as possibly their parents were not yet baptized, &c.

4

These children were not brought to Christ that he should baptize them,* 1.380 but that he should touch them: and that he did, for he layed his hands upon them, and blessed them; and his blessing them was as effectual to their salvati∣on, as if he had christned them: for Christs grace dependeth not upon the vertue of the Sacrament: but contrarily the vertue of the Sacrament upon his grace and blessing.

And that which Christ did to them, is more then the mini∣strie of all the men in the world could, or can do in bapti∣zing or blessing them; for Christs blessing maketh men tru∣ly and really blessed: See what hath been said Reply num. 14. ••ine.

Infants circumcised were inserted into the Covenant and Church priviledges by an express command:* 1.381 but we have no such express command for baptizing Infants, there∣fore we may not on that ground baptize them.

To that which hath been said,* 1.382 we further add for answer, because they were expressly commanded to put the seal of the same righteousness of faith on Infants; therefore (nei∣ther that faith nor the object thereof being changed, in the change of the seal) there needed not a particular, or ex∣press command concerning the subject or persons to be sea∣led, seeing the commission was so much enlarged as the whole World, and the Nations thereof, were greater then the land of Canaan, and Abrahams carnal children therein planted. Add hereto, that which hath been noted, those whom Christ sent to baptise were sealed in their infancie, and daily used to Infant-sealing: so that they needed no ex∣press command, or other Information concerning Infants, then that which they had sufficiently learned in Christs bles∣sing Infants, blessing and embracing them, as it were, with special affection to them: and in that they could not be ig∣norant that baptism succeeded circumcision in all the sub∣stance thereof; and that the same cause still remaineth for Infants reception of the seal,* 1.383 to wit, Baptism for the remis∣sion of sins.

Christ appointed the Sacraments for a remembrance of his death and blood-shedding for our redemption:* 1.384 But In∣fants, who have no acts of understanding, cannot remem∣ber; Therefore they ought not to be baptized.

We answer,* 1.385 This Argument would conclude, that In∣fants, as such, may not receive the Lords Supper, because they cannot do it in remembrance of Christ,* 1.386 nor shew his death thereby, therefore we do not administer it unto them. But Baptism is the Laver of Regeneration, which they have present need of, and whereof they are passively capable, be∣cause their Parents are within the Covenant, which is to them and their children; and the Seal thereof is a part and condition of the same to their children,* 1.387 as well as to them∣selves: Neither was the Covenant on Abrahams part ful∣filled any more then to halves,* 1.388 before he had sealed his children;* 1.389 and by proportion, neither do we fulfil our Co∣venant with God in Baptism, if we refuse to baptize our In∣fants, who have as indefeasible a right to the same as we; the same promise for the main being to us and our children, Acts 2. 39.

In the Old Testament it was not lawful to offer sheep or goats so soon as they were cast,* 1.390 but at a certain age and ma∣turity of their perfection:* 1.391 This figured Infants not pre∣sently to be offered to God, or Sealed.

We answer: 1. By the same Argument (if it were good) neither ought the Jews to have circumcised their Infants on the eighth day.

2.* 1.392 Allegorical Arguments, when they are well applyed, illustrate rather then prove: And if you will plead thus, tell us why every first-born of man or beast, so soon as it came into the world (that is,* 1.393 every male) was sacred to the Lord; and the first-born of the unclean beast was to be re∣deemed or destroyed?* 1.394 and why seek ye further, omitting the type of Circumcision?

Christ saith, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,* 1.395 Mark 16. 16. without believing there is no salva∣tion, nor saving effect of Baptism: But Infants cannot believe; Therefore their Baptism is effectless and vain

We answer: 1. That wholly concerns those who are of years; who when the Church was to be collected and set∣led, were first and generally such persons as were first to be instructed in the faith of Christ, and then to be baptized; it concerned not Infants.

2. That which immediately follows, But he that belie∣veth not shall be damned—manifesteth that it concerned not Infants, who though they cannot actually believe, yet shall not all be damned, though dying Infants.

3. If those words were to be presidential to all Churches and times as a rule, what persons we are to baptize, and what not; that is, that we ought to baptize none but such and so qualified as are there described; then it would fol∣low, that you must baptize none, but those who appear to have a justifying faith; for such there Christ speaks of, and only such, relating to their salvation: And how few have this? and how can you who baptize discern this? Se∣condly, They must be such as can cast out Devils, speak un∣studied Languages, take up Serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them, such as can cure the sick: For Christ there thus marked out Believers of those times.

4. He saith not, He that believeth not shall not be bapti∣zed; for that indeed might have concerned Infants Baptism: But he saith, He that believeth not shall be damned; which cannot concern Infants, except you will say they have faith (and so you must grant them a capacity of Baptism) or pre∣tend that they all are damned who dye in Infancy, which is a damnable fancy.

Lastly, We must distinguish between an interest in, and the effects of Baptism. Many thousands born within the Covenant, have therefore a just interest in the Covenant of Grace,* 1.396 and the Seal thereof, who neither believing nor o∣beying, have no effects thereof, nor grace of the Cove∣nant: So some put on Christ only sacramentally, and others to sanctification and salvation also.

It is absurd and to no purpose to baptize any unto they know not what:* 1.397 Such is Infants-Baptism; Therefore they are absurdly and to no purpose baptized.

1. We answer: Circumcision was to Isaas and Evangelical Ordinance and Seal of Gods Covenant of the same Grace common to him and us; yet that being administred to him at eight days old, he knew not what he was circumcised to; yet was it neither in vain nor absurdly administred to him.

2. Some mysterious things have been done to them, who though of age, knew not for the present what was done un∣to them; yet not absurdly, nor to no purpose; as when Pe∣ters feet were washed, Iohn 13. 7, &c. Christ told him, What I do, thou knowest not now—yet was it not absurdly, or to no purpose done. 3. No circumcised Infants knew what was done to them for present, yet was it to purpose done to all, either to salvation, or further condemnation.

That Tenet and Practise,* 1.398 which being put, or supposed Baptism, cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles administred it,* 1.399 agreeth not with the Practice of John Baptist and the Apostles: But the Tenent and Practice of Infant-Baptism being put, Baptism cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles ad∣ministred it; Ergo.

We answer: Here is an Ignoratio elenchi, the argument driving at that which is not in question. The question is not whether Iohn B. and the Apostles did baptize Infants; for in case they had not opportunity so to do, it follows not, that when opportunity was, baptizing such agreed not with their practice; no more then to have circumcised men of years had not agreed with Moses Institution of Circumcisi∣on, because we never read that he ever did circumcise any Jews of years.

2. The Minor can never be proved. How know you that Iohn B. or the Apostles never baptized any Infants? You have been often told, à non Scripto ad non factum fol∣loweth not: No man can certainly say, that Iohn B. and the Apostles never baptized Infants: The contrary appear∣eth in that which hath been said.

CHAP. II.

Mr. Fishers Objections, at Folkstone in Kent, March 10. 1650. answered.

IF Baptism of Infants be no Ordinance of Christ,* 1.400 then it is unlawful: But the Baptism of Infants is no Ordi∣dinance of Christ: Ergo.

We deny the Minor.

If the Baptism of Infants is not ordained in the New Testa∣ment of Christ,* 1.401 then it is no Ordinance of Christ▪ But it is not ordained in the New Testament of Christ; Ergo, &c.

We deny the Minor.

If it be ordained in the Testament of Christ,* 1.402 then it is to be found where; Ergo, &c.

We answer: 1. The minor is again denyed; for the mat∣ter in question is to be found in several places, from firm and good consequence.

2. If otherwise, you argue negatively from Scriptures in respect of express terms. We further say: 1. That the like reason might be urged against baptizing of women, and administring the Lords Supper to them, there being no ex∣press or particular precept in terminis for either; nor express example of the latter, nor promise to it in all the Scripture: And if you say women are comprehended in the general precepts; we answer, so are Infants of believing Parents, as parts of Families and Nations: If you say women are admitted to the Communion, because Christ dyed for them as well as men: We say so to; and that he as certainly dy∣ed for Infants. 2. The command for baptizing Infants, is Matth. 28. 19. The examples, Acts 16 33. 1 Cor. 1. 16. And the promise, Acts 2. 39.

If Infant-Baptism be an Ordinance of Christ,* 1.403 then it is expresly set down: But it is not expresly set down; Ergo, &c.

We answer: 1. If the question be concerning the ex∣ample

of Christ or his Disciples baptizing Infants; and you would reason thus, They did never baptize Infants, be∣cause it is not expresly written: We have often said, à non scripto ad non factum, non valet argumentum: Christ and his Apostles did many things which are not expresly writ∣ten.

2. We may understand this word (Expresly) to signifie either a writing in terminis; that is, so many words and syl∣lables (Go and Baptize Infants) if you would have it so strict∣ly understood, that it is not the Ordinance of Christ that any should be baptized, but such as are so mentioned in Scriptures; then you must also conclude, that the Ba∣ptism of women is no Ordinance of Christ (and indeed there might appear more colour of doubting concerning their baptizing, who were not sealed under the Law, then of male Infants which were) and then giving the Eucharist to women must be no Ordinance of Christ; nay, baptizing of men and women of ripe years, must then be no Ordi∣nance of Christ; for where can you shew us, where Christ expresly said, Go and baptize men and women of ripe years? Where can you shew us in terminis, Thou Thomas, John, Andrew, &c. shalt be baptized and saved? This you will put upon necessary consequence, where you have no express word: And why shall we not have the like liberty for In∣fant-Baptism? Or we may understand this word (Expresly) in a greater latitude, to import a general and implicite com∣mand in such terms and grounds, quibus positis, alia neces∣sariò consequuntur: So we say Christ expresly commanded Infant-Baptism, where he said, without any limitation or ex∣ception to Infants, Go baptize all Nations: whereof In∣fants then and ever were, and are a great part; because (ex∣cept in case of some evident incapacity) eadem est ratio partis & totius.

3. Taking (Expresly) in a proper and strict sense, as it seems you here do, for (in terminis) so many words and syllables: We say from other instances, that your assertion may appear false and erroneous: For 1. There is no ex∣press place of Scripture which nameth three persons in the

unity of the Deity, which yet we must believe; again, there is no Express Precept for abrogating the Iewish Sabbath, and re∣ligious observation of the Christian Sabbath, as hath been noted.

If Matth. 28. 19.* 1.404 Christ gave Commission to teach those whom they were to baptize; then not to baptize In∣fants: But Matth 28. 19. he gave commission to teach those they were to baptize: Therefore there he gave no commission to baptize infants.

1. We answer: Your major is Amphibologicae: For it is doubtful whether you affirm by (those whom they were to baptize) all those, or only some of those: If you mean All, your minor is false: For Christ gave them no commission to teach Infants, as such, though he gave them commission to baptize them into future faith and obedience: If you mean thus, Christ gave commission, Matth. 28. 19, 20. to teach some of those whom they were to baptize; therefore he gave them not Commission to baptize Infants: then the Sequel of your major is lame, and cannot follow; for though Christ there gave them commission to teach and baptize the Parents first; it follows not thence, that there∣fore he gave them not commission to baptize their Infants; but contrarywise he therefore gave them commission to baptize the Infants of such: For the Parents being taught and sealed, entituled their children to the Seal of the same Promise and Covenant of God, which is joyntly to sealed Parents and their Children, Gen. 17. 7. and so Christ com∣manded them to teach those who were capable of doctrine, and only to baptize them who were capable of Baptism on∣ly, as Infants.

2. Christ not repeating there an exact copy of his com∣mission formerly given them at sundry times, and on sun∣dry occasions (for there he mentioneth not any particular heads of doctrine or discipline, nor so much as the Eucharist) but to those things relateth in general, verse 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you— whereof he nameth the two first and and most usual things, —Teaching and Baptizing, for the making of Disci∣ciples,

and gathering a Church of all Nations: So that he nameth not here the matter or subject of baptism in particular; but saith in general—Baptizing them &c. Teaching them to observe all,* 1.405 &c. Now although children cannot be first taught before they are baptized, as such, as their Parents might and ought to be, yet might they be first baptized, and in due time taught, as Christ com∣manded. And it is here to be noted, That children of sealed Parents were called Disciples, and so accounted in both Testaments: See Acts 15. 10. Iohn 9. 28. We are Moses Disciples,—said the Jews: Now the only thing which entred them into the School of Moses, or denomi∣nated them Moses Disciples, was their Circumcision in their infancy, which obliged them coming to years, to the observation of the whole Law, Gal. 5. 3. delivered by Moses. So Baptism of Infants doth not anticipate profes∣sion of Christianity, but oblige unto it in due time; and therefore is Baptism a sign that the baptised professeth himself a Disciple of Christ, who appointed it as a mark and cognizance of his Disciples: Baptism makes Infants Dis∣ciples in the first form of his School, into which they are thereby entred, though not actually for the present taught, because they are not yet capable of Doctrine: Yet so is fulfilled in Infants-Baptism that same 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (in Christs commission, Mat. 28. 19.) Make Disciples, baptizing them &c. and children of Believers are counted Disciples, Acts 15. 10. Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the DISCIPLES? What yoke? Why Circumci∣sion; as appears Verse 1. Now those upon whom the false Teachers would have laid this yoke, are called by the Apostle DISCIPLES: and that yoke of Circum∣cision was put upon children most commonly, in respect of whom the Proselytes were very few: And there is no great doubt but that those false Masters who would have grown Disciples circumcised, as much, at least, urged, that their children should be circumcised; therefore Infants were accounted Disciples. And I see not but that Christ spake of Infants, Matth. 10. 42. as well as others—

Whosoever shall give to drink, unto one of these little ones— in the name of a DISCIPLE, that is, as is interpreted, Mark 9. 41.—because ye belong to Christ (as do bapti∣zed Infants) and so Matth. 18. 5. Whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me— that is, a childe which is a Christian: Nor do the following words, v. 6. (Who∣so shall offend one of these little ones, which (as our common translation hath it) believe in me) conclude that he spake there only of such as were little in their own eyes; that is, humble (as 1 Sam. 15. 17.) though of years,* 1.406 or of such children as were of years to believe: for the words may as wel be tran∣slated, One of these little ones of those that believe in me; or of believers in me; that is, any infant of a Believer or Chrstian.

3. Christ Matth 28. 19, 20. spake concerning the plan∣tation of Christian Faith and Conversion of nations, in which work preaching must go before Baptism. So was it in the beginning, and so must we do now, if we were sent to convert Turks, Pagans, or Iews: but where the Gospel is planted, and believing Parents are received into the Church by bap∣tism, their children are first to be baptized, and afterwards taught, so soon as they are able to learn; So that the cited place can conclude no more, then that administration of ba∣ptism began first on the Parents that received the word, and were made disciples by baptism, and so it descended to their children: So was it in circumcision.

4 Children are to be taught when they are capable, con∣cludeth nothing against their present baptizing, of which they are passively capable:* 1.407 one affirmative excludeth not another thereto subordinate: nor do affirmative precepts which bind alwayes, bind to all and every particular time, as negatives do: teaching them therefore concludeth not a present teaching the baptized, but a duty of teaching them as they became capable of being taught.

5 The particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 relateth to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in general and inde∣finitely, though it agree not Grammatically with it: for Christ saith 〈◊〉〈◊〉 baptize some, or only those who are taught (in deed such a determination of the subject, would have exclu∣ded Infants, as such, from baptism,) but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bapti∣zing

them; that is, men, women, and children of belie∣vers and baptized Parents of all Nations: it is not now as when Religion was, as it were, shut up in Iudea; now the stop of the partition wall is broken down;* 1.408 now Christ will have all Nations come and be sealed into the Covenant of his free grace and mercie: and this Enallagie or change of Gender is often found in Scripture, as Rev. 2. 26, 27. Rev. 19. 15. Act. 15. 17. Act. 26. 17. Act. 21. 25. Eph. 2. 11. So here he saith collectively, teach, or disciple 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and distributively, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, baptizing them, one by one, of what Nation soever they are. So Mat. 25. 32. be∣fore him shall be gathered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—all Nations, and he shall separate them one from another; some on the right hand and some on the left; but all by par∣ticulars must be distributed without exception of any per∣son, age, or condition: otherwise it might seem that some Nations should be gathered to judgment, and not some others; which cannot be, because God is impartially just.

If the children of Israel had only a ceremonial holiness,* 1.409 then the pretence from circumcision to baptism of Infants is invalid: but the children of Israel had only a ceremo∣nial holiness; ergo, &c.

The minor being denyed, was thus attempted to be proved:

If the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. &c. was only for the land of Canaan, then the Israelites had only a ceremonial holiness: but the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. &c. was only for the land of Ca∣naan; ergo, &c.

We answer, 1 If by ceremonial, you mean federal holi∣ness as appertaining (by Gods Promise and Covenant with Abraham and his carnal seed) to some of the Israelites, not of the election to salvation, it may be granted you without prejudice to our cause that such carnal Israelites had only a ceremonial holiness; not because Gods covenant held forth no more then external and temporal things unto them; but because through unbelief they apprehended no more. But if the proposition be universal, as also relating to

the chief and best part of Israel, to wit, the Elect, for whose sakes others enjoyed secular blessings with them; then your minor is apparently false; for they had internal circumcision of the heart, as well as the external in the flesh, Deut. 10. 16. Deut. 30. 6. Rom. 2. 29. Ier. 4. 4.

2 To say that God made no promise of spiritual things in the covenant of the Old Testament is evidently false,* 1.410 as appears Gen. 17. 7. 2 Cor. 6. 18. I will be a father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and my daughters, saith the Lord Al∣mighty. See also Ioh. 1. 12, 13. 1 Ioh. 3. 1, 2, 8, 9. 1 Ioh. 2. 25. God covenanted Gen. 17. 7. to be their God, and re∣peateth it, Lev. 26. 12. and applyed it to the Gentiles, 2 Cor. 6. 16. Ier. 31. 1, 2. 2 Cor. 6. 18. Act. 2. 39. whence it may clearly appear that the main substance of the covenant and promise of God, with and to Abraham and his seed, was for eternal life, as also in the New Testament, 1 Ioh. 2. 25. The land of Canaan, and other secular blessings were promised as other temporal goods subordinate, and as a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or additament over and above, or an accession to the main, as Mat. 6. 33. & 1 King. 3. 10, 11, 13. and also for a figure of their heavenly inheritance, Heb. 4. 8, 9, 11. and for a confirmation of their interest therein, to which they were to come through the red sea which figured our baptism.

3 If the Covenant of God with Abraham and his spiri∣tual seed, that is, Believers, had been only for the land of Canaan, and temporal blessings there into be enjoyed, then that gracious Covenant had entitled him to no more then many wicked enemies of God, and mere reprobates had, and at this hour have: for the impious Canaanites then had all that good land and the temporal profits thereof, as the more impious Turks now have; as it is written Psal. 73. 12. Behold these are the ungodly who prosper in the world, they en∣crease in riches: but this were foolish to affirm, and against the whole Analogie of Scriptures, which expresly affirm that godliness hath the promise of this life that now is, and of that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4. 8.

The seal of Cir••umcision was set to Abraham to seal him up only to t•••• honour of the Father of the faithful,* 1.411 that is, under th•••• notion only (as a seal) to honour him as the Father of the faithful, &c.

We answer, This makes nothing to the proof of the for∣mer assertion; yet we say, it was not only to seal this ho∣nour unto him, but for a seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4. 11. and to seal him personally, or to his own perso∣nal interest in Christ to come, as it is written, Abraham re∣joiced to see my day, Joh. 8. 56.

That which was set only to honour the greatness of Abra∣hams faith,* 1.412 not to strengthen the weakness of his faith, was set to him only as a seal to honour him as the father of the faithful: But Circumcision was set only to honour the greatnesse of his faith, not to strengthen the weaknesse of his faith. ergo, &c.

We answer to this caption and weak argument That A∣brahams circumcision was set both to confirm his strong faith, and also to carry a remembrance thereof to posterity, and to confirm that which was weak; for faith hath cer∣tain degrees, and the greatest measure thereof may be greatned (because it is not infinite) and so more confirmed. Abraham•• circumcision. Gen, 17. 23, 24, 26. was a seal of the righteousnesse of faith which he had being yet uncircum∣cised, that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also. Rom. 4. 11. his faith preceded the seal who believed in hope, that he might become the father of many Nations. Rom. 4. 18. this was when God spake to him, Gen. 15. 6. and he not weak in faith—being fully per∣swaded, &c. Rom. 4. 21. of what? See Gen. 15. 4, 5, 6. so shall thy seed be; and he believed in the Lord— he was af∣terward circumised,* 1.413 Gen. 17. 24. and his great tryal of faith was some years after his circumcision: and then to confirm his faith yet more, the Lord said Gen. 22. 16. By my self have I sworn—blessing I will blesse thee, and multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and in thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed, Gen. 22. 17, 18 and the

effect of this faith the Apostle magnifieth, Heb. 11. 17 by faith Abraham when he was tryed offered up Isaac—and mentioning the same, Heb. 6. 13, 16, 17. he saith, an oath for confirmation is to them and end of all strife: wherein God to shew more abun∣dantly unto the heirs of Promise the immutabilitie of his coun∣sel, confirmed it by an oath: what in respect of Gods truth? nay, but nothing can be added to an infinite: such is Gods truth, which is no accident in him, but his essence; for what∣soever is in God, is God: it was therefore that the heirs of promise (of which number you will allow Abraham to be one) might be confirmed,* 1.414 and have strong consolation to lay hold upon the hope set before them: whence it appear∣eth that even Abrahams strong faith might be confirmed; and so his circumcision had other ends then to honour him as the father of the faithful: nor is that of any better value which was farther objected to the same end.

That which was not set to any of his posterity to confirm them in their faith,* 1.415 was set only to Abraham to honor his faith, &c

That. What? the seal of circumcision? Your minor is so false that it needs no more confutation then denial; for cir∣cumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith was set to Abrahams seed and posteritie to confirm them in the same faith, and to assure them that God was their God, as he promised Gen. 17. 7. and indeed Abraham was not stiled the Father of the faithful in regard of Israels carnal propaga∣tion; for that which is born of the flesh is flesh, Ioh. 3. 6. and they which are of the faith, the same are the children of Abra∣ham, Gal.* 1.416 3. 7. nor as the first believer; for many others believed before him, as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Shem, &c. more∣over Father is used by the Hebrews to signifie divers relati∣ons, as Prince or Lord, 2 King. 5. 13. first teacher, 1 Cor. 4. 14. God our heavenly father, Deut. 3. 2. Mat. 6. Isa. 9. 6. or Master, 2 King. 2. 12. (hence Disciples were called sons of the Prophets, 1 Sam. 10. 12.) or a Counsellour, Gen. 45. 8. or an Inventer or Author, as Iabel was the father of such as dwel in tents, Gen. 4. 20. and Iubal, the father of all such as handle the harp and organ: but Abraham is called the father of the faithful, as being first sealed with this

seal into the covenant of the righteousness of faith: and as a pattern and exa••ple to which we must frame our lives in faith and obedience▪ faith is the condition of our cove∣nant with God in Christ, made with Abraham and his seed▪ that is,* 1.417 believers; and thereupon the first seal of the righte∣ousness of faith was given to his natural seed:* 1.418 and now a believing Parent, being by faith of the seed of Abraham, the first seal of the present covenant, is by the same proportion to be given to his natural-born Infants.

In that commission in which those only are meant which are capable of being taught,* 1.419 and to learn, Infants are neither named, intended, nor meant▪ but such is that commission Mat. 28. 19, 20. therefore there is no commission to bap∣tize Infants.

For proof of the minor, which was denyed, was offere•• this reason:

He that gives commission to teach persons before they are baptized,* 1.420 requires no more to be baptized then are capa∣ble to be taught, &c. ergo.

Though enough hath been said to satisfie herein; yet to satisfie your instance, we say further, 1 The minor is falla∣cious, the condition, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is here considerable; without which it is a Paralogism or fallacious disputing: we affirm not a present capacitie or actual docibility of Infants, but an habitual; that is, that Infants have reason whereby they will in time to come be capable of being taught (though for the present they have so slender an use there∣of, that they cannot apprehend spiritual things) other∣wise we might not baptize them, could they not bear the image of God: to baptize bells, altars, &c. or beasts, were a most detestable and blasphemous prophanation of the ho∣ly Sacrament.

2 If (capable of being taught, and to learn) be taken for a present capacitie, and the sense of your proposition runs thus in that commission in which only persons of years are meant, Infants are not intended or meant: 'tis easily grant∣ed; but then your minor being this: in that commission

Mat. 28. 19, 20. only persons of years are 〈◊〉〈◊〉, is a gross begging of the Question, which is, whether in that commissi∣on Christ intended only the baptism of persons of years, and for the present apt to be taught and learn, or also with such Infants of Christian Parents? which we af∣firm.

3 It appeareth by that which hath been formerly answer∣ed to Obj. 5. that Christ saith in the cited place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, make Disciples, baptizing them, &c. and though children, as such, cannot be taught, yet they may be made Disciples of Christ, by being admitted into his school, their Parents giving their names to Christ, both for themselves and their families: and in Christs commission in that place, teaching doth follow baptizing them in the Name of the Father, of the Son,* 1.421 and of the Holy Ghost—which we do, teaching our baptized Infants, so soon as they become fit to be taught, what Christ hath commanded.

4 Though Infants, as such, are not capable of teaching, yet are they capable of baptism, that is, of being washed with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, of being prayed for, and of being received into Christs congregation; and so were Infants capable of cir∣cumcision the eighth day.

Those that are not in the cited place,* 1.422 commanded to be ba∣ptized, are not to be baptized: But Infants are not there commanded to be baptized; therefore they are not to be baptized,

We answer: 1 The minor is false: It is there comm••nd∣ed to baptize Infants. 2. If you m••an that the command is not addressed to Infants, you trifle, the Amphibologie being in (those that are not commanded) and so that being understood personally of Infants, there is an Ig∣noratio Elenchi in the Minor, we not affirming that which you ass••me; to wit, That Infants in their own persons are commanded. 3. The Major is fallacious in ••nother respect, in this word Commanded, which may ••mport either Implicitely Comprehended; so are Infants ••ommanded to be bapti••••d: o•• expli••itely and in ter∣minis,

which if you mean, which say again, neither are women nor persons of years there or elsewhere in terminis, commanded to be baptized, though by the series of holy Scipture and necessary consequence, it is certainly implyed. See more Obj. 14.

The Apostle 1 Cor.* 1.423 7. 14. intended by holy, legitimacie, not sanctity: for if it were not the faith of the parents, but their matrimonie, which the Apostle there spake of, then it was not sanctity or holiness, but legitimation which he there intended: But it was not faith, but their matrimony that the Apostle there spake to; ergo, &c. the argument for Infant-baptism thereon grounded, is invalid.

We answer 1 The scruple of the Corinthians was con∣cerning, spiritual pollution by a believers cohabiting with an husband & wife not converted: the Apostle answereth in effect, that they need not fear that; for the unbelieveng hus∣band is sanctified 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the wife, that is, in respect of the wife, not as if an unbelieving husband were made holy by the faith of the wife: but because the believing wife may with good conscience live as a wife with such an husband (for why should anothers c••nsci∣ence make her guiltie of sin?* 1.424) for unto the pure by faith, all things are pure, Tit. 1. 15. marriage, meats, all, being sanctified by the Word allowing them, and promising a bles∣sing to believers, as also by prayer of faith ob∣taining the same. This he proveth by their childrens holiness, as from the absurditie and falshood of the contrary, else were your chil∣dren unclean, but now are they holy, that is, within the covenant of the Lord, who saith, I will be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee: and this he leaveth on a known and common practice of the Churches everywhere,* 1.425 that if but one of the Parents were a believer, the children of him or her, were brought to bap∣tism as the seal of the Covenant.

2 This cannot reach to children born of both unbelieving

parents, though so born in lawful matrimonie, they were civilly legitimate, for that would make the Apostles supposition void: for what was it to his purpose to speak of legitimacie or illegitimacie of Panims children? neither could civil legitimacie give them any priviledge in Gods co∣venant, out of which can be no holiness; nor illegitimacie exclude those from the seal thereof, who converted, pro∣fessed their faith and desired the same. That which is said Deut. 23. 2. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even unto his tenth generation—is not to be under∣stood, as if it bar'd them from salvation, or any means there∣to subordinate, the covenant of God, seals thereof, sacra∣ments, or publick service of God; but that it excluded them from a right to bear any publick office, Ecclesiastical or Ci∣vil: neither may I••phta's extraordinary calling to publick office, make void the general rule: in the forecited place it is said—the Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the con∣gregation of the Lord, &c. what, not in case of their becom∣ing proselytes?* 1.426 nay, but Ruth the M••abitess is rehearsed in the gen••alogi•• of our Savior Christ, and there was but one law to him that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 home-••orn, and unto the stranger; he may not bear any publick office, but he might be received into Gods cove∣••ant, and so be capable of all holy duties. So v. 1. the maimed or Eunuch shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord &c. what? might he not be sealed or saved? the contrary expresly appeareth Is. 56. 4, 5, 6, 7. Mat. 19. 12. To our present pur∣pose, the Apostle gathereth that matrimonial conjunction between a believer and an unbeliever, is holy, because the denomination and estimate being from the better part, their children are within the covenant of God, by an argument from the effect to the cause.

3. The Apostle discoursed not there of civil Policie, but of conscience; and how could it satisfie any Christians consci∣ence to take an argument from the civil laws of any of the Nations? it is notorious that among those, many things were established by their laws, which a Christians conscience would, and must abhor: yea, even such divorces without the ease of adultery, as were in civil respects tolerated

by Moses,* 1.427 for the hardness of the Jews hearts, excused not the offenders conscience, though that permissive law would bear him out before men?

4 When the Apostle saith the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife; if any ask, what wife? we cannot say in a wife as she is only civilly legitimate; for so far that husband hath as good and evident a ground of sanctification on his part and in himself without any accession of privi∣ledge from his wife; for he must needs be as lawfully her husband as she is his wife: we can therefore no other∣wise rationally answer, then, a believing wife: and so on the other side. Now seeing the Apostle puts it on a pecu∣liar priviledge, which is sometimes in the man when he is a believer, and his wife is not; and sometimes in the wife, if she be a believer, and her husband is not so; it appears that the foundation of comfort here intended by the Apostle, is laid in faith peculiar but to one of the two, and not in ma∣trimonial legitimacie common and equal to both.

5 Faith which rendreth us acceptable to God in Christ, purifieth us, and all estates and possessions to us: that san∣ctifieth marriage, not marriage it; that uniteth us by one Spirit to Christ, and is therefore far more excellent then marriage, which uniteth man and woman only in one flesh: faith therefore gives our children a denomination and right to the seals of the covenant as they are holy,* 1.428 not marriage, which though civilly lawful, may yet be impious before God; as where one puts away his wife for less then adultery and marrieth another,* 1.429 or another man marrieth her so put away: it is therefore the faith and Church-priviledge of parents which thus denominateth children holy.

6 The Apostle could not here mean legitimacie of chil∣dren: for that can neither sanctifie them, nor entitle them to the seal of Gods covenant; neither is sanctification here or in any other place of Scripture taken otherwise then for separating some way from some thing prophane or impious. So persons, times, places, &c. are said to be sanctified, which legitimation cannot do: neither can (holy) neces∣sarily imply (no bastard) for some holy men have been

such; neither can (no bastard) conclude a man holy. The children of infidels, and aliens from the covenant of God, born in lawful wedlock, are legitimate and no bastards; and yet as such, far from holy: and bastardie, though the effect and product of foul sin of parents, and the childs in∣delible dishonour before men, yet maketh them not such as belong not to the covenant of God, as appears in Pharez and Zarah, Gen. 38. 18, 29, 30. Iephtah, Iudg. 11. 1, 2. &c. it must needs be therefore, that the Apostle in that term of holy, signified some thing peculiar to those that are within the Church of God, and not communicable to children of Infidels,* 1.430 as such: so Tertullian speaks of the unrege∣nerate, from Ioh. 3. 5. he shall not enter into the king∣dom of God: that is, he shall not be holy: such eve∣ry soul is counted in Adam, until he be recounted in Christ.

7 We must consider that legitimacie of children (which our Antagonists would here have intended) is a proceed of legitimacie of marriage, which is, of one man and one wife joined together in matrimonie according to Gods ordi∣nance,* 1.431 as it is written,* 1.432 they two shall be one flesh: not they many: and he that made them at the beginning, made them male and female; now the institution of marriage is in place of a perpetual law, the violation whereof is sin and wicked∣ness: Therefore Christ refuted their objection from Moses permission of the bill of divorcement from the original, and Gods first institution of marriage, because he in the begin∣ning appointed it otherwise,* 1.433 and the same sanction is invio∣lable. So when the Prophet would recall the Jews from P••∣lygamie to pure wedlock, he said, did not he (that is God the Creator) make one? that is, did he make any more wives for Adam then one? or did he at first make any more then one husband and one wife?* 1.434 yet had he the residue (or excellency) of the Spirit, that is, he had power enough if he had pleased, to have made more: that therefore is illegitimate which a∣greeth not with the first unrepealable law and institution of God, who created but one man and one woman for the fountain of all humane propagation, as it is written

Gen. 1. 27. God created him—male and female created he them: both one flesh,* 1.435 and so but one—and wherefore one? saith the Prophet—that he might seek a godly seed: that is, a generation according to Gods holy institution, which is between one man and one woman lawfully joined in matri∣monie: thi•• he opposeth to their Polygamie, secretly here intimating that all they are spurious who are born of Poliga∣mie; because they cannot and ought not to be esteeme•• le∣gitimate, who are begotten otherwise then in that matri∣monie which God appointed, which is only between one man and one woman. Now this legitimacie all the tribes of Israel (though they were otherwise holy) had not in the Prophets sense; but they had it in the Apostles sense, 1 Cor. 7. 14. for (not to question more) Dan and Nephtali, Bil∣hah the hand-maids sons, and Gad and Ash••r, Zilpah the other hand-maids sons, had not this legitimacie, and yet were they and their posteritie holy to the Lord: it must needs be therefore that it was from some other fountain of holiness then civil legitimacie can give; and that could be none but federal holiness from the covenant of God made with Abraham and his seed, wherein he contracted to be their God, and that they should be his people, seal∣ed and set apart to him according to his own appoint∣ment: which priviledge, neither the wisdom, power, ho∣nour, will of man, consent of Nations, nor any civil Laws or Ordinances of man, ever could or can give; but God alone who freely bestoweth that favour, and appoint∣eth the conditions thereof.

Only believers are the lawful subject of baptism (that is,* 1.436 such as appear to believe with all their heart, Act. 8. 37.) but children appear not to believe so; therefore they are not the lawful subject of baptism.

We answer, 1 That such are to be baptized, is granted; so that you may conclude affirmatively for such per∣sons of years; but this cannot conclude negative∣ly to the exclusion of In••ants born within the Church of Christ.

2 If believing with all the heart were the rule of law∣ful

administration of baptism: who could securely presume to baptize persons of years, concerning whose hearty belie∣ving they cannot be certain: as for outward appearance, that many times deceiveth the most discerning men: Ieru∣salem and all Iudea,* 1.437 &c. came and were baptized of Iohn Baptist,* 1.438 yet many of them proved blasphemers and persecu∣tors of Christ: some of them came so far as to be professed Disciples, and yet proved Apostates: others were said to believe in Christ, yet he discerning their hearts, would not commit himself unto them. Ioh. 2. 23. Ananias and Saphira came up to so real a profession as to sell their possession for the advancement of the Gospel: and did these believe with all their heart, or were they not baptized? I might add here∣to, Iudas, Demas, and Simon Magus; all these shew that outward appearance demonstrateth not faith in the heart: and therefore, if only believers, that is, with all their hearts, be the lawful subject of baptism; either your supposed rule of baptizing, leaves it uncertain to you, whom you may, or may not baptize: or else admitteth of hypocrites, whom God abhorreth, and on whom Christ denounced so many woes, and excludeth believers Infants from the seal of Gods covenant, in which God himself testifieth children of such are, and whom Christ embraced in his sacred arms, testifying that of such is the kingdom of heaven.

3 Shew us a rule in all the New Testament in terminis (as you require of us for Infant-baptism) for baptizing only persons of ripe years to make profession of their faith, and at once (if you can, set an end to this unhappy contro∣versie which hath so much troubled the Church) put it out of doubt that none may be baptized untill there be an appearance of their faith and repentance; or give us some infallible proof, that all those whom you baptize are indeed and certainly belonging to the kingdom of heaven: nay, shew us any necessary consequence for the exclusion of our Infants from baptism: what? because those of years pro∣fessed their faith, and confessed their sins? therefore In∣fants who cannot so do, may not be baptized? it follows not: nay, yet further, were there an express precept, if

any believe not with all the heart, baptize them not; it would no more exclude Infants from their right to baptism, then that which the Apostle saith (as hath been noted) if any would not work,* 1.439 neither should he eat, excludeth them from their right to be fed. To conclude, we shew you an infallible word of Christ, that Infants belong to the king∣dom of heaven; and therefore the appearance (from those words of Christ, and the covenant of God with believing parents and their children) is as good and certain that the kingdom of heaven belongs to the Infants of constant professors whom we baptize, as any profession of new Con∣verts can shew; for men and women may and often do deceive men, who know not the heart, or future conditi∣on of professors, whatsoever they now seem or say: but Christ who knows all things, yea the secrets of every heart, and ends of all that are or shall be, could not be deceived in so judging of Infants.* 1.440 The foundation of the Lord remains sure,* 1.441 and hath this seal, the Lord knoweth who are his: and his covenant being that he will be to the covenanted & his seed a God,* 1.442 whose promises are therefore sure to them; and the parent, as such, being as well known to be converted, as any new proselyte is or can be known to be converted; Gods promise to me concerning my children, is more sure to me, then mans judgment concerning the sinceritie of any new Convert can be, whatsoever appeareth in his words, or professions.

4 The interest of sealing into the covenant of grace de∣pendeth not on the sealed persons worthiness or unworthi∣ness, sexe, age, or condition, but upon God the author and free appointer thereof: so circumcision was one and the same in the external seal, to the elect and reprobate, Infant or Proselyte of years. The commandment of God did not put any difference, but equally enjoined it to all sorts of males within the pale of Israel: he said not circumcise on∣ly believers, the penitent, &c. (though in pe••sons of years, that was to be understood) but circumcise every male child the eighth day; when 'tis sure they could neither actually believe, repent, nor make any appearance thereof; as then the

external seal was one and the same, though the effect in the sealed was variable; so is it in baptism; the secret unworthi∣ness or Apostacie of the receiver foreseen only by God, did not make them uncapable of the seal; therefore man admini∣string, was to do his part according to the general command of God, and to leave the particular success and effect to God, and so is it in baptism.

5 Though unbelievers who reject the word of God, may not, as such, ••e baptized; yet Infants, who at most may be cal∣led but negatively unbelievers, cannot be included in that rule which excludeth contemners, seeing they have faith as they have reason, in the seed, not in the fruit, in the root, though not in the leaf; in some inward operation, though not in any o••tward expression, as Tilenus cited by the learned Dr. Feat∣ly well observes.

6 None are required to manifest their faith and repentance before baptism, but such as having the use of reason, have been taught and instructed in the same; for God requireth no impossibilities in respect of the abilities which himself ever gave: so that in common reason, all texts of Scripture which require confession of faith, repentance, &c. are to be un∣derstood of such as have the use of reason and tongue, where∣by they are enabled so to do.

If the parents to whom the Apostle spake,* 1.443 Act. 2. 39. were not believers, then the promise was not to them and their children: but they were not believers; ergo, &c.

We answer, The Apostle saying expresly—the promise is to you and to your c••ildren, your dispute, labouring to prove that the promise was not to them and their children, is point blanck against the express Word of God; and you denying that principle, are not worthy of further answer: yet for the pious Readers sake, we say further, 1 That believers may be taken two ways:* 1.444 first for such as do in heart believe unto righ∣t••ousness▪ this God alone can judge of; and therefore man is not to expect his rule and direction for his ministration from hence. Secondly, for such as profess faith or shew good and probable signs and symptoms thereof, as those hearers of Pe∣ter did: for they received the word gladly and were baptized▪

and before that there appeared an excellent sign of faith in them, in that the word which they heard, p••ofit••d them to compunction of heart and repentance, with desiring reme∣die: but where the Word of God is not mixed with ••aith in the hearers, it profiteth not, as appeareth, Heb. 4. 2. There∣fore that assumption is irrational where you say, they to whom the Apostle spake were not believers. 2 There may be an amphibologie in the major, believers being either such only in profession and bearing the external seal of the righteous∣ness of faith, or for such in the heart; and so the sequel is un∣sound: for the promise of Gods covenant was to all Israel▪ as being the seed of Abraham within that covenant; although many of them through unbelief obtained not remission of sins and eternal life held out to them in the same:* 1.445 which made not the promise of none effect to them who believed;* 1.446 and many unbelieving parents had and have believing chil∣dren: but a covenanted Parents unbelief barreth not his In∣fant born within the Church from the external seal of the covenant: so that the promise did belong to them though their Parents had secretly been unbelievers and impious per∣sons; much more, seeing they so expressed and professed their faith, repentance, and care to be saved.

If those children Act.* 1.447 2. 39. were entitled to baptism in their infancie, then they were, or must have been baptized in their infancie: but they were not baptized in their infancie, but their fathers only, who received the word gladly; therefore they to whom the promise is Act. 2. 39. were not entitled to baptism in their infancie.

We deny your minor, and you can never prove it: their fa∣thers were first baptized; but it appeareth not that they only were baptized. 1. It hath been often said, and you need still to hear it; it followeth not that it was not done, because it is not written. Christ spake and did many things which are not written.* 1.448 2 If you could from Scripture prove that de facto they were not baptized in their infancie; yet that would not prove that de jure they might not be baptized. The parents neglect of their duty, or any other intercident obstructions could not make void the childrens interest. Moses son was

not circumcised on the eighth day,* 1.449 nor many thousand Isra∣elists Infants in the wilderness for 40 years; yet we cannot hence conclude that they ought not to have been circumci∣sed had there been no let, or that they had no interest in the seal because there were lets.

Only Abrahams spiritual ••seed are to be baptized:* 1.450 but In∣fants are not the spiritual seed of Abraham; therefore Infants are not to be baptized.

We answer, 1 This is the same argument under another synonimical dress, to which we have answered: there you said, only believers are to be baptized; here you say only A∣brahams spiritual seed are to be baptized; whereas believers and Abrahams spiritual seed are one and the same in the Apostles account, Gal. 3. 7. 2 Many thousands which were Abrahams carnal seed, were baptized; which were indeed not his spiritual seed, that is, true believers: See Mat. 3. 5, 6. Act. 241. which being done by Iohn Baptist and Christs di∣sciples, and so precedentially to us, shews the falshood of your major. 3 If Abrahams spiritual seed, by your own con∣fession be to be baptized, then Infants of believers within the Church must be baptized, they being Abrahams spiritu∣al seed,* 1.451 (except you will say that Gods promise was to some who were not within the covenant made with Abraham) and indeed the whole mystical body of Christ,* 1.452 is the spiritual seed of Abraham, of which none can rationally deny Infants of covenanted Parents to be a part, who acknowledge Christ to be their Saviour. See Eph. 5. 28. and that out of him and his body the Church, is no salvation. So that by the way we may note, that to exclude Christian Infants from being a part of Christs visible Church in general, is to exclude them from the ordinary state and way to salvation: and so to deny them to be Abrahams spiritual seed, is to exclude them from the same, and to leave them to an extraordinary means thereto; in which some Pagans, Turks, and obstinate Iews &c. by the mercie of God, (illuminating & converting them to the faith of Christ by extraordinary means) may be saved: and this is to suppose Infants of Christian Parents as bad as Heathens,* 1.453 without Christ, aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, strangers from the covenants of promise—without God in

the World. Add hereto, that if parents may not sorrow as men without hope for their deceased Infants, they cannot have sound hope without faith, nor faith without a promise or word of faith, that is, Scripture-promise to confirm & ground it on: and that not in general, but such as properly concerns their children, as that Gen. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39. Luk. 18. 16, 17. &c. Now to deny childrens interest herein, or that they are the spiritual seed of Abraham, is to leave afflicted Parents hope∣less of their childrens salvation, in that by such an an unchari∣table & impious tenet, Parents must not believ those comfor∣table promises belong to their children; and that God will not so much as by an external seal, assure them that he is by covenant a God unto their Infants. Nor can we think that ever any were saved ordinarily, if at all, touching whom God never made any promise, neither in respect of internal and saving faith, nor so much as in respect of external right to sealing thereto: so that to avoid this, we must say, that Chri∣stian Infants are Abrahams undoubted spiritual seed & there∣fore they have at least an ecclesiastical right as to the cove∣nant made with Abraham, so to the Church-priviledges re∣spectively; that is, to baptism, which is now the seal of Gods covenant in Christ exhibited.

CHAP. III.

Infant baptism asserted and justified, by sundry argu∣ments by the Church of Christ alledged.

1. ALl they who are members of Christs body the Church, are to be baptized that they may be admitted into the same by the initiatory seal thereof, which is baptism, that they may be externally known to be of the Church: but In∣fants of Church-priviledged persons are members of Christs body the Church;* 1.454 ergo, they ought to be baptized that they may be admitted into the same by the initiatorie seal there∣of, which is baptism, &c.

The major is thus confirmed; such persons as were cir∣cumcised under the Law, that they might be known to be of the Church, ought to be baptized under the Gospel for the same end; for baptism answereth circumcision; and is called by

the same name, Col. 2 11, 12. as having the same end & effect to seal up the same grace unto faith, mortification, remission of sins, & admission into the visible Church. If it be excepted that under the Law, there was an express command for In∣fant-circumcision on the eighth day, but there is none for Infant-baptism; We say, 1 Because there was an express com∣mand under the Law never repealed in the Gospel, and the same end and use still remain; therefore there need be none in the Gospel more then that general opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers, in taking away the stop of the par∣tition wall by that which is said, Baptize all Nations. None but Israelites and their proselytes were sealed under the Law, none but male children at eight days old; but now go baptize all nations, without exception to nation, age, sex, or condi∣tion. 2 There is in all the Scripture no express prohibition, neither ca•• any by any sound consequence imply it.

The assumption is thus confirmed, Those whom Christ sa∣veth are members of his body, (for he is the head of the Church, and Savior of the body, Eph. 5. 23.) But Christ saveth Infants of believing parents; therefore Infants are members of Christs body the Church. The major is evident; for Christ saveth none but those who are members of his body the Church. The minor is as evident, it being granted that any Infants are saved, which is apparent from the covenant of God, Gen. 17. 7. and the words of Christ, of such is the king∣dom of God,* 1.455 as also by this argument: Those whom Christ lo∣ved, and for whom he gave himself to death, those he will sanctifie and cleanse with the washing of water by the Word, Eph. 5. 26. that they may be received into the Church, and be made partakers of the benefits of his death: but Christ not only loved and gave himself for persons of years, but also for Infants; therefore he will sanctifie and cleanse Infants with the washing of water by the Word, &c.

2 All Infants were by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 capable of sin and the expres∣sions of Gods justice punishing the same by death, sickness, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. but Infants are not le•••• capable of the grace and mercy of God in Christ in respect of the expressions thereof, then they were of his justice in Adam: Therefore Infants are ca∣pable of the expressions of Gods grace and mercie in Christ,

which in the ordinary dispensation thereof is baptism. The major is evident, Rom. 5. 12. 1 Cor. 15. 22. The minor Rom. 5. 20 where sin abounded, grace did much more abound, that is, Gods grace doth more abundantly appear in holding out the visi∣ble remedy, then his justice inflicting the denounced pu••ish∣ment; which could not be, if Infants (visibly involved in the condemnatorie sentence and execution thereof) should be ex∣cluded from the ordinary and visible means of recovery and salvation by Christ, which in them can be no other external means but baptism the la••er of regeneration: & it can be no less then a sacrilegious injury to the grace & mercy of God in Christ, to suppose that the sin of man is more powerf••l to hurt then the grace of God in Christ is to heal and save.

3 If we ought not to baptize Infants, then there must be some apparent let and impediment thereto, either on Gods part prohibiting, or on the Ministers part, or in the Sacra∣ment it self, or in the incapacitie of the receiver; but there is no apparent let or impdiment on the part (or in any) of these therefore there is none at all. 1 There is no impediment on Gods part, for God no where expresly or by good conse∣quence saith, Baptize not Infants, or Baptize none but those who do first testifie their faith and repentance. 2 There is no impediment on the Ministers part, for he can as easily bap∣tize Infants as persons of years. 3 There is no impediment in respect of the Sacrament it self; for all the essentials of baptism may be placed on children: profession of faith, repentance, &c. are conditions of baptism in persons of years, and effects of it, which may in due time appear and follow in baptized Infants: those therefore are not of the essence of baptism, nor so much as universal conditions thereof; ••or the pres•••••• sprinkling, washing, or dipping in water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the H. Ghost, are the essence of baptism▪ so are not faith, repentance, or newness of life▪ for it may be a true baptism, where these graces do neither precede nor f••••∣low it, though without these preceding or following, ba••tism cannot be effectual to salvation; which need not seem strange to him that considereth that Iudas, 〈…〉〈…〉▪ and many who were, and now are truly 〈◊〉〈◊〉, are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••∣ved. 4 Neither can the l••t be in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, who cannot by

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

any actual hardnes of heart, impenitency, or positive unbelief, or contempt of the ordinance of God, refuse or despise the grace of God offered in baptism. Therefore they are to be admitted to that whereof they are apparently & undeniably capable; w^ch is the external seal at least: which is all that man for present can administer, or we will contend for; being most willing to leave secret things to God, and to hope the best, where the contrary cannot appear unto us: only add hereto, if the issue be put upon the capacitie or incapacitie of the In∣fant, with relation to any condition so muc•• insisted on, let any of our Antagonists shew us how or wherin Infants under the Gospel & covenant of grace in Christ, have less capacity in respect thereof then Infants under the Law of Moses had, or that baptism is not the seal of the same righteousness of faith in Christ,* 1.456 wherof circumcision for the time was the seal.

4 That w^ch without any expressed exception to particulars Christs commission holds forth to all nations, belongs to In∣fants as well as persons of years;* 1.457 for Infants are alwayes a great part of all nations:* 1.458 but Christs commission holds forth baptism to all nations without any expressed exception to particulars: therefore baptism belongs to Infants (of belie∣ving Parents) as well as to persons of years

5 No man may forbid water, that is, the outward administra∣tion, where God hath given the inward operation of his H. Spirit (which maxim the Apostle built on,* 1.459 in that then—diffi∣cult question,* 1.460 whether the Gentiles might be sealed into the covenant of grace.* 1.461) But God hath given the inward operati∣on of his H. Spirit to Infants. Ier. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 15. 1 C••r. 7. 14 therefore no man may forbid water, or the outward admini∣stration for the baptism of Infants. The reason of the major is that all they who are partakers of the grace both signified & exhibited in baptism, have right to the sign and sacrament thereof, and therefore may not be barred from it; for that were to withstand God, Act. 11. 17. In reason where God hath bestowed the grace signified, man may not deny the signifying element; and in common right, the apparent heirs are unjustly denied the deeds and evidences whereby that right is assured upon them: for these are a part of their in∣heritance, and ought by right to follow the same: moreover

'tis impious to divide that w^ch God hath join'd, the sign from the thing signified; as they do, who allow children, grace, remission of sins and salvation by Christ, and yet deny them baptism into Christ; they will yeild them the Jewels, but not the Cabinet, the Treasure, but not the Purse.

6 All that are capable of the initiatorie seal of future faith, ought to be baptized: but Infants are capable thereof, therfore they ought to be baptized. So under the law Infants were capable of circumcision, the seal of their future faith: & our Infants have no less capacitie thereof then they had.

7 All they to whom Gods covenant of Grace extends, are to receive the initiatory seal thereof (for sealing of the co∣venant respectively, is a part thereof, Gen. 17. 10, 11. Mark 16. 16.) but Gods covenant of Grace in Christ extends to Infants of covenanted persons: therefore Infants ought to receive the initiatory seal of the covenant, which is baptism. The assumption is proved from Act. 2. 38, 39. Be baptized ev••∣ry one of you—for the remission of sins—for the promise is unto you, and to your children. What promise? that upon which the Covenant was sealed to Abraham and his seed, the faith∣ful: and when, where, or how have Infants of Christians forfeited their right to the seal, who as such, cannot forfeit?

8 If circumcision and baptism were for substance, both re∣spective seals of the same covenant of God in Christ, then those sorts of men who were capable of the one, are capable of the other: but circum••ision and baptism were for substance both respective seals of the same covenant of God in Christ, therefore those sorts of men (to wit, Infants as well as per∣sons of years) who were capable of circumcision, are capable of baptism. The major may appear in that God never made any covenant of grace but only in Christ, and the same Go∣spel was preached to Abraham, and he believed in the same Christ, Gal. 3. 8. add hereto, there is the same efficient pri∣mary cause, to wit, God making a covenant with his, and appointing the respective seals thereof: the same necessity on the receivers part, original sin in Infants, who have therefore as much need of regeneration and admission into the covenant of ••od for remedy, as they had under

the law, and there is the same power and efficacie of the ho∣ly Ghost still remaining; otherwise Gods grace in the New Testament, and covenant in Christ exhibited, should be more restrained, and of less latitude, then it was in the Old, under that severe Schoolmaster the Law; and, which were im∣pious to affirm, then Christs coming into the world should be so much disvantageous to believers, as that the Gospel should take away the seal of Gods covenant of grace from our chil∣dren, which the Law allowed them under the severity therof.

No part or condition of the covenant by God appointed for remission of sins and salvation, may be withheld by man from those who have right to the covenant and promise of God, under severe punishment: but the initiatory Sacrament, Baptism, now is a part or condition of the covenant by God appointed for remission of sins and salvation, whereto Infants have right: therefore it may not be withheld from such In∣fants as are within the covenant, and have right thereto and to the promise of God, See Exod. 4. Luk. 3. 3. Act. 2. 38, 39. Tit. 3. 5. now the initiatorie seal of the covenant was, and is a part or condition of the same, Gen. 17. 10▪ 11. Mark. 16. 16. Ioh. 3. 5.

10 All they whom God accounteth holy, have a capacity of baptism the seal thereof: but God accounteth children of believing parents holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Therefore children of believing parents have a capacitie of baptism; nor doth that ridiculous interpretation which Anabaptists have bor∣rowed of the Jesuites concerning legitimacie,* 1.462 overthrow this argument.

11 All those who being redeemed by Christ, have right to the kingdom of heaven, have right to the ordinary Port and Inlet into the same, that is baptism: but children of believers have right to the kingdom of heaven, Mark. 10. 14. Mat. 19. 13. therefore children of believers have right to baptism. Christ expresseth the entrance or means to regeneration and the kingdom of heaven Ioh. 3. 5. to wit, water of baptism, by which the H. Ghost doth ordinarily work thereto; and pre∣sently gives the reason—that which is born of the flesh is flesh: that, as such, cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 1 Cor.

15. 50. now Infants are from their natural birth, but flesh and blood, Ps. 51. 7. Eph. 2. 3. therefore if they must enter into the kingdom of God, they must be born again of water and the H. Ghost: it is true, that God can and doth regenerate ma∣ny Infants without baptism by his H. Spirit, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that they dy∣ing without the Sacrament, are yet saved in an extraordina∣ry way: but for us to deny them baptism, and to put their sal∣vation upon extraordinary means, where God hath appoint∣ed and declared the ordinary, is as much as man can do to shut them from the kingdom of heaven; and so though their want of baptism shall not be their eternal loss whom God hath elected, yet is it their great sin who neglect or despise the ordinance of God, and thereby (except in case of repen∣tance) they shall exclude themselves.

12 Whatsoever Christ commanded Ministers to do, and which the Apostles in the ordinary office of Ministers did do, that is right and just to be done, and we ought to do: but Christ commanded Ministers to baptize all nations without exception of children; and that the Apostles did do (for above all contradiction they obeyed Christ therein) therefore it is right and just to baptize Infants, as being a great part of all nations, and we ought to do it.

13 That which agreeth with the nature of the seal of the righteousness of faith and the institution of Christ, ought to be done: but Infant-baptism agreeth with these; therefore it ought to be done: it agreeth with the institution of Christ, who commanding to baptize all nations, well knew that there were many Infants therein, yet makes no exception of them, but gives them so high an eulogium, that we may know that the initiatory seal belongeth principally to them, as it did under the Law: what though God name not Infants to be baptized, in so many words and syllables? yet seeing he nei∣ther nameth men of years nor women, it must needs be that under these words all nations, he comprehended all those of which, nations, as their integrant parts, consist; which are men, women and children: it agreeth also with the nature of the seal, which is the init••atorie Sacrament of regeneration, im∣plantation into Christ, faith, mortification, putting off the old

m••n, putting on Christ, remission of sins, deliverance from the wrath of God and curse of the Law; all which is as necess••ry for Infants that they may be saved, as for any others, and into these either for present or future they are baptized.

14 God ever since his covenant made with Abraham, ap∣pointed Infants some seal of his covenant as well with them as the••r parents, whereof they were some ways capable, and whereby they might be externally known not only to God (that they are long before any man can seal them, 2 Tim. 2. 19. Tit. 1. 2. Rom. 8. 29. & 9. 11.) but also of men (or other∣wise he must have cast our Infants under the Gospel from right to the seal of his covenant which he gave them under the Law) to be within Gods covenant; therefore God hath appointed baptism to Infants: add hereto, that whereas poor Infants need mercie for remission of original sin; they are not for present capable of the other ordinary means ap∣pointed persons of years, as hearing the Word, receiving the Lords Supper, prayer, repentance, &c. they are passively ca∣pable of baptism, as under the law they were of circumcision; therefore seeing remission of sin is simply necessary; baptism, the ordinary means thereto, is necessary, if it may be had.

15 Whatsoever Infants of believers are capable of, as inte∣rested in Gods covenant, without the help of present under∣••••anding, that man ought not to bar them of: but such Infants as interested in Gods covenant, are capable of baptism with∣out the present help of understanding: therefore they ought not to be bar'd thereof by man. The major appeareth in In∣fants circumcision on the eighth day; that was the seal of the same faith and covenant of God in Christ,* 1.463 and a part or con∣dition of the same,* 1.464 as baptism now is, as hath been proved. The minor appears Gen.* 1.465 17. 7. I will establish my covenant be∣tween me and thee, and thy seed after thee, &c. that is, with thy Infants also as well as with thee: and by vert••e hereof Isaac at eight dayes old received the seal of the righ∣teousness of faith without the help of present un∣derstanding: and there is the same reason of bap∣tism in respect of Gods promise, Act. 2. 39. and the alteration of the seal altereth not the covenant in sub∣••••ance, subject or end. I suppose all know that children of

Christians without the help of present understanding, are now as capable of Baptism the more easie seal, as they were of Circumcision the more painful and bloody: And lest any should think that this Priviledge of Infants-sealing, belong∣ed only to Abraha••s Carnal-seed the Iews, the Holy Ghost testifieth that they which are of the Faith, the sam•• are the children of Abraham, Gal. 3. 7. and again, The Pro∣mise is to you,* 1.466 and to your children, and to all that are a far off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call: Now he hath called us Gentiles to the faith in Christ, who were once a far off: Therefore Infants of those who by Cal∣ling are interessed in Gods Covenant, are capable of Baptism: Moreover, as hath been noted, as the worldly wise men (by the creatures, Rom. 1. 21.) knew God, but loved him not (by grace dwelling in them) neither glori∣fied him as God.* 1.467 So these (Infants) may have him, before they can know him; that is, they may be regenerate by th•• holy Spirit before they have the use of understanding, that they may know the things which are given them of God; and certainly all Elect Infants, though dying yong, are re∣generate, (else could they not be saved) yet so young they can have no actual knowledge of their regeneration, or means thereunto belonging; and if they are saved, and have the inward Seal of Gods Spirit, how injuriously are they barred from the external seal by man?* 1.468 To conclude, Infants are interressed by Gods promise, which dependeth not on any mans understanding, sanctity or excellency, but on the free grace of God, who made this Covenant with us when we were all in the course of corrupted nature,* 1.469 enemies, without Christ, aliens, strangers from the Covenants of Pro∣mise, having no hope, and without God in the world, Ephes. 2. 12. Lastly, as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, and so sin is communicated to all mankinde, yea, to those who have not yet the use of reason; for we see that Infants dye as well as old men: So by one, Christs Righteousness imputed, many are made righteous in Ba∣ptism the Laver of Regeneration, though they yet un∣derstand it not: So put they on Christ, though it be not

yet given them to kn••w the things which are gi••en th••m of God.* 1.470 See Argument 2.

16. The command for baptizing is for all that are to be saved. But among those are many Infants; therefore the command for baptizing is for Infants also,* 1.471 or without exclu∣sion of all Infants.* 1.472

17. That opinion which makes the Covenant or Priviledge of the Gospel worse to Abrahams spiritual seed, then it was to his carnal, is false and erroneous, yea Antichristian: But to deny Believers Infants baptism, (the initiatory Seal of the Covenant, and the priviledge thereof) makes this worse then that; Therefore it is false &c. The major is confirmed in that God avo••eth the Gospel to be a better Covenant then that of the Law, Heb. 8. 6. The minor likewise, because under the Law, Infants had the priviledge of the initiato∣ty seal. Th•• Gospel-Covenant holdeth forth an enlarge∣ment of the signs and subject of Gods mercy: It was be∣fore only to the Jews ge••erally, who had the Ordinances of Righteousness, as Gideons Fleece the dew, while all the floor (which then figured the Gentiles) was dry: But now Christ saith, Go Teach all nations, baptizing them—* 1.473 So far was it from diminishing, or contracting the grace of God by the coming of Christ like rain into the Fleece, that now he sent it to all Nations, who before gave it only to one. And the Covenant of God made with Abra∣ham, was testified by an external Seal, to comfort Parents in assurance that God had care for, and a Covenant with their children also. Now they that take this away from childr••n under the Gospel, make the Gospe••-Covenant much worse, as being less testified then that under the Law. Add hereto, that the coming of Christ (which set an end to Legal ceremonies, and appointed Baptism) diminished not the grace of his Father in the Signs and Dispensations thereof, making it more dark, or less testi∣fied by a Seal towards those who are within the Cove∣nant of Grace; but rather encreased or communicated it more clearly, and therein it is a better Covenant, Hebr. 8. 6. not in respect of God the appointer there∣of,

he is one and the same for ever; not in respect of Christ the Mediator, he is the same under the Law and Gospel; but in respect of the exhibition of things promised and shadowed out in the Law, and clearer manifestation of Gods grace and truth in Christ. Now they who deny In∣fants of believers the initiatory seal of Gods Covenant, as much as in them lieth, diminish the grace of God; and make the Covenant seem worse by Christs coming, in that they diminish the comfortable assurance of our childrens implantation into Christ, and of his care of, and favour to them, if they may not so much as be marked with the external sign and seal thereof, which yet elect and re∣probates, if of years, may by your leave, and do re∣ceive.

18. That which is evil to be done, is forbidden in some express and known Law and Word of God: But Infant-baptism is forbidden in no express and known Law and word of God; therefore it is not evil, as our Antagonists would make the world believe.

19. That whereof God will severely punish the contempt or neglect, we must not omit: But God will severely punish the contempt or neglect of his Covenant of grace and mer∣cy, whereof Baptism is a part or condition, as well with In∣fants as persons of years; therefore we may not omit it. See Gen. 17. 14. Exod. 4. Mark 16. 16 Hebr. 10. 28, 29. and that being supposed (which hath hitherto been proved) that In∣fants of Church-priviledged Parents, ought to be baptized, the Minister who upon such fancies and unsufficient grounds as are alledged by our Antagonists, refuseth to baptize them (or the Parent who will not have them baptized) must needs be under •• woful condition; the Apostles argument being good from the dispensation of the Gospel committed to him to the necessary administration of the same, as in preach∣ing the word, so in the seals thereto belonging, whereof he expresly saith, 1 Cor. 9. 16. Wo is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel: For though his principal and first office was to preach, as being appointed the Doctor of the Gentiles, first to be taught, and then respectively to be baptized, yet

it is manifest that the Dispensation of Baptism, the seal of the Gospel, and Covenant of God in Christ, went along in charge with preaching of the same, and was committed to the Apostles,* 1.474 and all Ministers their Successors, and so woe will be to them if they baptize not (where Christ intended the seal of his Grace) as surely as if they preach not the Gospel.

20. They are to be held as Heathens and Publicans, who refuse to hear and obey the Church of Christ: But such are Anabaptists; nor is it any excuse, but an aggravation of their sin to bespatter the Church with impious calumnies: It had been and ever was, as easie for all sorts of hereticks in and since Christ and the Apostles time, and in the purest ages of the primitive Church, to have said for a pretended defence of their errour and contumacy, you are not the true Church; but in spight of Satan and▪ the powers of hel, we are through the mercy of God, a member of the true Church of Christ, & therefore their schism &contempt is the more condemnable.

21. Those to whom the things signified belong, unto them belong also the signs and seals thereof, except in case of some apparent condition making an evident exception (as want of ability to examine themselves, barreth Infants from the holy Eucharist) But the thing signified by Baptism belongs to In∣fants, and there is no apparent condition making any evident exception to bar them from it; therefore Baptism belongeth to them. The things signified by Baptism, are, that we are thereby received into Gods favour, for the blood of Christ shed for us, to binde us to a sincere obedience to faith, and endeavour to newness of life; Gods promise of grace and mercy in Christ, marking us for sheep of his pasture; our put∣ing on Christ, regeneration, washing from our sins, justificati∣on & salvation by Christ; these things belong to all the elect, whereof Infants of Believers are a very considerable part: And these things are held forth in Baptism as things signified in the sign by God appointed to all receivers sacramentally, and to an external communion, of which lambs aswel assheep, Infants aswel as the aged are capable: Therefore Baptism belongeth to Infants of Christian P••rents.

22. To whom the Covenant in force runneth in the same tenour in the new Testament as in the old, to such persons the application of the Initiatory seal of the new Testament ought to be administred,* 1.475 as well as was the Initiatory seal of the old: But the Covenant in force runs in the same tenour, &c. therefore the Initiatory seal of the Covenant ought now to be administred to such persons as the Initiatory seal of the Covenant was administred to in the old: The tenor of the Covenant was to Parents and their children upon condition that they should be sealed according to the promise, that God would be their God, who would observe the Laws and con∣ditions thereof: the same is still for substance in force, though the seals are changed: So that as Infants were circumcised, so ought they now to be baptized: and except this be allow∣ed to our Infants as well as to our selves believing in Christ, we are not (as the Apostle affirms, Col. 2. 10.) Compleat in him—In whom we are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands—Buried with him in Baptism, &c. Nor are we and our children so sealed into our implantation into the death of Christ, that we may (in the ordinary way) thereby be assured, that as he put off the infirm affections of the natu∣ral body, so we put off the body of sin spiritually. See Rom. 6. 3, &c.

23.* 1.476 Such persons as were typically baptized unto Moses, are capable of the real and true baptism under the Gospel of Christ: For in the main the argument holds from the type to the truth, though possibly not in every circumstance: But children as well as persons of years were baptized in the cloud, and in the red-sea unto Moses, 1 Cor. 10. 2. and their washing with rain from the cloud, prefigur'd our wash∣ing in Baptism, and by the Spirit; therefore children of co∣venanted persons are capable of the true and real Baptism under the Gospel of Christ.

24.* 1.477 Where there is a command for a thing never remand∣ed or countermanded,* 1.478 there that thing is still in force: But there is a command for the signing of Infants of Believers with the sign of Gods Covenant with their Parents and them, never yet remanded or countermanded; Therefore

the signing of Believers children with the sign of Gods Co∣venant, which is Baptism, is still in force.

24. That which dependeth not on any age, or act of man, but on the meer institution and gracious promise of God, as its ground, may not be denyed by man to any comprehend∣ed under the general term of All Nations, in respect of any age, or defects thereof, as want of understanding, and the acts thereof in faith, repentance, &c. in Infants: But Ba∣ptism depended not on any age or act of man as its ground, but on the meer institution and gracious promise of God; therefore tought not by anyman be denied infants, in respect of their present defect or want of understanding, or the acts thereof in faith, repentance, &c. they being comprehended in All Nations.

The minor appears in S. Peters answer to his hearers prickt in heart, Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remis∣sion of sins;* 1.479 For the Pro••ise is unto you and unto your chil∣dren, &c, He saith not, Be baptized, for ye have repented, ye are of age, and a good understanding; but, Be baptized, &c. for the Promise is to you and to your children; though they cannot yet actually believe,* 1.480 repent, understand, &c. yet they have Gods promise for the ground of their sealing, on whose grace and ordinance the whole power and vertue of the sa∣crament dependeth: But his grace and Ordinance depend not on any excellency,* 1.481 ability or act of man; therefore the A∣postle fetched not the reason of his Exhortation from their ••ge or repentance, but from the promise and mercy of God calling them who were far of.

26. For conclusion, I take up this congeriem of arguments out of the ••earned Vr••inus. That opinion is pernicious which robs poor Infants of their right, which obscureth the grace and mercy of God (who would that Infants of Believers should from the womb be reckoned members of his Church) which derogates from the grace offered in the new Cove∣••••nt, making it less then that in the old; which weakneth the comfort of the Church and faith••••l Parents; which denyeth I••fants that seal which should differ them from the children ••f Ie••s and Pagans; which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Apostles rea∣son

(Can any man forbid water, that these should not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bapti∣ptized, which have received the holy Ghost aswell as we?) which keepeth Infants (as much as man can) from Christ; he expresly saying, Suffer little children to come unto me, which without a Covenant they cannot do spiritually, nor without the ex∣ternal seal, sacramentally: Now such is the opinion of Ana∣baptists, denying Christians Infants Baptism.

CHAP. IV.

Anabaptists Arguments concerning the necessity of Dipping over head and ears in Baptism, examined and answered.

THe envious Philistims will still be casting earth into Isaacs wells of livings waters,* 1.482 to stop them up: Satan envying man, these waters of life in the Laver of Regenerati∣on, eftsoon casteth in scruples to obstruct and make void the holy ordinances of God to deluded souls, by causing them to renounce their Baptism (and Christ whom they sacramental∣ly had put on therein) by taking on them another Baptism under a vain pretence, that they were not susceptive of Ba∣ptism in their infancy,* 1.483 nor lawfully baptized, neither at all tru∣ly, if happily they were not dipped under water; for they say, the institution of Christ requireth that the whole man be dip∣ped all over in water: so that the Anabaptists now hold, that dipping the whole body into water is essential to baptism,* 1.484 & so necessary, that except they are so dipt, they are not duly and truly baptized according to the institution of Christ. Since the infancy of the Gospel, Satan hath not ceased to trouble the Church concerning baptism:* 1.485 Some of the Jews would have circumcision joyned with baptism; the Archon∣tici condemned baptism with a curse: the Novatians deferred it to the last, because they understood not the power of this ordinance of God to cleanse the whole life, but thought that there was no mercy for him who sinned after baptism:* 1.486 Libe∣rius the Monk, as also Fidus, would have childrens Baptism tyed to the eighth day;* 1.487 Anabaptists not only deny believers

children Baptism, as the Pelagians and Donatists did of old; but affirm, That dipping the whole body under water is so necessary, that without it, none are truly baptized (as hath been said) So the subtil enemy still assaileth Baptism in one part or another, that we may not unaptly apply that to him & his factors, which Tertullian once said concerning the most impious Persecutor Nero,* 1.488 He that knows him well, may understand, that nothing but some great (or singular) good thing is condemned by Nero: And indeed we ought more highly to esteem Gods favor in sealing us into his Covenant of grace, and more seriously and carefully endeavour to answer there∣to in newness and sanctity of living, by how much more the enemy regeth against it. The Protestant Church holdeth, that the word and the element make the Sacrament; and that neither sprinkling is simply necessary, nor washing or dip∣ping unlawful; but that according to the convenience of times, places and persons, either sprinkling, washing or dipping in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is the true form of Baptism; and that, caeteris paribus, either of these three applications of the water have the same effect, and may as convenience serves, indifferently be used, being fit to sig∣nifie the application of the benefit of Christs blood for the remission of sin, and cleansing therefrom. But our Antago∣nists say;

We are buried with Christ by baptism into his death,* 1.489 that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, even so we also should walk in newness of life, Rom. 6. 4. But Christ in his burial was covered, that he might thence rise out of the earth; ther••∣fore in Baptism we must be covered, and as it were buried under water, that we may rise again as Christ did.

We answer,* 1.490 1. Similitudes run not on four feet; types, signs and similitudes are not to be extended beyond the scope and meaning of the Speaker (as might be shewed in almost innu∣merable instances) lest not only absurdities, but horrid blas∣phemies should be thence inferred. The Ark in the Deluge

was a type of Baptism, 1 Pet. 3 20, 21. what, must the type and truth agree in all things? must all the world be drown'd, and only eight persons saved? I doubt you would hardly a∣gree among your ••elves, which should be the eight. The red-sea and cloud, figured baptism, 1 Cor. 10. 1, &c. what, would you have your disciples baptized with the sprie of two neighbor∣ing seas, and a cloud of fresh water raining on their heads? Ionah's being in the Whales belly, was a type of Christs bu∣rial and resurrection; you would not have your disciples in their conformity, be three days under water. These instances may shew the vanity of stretching types and signs to every fancy of Hectic braines; and now deal ingenuously, what rea∣son or warrant have you to wrest this similitude to what you please? in those similes which are most apt, there may be ma∣ny disconveniences found: Or what commission can you dream of, that gives you authority to draw this alledged Scripture beyond the Apostles scope and purpose, rather to that which seems to favour your fancy and practise of im∣mersion, then to another sense?

2. Those expressions, Rom. 6. 4. are meerly figurative, and therefore do not at all bind us to any external, or literal sense or observance in the maner of baptizing; & if the similitude must fully hold, some might possibly reason thus; as Christ was first dead and buried, and rose again the third day, so we must first be dead and buried, and then be baptized, and rise with Christ a third time (Marcion, that old pernicious here∣tick, held, that one might be three times baptized) or they might infer that we must not rise up out of the water into which we are dipt, until the third day: but how absurd such inferences are, none can be ignorant.

3. The alledged scripture concludes not the manner of our baptism, but the effects thereof; not how the water should be applied, or in what maner we should be baptized, whether by sprinkling, washing or dipping; but how we ought to live who are baptized; that sin should henceforth have no more po∣wer over us, then if we were dead; that we should so live to righteousness, and bringing forth fruits thereof, as being im∣planted into Christ, and so no more living our own life, but the holy life of Christ.

4. He saith not, We are buried with Christ in water, or ju•••• as Christ was buried in his baptism; but, into the likeness of his death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, so we should (not be raised o••t of the water, but) walk in newness of life: Here is the main substance of the similitude; 'tis not in any circumstance. Now I would fain know whether a man may not walk in newness of life, being baptized with sprink∣ling, as well as if he had been doused.

5. The argument here drawn to prove necessity of immer∣sion is a fallicia accidentis; a reasoning from the the substance to the accident. Suppose thus, We must be baptized into the si∣militude of Christs death: But he was covered and rose again; ergo, We must be covered with water that we may be raised a∣gain, &c. Non sequitur: his being covered in the rocky vault, was but a circumstance, as was his lying covered to the third day: therefore it can be no more here concluded, that we must be like Christ in being covered with water in baptism, then that we must lie under water three days and nights in our ba∣ptism, because he lay so long in his grave; for why should one circumstance or accident be concluded, rather then another?

6. If the similitude must be so strictly urged, it will be rather for us. Christ was not thrown down, prone, with his face down∣ward (as they use to dive their disciples) but honorably em∣balmed, and decently laid in a new Sepulchre; and we use so∣lemnly to bury our dead with their faces upward, & sprinkle dust and earth upon them; and in such decent posture we ba∣ptize Infants, by putting our sprinkling water on them, or by dipping them.

7.* 1.491 Christs natural body was truly dead & buried, we must therefore understand that which must be done in us by ana∣logy and proportion, and not wrest the Apostles words to a litteral sense: The body of sin is then buried, when the power thereof is enervated and weakned, and as it were a dead car∣case, is so over-whelmed and buried, that it can no more move and force a man whither it would, and was wont: and this is said to be done in Baptism in a twofold respect, 1. In respect of Christ, into whom when we are implanted by ba∣ptism, all the benefi•••• of his death are freely given and sealed

to us; so that our sins are buried in his grave, who bare our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in his own body, 1 Pet. ••. 24. so in his burial our sins were covered, no more to appear in judgment against us, or to be imputed to us. 2. In respect of our mortification, sacramental∣ly accomplished in our baptism, and by the Spirit of God by certain degrees in al our life long; though bodily death, being a privation of life, hath no degrees: he that is dead dyeth no more; yet in our spiritual death to sin, there are degrees, & we dye daily, as the power of sin is more and more broken in us.

That baptism which is not agreeable to Christs or Iohns bap∣tism, * 1.492 is not instituted by Christ (& therefore mans inventi∣on, and will-worship) But washing or sprinkling with water agreeth not with the baptism of Christ or John (for they ba∣ptized and were baptized in Jordan; and the Eunuch was baptized in the brook, Acts 8. 38.) therefore baptizing with sprinkling, or only washing, is not instituted by Christ.

We answer, 1. This is a fallacious arguing, the term•• agree∣able) being homonymical: 'tis doubtful in the assumption, whe∣ther he mean agreeable in substance, or in circumstance: that which is not agreeable in substance with the baptism of Christ and Iohn Baptist, is not instituted by Christ; but this holds not in point of circumstance; for then there could be no lawful baptism but in Iordan, or some other water of Palestine.

2. It follows not that Iohn B. dived Christ or any other in∣to water; or Philip the Eunuch, because Iohn baptized in Iordan (where were some sandy places) because we read, they went down into the water; for so they may do, who only wet their feet, or go up to their knees or anckles: & we must con∣sider, that in the infancy of the Gospel, they had not publike Oratories and Fonts to accommodate them baptizing, as in a setled state of the Church we have seen; and therefore they baptized where they could have convenience of water, which in that dry region was not every where to be had; as appear∣eth in that reason of Iohns* 1.493 baptizing in Aenon near Salim, given by the Evangelist—because there was much water there.

3. It is not probable that Christ was dipt cloathes and all in Iordan, and so went immediately wringing-wet into the wil∣derness: see Mark 1. 1, 2▪ 10. nor that he was stripped naked

with such a confused multitude of men and women as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to Iohns baptism: see Luke 3. 21. Matth. 21. 31, 32. Matth. 3. 5, 6.

4. It is but a weak Fallacy to dispute à particulari, ad ge∣nerale; thus, some went i••to the river to be baptized; there∣fore all that are to be baptized ought so to do: for in things circumstantial, and without some binding Precept to impose them as duties, a particular example can beget no general rule for our due and necessary imitation.

5. If it could be proved (which all our Antagonists can never do) that Christ and those whom Iohn baptized, were duckt into the water when they were baptized, yet it doth no more follow thence, that all must everywhere, and at all sea∣sons be so baptized, then that the Lords Supper may be ad∣ministred with none but unleavened bread, in an upper room after Supper, to twelve men only, no women; because Christ so administred it; or that we must anoint the ••••ck with oyl, or salute with an holy kiss, because these things were in use in those Regions; nay, but matters circumstantial are ever liable to the test of accommodation and customs of times and places, and persons: dipping might be convenient in those hot Regions,* 1.494 and at Easter and Pentecost, to which their bap∣tizing was limited of old, which in these Northern climats, and in the dead of winter, were near deathful to tender bodies.

6. Christs baptism is washing, Ephes. 5. 25, 26. and wash∣ing is as well by sprinkling, or pouring on of water, as by dipping into water: hence the Apostle speaking of the wash∣ing of Regeneration, presently saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.495 which he hath poured out on us; and the Scripture calleth the di∣vers sprinklings mentioned, Heb. 9. 13, 19, 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.496 bap∣tismes, v. 10. As washings or sprinklings are also called, Mark 7. 4. but hereof we shall see more anon; for the pre∣sent only note, that the Holy Ghost, the surest Interpreter of Scripture, interpreteth Baptizing by sprinkling or wash∣ing, so that there is no necessity (as our Antagonists would fain have it) of dipping or dousing the whole body under water.

Dipping (say they) is baptizing,* 1.497 and baptizing dipping: Christ therefore who instituted Baptism, therein appointed that the whole man should be dipped in Bap••ism.

We answer: 1. If this bubble had any weight or solidity, it were easily retorted; washing or sp••inkling is baptizing (in Gospel-sense) Christ therefore who instituted Bapti••m▪ therein appointed men to be washed or sprinkled with water.

2. Prove that Christ appointed the whole man should be dipped all over in water, by some other medium if you can: by this you cannot; true it is, that all dipping all over in water is baptizing, but not convertibly; for all baptizing is not dipping: for it is proved by the fore-alledged Scriptures, that washing by pouring on, or sprinkling water, is also a kinde of baptizing: If you should say, every man is a living creature, that is true, but not convertible, therefore every living creature is a man: it follows not; because there are more species of living creatures then one; all dipping is ba∣ptizing; therefore all baptizing is dip••ing, follows not, be∣cause there are more sorts of baptizings then one by dip∣ping. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes signifieth to dip, but not always: The Apostles according to Christs promise, were baptized with fire;* 1.498 they were not (after the foolish Iacobites opinion) dipt into fire,* 1.499 the cloven tongues sate upon each of them▪ The Pharisees among many other traditions, used the ba••∣tism of beds.* 1.500 Mark 7. 4. You will not understand that to have been dipping their beds into water (that would quickly have rotted and made them useless and unwholsom) but of some light sprinkling with water: So when they came from the market, they eat not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—except they be baptized: You will not understand, except they be dipt over head and ears in the water; but, except they washed as our translation gives it, after the Syriac; neither had they in that dry Climate,* 1.501 convenience and store of waters every where to dive into. They had commonly their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, water∣pots, after the manner of the purifying of the Iews, John 2. 6. out of which they drew a little, for lustrations o•• sprinklings.

Moreover, the Israelites, 1 Cor. 10▪ 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, were baptized in the cloud—not dipt into it, but besprink∣led with the distilling drops thereof: for the prepositoin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there used, in such expressions, signifieth not in, but with; as, He shall baptize you 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with (not in) the holy Ghost and fire▪ Matth 3. 11. So Rev. 19. 21. The rest were slain, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with (not in) the sword, it is an usual Hebraism 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.502 in the sword; that is, with the sword, Exod. 6. 6.* 1.503 I will redeem you, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in brachio extenso. So Deut. ••. 15.* 1.504 The Lord thy God brought thee out thence. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in, that is, by a mighty hand, and a stretched out arm. Again, the sons of Zebede•• were to be baptized with the baptism of blood, Mark 10. 39. that is, in Tertullians phrase, Russa••i suo sanguine, besmeared, or wet with drops of their own blood; not dipt into blood. The same use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, derived from the Hebrews, we often finde in the new Testament, Rom. 10. 9. 1 Cor. 4. 21. 1 Pet. 1. •• 1. Rev. 2. 16. & 1••. 5. & 19. 15.

3. It is granted, that Christ and many others were bap∣tized in Iordan, and that Philip did go down into the wa∣ter to baptize the Eun••ch, and that such baptisms in ho•• Climates have, and may lawfully be used; yet no scripture-proof at all appears, that Christ in his own person was dived under water, or the Eunuch, or any of those whom Iohn or ••ny of the Apostles baptized; neither do we at all deny immersion to be lawful; but we deny it to be so necessary, as to the exclusion of washing or sprinkling, as if they were not as effectually used: We deny that dipping in rivers is so necessary to baptism, as that none ought to be ac∣counted baptized, but those who are dipt after such a man∣ner: And we say, that where we have other convenien∣cies in the settled C••••rches, that practise appeareth meerly Schismatical, affected and unnecessary.

Baptism being a sign, must answer to the thing signified; as. The washing of the whole soul in the blood of Christ. 2. That interest which the Saints have in the deat••, bu∣rial, and resurrection of Christ, is not partial, but to∣tal; so therefore ought the baptizing of the body to be.

We answer: 1: It must still be remembred,* 1.505 tha•• this sa∣crament may be rightly and effctually administred by any of the three ways, dipping, washing or sprinkling, and we approve of dipping, where custom and convenience require it, so far, as that it excludes not the other: For a divers custom of several Churches, makes no difference, where they all hold one faith in the main.

2. It is not in the quaintity of the Element, but the in∣stitution of Christ, the vertue of his death and passion, and the powerful working of his holy Spirit, which gives the fruit and effect of baptism;* 1.506 therefore Iohn 3. 5. the Spirit is mentioned with water, because the power of regenera∣ting is not of the water, but of Gods Spirit and Ordinance effectually working by the water of baptism: And here we may note, that Infants are capable of this operation, as hath been proved; and Christ in his institution of baptism, pre∣scribed not (so far as can appear in Scripture) how much water must be used herein, no•• how deep it must be (as there is no quantum of the elements prescribed in the Eucharist) neither is there in all the new Testament, either one pre∣cept for, or example of plunging or dousing the party to be baptized over head and ears under water.

3. In Circumcision, the whole body was not cut, but one∣ly the foreskin of the flesh, whereby the whole person, bo∣dy and soul was sealed and admitted into Gods Covenant; and so is it proportionably in baptism, the seal of Gods pr••∣sent Covenant: In common use we know the seal of a wri∣ting obligatory is not set all over the deed, but to some one part, by which the whole is confirmed; and as in Livery and Seisin, a little turf of grass, with a twig or smal bough delivered to the Purchaser, investeth him in the whole state of the demeasn: So here, 'tis the seal and subscription of a just Deed which passeth the estate, not the quantity of the

wax, or largeness of the parchment, nor greatness of the Character, whether Text-hand, Chancery, Court-hand, Se∣cretary; all these things are circumstantial, and no more: and so is it in the matter of much or little water in baptism, the essence whereof is applying water to the body of the baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son,* 1.507 and of the Holy Ghost. There is therefore no simple necessity of dip∣ping the whole body under water; it is sufficient if the face, (which is as it were the representative, or epitome of man, in which are united all the senses) be dipped, washt, or sprinckle••.

4 In baptism lawfully administred by washing▪ sprinkling or dipping, the elect have the same interest in the death, bu∣rial and resurrection of Christ, as if they were baptized in the deepest channel of Iordan, or any other water: Faith, which instrumentally gives them interest in Christ, being no effect of deep waters, but of those Rivers of living waters whereof Christ spake, Iohn 7. 38, 39. to wit, the Holy Ghost.

5 Sprinkling doth also aptly signifie our sprinkling with the blood of Christ in baptism, cleansing us from our sins, ••nd sealing our election, 1 Iohn 1. 7. 1 Pet. 1. 2. and pour∣ing water, signifieth the effusion of the Spirit upon us, Tit. ••. 5. and those sprinklings of the blood of sacrifices, signi∣fied the very same.

Christ being baptized, is said to have come up out of the water, Matth. 3. 16. therefore he was in it: And the Eunuch went down into the water with Philip; in nei∣ther appears any sprinkling or washing, but rather dip••ing.

We answer: 1. It appears•• that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized: it appears not that either they, or any other whom Iohn B or any of Christs Disciples baptized, were dipped all under water (as hath been said) any more then that they

were washed or sprinkled with water. The word Baptizing in the original signifying sprinkling, washing or dipping; therefore we take it to be indifferent which of the three ways baptism be administred, respect being had to conve∣nience of times, places and persons.

2. The Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the cited places, rendred Out of, signifieth properly From; as, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.508 From (not from under) the ships; and so Christ might come from the water, though he were never dived under it, or though he had gone only to the depth of the first or second measure of the Sanctuary waters, to the anckles, or to the knees.

3. Philip and the Eunuch are said to have gone down in∣to the water, Act. ••. 38. for it was a descent to them; the waters (though shallow, or possibly not within very low or hollow banks, as Iordan and all great waters of Rivers usually run) yet always running lower then the Superficies of the earth near the sources and channels thereof.

4 The words Acts 8. 38. are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And both of them descended, &c. so the word also signifieth, to descend, or to alight; as, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to alight from (not to come from under) an horse: or to descend, or l••t down ones self; or to come down from some higher place; as,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Budaeus,* 1.509 after Suidas•• or to go down to some even place, as to invest an enemy, to wrestle, fight, or encountre; also to go from one place to another; as Acts. 17. 15. it is said—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ia∣cob descended, or went into Egypt, Acts 10. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— Get thee down and go with them. So Acts 14. 25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they went down unto Attalia; for so they usu∣ually expressed going from one place to another, as the Hebrews by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So far is that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Acts 8. 38. they went down both to, or into the water, from in∣forcing the conclusion aimed at (therefore the Eunuch bap∣tized was dived under water) that it makes nothing for it, more then that Iacob going down into Egypt, was there∣fore duckt in Nilus, or Peter in the waters of Cesarea, ••r Paul and Barnabas in some Attalian waters; because these were said in the very same word, to go down to these places.

all which being frivolous and vain, your assertion must be left unconcluded, for any thing to the contrary in these cited Texts appearing. Add hereto, that here is nothing said of the Eunuch, as going down into the water, more then of Philip (for they both went down, &c.) now I sup∣pose you will not affirm, that Philip, as, and then when he baptized the Eunuch, in that administration, stood all under water with the Eunuch; or that Iohn B. in the like action in Iordan, was ever doused over head and ears for company▪ And how then can it hence appear, that the baptized were more dived then the baptizers? Behold up∣on what unsound grounds our Antagonists build their pre∣tended necessity of ducking their disciples in Rivers or deep waters.

CHAP. V.

Protestants arguments against the supposed necessity of dipping, rather then sprinkling or washing with water in Baptism.

THat which the word used by Christ (enjoyning the duty of Baptism) doth indifferently signifie, and commonly import (there being neither express example nor precept to restrain it precisely to either) that is law∣fully and warrantably to be done in baptizing: But the word used by Christ enjoyning the duty of Baptism (or Baptizing) doth indifferently and commonly signifie dip∣ping, washing or sprinkling; and there is no express exam∣ple or precept (in Scripture) to restrain it precisely to ei∣ther▪ Therefore in Baptizing we may lawfully and war∣rantably (pro more loci, temporis & statu personarum) ei∣their dip, wash, or sprinkle in water (In the name of the ••ather, and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost) The major is out of controversie. The minor thus confirmed: The Word used by Christ, Matthew 28. 19, is,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifieth indifferently, to wash, sprinkle, or dip; and as the learned Mr. Leigh well noteth, it is taken largely for any kinde of Washing,* 1.510 Rinsing or Cleansing, even when there is no dipping at all. So Aemilius Portus gives it by mergo, immergo, tingo, intingo, made∣facio, lavo, abluo, &c. Suidas interpreteth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, lavant. The same word signifi••th washing or sprink∣ling in many places of Scripture,* 1.511 and from necessary con∣sequences.

1. From the types of that which was signified in the old Testament,* 1.512 which the holy Ghost (as hath been noted) calleth Baptisms or Washings: to wit, by Sprinklings▪ for how were they performed? see Numb. 19. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the 70. gives it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the water of Separation hat•• not been Sprinckled upon him: so is it often named there: and Levit. 4. 17. The Priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and Sprinkle it seven times, &c. 70. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So Lev. 14. 16. and Lev. 16. 14, 15. he shall take the blood of the bullock, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and shall sprinkle it with his finger. So Numb. 8. 7. Thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them, Sprinkle water of purifying upon them. So Numb. 19. 18, 19. A clean person shall take hysope and dip it into the water, and Sprinkle it upon the Tent—and upon the persons— so Exod. 24. 8. Moses took the blood, and Sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the Blood of the Covenant, which the Lord hath made with you:* 1.513 which signified the blood of Christ to cleanse them from sin, as the water of Baptism now doth: And these very Sprinklings the holy Ghost calleth Baptisms, Heb. 9. 10. 13, 2••. where the mystery is clearly unfolded.

2. From the truth thereby signified: So Ezek. 36. 25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 70. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I will sprin∣kle you with clean water, (or—clean water upon you) and ye shall be clean: how? The Apostle ••elleth us, I Pet. 1, 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unto obedience

(that is, by the Spirit of Sanctification) and Sprinkling of the blood of Iesus Christ; as, Heb. 10. 22. Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts Sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water; that is the water mentioned by Ezekiel,* 1.514 the purifying water of baptism; and Heb. 12. 24. We are come to Iesus the Mediator of the new Covenant, and to the blood of Sprinkling—that is, the application of the blood and merit of Christ in Baptism, for the remis∣sion of our sins.

3. From necessary consequences, from the common use of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Scriptures, where they cannot reasonably by interpreted by dipping,* 1.515 but by washing or sprinkling; as Matth. 2••. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. he did not dip his whole fist into the dish, but only wet his fingers therein: So Matth. 20. 23. Christ menti∣oneth his baptism, which all understand of his blood-shedding, not dipping therein but besprinkling therewith. So Luke 11. 38. when the Pharisee invited Christ to dinner,* 1.516 he wondred, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—that he had not first washed before dinner; it cannot there reasonably be interpreted, that he had not first been dipt over head and ears in water. So 1 Cor: 10. 2. They were all baptized unto Mosès in the cloud and in the sea: No reasonable man can think that all Israel,* 1.517 with their wives and children were dowsed into the sea (nay, but they passed through dry•• foot) nor were they dived into the cloud, but only as those who were rinsed or wetted under a rainy cloud by the drops there∣of distilling on them.* 1.518 So Mark 7. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the letter, Except they baptize, or be baptized: he meaneth not by dipping the whole into the water; but as it is clearly manifested by the Holy Ghost (the best in∣terpreter of himself) a little before, they ear not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with common hands;* 1.519 that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unwashen: and in the same place (as hath hath noted) we read al∣so, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the letter Baptisms of beds; which was not by dipping into, but (though under∣stood of tables, which they commonly made of Couch∣beds

set together) by sprinkling them with a little water, which manner of purification they too superstitiously and commonly used.

As for the second clause of our minor proposition, we appeal to Scriptures, whether there be any express example or precept restraining baptism only to dipping over head and ears.

2 In the Lords Supper the efficacie of the Sacrament is not in the quantitie of the element: a little bread, therein, is as good and effectual as a whole loaf: so here, it is not (as hath been said) in the quantitie of the element, but in the ordinance of God, and operation of his Spirit: Now herein Christ never gave any precept concerning the quantum•• the Word and the Element make the Sacrament; and a few drops sprinkled, are as truly water as all Iordan.

3. If Baptism in the type thereof were administred by God by sprinkling, then it is lawfully and effectually so to be administred by man in the truth (for in the main Analogy the truth must answer the type) But Baptism in the type was administred by sprinkling (infants as well as persons of years••) for all Israel were baptized under the Cloud, 1 Cor. 10. 2. Therefore Baptism may lawfully and effectually be administred by sprinkling of water.

4. That administration of Baptism whereby Christ cleanseth his Church, is lawfull and effectuall. But Christ cleanseth his Church with the washing of water through the word,* 1.520 Ephes. 5. 26. Therefore that administration of Baptism which is by washing with water (according to his precept, Matth 28. 19.) is lawfull and effectuall.

5. The Goaler, Acts 16. 33. was baptized about mid∣night, and it is improbable that he had any such store and convenience of water in his house, as to dip himself and fa∣mily, or that they went out to some river at such a season; neither was it probable that three thousand added to the Church in one day, durst in those times when Christians were so eagerly persecuted, go publickly with the Apostles to the poole of Bethesda, Siloam, or the brook Cedron, or any like place to be doused: more probably they were

baptized by washing or sprinkling with water, as they had private accommodation thereto: nor could so many in one day have been baptized by a few Apostles, if all had been baptized by dipping

6. If immersion were simply necessary, and of the Essence of Baptism, then it might not be dispensed withall in case ••ome sick Convert should desire it before his death for the comfort and peace of his afflicted conscience, which were extream uncharitableness, which belongs not to any Ordinance of God. Therefore it cannot be sim∣ply necessary.

7 That which can neither be proved by example of Christ, Iohn Baptist, or any of the Apostles baptizing, nor by any precept of Christ concerning the same, is not essen∣tial or simply necessary to baptism: but dipping or dowsing i•• baptism, can neither be proved by example, &c. or any precept of Christ concerning the same: therefore dip∣ing or dowsing is not essential, or simply necessary to bap∣tism: and indeed were there to be found in Scripture any example hereof, without a precept to lay the same univer∣sally upon the Ordinance, it were not binding, as hath been proved from Christs administring the communion with un∣leavened bread, after supper in an upper room to twelve men only and no women. So that if that which you can never prove, should be granted you, that Iohn Baptist and Christs disciples, did then and there baptize by dipping; yet it would not follow that we ought to baptize in the like and no other manner. In the infancie of the Church they had not Baptisteries or Churches as we have; there was a kind of necessitie for them as they met with occasions, to make use of waters as they could find them in rivers or sources; where∣in it cannot be proved that they dipt: nor could it conclude our Antagonists pretended necessitie, if it were supposed.

8 Whatsoever was or is essential to baptism, or simply necessary thereto, is mentioned in some clear example or express precept of Christ: But dipping the whole body in baptism is neither mentioned in any clear example, nor any express precept of Christ: therefore it is not essential or

simply necessary to baptism.* 1.521 Christ omitted nothing ne∣cessary, and the holy Scriptures are able to make men wise to salvation. And let our Antagonists now seriously con∣sider what they do, when they rebaptize upon that fancie, that washing or sprinkling with water (in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost) is not true baptism

CHAP. VI.

Anabaptists Arguments for their dangerous practice of Re-baptizing examined and answered.

THE malitious Serpent (ever attempting to poison or trouble these sanctuary-waters, obstructing, or hin∣dering their effect, lest they should heal sin-wounded souls) somtimes moved Pelagius, Donatus, and others, reviving their errors, to deny the most innocent children, of believers bap∣tism; sometimes he teacheth them to except against the man∣ner of baptizing, as if the vertue of the Sacrament depended on the quantitie of the element,* 1.522 and not solely on the Ordinance and power of God working thereon: sometimes he causeth deluded peo∣ple to annual their baptism, and in effect, to re∣nounce their faith, and Christ, whom they had sacramentally put on in baptism, by receiving a second, third, or iterated baptism: we read that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 baptized every day, sup∣posing that their former baptisms were made void by any sin after committed: on which fancie,* 1.523 possibly the Novatians thought that baptism ought to be deferred to the end of their lives. Auxentius the Arrian taught that baptism ought ••o be iterated: the Marcionites baptized their disciples three times: The Anabaptists rebaptize bap∣tized Infants coming to age, and affirm that the assuming of

baptism in ripe years, by those who were washed in Infancie▪ is not ••n ren••uncing baptism—but a firmer avouching thereof according to Christs mind; errors are fruitful; one absurdity granted, many will readily follow: they think, first that Infants having no present actual faith and repen∣tance, nor present use of reason to understand the Gospel preached, are not as such to be baptized; but, until they come to years to be taught and to make profession of their faith and repentance, to be kept from baptism; and that so Infant-baptism is void, and to be esteemed no bap∣tism.

Secondly, they dream that those who are not dived under water, are not baptized, and therefore they rebaptize them who were baptized in Infancie; though that ground may often fail them, because some have been baptized by im∣mersion. Now that which hath been said on our part is enough to satisfie those in those things, who are not wilful∣ly bent with Simo in the Comedian,* 1.524 rather to erre then to be directed by any. Therefore to avoid repetitions, let the issue be, if Infant-baptism, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, either by washing, sprinkling with, or dipping into water, be indeed a compleat and warrantable baptism according to the institution of Christ; then Ana∣baptists rebaptizing, do impiously seduce and teach simple people to renounce that baptism by which they had, at least sacramentally, put on Christ, and thereby were re-admitted into that Church out of which can be no salvation. And ••et the prudent Reader judge, whom I herein refer to an impartial and serious consideration of that which hath been said: which being proved, the Anabaptists whole fabrick of dowsing and rebaptizing falleth heavily on their Dippers heads.

The Church of Christ holds, that Infants of enchurched Parents,* 1.525 or others of years converting to the faith, being once sprinkled, washed, or dipt, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, according to Christs institu∣tion,

ought not on any pretence to be rebaptized. I say thus baptized according to the ordinance of Christ, because the Samosatenians, Sabellians, Marcionites, Arrians, or the like, who any wayes opposed the holy Trinity, or denied any persons thereof, did not baptize according to the prescript of Christ; and therefore in case any of their disciples con∣verted, the true Church baptized them; because the for∣mer pretended baptism was not according to the Ordinance of Christ (and so no true baptism) it being the peculiar prerogative of Christ to appoint the seals of his own Cove∣nant of free Grace and mercie with man.

But the Anabaptists after their manner, object:

We are regenerate, not only by Baptism,* 1.526 but also by the Word, Ephes. 5. 26. 1 Pet. 1. 23. but the Word is often repeated, and therefore so may baptism.

We answer, 1 The word mentioned, Eph. 5. 26. is that, which comming to the element, makes the Sacrament, as Chrysostom wel interpreteth,* 1.527 that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water, by the Word. What Word? (saith he) why, this, In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost: that Word which coming to the element makes the Sacrament, ought not to be more re∣peated then the Sacrament it self, because it is essential thereto.

2 The regeneration of man, is only one, whose principal efficient cause is the holy Ghost: the means or instrumental causes, on Gods part, are the Word and Sacraments; on our part, faith which the holy Ghost begetteth, encreaseth, and confirmeth ordinarily by those external means. There∣fore when they are baptized, who were before regenerate by the Word, as a spiritual seed, they have not need of any other regeneration, nor can they be twice regenerate; but then baptism is to them an obsignation and confirmation of their regeneration•• So Abraham first believed (as so,* 1.528 was regenerate) and afterward was sealed. So Cornelius spiri∣tual sanctification preceded in the gift of the holy Ghost, and then he received the Sacrament of regeneration, to con∣firm the same to him. But when the elect, who being bap∣tized,

dye in their infancy, it is certain that they are re∣generate by the Sacrament, without the ministry of the word preached unto them, whereof they are not capable, who yet without regeneration, could not enter into the Kingdom of God, Iohn 3. 5. And if the baptized Infant live to be capable of teaching, and so receive the word, as that it begets in him actual faith, repentance and obedience to God, then that word is as Sincere milk, to nourish and confirm, not to regenerate, but to promote the degrees of regeneration, producing that faith and the fruits thereof sowed in baptism, to a clearer and more evident maturity. So was it in Isaac, who was first regenerate by the seal of the righteousness of faith, which was after he came to years nourished and confirmed by the word preached unto him: So that though the word in the ordinary dispensation thereof, be often repeated, and doth by many degrees promote our regeneration, and cause us to grow to a bet∣ter stature and strength, according to our measure in Christ, of which we have continual need, yet it follows not thence that baptism may also be iterated; no more, then that a man may be often born into the world, because he is often fed, and groweth up by degrees, and divers accessions to his stature.

Though corporal generation or birth,* 1.529 be naturally but one, yet may it be supernaturally iterated: Yea, so shall it be in the resurrection which our Saviour calleth Rege∣neration,* 1.530 Matth 19. 28.

We answer: 1. The present question is concerning re∣generation in this life,* 1.531 not of that which shall be in the new age, as the Syriac hath it; that is, in the world to come.

2. Christ there calleth the resurrection regeneration, to teach us who have received the first fruits of the Spirit, in our regeneration, that admirable thing which shall come to pass in our resurrection; for so shall our flesh be,* 1.532 as it were born again by incorruption, as our soul is now rege∣nerate by faith in Christ.

3. That regeneration in the end of the world shall be but once; therefore by proportion, regeneration in this world by baptism, must be, can be but once.

The spiritual death to sin, is by many acts of regeneration,* 1.533 as examination of our selves, daily renewing our repen∣tance, beating down our bodies by fasting, prayer, humi∣liation, and rising again to newness of life in our en∣creases of faith; and growth in holiness is by sundry acts of the Spirit regenerating, and making our endeavours effectuall in the use of the means, as hearing, pray∣ing, receiving the Sacrament: In and by these is rege∣neration; therefore not one, nor only once: Ad•• hereto,* 1.534 that we are baptized into remission of sins, which being daily, we have need of daily remission, and therefore of Baptism.

We answer: 1. That dying to sin, and rising to new∣ness of life, are the certain effects of regeneration; and therefore it may conclude, that where these are, and their several acts appear, there undoubtedly is Regeneration▪ But it can no more conclude divers Regenerations, then the divers acts of a living man, can prove that he had several Generations or Births, because these prove that he liveth.

2. Our need of daily pardon for our daily sins may con∣clude our daily need of repentance,* 1.535 as our Saviour taught us; but it concludes not any necessity to iterate our Bap∣tism, but rather the contrary, because the Covenant of God once sealed to us in Baptism (for the free remission of all our sins,* 1.536 through the inestimable and never dying-merit of Christs death, into which we are implanted by Baptism) is unchangably perpetual; and the condition of our comfortable assurance of pardon, cannot be iteration of our Baptism, but renewing of our repentance, and amendment of our lives, which demonstrate our faith to be lively. See Ier. 3. 12, 13. Ezek. 16. 60. Nor doth that hinder which some object; Some hypocrites receive the seal, therefore they have need to receive it again, that they may obtain the fruits thereof, which believing they shall have:

It follows not, that they ought to be baptized again, but that they ought to be sincere, and to repent of their hy∣pocrisie, and then the seal formerly received, shall be effectual for them to Remission of sins and Salva∣tion.

Spiritual death in sin, is by many acts; and Regeneration is a rising again from the same;* 1.537 which in the regenerate, who also often fall, must and is often to be iterated; therefore Regeneration may and must be iterated, and consequently, so must Baptism, the Laver of Regene∣ration.

We answer; 1. The acts of Regeneration are many, but that proves not pluralities of Regenerations, more then many acts of life prove many lives of one and the same person, as we said.

2. As many wounds, or other concurrent causes of death, conclude not many deaths of one and the same person, so 'tis here; many sins wound and spiritually destroy the soul, yet are there not more deaths then lives of one man; for death is a privation of life: So that our often falling into sin, concludes only a need of frequent renewing our repentance; and hath been shewed.

That which the Apostles of Christ did,* 1.538 that we may do in the work of the Ministry: But they rebaptized, as may appear Acts 19. 4, 5. therefore we may re∣baptize.

We answer. 1. This main argument which the Ana∣baptists have, is built, as the rest, upon a meer mistake of that Scripture S. Luke thus relateth, Then, said Paul, Iohn verily baptized with the baptism of repentance; saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Iesus. When they heard this (to wit, that which Iohn spake) they (that is, the people men∣tioned verse 4. which heard those words of Iohn B.) were baptized; that is, by Iohn B. or his Disciples, not by Paul; for he is only said, verse 6. to have laid his hands upon them, that they might be confirmed in their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, of which those

Disciples to whom Paul there spake, had not before that time, so much as heard, verse 2.

2. There was no difference in substance or signification between the Baptism of Iohn B. and that which was ad∣ministred by ••the Disciples of Christ▪* 1.539 as hath been shewed.

3. It is not said in the cited place, that Paul baptized them; but onely, that he laid his hands on them (as we noted.) Add hereto, that his self saith,* 1.540 That he baptized only Crispus and Gaius, and the houshold of Stephanus; but besides, he knew not whether he baptized any other. Now Crispus was a Corinthian, Gaius a Macedonian, and Ste∣phanus of Achaia,* 1.541 1 Cor. 16. 15. but 'tis apparent that these Disciples mentioned Acts 19. were Ephesians, verse 1. and Ephesus a City of Asia, Rev. 1•• 11. therefore he bapti∣zed them not; and so here was no rebaptizing.

4. These words (When they heard this) do not at all re∣late to the speech of Paul there historified, but unto the preaching of Iohn B. for if otherwise, it would follow, which the Papists affirm, that Iohns baptism was not the same with the Baptism of Christ; and consequently, that Christ whom Iohn baptized, and we, baptized by the suc∣cessors of Christs Disciples, are not baptized with one and the same baptism; whereas Christ bare the same circumci∣sion which the Jews,* 1.542 and for substance the same baptism with us Gentiles, that he might declare himself the Savi∣our both of Jews and Gentiles.

The Lords Supper doth no less signifie the blood of Christ for our Salvation,* 1.543 then doth the water of Baptism; nor less represent his death, then doth baptism, in which we are implanted into the similitude of his death and resurrection: But the Lords Supper is often to be ad∣ministred and received;* 1.544 and therefore so is Bap∣tism.

We answer: 1. There is in Scripture express command

for often administring and receiving of the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 24. This do in remembrance of me—As often as ye eat this bread,* 1.545 and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lords death till he come: shew us any one such warrant for rebap∣tizing, and this controversie is at an end.

2. The Lords Supper proposeth not any new Covenant with God, but confirmeth that to us, which he made with us in our baptism: But baptism is the Initiatory Seal of our entring into Covenant with God (as it was in circumci∣sion) which Covenant is but one.

3. The vertue and efficacy of baptism in the elect, ex∣tendeth it self to the whole life of the regenerate, and is, as it were, a fountain of living waters, perpetually running to cleanse away the pollutions of sin; so that there need not new or more baptisms, but a daily renewing of our re∣pentance, to which we were in our covenanting with God, at first baptized. As Ambrose saith, after baptism there re∣maineth no remedy but true repentance.

Cyprian and the Councel of Carthage, held, that those who were baptized by hereticks,* 1.546 upon their return to the Church, ought to be rebaptized.

We answer: 1. The question being proposed in the first Councel of Carthage, Whether those who were once bap∣tized, might be rebaptized; all the Bishops answered, God forbid, God forbid; we resolve and determine, that all re∣baptizings are unlawful, and far from sincere faith and catho∣lick discipline. The business which troubled the Churches in Cyprians time was, Whether baptism administred accord∣ing to the lawful form of the Catholick Church (that is, with water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) though by an Heretical Minister,* 1.547 were in∣valid,

and therefore to be iterated.* 1.548 Cyprian, with other Eastern Bishops, affirmed, that there is but one Baptism, which is not to be found out of the Catholick Church. The other orthodox Bishops determined, that baptism which an heretical Minister administred according to the form pre∣scribed by Christ, and practised by the Church, was valid, and not to be iterated. So that indeed, neither Cyprian, nor the rest of that Councel, did maintain rebaptizing, but held that there could be no true or valid baptism out of the Catholick Church; or that it was not baptism which He∣reticks administred. Against rebaptizing, Cyprian speaks clearly, L. 1. Ep. 12. on that Iohn 4. 14, applying it to bap∣tism; Which, saith he, is once received, and not again ite∣rated: And in the Caxons of the Apostles, there is a se∣vere caution against rebaptizing, If any Bishop or Elder sh••ll again baptize him who had truly received baptism, let him be deposed.

2. We must distinguish between Hereticks (as hath been said) whereof some are such, as that though they err in some fundamental point or points; yet they hold the true form of baptism. Some so erre concerning the holy Trinity, as that in such errour they cannot have with them the true form and essence of baptism: Now there may be true baptism administred by the first sort; and such as are bap∣tized by them, returning to the true Church, must re∣pent, but not to be rebaptized: But those who were pretend∣ed to be baptized by the second sort,* 1.549 as Arians, denying the Deity of Christ, or those Pneumatomachi, Eunomius, and others, blasphemous against the holy Ghost, in case they came to the true Church, they were to be baptized, because there can be no true baptism, where the essentials

thereof are wanting; as the element, and the word con∣stituting the Sacrament; to wit, In the Name of the Fa∣ther, the Son, and the holy Ghost: Baptizing such as have not so been baptized, is no rebaptizing, seeing the first pretended was truly none. Otherwise,* 1.550 the ancient Church did not re∣baptize a repenting Apostate, though he had fallen into the errours of Arrians, Eu∣nomians, or the like, after that he had been baptized by the true Church; and the reason thereof was, that which Chemnitius well observed; as on Gods part, the Covenant which he made with the circumcised Israelites,* 1.551 remained firm and ratified, unto which after their falling into sin, they returned by repentance, so the Corinthians and Gala∣thians having fallen, were recalled by S. Paul, and re∣mitted to the promise and consolation of their baptism formerly received: Therefore as Circumcision was not, so ought not baptism to be iterated.

CHAP. VII.

Protestants arguments against the dangerous practice of Rebaptizing.

1. BAptism is the Sacrament of Regeneration by our im∣plantation into Christ. But we cannot be twice re∣generate (for regeneration presupposeth a prece∣dent natural birth,* 1.552 which can be but one: nor can we be more often regenerate or born a new, then born naturally) therefore we ought not to be twice baptized. The major

is evident, Tit. 3. 5. The minor is also evident in reason. Add hereto, that whereas we are by nature children of wrath, Ephes. 2. 3. enemies to God, Rom 5. 10. and so with∣out a new birth, aliens from the Kingdom of God, John 3. 5. but being implanted into Christ by baptism, we become 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a new creature, 2 Cor. 5. 1. Gal 6. 15. Now as one and the same creature can be but once created (ex∣cept that either the created essence of a man is destroyed by sin, which the sin of the Devil cannot do; or that a man may have pluralities of essences by several creations of one and the same person, which no reason can suppose) so neither can we have any more then one regeneration: Therefore we ought to be but once baptized.

2. Gods faithfulness in his Covenant sealed, cannot become void by mans infidelity; neither is his Covenant of peace momentany, but perpetual, which is sealed in baptism; so that still we may return un∣to it by true repentance:* 1.553 See Isa. 54. 10. and so they who sinned after baptism,* 1.554 though notoriously and scandalous••, were not rebaptized by the ancient Church, but upon their repentance received again into holy communion; and it is truly observed by some, that baptism being once received, confirmeth and assureth the penitent•• of their sins remission, and that the efficacy and vertue therereof extendeth it self to all our life; and therefore neither ought it to be iterated, nor deferred unto the end of our lives, as if it so only cleansed men from their sins, upon condition that they ne∣ver fall into any sin after their baptism received; which cannot be in this frail state of flesh and blood subject to so many temptations and innate infirmities: Therefore after the Apostle had shewed us how being implanted into the similitude of Christs death and resurrection, we ought not to suffer sin to reign in our mortal bodies; he saith not,* 1.555 Let not flesh and blood, the natural man live any longer, or any more be active, but, Let not sin reign, &c. for

Christ came not to destroy our nature, but to correct our depraved will and affections.

3 There is not in all the New Testament any one precept or example for rebaptizing; therfore it ought not to be done: the constant judgment and practice of the Church of Christ being to the contrary: it is neither commanded in the institu∣tion of baptism, nor in any Scripture admitted: nor is it tole∣rable by any necessary consequence, as is the contrary. Iohns baptism and Christs were one, whatever Jesuites pretend to the contrary: Apollos knew only Iohns baptism, Act. 18. 25. that is, the doctrine of Iohn Baptist; we read not that Apol∣los or any other mentioned in Scripture, was rebaptized; no not any of Iohns Disciples coming to Christ and his magi∣stery, which had surely been done, had Christs baptism and Iohns been different in substance; and had it been done, we should have had in Scripture either some express proof for the same, or something so layed down, that we might by good consequence have gathered the same, which nowhere appeareth: but (as hath been said) the Apostle recalleth penitent sinners once baptized, unto the comfort of that which they had once received in baptism, 1 Cor. 6. 11. 1 Cor. 12. 13. & Gal. 3. 27.

Circumcision was only once administred, but was perpe∣tual and everlasting; and under the Law sinners were to return unto the Lord by true repentance;* 1.556 compare Ier. 11. 3, 4. Ier. 4. 1, 2. &c. with Ier. 18. 8. &c. Ezek. 18. 31, 32. Isa. 55. and the principal cause why circumcision was not iterated, was Gods divine ordinance and institution; the im∣pressed character was secondary: on Gods part it ever re∣mained sure, to which after their forsaking his covenant, into which they had been once sealed, he recalled them not to a susception of a new, or the same seal iterated, but only to repentance, as to humble them, so to shew that the fault and failing of the fruits and effects thereof (which should have appeared in their newness of life) was wholly on their parts, not on Gods, who is unchangeable and the same for ever. So hath he appointed it in our sins after baptism. I further add, that those Christians which had apostated to

the most pernitious heresie of Arrians denying the deitie of Christ by the judgment of the Catholick Church, if they returned to her, were not to be rebaptized, but to be recei∣ved again into the Church and communion thereof by re∣pentance, as hath been proved.

5 All they that are baptized into the similitude of Christs death and resurrection, are but once to be baptized;* 1.557 but all they that are baptized according to Christs Institution, In the name of the Father, and the Son, & the H. Ghost, are bap∣tized into the similitude of Christs death and resurrection; therefore they are but once to be baptized: and thus the Church hath ever clearly judged. The major is proved, because Christ dyed and rose again but once: Rom. 6. 3, 4, 5, 9, 10. we being therefore baptized into the similitude of his death and resurrection, ought to be baptized but once, seeing that plu∣ralities of baptisms or baptizings cannot answer in similitude to his death and resurrection, who dyed and rose again but only once for our justification, Rom. 4. 25. Heb. 8. 25, 26, 28. Again, we are buried with Christ by baptism, Rom. 6. 4. but Christ was but once buried; therefore neither ought we

to be baptized any more then only once. How then shall we be renewed after our falling into sin? the Apostle saith, Gal. 6. 1. Restore such a one—but how? he saith not baptize him again: no, but godly sorrow (saith he, 2 Cor. 7. 10.) worketh repentance to salvation: for we must still re∣member that baptism is the ordinary gate and entrance into Christs Church: which stands like that brazen Sea at the en∣trance into the Temple, 1 King. 7. 39. in which our sins are washed away and remitted by Christ, so, not that they should be no more, but that they shal be no more imputed: and ther∣fore all this life long, we have need of daily repentance (be∣cause we daily fal into some sin) repentance being a condition of Gods pronouncing pardon to the sense of our consciences, which he sealed to us in our baptism: and so we may under∣stand that which Christ said to Peter, Ioh. 13. 10. He that is wash••d needeth not; save to wash his feet. We are washed from our sins by baptism (because, though we are, in respect of the meritorious cause cleansed from them, only by the sacred blood of Christ, 1 Ioh. 1. 7. 1 Pet. 1. 19. Heb. 9. 14. Rev. 1. 5. yet baptism being the ordinary external seal and in∣strumental cause, for the application thereof, as also in re∣spect of the analogie between the sign and the thing signi∣fied,* 1.558 that is often ascribed to the sign, which is proper to the thing signified, to wit, the bloud and merit of Christ sealed to us in baptism: therefore we need no more clear∣ing by iteration of baptism, but only, as it were, washing our feet, that is, our vitious affections and failings, by dai∣ly repentance, that it may please God to pronouce to our consciences, the remission of our sins which grieve and dis∣please us.

There is but one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Eph. 4. 5. That which the holy Ghost testifieth is but one (as one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism) no man may multiply, iterate or make more: But the holy Ghost testifieth that there is but one God, one Faith, one Baptism: Therefore no man may iterate or make them more: neither is it any

better then a meer illusion of holy Scripture to distinguish between the Sacrament and the administration thereof, by saying there is but one baptism, but there may be many bap∣tizings of one and the same person; the Apostle saying there is but one not only in the unity of substance, dis∣pensation, and effect, but also in respect of lawful use, or reception by one and the same person;* 1.559 otherwise he must contradict himself, who saith we are baptized into the simi∣litude of Christs death, which is but only one and once suf∣fered. Indeed it is said of the other seal, as oft as ye do this, 1 Cor. 11. 26. but not one word in Scripture can be found for more then once baptizing: but the Apostle mentioning baptism, joins it with things incapable of multiplication, or pluralitie (one Spirit, one body of Christ, the Church, one hope of our calling, metonymically put for the thing ho∣ped for, that is, eternal life, which is essentially but one, one Lord, one Faith, that is, one doctrine of faith, Gal. 1. 6, 7, 8. Iud. 3 or objectively, one truth of God, one Christ) shewing that there ought to be no more baptisms then faiths, Christs, or Gods; if therefore (said Optatus) you give another baptism, give another faith: if ye give another faith, give another Christ: if ye give another Christ, give also another God, &c. You see to what damnable absurdi∣ties rebaptizing drives unto.

That whereby men crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to open shame,* 1.560 may by no means be done: But to rebaptize (or to be willingly rebaptized) in the A∣postles sense, is to crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh, and to put him to open shame: therefore it may by no means be done. This point the Apostle layeth down Heb. 6. 4, 5, 6. It is impossible for those who were once enlightned (saith our

Translation) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.561 who have been once bap∣tized (saith the Syriac) to renew them again to repentance, &c.* 1.562 (that is, baptismal repentance the baptism of repen∣tance, as it is called Act 19. 4. and so Heb. 10. 12. Call to re∣membrance the former dayes in which after ye were illumina∣ted, Gre. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Syriac (the best and nearest Interpreter of the New Testament) rendreth, in which ye were baptized: So the Greeks were wont to call baptism 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 illumination: possibly because persons converting from darkness of Idolatry, were ordinarily enlightned, by being taught the doctrine of the Gospel, (see Mat. 4. 16. Luk. 2. 32. Act. 26. 18. so the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in one signification importing taught, is rendred by the LXX illuminated) or also in respect of extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost in the knowledge of the mysteries of the Gospel, and unstudied tongues, with other admirable enlargments of heart, then flourishing in the Church. Now those who are described v. 4, 5.* 1.563 who have been once baptized, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost, and have tasted the good Word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away (saith our Translation) Gre. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and falling away; which (and) the Syriac o∣mittet••••, rendring the sense (as others also) non possunt iterum peccare, ut denuò renoventur ad resipiscentiam, & denuò crucifigant, &c. they cannot so sin (that is, unto death) that they should again be renewed to repentance, and crucifie afresh &c. that is in a second baptism: where note by the way, that this place of Scripture so much wrest∣ed by the enemies of truth, against the comfortable doctrine of the Saints perseverance, maketh mainly for it: for the Apostle saith not, that those who are described, v. 4, 5. do, or may fall away; but that it is impossible, isto supposito, to be renewed, because in such a supposition the merit of Christs Cross being abolished and made void, by which they were renewed,* 1.564 it must needs follow, that so Christ should be crucified afresh, and be put to open shame, that they might be renewed by a second and new merit of his Cross; which seeing it is impossible to be, the Apostle will

inferr that it is impossible that these here described v. 4, 5. should finally fall away.* 1.565 The foundation of the Lord remain∣ing sure, and having this seal, The Lord knoweth who are his, whose prescience cannot possibly be deceived in electing any who shall fall away. But to return to our purpose; the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to themselves, is very considerable. The Son of God they cannot now possibly crucifie afresh, nor put him again to open shame (who sitteth at the right hand of the glory of the Father) had they the malice of the Jews and power of the Romans,* 1.566 (who once crucified him) to help them: yet in iterating on themselves baptism, the sign of their implantation into the similitude of his death, they crucifie to themselves (that is, as much as in them is) the Son of God. Chrysostome excellently expresseth it, Baptism (saith he) is the Cross; for therein our old man is cruci∣fied with him.

Again, we have been planted together in the likeness of his death; as therefore Christ may not be crucified again (for that were to put him again to open shame;) so neither may we be baptized again: for if death have no more dominion over him; if he be risen (in his resurrection) a conqueror over death, &c. and should again be crucified, then all these things were meer fables and mockeries: therefore he that rebaptizeth him∣self, doth again crucifie him. But what is crucifying again? As Christ died on the Cross, so do we in baptism, not in the flesh, but to sin—therefore there may be no second washing: for if there be, there may be a third, and a fourth; for the first is made void by the second, and that by another, even to an infinite.

Where there are all the essential parts of baptism rightly administred according to the commission given by Christ to his Apostles, there baptism cannot be made void or no true baptism, by any thing accidental, circumstantial, or less then essential, neither expresly nor by any necessary conse∣quence any where in holy Scripture forbidden. But in bap∣tizing of Infants of Church-priviledged Parents, by sprin∣kling or washing with water, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost, there are all the essen∣tial

parts of baptism, according to Christs commission given to the Apostles, (to wit, the Element and the Word which constitute the Sacrament.) Therefore that their baptism is not, neither can be made void, or no true baptism, by, or in respect of Infant-age, or of only washing or sprinkling them with water (which are things circumstantial, accidental, less then essential, and no where expresly, or by necessary con∣sequence forbidden in holy Scripture.) So that whatever Anabaptists pretend in their eager pursuit of their opinion, that they do not rebaptize, supposing that there preceded no essential or true baptism in regard of the persons being baptized in their Infancie, or because they fancie dipping the whole body to be essential to baptism, and so necessary, that without it they think there can be no true baptism, (neither of which have any ground in Scripture) and where∣as Christ is the Saviour of every age, sex, and condition; therefore male and female, aged and Infants have right to the seal, as hath been shewed; it highly concerneth them seriously to consider how dangerous a thing it is, upon a mere opinion to pull off the seals of their Disciples salvati∣on, under pretence of putting on a new (unwarrantable) seal, to renounce their Saviour, whom they put on in their lawful baptism, at least sacramentally; to make more bap∣tisms then faiths and Saviours, into the similitude of whose death and resurrection, all Christians are baptized; and to crucifie again to themselves the Son of God, and to put him to open shame. Alas, they discern not Satans mischievous Legerdemain, who like a cunning finger-jugler, hereby takes from them the true seal of redemption and salvation by Christ, put on all his who are baptized, by pretending and seeming to put them on a new, better, or more perfect one.

And now Brethren, I commend you to God, & to the Word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an in heritance among all them which are sanctified. Act. 20. 32.

Glory be to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards, men. Luk. 2. 14.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 223. Num. 2.
• * 1.2

  Page 165.
• * 1.3

  —regul•• ••••¦tholicae ••idei certa, nota{que} esse debet; nam si nota non sit, re∣gula nobis non erit, si certa non sit, ne regula quidem erit.
• * 1.4

  —quare cum sacra Scri∣ptura ••regu∣la credendi cer∣tissnna, tutissi∣ma••; sit, sanus profecto non e∣rit, qui ea negle∣cta, spiritus in•• terni saepe falla∣cis, & semper incert judi•••••• se commiserit, &c. Bellarm. tom. 1. de verb. Dei, l. 1. c. 2.
• * 1.5

  —fidei non po∣test ••ubesse ali∣quod fa••sum. 22. q. ••. 3. c. fide•• innititur veri∣tati divinae quae est infa••••••bilis: & ita non po∣test ei subesse falsum. ib. q. 4. ••. 5. 2.
• * 1.6

  Page 223. Numb. ••.
• * 1.7

  Judg. 6. 3••.
• * 1.8

  See Ioh. Clop. penburg. Gan∣gren. of Anabap. &c.
• * 1.9

  1 Joh. 5. 4.
• * 1.10

  Page 223.
• * 1.11

  Page 224. Num. 5.
• * 1.12

  Prosper de v••∣cat. Gent. lib. 1. c. 22. Negant parvulos trahe∣re originale peccatum omnes qui sine ullo vi∣tio natos esse contendunt.
• * 1.13

  Et Celestius, &c. Augustin tom. ••. de pecca∣to orig. con••r•• ••elag. & Celest. li••. 2. c. 2. & 3. & 4.
• * 1.14

  Credimus to∣tam Adami so••bolem hac con∣tagione infectā, quam peccatum originale voca∣mus, vitium vi∣delice•• ex pro∣pagatione m••∣nans non autem ex imitatione duntaxat, sicut Pelagiani senserunt, &c. Confess. Eccles. Gal. Art. 10. 11. Idem ••••cent omnes reformatarum Ecclesiarum confessiones, ut videre est 4. Sect. Harmoniae, &c. Andr. Rivet. Sum. Controvers. q. 3. p. 32.
• * 1.15

  Cur in Adam omnis homo moritur si originalis pe••cati vinculis non tenetur. Greg. lib. 7. Epist. 53. Secundin••.
• * 1.16

  Pag. 225. Num. 6.
• * 1.17

  Ep•• 2. 1, 3.
• * 1.18

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.19

  2 Pet 1. 10.
• * 1.20

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.21

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.22

  Rom. 6. 4.
• * 1.23

  Pag. 226. Num. 6.
• * 1.24

  ••. Lombard l. 4. dist. 1. l.
• * 1.25

  Concil. Trident. Sess. ••. c. 3. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 7. c. 3. Bellarm. de Sa∣crament. Baptis. l. 1. c. ••
• * 1.26

  Pag. ••45.
• * 1.27

  Page 226. Num. 8.
• * 1.28

  Vrsin Ca••e••h. part. 2. de Bap. ••onclus. 9.
• * 1.29

  Pag. 22••. Num. 12.
• * 1.30

  Iuly 27. 1••49.
• * 1.31

  Pr••••ace p. ••.
• * 1.32

  I. Spilsbury t••••at concern∣ing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 subj••ct of Baptism, p. 31. Ed. Barber, pag. ••0. and p. 13.
• * 1.33

  Deus è ma••hin•• Suid. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. a••ag ••hild. 1. cent. 1.
• * 1.34

  —Ba••tis••••um in••antum▪ e••se idolat••i••um
• * 1.35

  —esse ex Dracone & 〈◊〉〈◊〉, nec aliud 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ce••emoni∣am Antichristi. M••mno S••mo∣nis. f. 40, 50, &c.
• * 1.36

  Luc••s Stern∣berg. de qui•• us Ioh. Gerha••d. lo•• the••l. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4 de ••apt. ••ol. 56••. Rev. 13••6.
• * 1.37

  Col•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2. 1••.
• * 1.38

  〈…〉〈…〉. quo sup▪
• * 1.39

  Rom. 6.
• * 1.40

  Page 228. Num. 13.
• * 1.41

  Dr. ••••atly, ••hild. bapt. justified. Arg. 6. p. 45. f.
• * 1.42

  Ib. Pag. 228.
• * 1.43

  Ibid.
• * 1.44

  Ibid.
• * 1.45

  ••allacia ••••••••∣dentis.
• * 1.46

  Ib. Pag. 2••••.
• * 1.47

  Vo•• character 〈◊〉〈◊〉 potest accipi pro qualibet not•• vel signo, rem unam ab aliis distinguente, Andr. Rive••. Sum. Contro••. tract. 3. q. 6.
• * 1.48

  Eph. 1. 13, 14.
• * 1.49

  Pag. 229
• * 1.50

  See Gen. 18. 1••.
• * 1.51

  Durand 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.52

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.53

  Page 22••.
• * 1.54

  1 Cor. 2. 12. Page 229.
• * 1.55

  ••alv. Instit. lib▪ 4. c. 16.
• * 1.56

  V••••in. Cat. part. 2. de Baptism.
• * 1.57

  F••ll••cia a••••i∣d••ntis est, cum quidvis rei, & a••••identi: ••. ••. subject•• & ejus attributo, simi∣liter attribui∣tur. Arist. l. 1. ••lench. c. 4. Dr. ••••atly child. Bap. justified. pag. 72. m.
• * 1.58

  Non a 〈…〉〈…〉 diem praete••iisse expectabant Iu∣d••ei. qu••d is Plutar. in Pro∣ble••, & Festo testifi••antibus, ma••ime pericu∣losus sit infanti∣bus, si ve••en tu••, nec ante cum terminum, u••••∣bilicus resolva∣tur, ante que••n h••m•• proprior est p••̄l••ae qu•••• ani∣mali, &c. Poly. Virg. de inven•• rer. l. 4. c. 4.
• * 1.59

  Esse apud om∣n••s, sive infan∣tes, sive majo••es natu, unam D••∣vini muneris aequalitatem—nam Deus ut personam non accipit, sic nec aetatem, cum se om∣nibus ad coelestis gratiae consecutionem aequalitate lib••a••a praebeat parem—si etiam gravissi••••is delictoribus, & in Deum maltu•• ante peccantibus,—& à b••ptism•• at{que} gratia nem•• pro∣••ibetur, quanto magis prohiberi non debet infans, qui recens n••tus nihil p••c••avit, nisi quod se••un∣dum Adam—contagium mortis antiquae prima nativita••e contraxit. Cyprian. l. 3. ••p. 8. Fid••.

  Quantum vero ad causam infantium pertinet, qu••s dixisti intr•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vel tertium diem q••••nati sunt, constitutos, baptizare non op••••tere, & considerandam legem esse circumcisionis antiqu••••, ut intra octavum diem, eum qui natus est baptizandum & sanctificandum non putares; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 aliud in concilio nostro omnibus visum est. In h••c enim quod tu putabas esse faciendum, nem•• consensit: sed universi potius judicavimus, nulli hominum nato, miser••••ordiam D••i & grati•••• esse denegandam. Cyprian. q•• s.
• * 1.60

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.61

  Ga••. 5. ••.
• * 1.62

  Gal. 3. 13.
• * 1.63

  Gal. 3. 19.
• * 1.64

  Gal. 5. 2.
• * 1.65

  Matth. 28. 19, 20.
• * 1.66

  Fallacia a••••••∣dentis.
• * 1.67

  Pag. 229.
• * 1.68

  Inde suscepti, la∣ctis & mellis concordiam pr••gustamus. Tertul. de Coronâ mil. c. 3. & ib. advers. Marcion. l. 1. c. 14. Nec mellis & lactis societatem quâ su•••• infantat.—Haec citat Pol. Virg. l. 4. c. 4. Buchol∣cer. Ind. Chro••o. Anno Christi 208. Christ. Helvici. Theatr. Histor. p. 91.
• * 1.69

  Hieron. in Isai. 55.—qui mos ac typus in occi∣dent••s Ecclesiis h••die us{que} ser∣vatu••, ut ren••∣tis in Christ•• ••••num, la••{que} tri∣buatur. ••b. ad∣v•••• Pelag. l. 3.
• * 1.70

  Beatus quidem Cyprianus non aliqu••d decretū condens no••um, ••ed Ecclesiae Fi∣dem firmissi∣mam se••vans, ad corrigendum eos qui putab••nt ante octavum diem nativita∣tis, non esse par∣v••lum bapti∣zandum—mox notum rite bap∣tizari posse, cum suis quib••sdam co••piscopis cen∣suit.
• * 1.71

  Augustin, Hie∣ron. ep. 28.—contra Eccle∣siae ••undatissi∣mum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nemo sentiat. ib. Hoc Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit, hoc à majorum fide percepit, hoc usque in finem per∣severanter custodit. Ib. Aug. de verb. Apostlic. S••r. 10.
• * 1.72

  Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 8.
• * 1.73

  Buch••lcer. Ind. Chronol. Passus est sub Valeriano & Galieno principibus persecutione Octavâ. Catalog. script. Eccles. Hieronym. tom. 1.
• * 1.74

  Ecclesia ab A∣postoli•• traditio∣nem accepit eti∣am parvulis da∣re baptismum. Orig. com. in Rom. 6 Vid. ib. in Levit hom. 8 & ib in Luc. hom 14.
• * 1.75

  Tertul. advers. Valentin. c 5. Hieron. Catol script. Eccles. Iren l. 4 c. 14. Iust. Martyr. q. ad ••rth. 56. Omnem aetatem sanctificans per illam quae ad ip¦sum erat simili∣tudinem. Omnes enim venit per semetipsum sal∣vare. Omnes in∣q••••m, qui per 〈◊〉〈◊〉 renascuntur in Deum, infan∣tes & par••ulos, & puer••s, & ja¦venes, & sen••o∣r••s. Ideo per 〈◊〉〈◊〉 venit 〈◊〉〈◊〉, & infan¦tibus infans fa¦ctus sanctificans ••nfantes, &c. Iren. l. 2. c. ••9. Polycarpus autem non solum ab Apostolis edoctus, & conversatus ••um mul••••s 〈…〉〈…〉, qui dominum nostrum viderunt.—quem & nos vidimus in primâ nostrâ ••tate, &c. Iren. l 3 c. 3. Vid. Hieronym. Catol. scriptor: Eccles. Ignat. Si quisquam in hac re authoritatem divinam quaerat, quanquam quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec consil••is institutum, sed semper ••etentum est, non nisi authoritate Aposiolic•• traditum, rectissimè creditur tamen vera••ter continere possumus, quid valeat in parvulis, baptismi••sa. ••amentum, ex cir∣cumcis••ne carnis, quam prior p••pulus accepit; quam priusquam acciperet justificatus est Abraham sicut Cornelius etiam d••no Spiritus sancti prius 〈◊〉〈◊〉 baptizaretur, &c. Cur ergo praeceptum est, ut omnem deinceps infantulum masculum octavo di•• circumcideret, qui n••ndum poterat corde credere, &c. nisi quia & ipsum per seipsum sacramentum multum valebat? Aug tom. 7. Part. 1. de baptism. ••ont. Donat. l. 3 c. 24.
• * 1.76

  Pag. 229. Num. 14.
• * 1.77

  Pag. 230.
• * 1.78

  John 4. 1.
• * 1.79

  John 20. 3.
• * 1.80

  John 21. 25.
• * 1.81

  Vers. 14.
• * 1.82

  Page 230. Num. 15.
• * 1.83

  Pag. 230. Num. 16,
• * 1.84

  Praescribitur nemini sine bap∣tismo competere salutem—homo à primordia cir∣cumventus ut praeceptum Dei excederet, & propterea in mortem datus exinde totum genus de suo semine infe∣ctum, suae etiam damnation is traducem fecit▪ Te••tul. de Test. anim. c. 3. Tertul. de Bapt. c. 18.
• * 1.85

  Mark 10. 14.
• * 1.86

  Non minore de causa innupti quo{que} procrasti∣nandi. Tertul. q. sup.
• * 1.87

  Pag. 229.
• * 1.88

  Vrsin. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.89

  Pag. 231.
• * 1.90

  —Interim tamen ex co non p••••••st inferri baptismam non esse ordinarium regeneration is medium ad ••u∣jus usum a••••i∣gat•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Joh. Gerhard. do Baptism. Sect. 2. class. 2.
• * 1.91

  〈…〉〈…〉 non est exclusio alterius. Gerh. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.92

  Page 231. Num. 17.
• * 1.93

  Mat. 6. 26, 28.
• * 1.94

  Pag. 2••1. Num. 18.
• * 1.95

  Quoniam reus 〈…〉〈…〉 Tertul de 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.96

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.97

  Sic accipienda, est, &c. ut respe∣••erit c••mmunem Ecclesiae ordinē, ne{que} tamen sim∣pliciter gratiam Dei 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sacramento, quasi sit 〈…〉〈…〉 necessa∣rium, Beza in Joh. 3. 5.
• * 1.98

  Deus non alli∣gavit gratiam suam sacramen∣tis.
• * 1.99

  Ipse (Christus) potu•••• effectum sacramentorum sine 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.100

  —Deus qui suam 〈…〉〈…〉 mentis non 〈…〉〈…〉 l. 4. distinct. 4. 〈…〉〈…〉—Cau•••• & vigilàntèr non repetierit (qui veró baptizatus non ••uerit) 〈…〉〈…〉 condemna••••ur ••imirum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 solum interdum fidem sufficere ad salatem, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 i••sa, suffi••••. nihil. Bernard. Ep. 77.
• * 1.101

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.102

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.103

  Sed confitentes Deum in con∣scientiâ purâ. Tr••mel.
• * 1.104

  Pag. 229.
• * 1.105

  Se more here∣of, Mr. Cobbet explic. Luke 18. 15. Page 121, 122. ••••it.
• * 1.106

  2 Cor. 12. 2.
• * 1.107

  Id esse Domini∣cum & verum quod sit prius traditum: 〈…〉〈…〉 immissum. Tertul. de Praescript. c. 31.

  Non 〈…〉〈…〉 ante n••s faciendum pu••a••erit; sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus 〈◊〉〈◊〉: ne 〈◊〉〈◊〉 enim 〈…〉〈…〉 sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem. Cypr l. 2. Ep. 3.
• * 1.108

  Aliud est quod docemus, a••iud quod sustine••••••: a••••ud qu••d prae∣cipe••e jubemur; a••••ud qu••d e∣men••la••e praeci∣p••••ur, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 emendemus, t••∣lerare ••••mpelli∣mur. To. 6. contr. Faust. Manich. l. 20. c. 21. Quis co∣meditur z•••• ••••∣mus Dei? qui omnia quae forte u••bi vidit per∣verta satagit e∣m••ndare, cupit corrigere, n••n quie••••it, si ••men∣da••e non p••test, t••lerat, gem. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 n••n excutit••r de area granum: sustinet paleam, ut intret in hor∣r••um cum palea fuerit separata. Aug. tract. 10. in Joh. 2. In his enim re∣bus de quibus nihil certi sta∣tuit Scriptura divina, mos populi Dei, vel instituta majo••••in, pro leget▪ 〈…〉〈…〉 interminata lucta∣tio-utique cove••d••m est ne tempes••ate contenti••n••s ••eren••••as charitatis 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Aug. Casulano ••p. 80.
• * 1.109

  Vbi errorem su∣um cognoscit, redeat ad me; ubi meum, re∣••ocet me, &c. Aug. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉. l. 1. c. 2.
• * 1.110

  Bellarm. de sacr. Euch. l. 1. c. 5. 7. ib. l 2. c. 8. ib. l. 4. c. 25. C••ster Enchi∣rid. de Eucha∣rist. Sacr. 7. Suares. disp. p. 46. Sec. 2. Maldon in Joh. 6. Gabr. Vasquez. disp. 179. c. 4.
• ‖ 1.111

  Aquin. 3••. q. 65. a. 4. 2m. dicit illud—est intelligendum de spirituali manducatione. Sic Pet. Lombard. dist. 8. D. Dist. 9. A. B. Iansenius conc••rd. Evang. c. 59. Dan. Chamier Panstrat. To. 4. l. 11. c. 3. 4.
• * 1.112

  Pag. 233. Nu••. 19.
• * 1.113

  Pag. 234
• * 1.114

  Rom. 4. 11.
• * 1.115

  Acts 2. 38, 39.
• * 1.116

  See Mr. Cobbet explicat. Luke 18. 15. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.117

  Mr. Fisher in his dispute at 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Kent. March. 10. 1650.
• * 1.118

  〈…〉〈…〉 baptism. Q••••ste 74 4. See the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Mr. Richard Baxter, on Marth. 28. 10. plain Scripture proof of infa•••••• Church-mem∣bership, and ba∣ptisme.
• * 1.119

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 17. 7. 10, 12.
• * 1.120

  1 Cor. 12, 13.
• * 1.121

  〈…〉〈…〉 in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pag. 212. E 213. c. 214. c. ••. Gen. 17••. Act. 2. 39.
• * 1.122

  ••om. 4. 11. 13. Gal. 3. 7.
• * 1.123

  Luk. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 9.
• * 1.124

  P••g. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Numb. ••
• * 1.125

  Rev. 1. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 5.
• * 1.126

  1 Cor. 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.127

  I••. Ge••hard. de S. Bap. S 4. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.128

  D. Men••er. To. 3. disp. 14. thes. 116. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. a. I. Gerh. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.129

  Pag. 234. Num. 21.
• * 1.130

  Ma••••h. 13. 14, 15.
• * 1.131

  Pag. 226.
• * 1.132

  Rom. 3. 1. 2.
• * 1.133

  Genes. 17. 7. Act. 2. 39.
• * 1.134

  Basting. quo ••up. de bapt. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••.
• * 1.135

  Ursin. de relig. Christian. par. ••. conclus. 9.
• * 1.136

  M••th 20. Luk. •• 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.137

  1 Sam. 10. ••
• * 1.138

  Joh. 4. 1, 2.
• * 1.139

  1 Joh. 5. 7. &c.
• * 1.140

  Si in tribus te∣stibus stabit omne verbum, quanto magis dum habemus per benedicti••∣nem eosdem ar∣bitros fidei, quos & spon∣sores salutis. Tertul. de bapt. c. 6.
• * 1.141

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.142

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.143

  •• Tim. 4 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.144

  pag. 136.
• * 1.145

  Luk. 23. 42. 43. Quantum valet etiam sine visit∣bili sacramento baptismi, quod ait Ap••stolus, corde creditur ad justitiam, ore autem con∣fessio fit ad sa∣lutem▪ in illo latrone decla∣ratum est: sed tunc impletur invisibiliter, cum mysteriam baptismi non ••••ntemptus reli∣gienis, sed ar∣ticulus necessi∣tatis excludit•• nam multo ma∣gis in Cornelio & in amicis ejus, quam in latrone, possit videri super∣fluum, ut aquâ etiam tingeren∣tur in quibus jam donum spi∣ritus Sancti, &c Aug. de bapt. cor tr. Donat. l. 4. c. 22
• * 1.146

  See Mr. Wil∣cocks infant. baptisme main∣tained. Pag. 2.
• * 1.147

  Exod. 20.
• * 1.148

  2 Pet. 3. 16.
• * 1.149

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.150

  Joh. 4. 48.
• * 1.151

  Acts 2. 43.
• * 1.152

  Act•• 4. 3.
• * 1.153

  Acts 5. 12.
• * 1.154

  Acts 6. 8.
• * 1.155

  Acts 7. 37. &c.
• * 1.156

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Quod pr••••ter na∣turam st•• natum, ib. Suid. por∣tentum, &c. Stephan. saepe de inusita••is & insolitis, seu monsi•• is & pro∣digis &c Tr••st. le•• S••••. p. 186. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tremel. & M. Trost. Syr. Test. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••verbo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ethpah. stupuit, obstupuit Joh. Buxtorf. Iun. lex. Chald. & Syr. Val. Shindl. Pent. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jo. ••. 39. 44.
• * 1.157

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.158

  Pag. 236. 237. Numb. 24. 1 Cor. 1. 16.
• * 1.159

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tremel. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.160

  Gen 12 5.
• * 1.161

  Acts. 3 25.
• * 1.162

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, omnes familiae terrae. 70.
• * 1.163

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Acts 2. 39.
• * 1.164

  See Lev. 25. 10 Numb 2. 34. and 3. 15. 39. and 18. 31. and 33. 54.
• * 1.165

  Levit. 25. 13.
• * 1.166

  Num. 20. 22.
• * 1.167

  Acts 7. 10.
• * 1.168

  Rom. 4. 16. and 10. 12. and 11. 31.
• * 1.169

  Matth. 12. 15. 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. &c. 1 T••e. ••. 12 2 Thes. 3. 16. 18. 1 Tim. 4. 10. Joh. 11. 50, &c.
• * 1.170

  Est autem & hoc S••ripturae i••ioma utomnes dicat pro pluribus. Euth. in Matth. 10.
• * 1.171

  P. 237. Nu. 25.
• * 1.172

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ephiphan. To. 2. exposit. fidei 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Concil. Gangrens. Canon. 21. Severin. Bin. Concil. To. 1•• Iud. 12. v. de quibus Concil. Laodicen. Can. 28. 16▪ Bin. Quod traditum tenet universitas Ecclesiae, cum parvuli in fantes baptizantur. Aug. To. 7. part 1. de bapt. contra Donat. l. 4. c. 23, &c.
• * 1.173

  Dionys. Hierar. c. ult. Irenae. l. 2. c. 39. Cy∣prian l. 2. ep. 8. ad Fidum. Amb. de Abraham. l. 2 c. 11. nec senex (inquit) nec infans ver∣naculus excipi∣tur, quia omnis aetas peccato ob∣noxia, & ide•• omnis aetas sa∣cramento id••∣nea; nullum ex∣cipit, non in∣••antem, &c. Hieronym. contra Pelag. ••. 3.
• * 1.174

  Consuetud•• ••••∣men 〈◊〉〈◊〉 e••∣clesiae in bapti∣zandis parvul••••, nequaquam•• per∣nenda est; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ulla m••d••super∣flua dep••tanda, nec ••mni•••• cre∣den••la 〈…〉〈…〉 August. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉. ad lit. l. 10. c 2••. vid. ad Numb. 13. p. 229.
• * 1.175

  Cyprian. l 3. ••p. 3.
• * 1.176

  August ••p. 28▪
• * 1.177

  On••phrius. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Con••cil. Laodic. Canon. 29.
• * 1.178

  Celebratum est primum Conci∣liu•• Hierosoly∣mis. Act. 15. 1. Carranza sum. concil.
• * 1.179

  Quatuor conciiia suscipere & ve∣nerari me fa∣teor; Nice∣num; in quo per∣versum Arii dogma destrui∣ur. Constantin••∣politanum—in quo Eunomii & Maedonii error convincitur. E∣phesinum pri∣mum, an quo Ne∣storii impietas judicatur. Calce∣donense—in quo Eutychis Dioscorique pra∣vitas reprobatur. Gregor. ep. 24. l. 1.
• * 1.180

  Severin. Bin. Concil. To. 1. Carranza. sum. Concil.
• * 1.181

  See Rev. 1. 11. Act. 19. 1••.
• * 1.182

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epi∣phan. hae••ef. 46
• * 1.183

  See also Mr. Home••, c. 13. pag 110. &c.
• * 1.184

  Rom. 10. 18.
• * 1.185

  Lugdunensem in Gall••a rege∣••at ecclesiam. Catol. scrip∣tor. eccles.
• * 1.186

  Hieron. To. 1. L. Vives. in Aug. de. C. D. l. 1. c. 27.
• * 1.187

  Quid igitur causae ••st, cur eis exhortationibus tempora consu∣mamus quibus baptizatos allo∣quend•• studea∣mus accen••ere, sive ad virgina∣••em integrita∣tem sive ad con∣tinentiam vi∣dualem, sive ad ipsam thori con∣jugalis fidem, &c Aug. de. C. D. l. 1. c. 27.
• * 1.188

  Cujus rei ima∣ginem adh••c, in nostris infanti∣um baptismis videmus. L. Viv. loco cita∣to.
• * 1.189

  Eph. 3 14.
• * 1.190

  Rom. 11. 19.
• * 1.191

  Vt autem in∣fantes apud Iudaeos octavo ab ortu die circum cidebantur, sic apud nos plurimum baptizant••r, quod tamen Angli in ipso natali dic faciunt, id quod divus Cyprianus—multis rationibus esse faciendum probat. Polydor. Virg. de invent. l. 4. c. 4.
• * 1.192

  Bi••n. concil. To 1. p. 288. Aug. ep. 28. autoritare A∣postolicâ tra∣ditum. Aug. contra. Dona∣tist. l 3. c. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Concil. Neocaesar. co••▪ 6. Binn. concil. To. 1.
• * 1.193

  Si qu••eritur an 〈…〉〈…〉 est qu••d non, ut di∣••it Aug••stinus contra Iulian. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Gabr••el. B••el in 4. sent. dist. 4. q 2.
• * 1.194

  Nemo potest ••a∣nasci nisi prius nasc••tur. Ge∣rard. de bap∣tism. fol. 606. sin.
• * 1.195

  —Qua••do∣quid•••• non po∣t••t quis renasci nisi prius na••∣catur, Alex. Ale••••••s▪ part. 4 de sacr. bap∣tism. q. 8. m 7•• ••. 1. resol.
• * 1.196

  Ad num. 16. pag. 231.
• * 1.197

  pag 239.
• * 1.198

  Sicut ergo pec∣catum in eo non est, ita peccatum ex eo non est.
• * 1.199

  Fulgent. de prae. dest. ad. M••nim, l. 1.
• * 1.200

  Quis autem nes∣ciat crede•••• esse infantibus bap∣tizari. Aug de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 me∣•••••• l. 1. c. 27.—Ipsi p••r∣tantur ad eccle∣siam, etsi pedi∣bus illuc currere non possunt, alie∣nis pedibus cur∣runt ut sanentur: accommodat illis mater ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant, aliorum cor ut ••redant, aliorum linguam ut fa∣teantur, ut qu••∣niam quod aegri sunt alio peccante praegravantur, sic cum hi sani sunt alio pro eis con••itente salvantur. Augustin. de verb. Apost. serm. 10.
• * 1.201

  pag. 233, 234. Num. 20. Si enim sacra∣menta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent: ex hac autem simili∣tudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt; sicut ergo secundum quendam mo∣dum, sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei, fides est; nihil autem est aliud credere, quam fidem habere, ac per hoc, cum respondetur parvulum credere, qui fidei nondum habet affectum, respondetur fi∣dem habere propter fidei sacramentum, & convertere se ad Deum propter conversionis sacra∣mentum, quia & ipsa responsio ad celebrationem pertinet sacramenti; sicut de ipso baptismo Apostolus; Consepulti, inquit, sumus Christo per baptismum in mortem: non ait sepulturam sig∣nificamus, sed prorsus ait, consepulti suinus: sacramentum ergo tantae rei, non nisi ejusdem rei vocabulo nuncupavit. Itaque parvulum, etsi nondum fides illa, quae in credentium voluntate consistit, jam tamen ipsius fidei sacramentum fidelem facit: nam sicut credere respondetur, ita etiam fidelis vocatur, non rem ipsa mente annuendo, sed ipsius rei sacramentum percipiendo. Augustin. ep. 23. Bonifac▪
• * 1.202

  Cum patrimi respondent cre∣do, sensus est, puerum ad cre∣dendum & me obligo. &c. A∣lex. Alens. par. 4. q. 7. m. 3. ••, 1. resol. Baptismus con∣fertur publicè in coetu Christi∣anorum, quorum testimonium non potest repudiari: eodem fine ad∣hibentur patri∣mi, tanquam testes baptismi, &c. Ioh. Gerard de s. baptis. class. 4. 164.—adhibentur velut•• rei gestae testes. Polydo••. Virgil. de invent. l. 4. c 4.
• * 1.203

  Nem•• ergo v••. 〈…〉〈…〉 ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit, &c. Aug. d verb. Apost. Serm. 11.
• * 1.204

  —Voluit item unum sal∣tem patrimum, unamque matri∣mam baptismo inter••sse•• sic e∣nim eos appel∣lant qui infan∣tes tenent, dum baptizantur; hu∣jus quoque tem∣poris fuit Poly∣carpus Iohan∣nis Apostoli di∣scipulus—Platina de vit. Pont. Telesph. & Higin.—mentio patri∣morum sit apud Dionys. Areopag. Hierarch. Eccles. c. 2. Tertul. de bapt. c. 18. Euseb. l. 7. c. 20. vid. Polydor. Virgil. de invent. l. 4. c. 4. Hugo de S. Victor. part. 6. c, 12.

  Mr. Homes anim advers. upon Mr. Tombes Exerc. c. 14. pag. 181.
• * 1.205

  pag. 239.
• * 1.206

  Veniant ergo dum adolescunt, veniant dum diseunt, dum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 veniant d••••centur, fi••nt Christian•• quum Chrisirum nosse potuerint—non min••re de causâ innupti quoque procra∣stinan••i, in qui∣bustentatio prae∣parata est tam virginibus per m••uritatem, quàm vidui•• per vagati••nem, d••ne•• aut nubant, aut continentià 〈◊〉〈◊〉, &c Tertul. de bapt. c. 18.
• * 1.207

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Greg. Nazian. Orat. 40. ib•• ip ••is unguiculis spiritu conse∣cretur.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. ib. Greg. Naz.
• * 1.208

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ib. part. post. ••
• * 1.209

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• * 1.210

  A non facto ad non jus facien∣di, non valet ar∣gumentum.
• * 1.211

  Et Aug. retract. l. 1. c. 6.
• * 1.212

  Aug. Confess l. ••. c. 11. his words are these,—Vidifii Domine cum adhuc puer essem, & quodam die pressus st••machi dolore, repentè astuarem poenè moritu∣rus, vidisti Deus meus—quo m••tu animi, & quâ fiele baptis••um Christi tui—f••agitavi •• pieta••e matris meae, & matris omnium nostrum ecclesiae tuae—dilata est ••itaque mundati mea—ita jam credebam, & illa, &••mnis domus, nisi ••ater s••lus, qui tam••n n••n evicio in me jus maternae pietatis quo minus in Christum crede••em, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ille n••ndum credidert••t
• * 1.213

  See Augustin. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. l. 3▪ c. c. 11.
• * 1.214

  Fieri enim n••n potest ut 〈◊〉〈◊〉 i starum lach••y∣••arum percat, Ib. c 12. Ab his d••mi••di. i••genter institutus unà cum Bono••o in••er ipses sta∣tia•• parent••m a uplexus, & nutricum blan∣ditias Christum im••i••it, a•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christianae pie∣tatis ru••imentis 〈◊〉〈◊〉, &c. Erasm. in vi••. D▪ Hieron.
• * 1.215

  〈…〉〈…〉 Erasin. ••. 1.
• * 1.216

  Paulinus vit. D. Ambros.
• * 1.217

  〈…〉〈…〉 Ambr••s. Abra. l. 2. c. 11. vid. ib. l. 10. &c. 84 ad De∣me••••iadem. pag. ••39 Num 28.
• * 1.218

  pag. 24••
• * 1.219

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. par. 2.
• * 1.220

  See Mr. Cobbet of childrens bapti••mal right. s. 8. pag. 1••3••.
• * 1.221

  Jo. Gerard. de baptism. sect ••, de p••dob••pt. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.222

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 28. 19.
• * 1.223

  Mat 26. 2••▪ 27.
• * 1.224

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.225

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.226

  —Of child. baptismal 〈◊〉〈◊〉, cap. ••. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.227

  〈…〉〈…〉. P. Lombard. l. 4. dist. 4. E. post Aug. sup. Lev. in ••ine c. 8.
• * 1.228

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.229

  〈…〉〈…〉 Aug. ••p. 48. Vincan.
• * 1.230

  Mat. 5. 6.
• * 1.231

  1 Tim. 1. 13.
• * 1.232

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.233

  Pag. 240. Num. 29.
• * 1.234

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.235

  G. l 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.236

  P. g. 241.
• * 1.237

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.238

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.239

  —Fides a∣liena, sin•• qua•• non datur par∣vulis remissio, non est fides of∣ferentium, sed est fides ecclesiae.
• * 1.240

  Gab. By••l. in 4. ••ent. distinct 4 q. 2. G. ib. dist. 6. q. 1. R: Requiritur ••ides ecclesiae, &c. Polydore Vir∣gil. de invent. l. 4. c. 4. inqui••,—Quibus cum per atatem non liceret de suâ fi∣de testari, à pr••ncip••o sicut tradit Cypria∣nus, provisum fuit, ut per alios credere profite∣rentur; quo quemadm••dum alienâ culpâ, id est Adam primi parentis delictum eis quo{que} malo fuit, qu••d statim na•••• originali peccato oblige••entur, sic aliena opera bono esset, qui ideirco, velut ait, Ambrosius, l. de vocat. Gent. 2. ex alien•• c••nfessione credunt & baptizantur.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. lust. Mart. q. & respons. a•• orthodo••. q. 56.
• * 1.241

  Pag. 241: Numb. 30.
• * 1.242

  Distinguimus igitur inter ne∣cessitatem ex¦parte Dei, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 parte nostri: inter casum privationis & viam ordinariam, &c. Ioh. Ger∣hard de Baptism. c 7. c. 23••.

  ••bstrinxit f••dem ad baptismi necessitatem. Tertul. q. s. c. 13.

  —Nec tamen visibile Sacramentum ideo cont••mn••ndum; quia contempt••r ejus in∣visibiliter sanctifi•••••• non potest. Hinc C••rnelius, & qui cum ••o erant, jam Spiritu sancti∣ficati, baptizati su••••: nec supers••ua judican••a est, &c. P. Lomb. sent. 1. 4. dist. 4. E.
• * 1.243

  2 Tim. 2. 19.
• * 1.244

  See Mr. Cobbet of child. Bap∣tism. right, s••ct 10. p. 447, 448.
• * 1.245

  —qui dam eis ex talib••s pa∣re••••bus na••••i fecit, o••tendi••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cum foe••e∣re suo dign••tus Andr. Rivet to. 2. tract. 3. q. 3. u. 2.
• * 1.246

  Pag. 242. Num. 31.
• * 1.247

  Rom. 4••15.
• * 1.248

  Rom. 7. 1••.
• * 1.249

  Psal 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 7, ••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.250

  Rom. 9. 11, &c. 2. Cor. 5. 10. Rom. 3. 20.
• * 1.251

  Pag. 242.
• * 1.252

  Pag. 243.
• * 1.253

  Augustin. contr. Donat. l. 4. c. 21.
• * 1.254

  Rom. 6. 3.
• * 1.255

  Qu••e c••nsi••••it in immortalita••▪ te▪ in ••nnocentiâ, & justi••iâ, reti∣qui•• ••ue an••mi dot••hus. Vatabl. in Gen. 1 26. See. Mr Cob∣bet. Explicat•• of Mat 28. & Mar. 16. pag. 177. pag. 244. 1 Pet. 3. 21.
• * 1.256

  Rom. 5. 1, 2.
• * 1.257

  John 3. 8.
• * 1.258

  Fallacia 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.259

  Matth. 13.
• * 1.260

  —Quicunque parvulos recen∣tes ab uteris matrum bap∣tiza••••••s ne∣gat aut dicit, in remissionē pec∣catorum eos ba∣ptizari, sed ni∣hil ex Adam trahere or••gina∣lis peccati, quod regenerat. o••is lavacro expietur. &c, Anat•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sit. Concil Mil vetian. 2. can. & ib. ••od. Can. Eccl••s. Afric. 110. Aug. l. 3. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 me••••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tom. 2. advers. Pelag. l. 3. ••••al. 51. ••. Eph. 2••3. J••hn 3. 6. 1 Cor. 15. 50. John 3. 5.
• * 1.261

  Vid. Bellar. to. 4. de amiss. gratiae. l. 6. c. 2, 3, 4.
• * 1.262

  Non est ul••us ulli medius lo∣••us ut possit esse nisi cum diabo∣lo, qui non est cum Chrisio. de peccat. merit. e. 28. & ib. serm. 14. de verb. Apostoli.
• * 1.263

  In Gen. 17. p. p. 99, &c.
• * 1.264

  1 Pet. 1. 4.
• * 1.265

  Pag. 121.
• * 1.266

  ••oth. 9. 15.
• * 1.267

  Rather 433. •• Sam. 2••. 1.
• * 1.268

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 part. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. r••l••g.
• * 1.269

  Pag. 244. Num. 2.
• * 1.270

  Mark 10.
• * 1.271

  Exod. 4. pag. 245.
• * 1.272

  Contemptus sa∣cramenti dam∣nat, non priva∣tio. Bern, ep. 37. Voluntas pro facto inputa∣tur ubi factum excludit necessi∣tas. ib. ep. 77.
• * 1.273

  Conversio autem cordis potest quidem inesse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p••rcepto bap••••••••, ••ed 〈…〉〈…〉 neque enim ullo m••do d••cenda est conversio cor∣dis ad Deum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 D••i sacra∣mentum contem∣nitur. Aug. de bapt. contr. Donatist. l. 4. c. 24.
• * 1.274

  Pag. 245. Pro 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Syrum habere qui uno tempo∣re (i. e. semel) in baptismum de••••••nderunt. ••••••ovic. de Dieu. a••lmad. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ep. ad Heb. 6.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.275

  Quia abolito & irrito reddito crucis Christi 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.276

  J••r. 1. 5.
• * 1.277

  Luk. 1.
• * 1.278

  M••••. 7. 22, 23. Act ••. ••4••.
• * 1.279

  Mat. 12. 36.
• * 1.280

  J••h 7 49.
• * 1.281

  1 Pet. 1. 3.
• * 1.282

  1 Cor. 4. 3. 4.
• * 1.283

  Cyril▪ Hiero▪ sol. ca•• 2. 3, &c. Greg▪ Naz••o∣rat. 40. Clem. Alexandr. Poe∣dag. l. 1. c. 6. saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.284

  Chrys. hom. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. ad baptiz▪ Just. Mar. Ap. 2. saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••llu••••atus fuit, ut Psal. 34. 5 respexerunt ad eum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & illuminat•• sunt. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 per me∣••aph••mente il∣luminatus fuit.
• * 1.285

  V. Shind••er Pentaglot. item ••••vius; nam qui ad fluvium bap∣••••••mi Christi ac∣••••dit, ill••••ina∣tur, in••••••itque ••lavium 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tantum, aqu•• 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.286

  See Iohn Clop∣penburg Gan∣gren of Ana∣baptist. cited by N. Homes animadve••••. &c p. 106.
• * 1.287

  vid. Ioh. Slei∣••••••. com. l. 6. impress. Ar∣gentorari. An. 1558. p. 93. a. ib l. 10. p. 161. b. f. &c.
• * 1.288

  Ioh. Sleidan. com. l. 10.
• * 1.289

  Religio cogi non 〈◊〉〈◊〉; verbis potius quam verberibus res agenda est, ut sit voluntas▪ Longe diversa sunt carnificina & pietas. Lactant. l. 5. c. 20.
• * 1.290

  2 Thess. 2. 11.
• * 1.291

  Mat. 13.
• * 1.292

  Nemo inde ••••rui potest unde d••∣struitur, Teriul. de pr••••••r. c. 11▪
• * 1.293

  Nec peric••••tor diccre ipsas quo que Scriptur••••, sic ess•• ••x De•• volun•••••• disp••∣sitas, ut Hereti∣cis materias subministrarent, cum legam opor••tere haereses esse quae sine Scrip∣turis esse non p••ssent. Tertul. de prescrip. c. 39.—Secundum (argumentum Sadducaeorum) est a non scripto. Io Drus▪ praeterit l. 1•••• in Mat. 22. ex libris V. T. tantum reci∣piebant Pentateuchum, Io. Drus. ad ••••c. N. T. com. 1.
• * 1.294

  Sadducaei) hi quoque tantum libros Mosis recipiebant, Pro ••e∣tarum ••••••••••nia respuentes, Hie∣ronym in Mat. 22.
• * 1.295

  Hi ergo resurrectionem ex mortuis negabant; eo quod in M saicis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 i••••uris hujus ma∣nifestè non flat mentio: nam has solas agnoscebant, aliis libris non receptis. Euthym. in Mat. 22. c. 53. init.
• * 1.296

  Act. 2. 39.
• * 1.297

  Col. 2. 11.
• * 1.298

  1 Cor. 10. 2.
• * 1.299

  Mat. 28. 19.
• * 1.300

  Rom. 6. 3, 5.
• * 1.301

  1 Joh. 5 8:
• * 1.302

  2 Cor. 1. 2••.
• * 1.303

  Eph. 1. 13.
• * 1.304

  Act. 2. 38. 5. 31
• * 1.305

  1 Cor. 6. 11.
• * 1.306

  Joh. 13. 10.
• * 1.307

  Tit. 3. 5.
• * 1.308

  1 Joh. 1. 7, 8. & 3. 9.
• * 1.309

  Rom. 8. 1.
• * 1.310

  Mat. 3. 11.
• * 1.311

  Joh. 1. 33.
• * 1.312

  Aqua tangit corpus, sed Spi∣ritus Dei tangit an••••am.
• * 1.313

  Clem. Alexand. Poed. l. 1. c. 6. inquit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cum baptizamur in nomen Patris, Fi••ii, & Spiritus Sancti, t••••nquam solenni jure••juran∣do declaramus, nos totos un•• Deo & trino addictos esse, & Deus testatur se recipere cum qui baptizatur &c. Fay. E••chirid. Theolog. de Sacr. Bapt. disp. 77.
• * 1.314

  Object. ••.
• * 1.315

  Mat. 28. 19.
• * 1.316

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Epiph. to. 2. l. 3. fi. expos. N. 14. ad aqu••s descendit; ita t••men, ut po∣••••us aliquid con••erret, quam ac¦c••peret —quippe ••••••dom sua lu∣•••• collustravit &c. vid & Greg, Naziuz. orat. 40. tinctus est a Ioan••e, ut lavac••o pec∣cata non sua, quae vtique non ha∣bebat, sed carnis qu••m ge••••b••t ••••oleret, Lactant. l. 4 c 15. vid. Ephes. 5. 26. Tit. 3. 5.
• * 1.317

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.318

  Rom. 4. 11.
• * 1.319

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.320

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. P••ut. vit. Isocrat. Interpres Suidae reddit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, inter alia, ••••••dium, ••••tae genus, de∣g••••dae vitae ra••••••.
• * 1.321

  Inde ver••um S••rum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 docuit, a••solute discipulus suit. Val 〈…〉〈…〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.322

  Object. 2.
• * 1.323

  Vt in baptism•• adultorum re∣quiritur ••ides praevia—Sic ab illis qui bap∣tizantur cum jam infantes sint, requiritur ••ides subsequens, quam si non ••raestiterint posse••, retinent externam tantummodo baptismi sanctificationem, interna sanctificationis effecta non ha∣bent. Da••enant. exposit. Col. 2. 12.
• * 1.324

  In habituali principio gratiae inclusam—porr••, n••n ne••••sse ••st ut sacramenta e•• ipso momento quo administrantur efficiant ••a omnia quae fig••r••••••; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pactio dilatoria l••cum ha••••t, cum in ip•••• susc••p••••one o 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ib. pag. 209.
• * 1.325

  Object. ••3.
• * 1.326

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.327

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.328

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c Gr. Nazianz 〈◊〉〈◊〉 4
• * 1.329

  Object. 4
• * 1.330

  1 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.331

  Mark 10. 14.
• * 1.332

  Object. 5.
• * 1.333

  Serve••. l. 4. de regenerat.
• * 1.334

  Object. 6.
• * 1.335

  Non solum ver∣bum sed & bap∣tismus est Re∣generation is medium, Ge••h. de S. Bapt.
• * 1.336

  Object. 7.
• * 1.337

  Object 7.
• * 1.338

  Aug. Epist. 57.
• * 1.339

  Iohn 16. 12.
• * 1.340

  Iohn 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 26.
• * 1.341

  Iohn 16. 13.
• * 1.342

  Object. 8.
• * 1.343

  Object. 9.
• * 1.344

  John 3 35.
• * 1.345

  Object. 10.
• * 1.346

  Object. 11.
• * 1.347

  1 Pet. 3. 21.
• * 1.348

  Matth. 13.
• * 1.349

  Causa s••rmalis Sacrament••••u•• est ordina•••••• D••i in ipsius 〈…〉〈…〉 &c. Beza 〈◊〉〈◊〉. d••ct. de re sa. ••ram. q. 3.
• * 1.350

  N••llum tamen est hic ••pus ••p••ratuta, sed omnis efficacia venit à spiritu, &c. Dr. Andr. Rive••, C••thel. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. I••. 2. ••. 1.
• * 1.351

  Object. 12.
• * 1.352

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.353

  Object. 13.
• * 1.354

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mark 1••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.355

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mat. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 14.
• * 1.356

  〈…〉〈…〉 Hen. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.357

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Gr. Nazianz. orat. 4••.
• * 1.358

  Super 〈…〉〈…〉 Val. Shidler Pent in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 et 〈…〉〈…〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sy••. est.
• * 1.359

  Mat. 28. 19.
• * 1.360

  Mark. 10. 15, 16.
• * 1.361

  Ex puris parti∣culari••us nihil sequitur.
• * 1.362

  Euthym. in Mat. 22.
• * 1.363

  Obj. 15.
• * 1.364

  Joh. 20. 30. & 21. 25.
• * 1.365

  Act. 2. 40.
• * 1.366

  Obj. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.367

  Obj. 17.
• * 1.368

  —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ita ut observari possit. Beza.
• * 1.369

  Obj. 18.
• * 1.370

  Obj. 19
• * 1.371

  Act. 8. 30, 35.
• * 1.372

  Vrun. de relig. Christian. part. 2
• * 1.373

  Obj. 20
• * 1.374

  Obj. 21
• * 1.375

  Act. 10.
• * 1.376

  Obj. 22
• * 1.377

  Vrsin q. sup.
• * 1.378

  See Reply p. 12, 13. ad num. 13.
• * 1.379

  Obj. 23.
• * 1.380

  D. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 chil. bapt. justified p. ••6.
• * 1.381

  Obj. 24.
• * 1.382

  〈…〉〈…〉 14, 15.
• * 1.383

  Act. 2. 38.
• * 1.384

  Object. 25.
• * 1.385

  1 Cor. 11. 26.
• * 1.386

  Tit. 3. 5.
• * 1.387

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 17. 7.
• * 1.388

  Acts 2. 39.
• * 1.389

  Mark 16. 16.
• * 1.390

  Object. 26.
• * 1.391

  Ser••et. ••. sup. l. 4 de regenerat.
• * 1.392

  Theologio alle∣g••rica non est argumentat.
• * 1.393

  J. Gerhard de S. bapt.
• * 1.394

  Exod 13. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 13.
• * 1.395

  Object. 27.
• * 1.396

  In Baptismo in∣duitur Christus interdum sacra∣mento tenus, in∣terdum quoad vitae sanctificationem: primum bonis & malis est commune; secundum bonorum & piorum est proprium. Aug. contr. Donatist. l. 5. c. 24.
• * 1.397

  Object. 28.
• * 1.398

  Object. 29.
• * 1.399

  Mr. Tombes: exercit. arg. 3. sect. 16.
• * 1.400

  Obj. 1.
• * 1.401

  Object 2.
• * 1.402

  Object. 3.
• * 1.403

  Object. 4.
• * 1.404

  Object. 5.
• * 1.405

  See answer to Obi. 1. num. 3.
• * 1.406

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mat. 18. 6.
• * 1.407

  Mr Cob••et. part ••. exp. ••n Matth. 2••. ••age 179.
• * 1.408

  Eph. 2.
• * 1.409

  Obj. 6.
• * 1.410

  See Cloppen∣burg, Gangren. of Anabapt. &c. N. 3.
• * 1.411

  Obj. 7.
• * 1.412

  Obj. 8.
• * 1.413

  Gen. 22.
• * 1.414

  Heb. ••. 18.
• * 1.415

  Obj. 9.
• * 1.416

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.417

  Gal. 3. ••.
• * 1.418

  Rom. ••.
• * 1.419

  Obj. 10.
• * 1.420

  Obj. 11.
• * 1.421

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Mat. 28. 19, 20.
• * 1.422

  Obj. 12.
• * 1.423

  Obj. 13. So Mr. ••ombes Ed. Barber &c.
• * 1.424

  Ob uxorem, vel propter uxorem, respectu uxoris. Piscator in loc. sic Beza,—quia ratione foe∣deris, quod hic spectat Apostolus fidelis primarium & principa∣lem obtinet locum; hinc ••it ut maritus infidelis eo respectu ac∣cessorium sit uxoris fidelis, ade∣oque ipsá sanctificatâ, ipse quo∣que in ea sanctificetur—1 Cor. 3. 21.—omnia vestra sunt, i. e. in omnia jus, dominium & po∣testatem habetis fideles, &c. L. de Dieu. in loc.
• * 1.425

  1 Tim. 4. 5. Gen. 17. 7.
• * 1.426

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.427

  Beza in 1 Cor. 7.
• * 1.428

  Tit. 1. 15.
• * 1.429

  Mat. 19. ••
• * 1.430

  〈…〉〈…〉 c. 39. 40.
• * 1.431

  〈…〉〈…〉 4. 5.
• * 1.432

  〈…〉〈…〉 Mal. 2. 15.
• * 1.433

  Mal. ••. 15.
• * 1.434

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.435

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.436

  Obj. 14.
• * 1.437

  Ma••. 3. 5.
• * 1.438

  Joh. 6. 66.
• * 1.439

  2 Thess 3. 10
• * 1.440

  2 Tim. 2. 19.
• * 1.441

  Gen 17. 7.
• * 1.442

  Act. 2. 39.
• * 1.443

  Obj. 15.
• * 1.444

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.445

  1 Cor. 10. 5.
• * 1.446

  Heb. 4. 2.
• * 1.447

  Obj. 16.
• * 1.448

  See the answer to Obj. 4.
• * 1.449

  Exod. 4.
• * 1.450

  Obj. 17.
• * 1.451

  1 Cor. 1••. 12, 13.
• * 1.452

  Gal. 3. 7.
• * 1.453

  Eph. 2. 1••. •• Thes 4.
• * 1.454

  Basting de bap••. quaest. ••4. V•••••• •• Catech. &c.
• * 1.455

  Luk. 18. 16.
• * 1.456

  Rom. 4.
• * 1.457

  Matth. 28 19.
• * 1.458

  Mark 16. 16.
• * 1.459

  Act. 10. 47.
• * 1.460

  See Act. 10. 1, 14. 15, 20.
• * 1.461

  Act. 11. 3, 15, 17.
• * 1.462

  See Andr. Ri••. Cath. C•• hod. t•• 2. q. 3. tract. 3. p. 32, 38, 39.
• * 1.463

  ••••n. 17. 10, 11.
• * 1.464

  Mark. 16. 16.
• * 1.465

  ••oh. 3. 5.
• * 1.466

  Acts 2 39.
• * 1.467

  Quem potuerunt illi nosse nec ha••••ere, isti potue∣runt habere an∣tequam no••se•• A••g Ep. 57.
• * 1.468

  Acts 2. 39.
• * 1.469

  Rom. 5. 10.
• * 1.470

  C••r. 2. 12.
• * 1.471

  Mat••h. 28. 19.
• * 1.472

  Mark 16. 16.
• * 1.473

  Psal. 4••. 20.
• * 1.474

  Matth. 28. 19, 20.
• * 1.475

  N. H••••es pag. 9.
• * 1.476

  Dr. Featly child. bapt. justi∣fied, pag. 45. 46.
• * 1.477

  Hen Ainsworth to the Anabapt.
• * 1.478

  Gen. 17. 7, 9.
• * 1.479

  ••en 17. 7
• * 1.480

  Deus ut perso∣••am non accipit, sic nec aetatem, Cypri. ad Fid. Ep. 59.
• * 1.481

  Basting. de bap. infant,
• * 1.482

  Genes. 26. 15.
• * 1.483

  A. R. van. of child. b••p p 8.
• * 1.484

  Acts 15. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• * 1.485

  Epiphan. haeres. 40. n. 1. Archon. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ib.
• * 1.486

  Epiphan. Chari. haeres. 39. n. 1.
• * 1.487

  Cyprian. ••p 59.
• * 1.488

  Qui 〈…〉〈…〉 inteiligere p••test, non ni••••∣grande 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••onum à Nero∣ne damanatum. Tertul. Apol. c ••5.
• * 1.489

  Object. 1.
• * 1.490

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 a••tem•• op••rtet q••od n••n undi ••ua{que} ex∣empla ad omne propositum ap ••antur rebus ad•• quas assumun∣u••, sed ut plurimum in magis propriis ac principalioribus partibus. Euthym. in Matth 22. Non ••portet parabol••s ad verbum interpretari. ib. in Matth. 24. post Chrysostom. Par••bolica ita ••ract••nda sunt quasi ••ig ni••icantia solum ea quae necess••••ia sunt. Euthym in Matth. 24.
• * 1.491

  Corpus Christi naturale fuit veré sepultum; an putandum est nostra corpora eodom modo sepeliri in ad∣ministratine ba∣ptismi? non id vult Apostolus; sed ut rectè. Chrys. observa∣vit in 6. ad Rom quod in Christo factum est per naturam, id in∣nobis fieri intel∣ligit per analo∣giam & propor∣tionem: corpus igitur pec••ati se∣pelitur quando ej••s vis enerva∣tur—obruitur, & quasi cada∣ver terra obra∣tum, non possi•• amplius in vere, & quoquo velit homin••m impel∣lere, &c. Davn. in Col. 2. 12.
• * 1.492

  Object. 2.
• * 1.493

  Iohn 3. 21.
• * 1.494

  Baptisma olim non nisi in Pas∣cha & Pente∣coste collatum, &c. vid. Concil. Constantinop. 2 c. 1. n. 2. Greg. Nazianz. ora. 40 Tertul de bapt. c. 19, &c.
• * 1.495

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fundo, ef∣fundo, interp. Suid. reddit fundo, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fund••, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••••bamina m••nibus fundo. B••daeus. Syr.
• * 1.496

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••••quem effu••••t 〈◊〉〈◊〉 er nos. Trae••el. ••eza, &c. à verbo Siro 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eff••dit. Shind••er, in Rom. 3. 15. Matth 9. 17. & 23. 35.
• * 1.497

  Object. ••
• * 1.498

  Ma••th. 3. 11.
• * 1.499

  Acts 2. 3.
• * 1.500

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.501

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.502

  •• In Principio nominum notat casum ablati∣vum, quo instru∣mentum, causa, modus agendi, &c. significatur. vide si vacat. Shindl. Penteg. See the like 1. 17. 4•• Gen. 27. 40. & 32 10. & 48. 22.
• * 1.503

  Exod. 17. 13.
• * 1.504

  Numb. 21. 24, &c. Tertul. de ••orona mili•• •• 1
• * 1.505

  Immersi••, vel aspersio trina an una, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈…〉〈…〉 loco, tempore, & ••clesi•• consuctu∣d••ne. An. Fay••. Enchiri••. Theol. de Sacr. bapt. Vrsin. Ca••e••h. de bapt.
• * 1.506

  In una fide ni∣hil efficit sanctae ecclesiae consue∣tudo diversa. Greg. Ep. 41. sordes—& maculas mentis lav••re non p••∣test▪ nisi qui e∣jusdem fabrica∣tor est mentis•• Optatus. l 5. Dicimur in ba∣ptismo sepulti cum Christo, re∣surrexisse eti••m in Christo vel per Christum, ne h••c supernaturalia effecta, vel externo elemento, vel nostris propriis viribus tribuamus. Christi itaque mors, sepultur••, resurrectio causa est mertificatio∣••is & vivificati••nis nostrae spiritualis, &c. Davenant. q. sup. Nomen est qu••d sanctificat non opus. Optatus. q. sup.
• * 1.507

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.508

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.509

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.510

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, à verb•• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 differt quod profundum etere, & sub∣termergere sig∣nificat.
• * 1.511

  Mr. Leigh. Crit. Sacr. primum parva fila 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lavant aquâ calid••. Aristophan.
• * 1.512

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Heb. 9. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 perfundo, aspergo, irroro▪ ut 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Aristophan. aspergo palpe∣bras. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, idem, inde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, asperst••. Lactan, l. 4. c. 15 (vocat baptis∣mum) purifici¦rorisaspersionem
• * 1.513

  1 Iohn •• 7.
• * 1.514

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.515

  Bap••••s••••um qui fit pe•• singuinem Euthyn. in Mark 20. 23.
• * 1.516

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mark 7. 2.
• * 1.517

  Lotiones lecto∣rum. Ar. M••n∣tan. Beza, &c. Syr.
• * 1.518

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & lectorum. Tremel. Cha•••• & Syr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lectus. ut Ma••••▪ 2. 4 (ab H••b•• Mat▪ 9.
• * 1.519

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Psa. 6. 6) 2. 6. interdum thalamus nupti alis. Hebr. 13. 4 Luc. 11. 7. & 17 34▪ Act. 9. 33. ••
• * 1.520

  Acts 2. Videntur tria millia uno die à paucis Aposto∣stolis non po••••∣isse baptizari s•• singuli mers•• fuissent: nec vero, carcerario intra carcerem fuisse ad manum tantum aquae quantum mer∣gendo opus erat. Dan. Chamier. de bapt. l. 15. c. 2.
• * 1.521

  2 Tim 3 16▪ &c.
• * 1.522

  De Eunomio dicit Epiphanius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Anom. haeres. 76. N. 6.—Auxentius solvit baptismum Christi—curigitur rebaptizan••dos Auxentius fideles populos putat baptizatos in nomine Tri∣nitatis, &c? Ambros. l. 5. ep. 32: ••ine, orat. in Auxent.
• * 1.523

  Novatianus—quos iterati baptismatis la∣be inquinavit. Ambros. de poe∣nit. l. 1. c. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiph. haeres. 42. to. 3. l. 1. Mr. Tombs exercit. about Infant-baptism.
• * 1.524

  Er••a•••• potius quàm perduct•••• ••uisp••am▪ Plaut. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.525

  〈…〉〈…〉 semel benè ••••tus fuerit: sed dum non addidit ••••erbum benè▪ 〈…〉〈…〉 in Trinitate sactum fuerit, benè, est, &c. Optatus l. 5. See Epiph. haeres. ••5. N. 7. ••b. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 6••. l. 2 N. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 haeres. 42. N. 2. ••b. haeres. 69.
• * 1.526

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.527

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, C••••y. hom. 2. in ••ph. 5.
• * 1.528

  R••••. 4. 11. V••••. Aug. d•• ••apt l. 4. c. 2••.
• * 1.529

  Object. 2.
• * 1.530

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.531

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in seculo novo.
• * 1.532

  Sic enim caro nostra regenera∣bitur p••r in••••r ruptionem, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est anima nostra rege•• erata per fidem▪ Augustin de C. D. l. 10. c. 5:
• * 1.533

  Object. 3.
• * 1.534

  Acts •• 38.
• * 1.535

  Matth. 6.
• * 1.536

  Ier. 31. 34.
• * 1.537

  Object. 4.
• * 1.538

  Object. 5.
• * 1.539

  Vid. doctissi∣mum. A. R••v••t. sum controver. To. 2. q. 2. tra. 3. pa••e 26, 27.
• * 1.540

  1 Cor. 1. 14. 16 Acts 18. 8.
• * 1.541

  Acts 19 29.
• * 1.542

  Concil. Trident. Bellarmin. To▪ 3 de Sacram. bapt. l. 2. c. 20. Vasquez. in 3. Tho. Aquin. Tom. 2. q. 66. a. 2▪ disp. 140. N▪ 18. P. Lombard. l. 4. dist. 2. D. Aquin▪ part. 3, &c.
• * 1.543

  Object. 6.
• * 1.544

  Rom, 6. 4, 5▪
• * 1.545

  Verse 25, 26.
• * 1.546

  Obj. 7.
• * 1.547

  Vniversi Epis∣••••pi dixerunt absit, absit: illicitas esse ••ancimus rebaptizationes omnes, & satis esse alienum à sincerâ fide & Catholicâ disciplinâ—Concil. 1. Carthag. cap. 1. Severin. Bin. Concil. ••e. 1••
• * 1.548

  Cyprianus af∣firmabat cum aliis Orientali∣bus Episcopis••••. unum esse baptis∣mum, qui extra unam Ecclesiam Catholicam, non inveniatur—(alii dicebant) 〈◊〉〈◊〉,) baptisma, ratum validum, & nequa quam reiterandum •• quem Minister haereticus juxta formam à Christo praescri∣ptam & ab Ec∣clesia usurpatam. contuliss. Bin q. s. V••deat qui vult Augustin. ad Vincent. ep. 48. & de bapt. contr. Donat. l. 6. c. 2. Hieronymum contr. Lucife∣rian. Baptismum autem non esse quo haeretici utuntur. Cyprian 1. &c. Stephan. l. 2. ep. 1. quis enim potest dare quod ipse non habeat? ib. Cypr. l. 1. ep 12. quod semel sumitur nec rursus iteratur. Cyprian. l. 2. ep. 3 & Bin. q. s.
• * 1.549

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Apost. Can. 46. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Theophylact. in Ioh. 3. videat qui vult de his, Epiphan. haeres. 74. contra Pneumatomach••s. Init. & haeres. 76. N. 6.
• * 1.550

  Pr••••ter Ecclesiae consuetudinem, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••pi∣••han. expos. f. Cath. l. 3, To 2. N. 13.
• * 1.551

  See 1 Cor. 6. 11. & 12. 13▪ Gal 3. 27.
• * 1.552

  See Concil. Ni∣cen. can. 19. Concil. Arelat •• Can 8. Concil. Carthag. c. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Nazianz•• orat. 40. itemque orat: 25. inquit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;—Regeneratio spiritualis una est, sicut generatio carnalis una est. Aug. tract. 12. in Ioh.—Quomodo uterus non potest repeti, sic nec baptismus iterari. Prosper. ••••st Augustin. tract. 11. in Ioh. vid. & Chrysost. in Hebr. 6. hom. 9. & Theo∣••••lact. ••b.
• * 1.553

  Rom 3. 3. Rom. 11. 29. 2 Tim. 2. 13.
• * 1.554

  Concil. Eliberit. Can. 46. & 69. & 73. Concil. Carthag. 1. Council. Arelateus. c. 6. 23. Concil. Nicaen. 2. vid. & Bart. Car∣ranz, sum. Concil. pag 673. 679. Rothomag. 1633. nec aliud reme∣dium constitutum esse post baptis∣mum, quam paenitentiae solatium•• Ambros. to. 1. Vrsin. de relig. Christ pa••. ••. •• Conclus. 13.
• * 1.555

  Rom. 6. 11. Chrys. in Rom. 6 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.556

  Gen. 17. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in pactum seculi
• * 1.557

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrys. in Rom. 6. h••m. 11. in eadem sententi•• est Basilius de S. S. c. 14. sicu•• semel Christus crucifixus est, sic baptismus i∣ter andus non est; unâ enim morte suà, omnes rede∣m••t, ut amplius mor•• non opor∣teat; quod videns Ecclesia intellexit, non iterandum baptismum. Aug. de verâ & fals. poenit. c. 3. itemque de verb. Div.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Epiph. to. 1. haeres. 59. l. 2. N. 5. Si Christus tantum semel mortuus est, & nos tantum semel baptizari convenit, Alex. Alens. 10. 4. de sacrament. Baptis. q. 8. Memb. 12. resol.—Donatum sunt hae sententiae latae, quod confessus sit se rebapti∣zasse, &c. quod ab ecclesia alienum est. Optatus, l. 1. de schism. Donat. idem lib. 5. de circum∣cisione dicit—semel enim factum servat salutem: si iterum fiat, potest afferre perniciem •• sic & baptisma Christianorum &c. confert gratiam; si repetatur, facit vitae jacturam—de hoc lavacro dixit, Qui semel lotus est, non habet iterum necessitatem lavandi: qui semel dixit, prohibuit iterum fieri—haec sententia generalis est, non specialis—••bsit ut lotum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vocemus ad fontem—absit ut iteremus quod semel est, aut duplicemus quod unum est; semel ergo lavacrum inimus, semel delicta diluuntur, quia ea iterari non oportet. Tertul. de bapt. c. 15.

  Baptisma salutaris aquae significatur, quod semel scilicet sumitur, nec rursus iteratur. Cypr. l. 2. ep. 3▪ ad Caecilium, vid. & Augustinum ep. 173. Crisp.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—Epiph. quo sup.

  Iuxta fores templi, in latere quod opponitur meridiei—ingressus templi ad Orientem erat: more primum occurrebat &c. Vatabl. in 1 Reg, 7. 39.—Ezek. 36. 25. Ephes 5. 26, Act. 2. 38. •• Pet. 3. 21. Rom. 8. 1.
• * 1.558

  Eph. 5. 26. Tit. 3. 5. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Baptismo qui∣dem homo totus abluitur, sed dum isto postea vivit in seculo, huma∣nis affectibus terram velut pedibas calcans, &c. unde dicat dimitte nobis debita nostra, ac sic etiam mundatur ab eo, qui pedes lavit discipulis suis, nec desmit interpellare pro nobis. Aug. tract. 3••. in Ioh.
• * 1.559

  Baptisma uni∣ca•• 〈…〉〈…〉 in Christo reg 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est; sicut unus De••s, ac sides um••a ab omnibus fideli∣tèr consitendum, quod celebratum in a quâ, in no∣mine Patris, & Filii, & Spiri∣tus sancti, cre∣dimus tam a∣dultis, quàm parvulis cōmu∣niter perfectum remedium ad sa∣latem. vid. notas in concil. Viern. Oecumen. 15. Severin. Bin. Concil. to. 2.—Denique vos qui baptisma quasi libentèr duplicare contenditis, si datis alterum bap∣tisma, date alteram fidem: si dat•• alteram fidem, date & alterum Christum: si datis alterum Christum, date alterum Deum. Vnum Deum esse negare non potestis, ne in Mar∣cionis foveas incidatis: ergo Deus unus est; de uno Deo unus est Christus. Qui rebaptiza∣tur, jam Christianus fuerat: quomodo dici potest iterum Christianus &c? Optatus contr. Parm. Donatist. l. 5.
• * 1.560

  See that which hath been said, part, ••. animad vers. on liberty of prophet. p 244 245. Num 32, 33.
• * 1.561

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.562

  ad baptismum 〈…〉〈…〉 quam Patres firn••a∣runt dicto Pau∣li ubi de unico baptismate agit, & altero, ubi negat eos qui se∣mel illuminati fuerunt posse re∣novari ad poeni∣tentiam quam baptismalem in∣telligunt. A. Ri∣ve. Cathol. Or∣thod. to. 2 q. 6. ••ract 3.
• * 1.563

  Sic Iud. 13. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & d••∣ceat nos. 70. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & illuminabit nos, 2 Re••. 17. 27. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & doceat eos. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & ill oni∣••abit eos & ib. v. 28. sic 2 Reg. 12. 2 Eph. 3. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & illu••••••••re &c. i. e. perspicuè docere. ••u••dovic. de Dien animadv. in Heb. 6.
• * 1.564

  See 1 Joh 3 9 8 •• 16, 17.
• * 1.565

  De Dieu. q. s. 2 Tim. 2. 19.
• * 1.566

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Epiph. Cathar. haeres. 59. N. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Chrysost in Heb. 6. hom. 9.