CATABAPTISM: OR New Baptism, waxing old, and ready to vanish away. In Two Parts. The former Contains LVIII. CONSIDERATIONS, (With their respective Proofs, and Consectaries) Pregnant for the healing of the common scruples touching the subject of Baptism, and manner of Baptising. The latter, contains an Answer to a Discourse against Infant-Baptism, published not long since by W. A. under the Title of, Some Baptismal Abuses Briefly Discovered, etc. In both, sundry things, not formerly insisted on, are Discovered and Discussed. By J. G. a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. — And were all Baptised into Moses, etc. 1 Cor. 10. 2. I indeed Baptise you with water Unto Repentance. Mat. 3 11. Baptismus est lavacrum regenerationis, sed non ita, ut regenerati tantùm illo debeant obsignari, sed etiam Regenerandi. Musc. in Mat. 22. 41. 42. Baptizantur Infantes in futuram poenitentiam & fidem. Calv. Instit. lib. 4. c. 16. §. 20. London, Printed for H Cripps, and L. Lloyd, and are to be sold at their shops near the Castle in Cornhill, and in Popes-head-Alley. 1655. To the Sons and Daughters of God walking in the Way, best known by the Name of Ana-Baptism; growth in Grace, and the knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord. BELOVED, I speak it as in the §. 1. sight of God: I am in a great strait how to temper my speech for your best advantage, in this my solemn▪ address unto you. Very loath I am on the one hand to deal so unfaithfully or un-Christianly with you, as, upon such an opportunity, not to speak the truth unto you in such things, wherein I either certainly know, or else have weighty grounds to judge, that it most nearly concerns you to know and to consider it: and on the other hand, very unwilling I am also to speak any thing, for which, either weakness, or uncharitableness itself, shall be able to judge me your enemy. I well know it becomes me not to say of you, as Nabal'● servant spoke of his Master; He is so wicked that a man cannot speak to him. a 1 Sam. 25. 17. [meaning, without offending, or provoking him] yet my Experience importunes me to speak this, that some of you, yea some of those, whom I have cause to judge the strongest amongst you, are so weak, that words as innocent, as inoffensive, as the greatest Christian tenderness, or caution, can lightly indite, have notwithstanding, been a burden and offence unto them. I could readily instance in sundry particulars, as well of words, phrases, and passages of this harmless import, as of persons among you, who nevertheless have turned their innocence into guilt, and made themselves aggrieved at them; but that I fear lest this also should be an offence unto you. I call God for a record upon my soul, that I have §. 2. not the least touch of any malignancy or frowardness of spirit against any of you, but can freely serve the meanest of you in love, yea, and stoop to lose the latcher of his shoe, who is the most jealous amongst you of the candour and simplicity of my heart towards you. Yea I have upon occasion, and this more than once, given a very passeable account of my unpartial respects unto all of your way and practise worthy the repute of godliness, by girding myself, and ministering with all my might to some particulars of you. But I know how hard a thing it is not to be offended with him, that shall touch the Apple of a man's eye, or that shall attempt to change the glory and height of his confidence into the shame of guilt and error. And the truth is, that you have much obstructed the way of your return, and regainment unto the Truth, by an importune and undue magnifying of your error. If you could have been content, in estimating your new Baptism, and the want or non-practise of it in others, to contain you selves within those bounds of Reason and Truth, which the Holy Ghost prescrib's in a like (or rather indeed in a far better) case, saying, That Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the Commandments of God; a 1 Cor. 7. 19 and again, In Jesus Christ, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but Faith, which worketh by Love, b Gal. 5. 6. and yet again, If the circumcision keep the righteousness of the Law, his uncircumcision shall be counted for circumcision; c Rom. 2. 26. See these passages argued and opened. Water-Dipping, p. 78. 79. 80. etc. If, I say, you could look upon your Baptism as availing you nothing, without Faith working by Love, and keeping the Commandments of God; and again, upon the want of your Baptism, as no ways prejudicial unto those, who under another Baptism believe unfeignedly in Jesus Christ, and walk holily and humbly with their God, this would be an effectual door of hope opened unto me, that you were yet within call, and might be reduced and brought back again in your judgements unto the truth (as some of the best of those, who through human frailty, and immaturity of consideration, had embraced your way, from time to time have done.) What a man moderately or soberly valueth, may §. 3. be purchased of him at a reasonable rate. But whilst God's Nothing (yea that which is less than that Nothing of his we now speak of) is your, All things; whilst you judge your tything of mint, anise, and cummin (or rather indeed of nettles, thistles, and unprofitable weeds) to be the practice of mercy and judgement, and the weighty things of the Law, your reconcilement with the Truth, though advancing in the front of my desires, yet keeps in the rear of my expectations. For when a man prizeth any thing he possesseth, at an unreasonable rate, he is so much the more like to keep possession of it still; unless (haply) the thief digs through the house, and violently takes it away. Some of your Churches esteem all others no better than Heathen and Publicans, who refuse to cast in their lot with them in their venturous practice of new Baptism a Ad forum f●cto concurcu, clamorem tollunt, & omnes non baptizatos jubent interfici▪ tanquam paganos, & impios. Joh. Sleidan. de Anabaptistis Comment. lib. 10. , refusing all Christian communion with them, though otherwise they be the glory of Christ, and of the Gospel, when as many of themselves are the shame and reproach of both. And if my intelligence faileth me not, other of your Churches are lifting up their hearts to a like zealous exaltation of your way, as by proscribing or evacuating all the Faith, Love, Zeal, Holiness, Meekness, Humility, Wisdom, and Knowledge, shining in the Christian world, which shall not approve themselves unto you, by falling down before the golden image which you have set up. But in this your humour of making such sacred § 4. treasure of your new Baptism, you declare yourselves to be the true heirs and successors of those in all ages, who have unduly, and without cause, broken the bands of Unity, Love, and Peace, wherein they had sometimes been bound up in the same bundle of Christianity with other Churches, to walk in some by-way of particular choice by themselves, to the offence, grief, and reproach of those Churches from which they rend themselves, and renounced Communion with, upon such an account. It hath always been the manner of persons of that character, to magnify above measure that opinion, or practise, of what slender consequence, nay of what evil consequence soever it was, wherein they dissented from, and for the non-profession, or non-practise whereof, they rejected the communion of other Churches. The History of the Church since the Apostles days affordeth us instances without number of that import we speak of: some of these are presented to the Readers consideration in the ensuing discourse b pag 8, 9, 10. . By these instances, and many more of like signification, which might readily have been added to them, it clearly appears, that when men make any defection, or rend, from the main body of sound Christians, in any thing, whether opinion, or practise, they are strongly tempted by the spirit of this separation, to speak, how extravagantly or causelessly soever, glorious things of that, wherein they differ (be it opinion or practice) lest otherwise their departure from the household of Faith, should seem causeless, and (so) highly censurable. And that men of your judgement and practice have not been behind the Patrons of the Errors specified in the said page and section of the present Discourse, in crying Hosanna in the highest to your way, appears sufficiently from the best records that are extant, of those times, wherein this way first got footing in the Europoean parts of the Christian world. John Sleidan in his historical Commentaries, amongst many other sad relations of your Predecessors, reports of one, who ran up and down the City of Munster, as if he had been inspired from God, crying out, Repent, and be rebaptized; if ye will not, the wrath of God will presently overwhelm you. Hereupon the common sort of people began to make a tumult: and whosoever was rebaptized, clamoured out the same things which the other did, and after the same manner. Many, fearing the wrath of God, which these men so loudly boasted [would fall upon all those that would not be rebaptized] being through their simplicity circumvented (men otherwise not evil) did as they would have them [and were rebaptized] some also, that they might keep their estates. For the Anabaptists, having first contumeliously handled their adversaries, threw them out of possession of their estates, etc. a Ex ipsis quidam velut afflatus numine, per Vrbem discurrit, & poenitentiam (inquit) agite, & rebaptizamini: sin minus, jam ira Dei vos obru●t. Hinc coeptum est vulgò tumultuari: & quicunque rebaptizarentur, eadem, quae ille, codemque modo declamabant. Multi, quod iram Dei metuerent, quam isti tantopere jactabant, simplicitate circumventi, homines alioqui non mali, iis morem gerebant: alii etiam, quo suas fortunas conservarent: adversarios enim Anabaptistae malè mulctatos, possessionibus dejiciebant. Joh. Sleid. C●m. l. 10 an. 1535. And there are at this day amongst us not a few of your judgement and way, who speak not much short of these Munster-Anabaptists, concerning the high necessity of your way of baptising. This passage extant p. 18. of the Discourse examined in the ensuing Treatise, [That both Repentance, and the declaration of it by Baptism b He meaneth only that kind of Baptism which himself owneth: otherwise the passage relateth little to his purpose. , is required on man's part, to interess him in remission of sins, and sanctification of the Spirit, the things covenanted or promised on God's part, is too evident to be denied by any, but those that will not see, from Acts 2. 38, 39] This passage (I say, which hath several other confederate with it in the Discourse) is of the same inspiration with the Munster-Divinity lately recited, exposing all those to the eternal wrath of God, who shall not be baptised, secundum modum Authoris, after the manner of the Authors own Baptism. And if your Scribes and Wisemen speak thus gloriously of your way, can we think that your vulgar proselytes are beneath them in their thoughts about it? But I look upon these high thoughts which you take unto yourselves, as also those great words, wherein you express yourselves unto others, concerning your way, like the men of Ephesus concerning their Diana, Great is Diana of the Ephesians; not as arguments or grounds of any regular or rational conviction upon your judgements and consciences, that there is any such either weight or worth in your way; but rather as studied and strained Apologies, to excuse yourselves, as well unto yourselves, and your own consciences, as unto others, for your otherwise inexcusable separation, and offence hereby given unto the Churches of Christ. But what, or how high soever, or how occasioned § 5. soever, your thoughts are concerning your Baptism, I trust you retain so much savour of that anointing with the spirit of wisdom and meekness, which you received under that Baptism (for so we judge of it, and as yet are not apprehensive of any sufficient ground to judge otherwise) wherewith you were baptised after the manner practised in other Churches, as not to stumble at that stone which the Apostle hath faithfully endeavoured to remove out of your way, by demanding thus of the Galathians, Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? a Gal. 4. 16. Doubtless this Apostle did not bewray the least touch or tincture of any enmity, either against the Church of the Philippians, or against the persons themselves of whom he spoke, when he said; Many there are, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, etc. b Phil. 3. 18. And my hope is, at least concerning you whom I style the sons and daughters of God, that what I shall out of an unfeignedly compassionate soul towards you, with truth speak unto you, whether relating to yourselves, or others of your judgement and way, only in order to your spiritual good, shall not be wrested or drawn aside by you to any sinister or hard Interpretation, as if I were a man, who rather sought your discredit and disparagement in the world, than your edification in the truth. I well understand that the dear interest of my comfort and peace standeth, not in the pulling down, but in the building up the comforts and peace of other men. Nor have I any Tower of Name or Reputation to build for myself in the world, that I should stand in need of the ruins, or demolished stones, either of yours, or any other men's, to advance my building. As I have none, so neither do I seek or desire any other honour, then that which cometh from God only. I have given sufficient hostages unto the world, that I shall never war upon it, or be troublesome unto it, for neglecting me, or laying my honour in the dust. He, who (it seems) believeth that I was tempted into a way of Schism, by men's intemperate zeal against my Treatise of Justification, is a stranger unto me, and thinketh accordingly. But that which he calleth Schism, is schism only so called; unless to separate from iniquity, be schism. But however, the most intemperate zeal of men against me, Person, Name, or Books, is a temptation of a very faint influence upon me to turn me out of any way of Truth, yea, or to make me their enemy. Only when the Truth is offended, I confess I burn; and in case I find any strength in my hand to redress the injury done to it, I have no rest in my spirit until I have attempted the Vindication. By Truth, I do not mean mine own opinion (as you seem frequently to understand the word, in reference unto yours) for as for that which is no more than so, I shall neither trouble myself much, nor any other man at all, about it. But by Truth I mean, such a doctrine or notion, one or more, which I certainly know that I am able to demonstrate either from the Scriptures, or from clear principles and grounds in Reason, or both, to be agreeable to the mind of God. And of this sort is the Doctrine concerning the subject of Baptism, and the mode of the administration thereof, avouched in the Aphorisms, and vindicated in the Answer ensuing, against the most plausible Arguments (I believe) that have yet appeared on your side. Some particulars there are, relating to your judgement §. 6. and practice about Baptism, which, as you desire to be judged loyal and faithful unto Jesus Christ, true to the dear interest of your own comfort and peace, friends to the comforts and peace of the Churches of Christ throughout the world, I earnestly desire you will please to take into your closest and most Christian consideration. As, 1. Whether, in your rejecting all children from the Baptism of Christ, you do not forsake the ducture and guidance, as well of the fair and goodly stream of religious and learned Antiquity, as of the main current of the signal abilities, gifts, parts, judgement, piety, zeal, practise of modern times, to turn into the by-notions, conceits, and ways of men, who are, and still have been, children in understanding, (at least comparatively) inexpert in the word of righteousness, through the weakness of their sight not able to see things afar off, or to discern or discover the mind of Christ, if it be but spiritually expressed; I mean, in such phrase or words, wherein the holy Ghost delighteth, and not put into terms and words of their prescription, and such as they judge meet it should have been, had he intended to convey it unto men by the Scriptures? Or whether any one man, of any considerable note, or name, for might in the Scriptures, in all the golden Regiment of Reformed Divines, or amongst persons of any other capacity, since the Reformation, hath given the right hand of fellowship unto you in the way of your judgement (such only excepted, who upon second and better thoughts withdrew it again from you) yea or hath so much as at unawares, or in any traverse or debate of any other subject in Christian Religion, asserted any thing, or let fall a word, in countenance of that your judgement, of which I speak? Yea, whether they have not (generally) upon occasion, most solemnly and seriously declared against your opinion and practice, showing and proving the inconveniences, and evil consequences of them; And whether, the affirmative in all their demands supposed, it doth not plainly argue, 1. That your opinion about Baptism, is of a very ignoble and obscure race and parentage. 2. That it carrieth nothing at all in it, standeth upon no principles or grounds any ways necessary or useful, either for the proof, illustration, or clearing of any Doctrine in Christian Religion? 2. Whether Errors and Heresies have not their § 7. certain seasons of growth and infection, as wherein they are with greater diligence and industry dispersed, and more readily learned and drunk in by the generality of people; even as some hurtful Plants See Patrimony of Christian Children, by M. Robert Clever, with the joint consent of M. John Dod (Printed an. 1624.) in the Preface to the Reader. have their set months for springing up, budding, blooming, seeding, whereas before they lay hid in the earth, and afterwards have their stalks dried up and withered? Or whether men's minds are not in this case subject to be seduced, as their bodies are to be infected with contagious maladies, some years, and in some places, the small Pox raging, in others, the Pestilence, sometimes one disease being general, sometimes another? And whether the errors and heresies of the Nicholaitans, of Cerinthus, Manes, Macedonius, Arrius, Eutyches, and others both of former and of later times, have not prevailed (respectively) in those times and ages, for which the righteous Providence of God judged them meet trials and scourges for his Churches? And further, whether, as once the Christian world, was on a sudden, and to its own admiration, under a deluge of Arrianisme, Miratus est Orbis se factum Arrianum. which notwithstanding was, through the gracious Providence of God, not long after dried up again; so it be not extremely probable, that the face of these parts of the Christian world, at present overspread and covered with a Land-flood of Anabaptism, to the wonderment, not only of intelligent and considering men, but (I suppose) of the persons themselves also led aside with the error, will, notwithstanding the great prevailing of these unwholesome waters hitherto, through the merciful Providence of God towards his Churches and Servants in this Nation, be discharged of them, and that he will cause them to return and fall back again into that Mare Mortuum, or lake from whence they, and all other waters of like danger and annoyance with them, issue forth into the world. 3. Whether the generality, or far greater part of § 8. those, who take upon them to be guides and teachers in your Congregations, and Assemblies, be not utterly incompetent and unmeet for such an undertaking, as being deplorably ignorant of the mystery of Christ, not able to divide the word aright, nor to wield and manage the Scriptures, especially where the deep things of God are treasured up, but with unspeakable detriment and loss to the Faith and Holiness, and consequently to the solid peace and comfort, of those who depend upon them. 4. Whether the Doctrines, or at least the greatest part of the Doctrines, that are handled and taught in your Congregations, be not raised upon mistaken senses, and perverted meanings of the Scriptures, unto which they pretend; yea, and managed upon weak, irrelative, and impertinent grounds, and either wholly mis-applyed, or else so weakly and loosely applied, that they leave no weighty, no effectual or lively impression of their truth, or import, upon the spirits and consciences of the hearers? 5. Whether, the now-named deficiences, with § 9 several other disorders too frequent amongst you, considered, there be any great presence of Jesus Christ at any time in your holy Assemblies, or such as is frequently manifest in the assemblies of other Churches, or whether you have any countenance from heaven, either in gifts, or graces, comparable to other Churches of the Saints? And whether the principal, if not the only cement and band, that keeps and holds your Churches and Congregations together, be not the simple conceit that you are, by means of your new Baptism, gotten nearer to God, and deeper in his favour then other men, how holy or worthy soever otherwise above yourselves? 6. Whether the bulk and main body of persons, whether men, or women (for I hope better things of some of you, and which accompany Christian sobriety, and true mortification) but whether the generality or far greater part of persons of your judgement and practice, in the Nation, be not so far from that Christian sweetness, humility, and meekness of spirit which becometh those, who profess themselves baptised into the death of Christ, & buried with him in Baptism, towards all men, that they scarce retain the moral principles of common Civility; but are heady, rash, fierce, despisers of others (yea of good men) selfconceited, arrogant, quarrelsome, clamorous, captious, vain boasters, unjust defamers of men dissenting in judgement from them, still upon all disputes between men of their judgement, and others, about Baptism, how weakly soever their cause hath been pleaded by her Patrons, and how potently and manifestly soever overthrown by her Adversaries, yet ringing the great Bell of Ephesus for joy of the victory, Great is Diana of the Ephesians, Great is the Doctrine of Anabaptism and prevaileth; a Cumque passim isti [Anabaptistae] de victoriâ ab Oecolampadio reportatâ gloriarentur, edidit ille Colloquii cum Anabaptistis habiti acta. Scultet. Annal. Dec. 1. An. 1625. primum Constantiam venit [Balthasar Anabaptista] apud ministros verbi sic nos calumniatus est, victoriamque suam de Catabaptismo jactavit, ut nesciam an nillos in odium nostri traxerit. Ibid. In disputatione autem suprà modum erant vehementes, parati mori potius quàm cedere. Balthasar quidam Anabaptista, literis ad Senatum. Tigurinensem pollicetur se Zuinglium suis Scripturis superaturum de Baptismo. Ibid. Anabaptism (it seemeth) being more hardy, than God supposed the King of Tyre would be (Ezek. 28. 9) and daring to say in the hands of him that slayeth her, I am God, I am a divine Truth? 7. Whether any person, man or woman, who § 10. have turned Proselyte to your way, hath ever given, or at this day can give, any competent satisfaction unto men, by any sensible growth in grace, in knowledge, in faith, in love, in humility, in fruitfulness, etc. that their Proselytism in this kind hath added so much as one cubit, nay so much as one hairs breadth, to their spiritual stature, or that their souls have prospered to any degree, by means of their new Baptism? Nay, 8. Whether a very great number (at least) of those, who have done homage to your way, and have bowed down their judgements and consciences unto it, have not been spiritual losers by the change, sensibly declining and decaying in their graces, in those Christian and worthy principles and dispositions, which at first they brought with them unto your way, waxing much worse after their new Baptising, than they were before; as if their new Baptism had not been into Christ, or into his death, but rather into old Adam, and into his life? And whether you yourselves, in several of your Congregations, are not experimentally sensible of such a frequent declining and putrifying of your Members, as this, casting out, and cutting off, great numbers of them from day to day? I was somewhat more particularly reminded to put you upon consideration of these two particulars (last mentioned) by occasion of some of my acquaintance formerly, who since have stumbled in the dark into your way. These (I confess) are not many: only this I have observed concerning them (and must needs upon this occasion testify) that not any one of them, as far as an estimate can be made by what is visible, or discernible in point of conversation, profecit hilum, hath gained so much as the making of one hair either black or white, by the exchange of his Baptism: but sundry of them have lost many degrees of that sweet Christian savour, and love, wherewith they excellently adorned the Gospel before, I will not positively say, by, but upon, after, and since, the translation of their judgements into your way. 9 Whether amongst men and women, whose § 11. Consciences have at any time been surprised with a conceit of more goodness in your way then in the contrary, and so have betaken themselves unto it, such who have been either the most Christianly meek and humble on the one hand, or the most judicious, sober, learned, and best composed on the other hand, have not upon a little experience of your way, grown cool, and very indifferent in their thoughts about it; yea, and many repent of their weakness and surprisal, and forsaken your tents, as (about Luther's time) Oecolampadius, Johonnes Gaster, Pfistermeierus, Johannes Denkius (persons of great learning, worth, and humility) with several others; and of late years, many of like character among ourselves, whom, if I judged it convenient, I could name. Only I may be free (I presume) to mention that concerning Mr. Richard Baxter (a man as like as any man I know, to make a crooked generation straight, if it be possible) which himself hath published of himself, viz. that his foot was once very near to be taken in this snare. Huldericus Zuinglius a man of most signal worth likewise in his times, maketh the like acknowledgement, in these words: Wherefore I myself (that I may ingenuously confess the truth) some years ago, being deceived with this error, thought it better that children's Baptism should be delayed until they came to full age. 10. Whether since the first invention and practice of your way in later times, which according to Scul●etus, who wrote the History of the Reformation of Christian Religion by Luther, and other his Assistants (partakers of the same grace with him therein) was in the year 1521. a Origo fanaticae ●nabaptistarum sectae ●●ic Anno deb●tur. Scultet. Annal. Dec. 1. in Anno 1521. Nicolaus Ciconia, Marcus Stubnerus, Martinus Cell●rius, Thomas Muntzerus primi hujus sectae nominantur Authores. Ibid. men of your judgement, wherever (almost they have come, have not obstrustructed the course and proceed of the Gospel, opposed, troubled, defamed, the most faithful and worthy Instruments of Christ, in the work of Reformation, and upon this account been complained of by them. b Cursum Evangelii remorata sunt in Germaniâ, & extra Germaniam, bellum rusticanum & Sacramentarium: in Helvetiâ & Moraviâ, secta Anabaptistica. Sc●ltet. Annal. Dec. 1. Anno 1525. Sangallensis Ecclesia vavariè per Anabaptistas fuit excercita. Idem pag. 262, 263. In Sueviâ, Vlmensibus & Augustanis vel maximè molesti erant Anabaptistae. Dolet mihi (ait Zuinglius) fideles à Cata-baptistis esse seductos. Et paulò pòst. Efficient [Anabaptistae] ut aliquandiu rem Christianam remorentur: at nihil solidi ad maturitatem perducent. Idem Annal. Dec. 2. p. 92. Vicessimo septimo Anno fervent Bella Anabaptisticum & Sacramentarium, magno Ecclesiarum Evangelicarum malo. Idem in initio Anni 1528. J●hannes Leydensis, Anabaptista vehemens, privatim r●ga● ex Evangelii Doct●ribus initio, cum in eorum serm●n●●● familiariter se insinuass●t, num arbitr●●t●r pa●vul●s rectè baptizari? Cum affirmaren, ill●, qui totus erat dedi●u● contrariae opinioni. coe●●t●●i●●re, & contemnere. Joh. Sleidan. Comment lib. 10. P●●lo●p●st. S●na●us interea, priusquam è s●●s illi [Anabaptist] latibul●●d●nuo prodi●ent, o●nia tem●●a cla●dit, uno solu● aperto. Nam metus erat ne Anaba●tist●, quorum i●d●e● au●es c●bat nu●erus comitati suis doctoribus. Evangeliis praecones è templ●● ext●rbar●nt. Jam nemini sobrio ambiguum sore arbitror, quàm temerè Ecclesiam Christi c●nturbent, qui rixas ac contentiones movent ob paedo-baptismum. Calvin. Instit. l. 4. c. 16. §. 32. Hypocrisi veritas ac sinceritas Evangelicae pietatis insensiorem hostem non habet. Tria hominum genera sunt, in quibus hoc apparet; Pharisaei, Monachi, Anabaptistae. De nobis not●s liquour. Musculus in Mat. c. 16. 6. Ita solent & hodie Adversarii veritatis, Papistae & Anabaptistae. Idem in Mat. c. 17. Anabaptistas' aliquot punierunt nostri Principes, non quod ea dicerent quae sentirent, neque ut vi cogerentur ad veram amplectan dum Religionem, sed quod totius humanae sccietatis vinculum abrumperent, quod perfidiosi essent Apostatae, quod verbum Dei manifestissime corrumperent, quod Ecclesiae Authoritatem haberent ludibrio, quod civium consensum factiose lacerarent. Beza de Haereticis a Magistratu puniendis. p. 163. Minime ergo Audiendi sunt Anabaptistae, quibus non satis est Ecclesiae ordinem turbasse, nisi Rempublicam quoque adorti, Magistratus omnes ex soli●s deturbent etc. Sunt high, non solum Reipublicae & Magistratuum hosts, verum etiam pestes humani generis etc. Lavater. in Fsther. c. 10. 1, 2, etc. Meum ergo fuit (testor) consilium, pi●s omnes non satis adhuc excercitatos admonere, quàm lethale venenum sit dogma Catabaptistarum, & advers●s illud verbo Dei tanquam certissimo antidot● eos praemunire, ne misere pereant. Calvin adversus Anabaptistas in praefat. Nunc vero (ut jam dixi) sufficiet omn●s veritatis studi●sos, monuisse, quicquid miseri isti homines communi consensu pro inexpugna●ili fundamento fidei suae habent lethalem imposturam esse, à quà, tanquam à p●st●, omnes cavere oportet. Ibid. Ex quibus omnibus manifestum est, impugnationem poedo-baptismi non esse leve erratum, sed impium dogma, verbo Dei & consolationi Ecclesiae adversum. Quo magis vitanda sunt haec & similia d●liria Sectae Anabaptisticae, quae sine dubio à Diabolo est excitata, & monstrum est execra●ile, ex variis haeresibus & blasphemiis conflatum, Vrsin. Catech. Part. 2. Qu. 74. De poedobaptismo. These Quotations are (for the most part) englished in the fiftieth of the Considerations ensuing. 11. Whether those great enemies of the Protestant § 12. and pure Religion, and of the true Worship of God, the Papists, and many subtle Agents for the advancement of the Interest of the Romish Religion, have not from time to time, upon all occasions, insinuated themselves into persons of your opinion and practice, secretly encouraging you in your way, in order to the sore disturbance, and, if possible, the utter ruin and subversion of the Protestant Religion? a Anabaptistae, cum disputationibus, nihil profici viderent, & non de essent à quibus Evangelii Doctrinam prorsus exterminatam volentibus, in furore suo confirmarentur etc. Scultet. Annal. Dec. 1. p. 257. Yea have there not been of late in this Nation; nay, are there not at present, men of that character at work amongst you, who by the opportunity of that troublesome and fiery spirit, which haunteth your way, hope to create some mischief of distraction and confusion, either in the Religious, or in the Politic affairs thereof, or in both? 12. Whether it be not a matter of frequent observation and report amongst Protestant Writers of best authority and credit, that persons carried away with your error, about Baptism, have still embraced and been infected with several other erroneous opinions, of a worse and more dangerous consequence than it? b See proof made of the affirmative. Consider. 51. yea and whether this observation of former times be not attested by the experience of the present? 13. Whether it can be proved out of any good Author, that there ever was a society of your way, which proved not wicked, and this within no long time, after their first knotting? See page 85. Yea, and whether any person of note, and active for the promoting of your way, unless he either repent hereof, or died very timously, ever went out of the world, without some visible character of God's displeasure on him? Or if it can be proved, or found, that any such person died upon terms of more grace, than so, as I am glad for his sake, whoever he was, who obtained that mercy from God, so am I sorry for all those, if any such were, or now be, who have been confirmed and hardened in their way by such an example. Brethren, (though many of you will not reciprocate § 13. the salutation with me) I desire to show all tenderness in Christian respects unto you; and, if it be possible, to relieve, without offending you. And therefore I most earnestly, and with an enlarged heart entreat you (for your own sake) that you will seriously ponder the particulars now presented unto you, until you find your judgements and consciences charged home with the just and full weight of them. Let not your confidence of the goodness of your way be a snare unto you. Paul, when a Pharisee, THOUGHT VERILY within himself, that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth and did accordingly. c Acts 26. 9 You also know, who they were, that demanded of the Lord Christ, ARE WE ALSO BLIND? And who again d Jon, 9 40. demanded, SAY WE NOT WELL, that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a Devil? e Joh. 8, 48. And yet again who He was that demanded of the Prophet, Which way went the spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee? f 2 Chro. 18. 23. You very well know likewise, of what sort of men he is, of whom the Apostle gives this Character, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rashly [or, conjecturally] puffed up by his fleshly mind. g Col. 2. 18. Nor are you ignorant, that they were not the worst of men, to whom the Apostle said, your glorying is not good. h 1 Cor 5 6. Truth is seldom, or never, forsaken, but upon a strong presumption and conceit, in those who forsake her, of being an error; nor is an error at any time embraced, but upon a like presumption of being a Truth. Your keen pertinacy, and high resolvedness in your way, the grounds on which you build, duly considered, is neither in any Christian, nor in any rational construction, any argument that you are in the Truth, but rather of the contrary. For as the Apostle upon his experience of men, said, All men seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's, i Phil. 3. 21. so is it matter of daily observation, that when men have notions and conceits of their own, they exalt these upon Thrones, and charge men with an high hand, to give homage and reverence unto them, as Divine Truths; and in the mean time suffer the truths of God, and of Christ, to shift for themselves as well as they can in the world. Yea it were well (comparatively) if they did not fight against the truths of God in the quarrel of their own fond opinions and conceits. For myself, if my satisfaction touching the Doctrine § 14. and practise asserted in both parts of the ensuing discourse, were not rich indeed, and built upon such foundations of evidence and Truth, which I certainly know cannot fail, either me, or any other, that shall build on them; yea if I did not see quite through and through all that yet you have showed unto me for the support of your cause, I should much rather have chose my lodging in the Chambers of death, then to have touched it by way of opposition with the least of my fingers. To fight against truth, being interpreted, is little less than to fight against God: and a madness it is for any man to think that ever his soul should prosper by such wars. My God and my conscience, have deeply engaged me in a warfare very troublesome and costly, even to contend (in a manner) with the whole Earth round about me, and to attempt the casting down of high things, and imaginations in men, which exalt themselves against the knowledge of God. And daily experience showeth, that men's imaginations, as well those which lift up themselves against the knowledge of God, as those of a better and more blessed import, are their darlings, and that he that toucheth them, toucheth the Apple of their eye, and appeareth, upon the account, in the shape or likeness of an enemy unto them. The truth is, that to bear the hatred and contradiction of the world, as God hath made it my portion to do, is no whit more pleasing unto me, than the drinking of that cup, which the Lord Christ prayed thrice unto his Father might pass from him, was unto him. Notwithstanding as that, which was (in itself) bitter and grievous unto him, in this respect was not grievous at all, but acceptable, viz. that by suffering it, he might open an effectual door of life, and salvation unto the world; so doth the vehemency and zeal of desire, which possesseth my reins, heart and soul, of doing some service to the world, whilst I am a sojourner in it, in making some of the crooked things thereof, straight, and leaving it at my departure from it, upon somewhat better terms for the peace and comfort of it, than I found it at my coming to it, swallow up much of that offensiveness and monstrousness of taste, wherewith otherwise the most unreasonable and horrid measure, I receive from many in it, would affect and afflict my soul. But to bear the burden of the hatred of men out of an affection of unfeigned love to them, is nothing more than what I know is my duty to do: and for his sake, who bear the burden of my sins upon the Cross, out of an unfeigned love to me, and through his grace, I shall willingly do it. I know not whither you will vouchsafe a perusal § 15. of the papers here presented to you, or no. It is not long since I heard of some stir and mutterings of that perverse spirit amongst some of you, which about the time when your way first began to be occupied in Germany, tempted men to burn all their other books and writings, but the Bible only. a Post h●c Idem propheta [Johannes, Martheus, Anabatista] mand●bat, ne quis ullum deinceps librum haberet, aut sibi servaret, praeterquam sacra Biblia: reliquos omnes in publicum deferri jubet & aboleri: hoc se mandatum divinitùs accepisse dicebat. Itaque magno numero libri comportati, flammà fuerunt omnes absumpti. Joh. Sleidan, Comment. l. 10. If you be resolved to read no other book but the Bible, and judge yourselves wiser than he, who being demanded whether he understood that which he read [in the Scriptures,] made answer, How can I, except some man guide me b Act. 8. 31. : I confess that by such a resolution, you will make an escape from me, and convey yourselves out of my reach. But if you wilfully turn your back upon those means which God affordeth you, for the knowledge of the truth, take heed lest this turneth to a root of bitterness unto you in the end. They who measure themselves by themselves, (saith the Apostle) and compare themselves with themselves, are not wise c 2 Cor. 10. 12. . Yet if you will make it matter of conscience to read the Scriptures with a single eye, and not bring your way with you, unto them, you will never find it here. Luther, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Musculus, Zuinglius, Melancthon, Ursin, Zanchie, Perkins, Dod, with a thousand more of like diligence, faithfulness, and sharpness of discerning, who have searched the Scriptures every whit as throughly, as narrowly as you have done, yet could never find your way here. The Consideration whereof (me thinks) should give you some stop in your carrier, and cause the greatest confidentiary amongst you, to turn himself about, and inquire of himself: Is there not a lie in my right hand d Isa. 44. 20. . It will be no good account in the day of the Lord Jesus, to pretend, or say, we verily thought, we were highly confident, that we did both Thee, and thy Gospel, service, in opposing Infant-Baptism, in disturbing, rending and tearing thy Churches to promote our way of Rebaptising in the world; especially considering that God sent so many Scribes and wise men unto you, and this in a way of righteousness, to establish you against those puffs of new Doctrines, which notwithstanding have driven you like unballassed vessels, quite off from the truth. Our Saviour foretelleth his Disciples of a generation of men, who when they should put them out of the Synagogues, yea, should kill them, would THINK that herein they did God good service e Joh. 16. 2. . There is little question to be made, but that these men had as high thoughts of that wicked thought of theirs here mentioned, as you have of yours touching, Rebaptising; yea and that they pretended the same divine Authority for the justification of it, which you pretend for yours. You have no more express Scripture for your thought, than they had for theirs: and as it appears that they were not infallible in arguing or concluding from the Scriptures, so neither (I presume) will you assume to be. They miscarried, because they harkened not unto them, who plainly declared the truth unto them: Oh, stumble not you at this stone. I have detained you with somewhat an overlong Epistle; but I trust there is nothing in it, except it be the length, that can offend you. My hope is the same concerning the treatises ensuing, drawn up with equal respects, to the regaining (at least of some) of you, from your error, as for the establishing of others in that way of truth, wherein they stand. Only I was willing to cast the honour of the Dedication (if there be any such thing as honour in it) appropriately upon you. If you will please to read them with a like candid and Christian mind, as that wherewith they were drawn up for your service, I little question but that through the blessing of God, they will recompense your time and labour bestowed on them. If their access to your judgements and consciences be obstructed with prejudice and conceit, you will will have much more reason to complain of yourselves, then of them, in case your reading turn to no account of satisfaction unto you. Disingenuity is the great partition wall, which at this day separates between a world of men, and a world of truth. That Mr. Baxter's book of plain Scripture Proof for Infant-Baptism, should have been so long extant in the world, and yet Anabaptism still alive, is to me a plain demonstration that the world is sadly defective in point of Christian ingenuity. Weakness of capacity, slowness of apprehension, darkness of understanding, averseness to consider, might be all (at least to a very great measure) redeemed by an ardent love unto the Truth. But it is the coming of daniel's 1335. days that will bring this blessedness upon the world. In the mean time, they who through the Grace of God are prevented with the great happiness of an ingenuous spirit, and have an heart given them willing to lie large and free before the truth, must be content with patience to bear the heavy burdens of the importunity and waywardness of other men. You are all hearty recommended to the Grace of that God, who is light, and in whom there is no darkness at all, to be made by him like unto him, according to your capacities of so glorious a similitude, by Your Servant, and Fellow-Servant in the Gospel, JOHN GOODWIN. Coleman-street, London, May▪ 29. 1655. To the Reader. GOOD READER, IT is a true Observation of worthy Mr Baxter, that the opinion of Rebaptising, In the Preface to his Admonition to Mr Eyre, etc. or not Baptising Infants, hath been strangely followed with spiritual judgements. The main cause hereof he supposeth to be, because it openeth a door to separations, contendings, and so to contempt of the Ministry that is against it. It is considerable likewise which he further addeth: It is hard to see in the nature of the mere opinions, such heinous evils, as we have seen attend them. Notwithstanding I conceive that the reason of the mischiefs attending these opinions, lieth not, or not so much, in the nature, or natural tendency, of the opinions themselves, but rather in the unhappy conjunction between the opinions, and the injudiciousness and conceitedness of the far greatest part of those, who entertain them. For as amongst men walking in the way of Presbytery, we find a clear ground for that distinction, which divideth them into high, and low, or modest Presbyterians; the latter being a passable and harmless generation (at least▪ comparatively) the other, next to insupportable: so amongst those of the Anabaptismal persuasion, some there are, the illness of whose temper teacheth them to make fire and sword of their persuasion; others again, the soberness and sweetness of whose spirit preserveth them from annoying the world, or Churches of Christ, with any misuse of their opinion. This obvious difference between men and men, of the same persuasion (as to the point of Ana-Baptism) induceth me to believe, that the great evils which so frequently attend it, are not so much sourced in the nature or complexion of the persuasion it , as in the moral constitution of the greatest part of those who are entangled with it. Such of the persuasion, who 1. Are inclined to gratify and please others, that are preingaged to other tenants or practices beyond the said perperswasion. 2. Who are over tender in conscience, through weakness in judgement, and apt to fear sin, whereno sin is, or to suspect duty, where no duty is. And 3. Who count it an honour to them to put to rebuke the gifts and abilities of worthy men, by dissenting from them, and pretending to see where they are to seek. 4. (And last) who take pleasure in Magistrality, and had rather make heads for Images of wood, than arms or legs for Statues of gold; all these characters of men (I say) being Anabaptismally engaged, are apt to imagine and conceit, that they hear their opinion, say unto them; Ascend yet higher, make me but your footstool to convey you up to such a Throne of glory, and perfection, from whence you shall behold the whole Christian world under you, walking but as shadows, and the greatest of them not worthy to come under the Roof of the meanest of your Sanctuaries. Whereas other persons, free from those impressions of weakness and unworthiness, although of the same Anti-pedo-paptismal faith and engagement, pretend not to hear so much as the least air, or whisper, of any such exhortation, from such their persuasion. It is not long since my thoughts stood within me never § 2. to meddle (in print) with these Baptismal controversies. I was deeply engaged in others, which were of a much more resentment with my genius, and in which I judged my labours might have served the world upon terms of better advantage. Nor had I (I believe) ever taken Pen in hand for the defence of Infant-Baptism, had not the untimely birth of that discourse, unto which I give answer in the latter part of the book now in thy hand, imposed a most unhappy necessity upon me thereunto. Notwithstanding herein I am a little relieved under this so un-acceptable an engagement (for the kind of it) that I shall deal with my adversary (Anabaptism) in the glory of his strength; and consequently upon sucb terms, that (I trust) he will never be able to recrute more, or take the field again with any force considerable. For (doubtless) Mr Tombs, and Mr Fisher, who are counted Pillars of that way, have (comparatively) but trifled in their undertake for the Rebaptising cause. W. A. in his Baptismal Abuses, what execution soever he hath done upon his Adversaries, hath quite foiled the pens of his fellow-combatants, by overarguing their line: yea and in his discourse against Infant-baptism, hath overargued his own line, in what he hath written against Church-communion with Churches, or persons by him called, unbaptised. But the truth is, that the former cause will much better take colours of artifice and wit, than the latter. And our Rebaptizers (I presume) would willingly enough give a bill of divorce unto this cause, did they know how to exalt and magnify to their minds, the cause of Rebaptising, without it. Amongst many other unhandsome and unpleasing strains wherein (generally) the Anabaptismal spirit uttereth itself in the world, I have both formerly (in part) and more particularly of late, observed in persons led by it, a kind of tedious and effeminate tenderness, or frowardness, which disposeth them to exceptions and complaints, even where there is not so much as the least appearance of any just cause given for complaining. They cannot allow unto sober men, and those who are far from wishing, and much farther from doing, them the least harm, their natural genius, or gift of expression, which they have received from God, without quarrelling and censuring them for it, if it doth but touch, though never so lightly, the copyhold (as the common Proverb is) of their way. This Grasshopper of expression (in the Title Page of my Water-Dipping) after the new mode of dipping, was (it seems) an heavy burden to the wisdom and patience of some in that way, who for the word mode, made me a a transgressor of no light demerit. Some Grandees of the way made themselves aggrieved, that p. 19 of that discourse, I term a certain water, or pool, commodiously contrived, and much frequented and delighted in, by many about the City, dip-wise minded, by the name of a watery Paradise. Yea, and in their Sermons, represent it to their Disciples, as an high strain of persecution, that p. 31. of that discourse, I mention them by this expression, Brethren of the Dip; yea and exhort them very zealously to stand to their tackling, notwithstanhing such affronts and horrid indignities put upon them. Whereas the truth is, that in that expression I intended them not the least touch of disparagement; but having spent my store of other expressions whereby to distinguish them, and wore many of them third ba●e, by an over frequent use of them, by reason of the (all most) continual occasions I had to mention them, the s●id expression did occur my pen in the course of it; and being concise and short, I gave entertainment to it without seeking further. But touching the inoffensiveness of this, and worse expressions than this, I am content to appeal to Mr Sam. Fisher, (who I am confident) will justify me in it: or if he will not, I am certain that twenty pages and ten in his Baby-Baptism, will. Some of them, are not (I confess) so much offended, as triumphantly paid, yet quarrelsom-wise too, that because Mr A. my Antagonist useth the word, Such, where he hath occasion, yea and a kind of necessity to use it in his writing, I do not use it in mine where I have no occasion at all to use it, yea, where it would make little better than nonsense to insert it. And because I charge the six Booksellers with dis-ingenuity in transcribing a passage of mine without the word, Such, being a word of an emphatical import in the sentence, the men I speak of, admire the just hand of providence lifted up against me, that I should be left to omit the word, Such, not in transcribing the words of my Antagonist (for here I express it, as oft, and as plainly, as himself; but in a passage of mine own, where (it seems) they fancy, I should have expressed it; when as to a man of ordinary understanding, and who knows any thing belonging to the regular structure of a sentence, the mention of it would have been needless, frivolous, and importune. The Reader, if he please, may see all that is to be seen, of the hand of Providence lifted up against me in the case specified, pag. 82. of my Water-Dipping etc. in the two last lines of the page. Nor is it true, that I quarrelled or censured the Booksellers simply, for leaving out the word, Such, in their transcription of my words, (for this might have been only an oversight) but that being privately informed by me of such their omission, and desired to repair me by a public acknowledgement of the same, they, instead hereof, gave me Gall and Vinegar to drink, in an answer in writing, full of bitter, and un-Christian Invectives, and forged Imputations. So that in case I had omitted the word, Such, in transcribing the words of my Adversary, yet unless upon admonition, I should have justified it, or upon request, refused to acknowledge it, in order to his vindication, there had been no ground for the parallel, which these men make between me and the Booksellers. Some great doers for the way in Ireland, where Anabaptism hath, or at least of late had, its Throne, are (I understand) offended at this innocent passage, p. 37. of the same discourse, There is a strong tide of report both from Ireland and Scotland, that as far as the interest and power, so far the insolency and importune hautiness of that generation we speak of, extendeth in both these Nations. Yet this report (so far as it concerneth Ireland), hath since, by sober and grave Authors (worthy credit in greater matters than this) who have lived for several years upon the place, and have had (with many others) too much experience of the truth hereof, been confirmed over and over. So that they that go about to wash their hands from the guilt specified in the report, do but wash in foul water. Mr W. A. himself in his Answer to my forty Queries about Church-Communion, etc. maketh it matter of exception and complaint, that I sometimes style his way of Rebaptising, New Baptism. And yet heretofore in discoursing with a grave Minister of Mr A's. judgement in the point of Rebaptising, and the most ancient that I know walking in that way, finding him not so well satisfied that his way should be styled Ana-baptism, I desired to know of him what other term would please him. His answer was, New Baptism. So hard a thing is it for him that shall speak or write against the way of these men, not to offend them in terms and expressions, when as the best and most sober of them scarce know how to speak among themselves without offending one another. Mr Tombs upon this account, picks holes without number in Mr baxter's Coat, which occasioned him to say, that men are so tender of their own names, through pride, that they think him a railer, that doth but name their faults: and they look to be stroaked, and smoothed, and reverented, whilst they speak most wickedly: so did the Popish Bishops when they were condemning the Martyrs. a Plain Scripture proofs for Infants Church-membership, etc. Page 201. This strain of spirit in the men we speak of, fully sympathizeth with the observation of a learned man, which giveth us to understand, that the way of Ana-baptism seldom or never prospers or thrives, but only when it is indulged, countenanced, and made much of, especially by the Powers of this world; whereas the Truth on the other hand hath flourished most under opposition and persecution from the world. But so critically and capriciously tender are these men over their way, that they judge it criminal in those that shall call it Anabaptism, or by any other name then Anti-pedo-baptism; by which (it seems) Mr Tombs hath baptised it, as it were to amuse the common sort of people, and to put it out of their reach so much as to name it amongst them. But though Anti-pedo-baptism be a name of a sufficient length, yet is it too short in signification for that practice, or way, on which Mr Tombs, like a Parens ●ustricus, hath imposed it. For whereas there are two grand errors, or evils, in this way; the one, an opposing the baptising of children; the other, a second baptising of those baptised already; the Name, Anti-pedo-baptism, expresseth it only by the former, and so is but a kind of half-name to it. Whereas the word Anabaptism, although it formally signifieth only the latter, yet it doth withal connotare, or implicitly import the former also. For he that persuadeth to re-baptize at age, consequently persuadeth that Baptism in Infancy is. or was, a nullity, and so a practice not warrantable. Therefore Ana-baptism, of the two, is not only a word of a more easy and ready pronunciation, a word by reason of the long accustomed use of it in the Baptismal controversies, more passable with men, but more commensureably significant also of that practice or way, which is sufficiently known amongst us by this name, and super-sufficiently otherwise. Besides, though it should be supposed that the word Anabaptism, is not a name or term so properly at first imposed on their way; yet the use and end of names and words, being to convey things from one man's mind and understanding to another's, the word we speak of, best performing this service, in reference to the matter or thing signified by it, ought not to be stumbled at, or excepted against, unless men desire that it should not be understood, when their way is spoken either for, or against. Loquendum ut vulgus, sentiendum ut sapientes, was an old rule: and I know no sufficient reason why it should be antiquated, or cashiered: and some wise men have said, that in civil affairs, malum benè positum non debet moveri. When Mr Fisher, with his fellow-subscribers, in their late representation, style themselves the baptised Churches of the Nation, no man can tell by the signification, or import of the word Baptised, what Churches they mean: only by the importune assuming and arrogant appropriating of the word to themselves, the meaning of the men may be conjectured. For in calling themselves and their Churches, The baptised Churches in this Nation, they represent and call (in effect) all the rest of the Churches of Christ in the Nation, by the odious and reproachful Epithets, of Pagan and Heathen. Yea, the truth is, that the expression, as it is arrogant in the highest, and swelling with vanity, so it is very exasperating and provoking to all sorts of people in the Nation, and enough to alarm both Magistrate and people to stand upon their guard, and to await the consequence of so bloody and threatening a charge. But the very self same spirit, which wrought so effectually in the Donatists of old, worketh at no whit a lower rate in these men. For they importunely affirmed that the Churches of Christ, and true Baptism was amongst them only, and not to be found in all the world besides a Donatistae volebant latitudinem regni Christi coarctare in Angulum Affricae, ita ut extra sectam suam, quae obtinuerat in Africa, negarent esse uspiam Christianos. Musc. in Mat. 8. 11. Donatistae à multis Patribus & ab Augustino praesertim coarguuntur, quod Ecclesiam Catholicā in angulum Africae ad se contrax●●sent affirman●es alibi Ecclesiam non r●periri. Pet. Mart. L●c. Clas. 4. c. 6. § 6. Donatus capitis sui somnium secutus, solùm Christi Ecclesiam in Africa esse dicebat, neque usqùam alibi, nisi ist●i●, veram esse baptismum: cujus vesanie multi adhaerentes, magnam cal●mit 〈…〉 Africanis Ecclesiis attulerunt, quum impii & crud les homines, non minus ferro, quàm impiis v●cibus circunq●aque in obsistentes desaevirent. Prat●olus de Haeresibus, pag. 149. Item dicere soletis, quod nos Christi baptismum non habeamus, & quòd praeter vestram communionem nusquam sit▪ August▪ Epist. 172. Ad Crispinum Donatistam. . But whereas, both in the front, and in the rear of this their representation, they give the pre-eminence to their Messengers (a kind of Officer of their own, for such they seem to make them, and which Christ, when he Ascended up on high, never gave Eph. 4. 11. 12.) above their Elders, the Elder being an Officer given and appointed by Christ, do they not prefer the Officers of their own Election, above the Officers of Christ. We read only of two, (for expositors generally make their number no more) who are styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apostles, Legates, or Messengers of the Churches, when as now a considerable part of the world was planted with Christian Churches, where as Mr Fisher, and his, salute us mith a greater number of their Messengers, than Elders,, and name unto us no fewer than thirteen, belonging to I know not how few of their Churches. Besides, it cannot be proved that these Messengers, though the Apostle (as Musculus upon the place well hinteth) for modesty sake, d●th not insist upon his Apostolic Authority, or term them his Messengers, but casts honour upon the Churches, calling them their Messengers; yet it cannot (I say) be proved that the Churches did by any power or Authority vested in them, erect such a kind of ordinary or standing Officer amongst them, as a Messenger is, especially that should be more honourable than their Elders and Teachers (Officers expressly given and appointed by Christ) or that they ever met together about the business of such a choice. It is much more probable that the Apostle himself, according to the emergent exigencies of the affairs of the Churches, with which, upon occasion, he conversed, did commend unto them the two persons, termed by him, the Messengers of the Churches (which are supposed to have been Barnabas, and Luke) to serve them in the nature of Messengers, or Internuncii, and that the Churches did generally accept and approve of them for such services, as recommended unto them by their great and faithful Apostle: and that in this respect only they are termed, the Messengers of the Churches. But these men can fancy any thing, and practise these fancies accordingly, to be deemed singularly Primitive, and Apostolical. Many both judicious, learned, and godly, have publicly § 5. appeared in the maintenance and defence of Infant-baptism: but not many of these characters, against it, although it be true, that much ink and paper have of late been levied by some in opposition to it. What Mr J. Tombs hath essayed for the support of Anabaptism, hath been examined by many, and upon proof, found all face, and no heart. That of his Writings which escaped the sword of the Spirit in Mr Baxters' hand (whose memorial throughout all Ages may well be Malleus Anabaptismi, The Maul of Anabaptism) hath been since slain by the same sword in the hand of Mr J. Horn. Mr Fisher is the last man I know, whose thoughts have tempted him to believe, that the Ethiopian may yet be made white by washing, and that water enough of his drawing will do the feat. But the man in his Baby-baptism is too indulgent to his Wit and Fancy, to do any great service to his Cause. Affectation in Writing, affects only those that are weak, except it be to the disparagement of the Writer, and disadunatage of his cause. I confess that at some turns he doth out-wit his Ashford Disputants, at least, if he deals honestly in his Transcriptions, and not like Mr Kendal, or Mr Underhill (with his fiery squadron of Booksellers, who instead of Firing a Beacon, would set both City and Country on fire, if they should meet with a Parliament of no wiser an inspiration, than their own.) But when he cometh to grapple with Mr Baxter, the encounter seems to be like that of young Troïlus with Achilles, Infoelix p●er, atque impar congressus Achilli! Unhappy stripling, no meet combatant For Great Achilles!— For in this encounter, he betakes himself to that un-hallowed Refuge of evil speaking, as men being over-mated with the truth are wont to do. Arbitror te (said Jerome of old to an Opposer of the Truth, and who withal gave ill language) à veritate superatum, ad maledicta confugisse. i. I suppose that being vanquished by the Truth, you flee for secure to opprobrious language. When men's intellectuals are too short or scant, they commonly piece and eke them out with their patheticals. There is no man that understands any thing of Mr baxter's worth, for parts of learning, and Christian ingenuity, that can hear such say as these concerning him, but in the notion of contumelies and revile. A shrill sound, but an empty barrel: such is Mr baxter's Book indeed, especially his twofold Fardel, about Murder and Adultery, in which, whether there be more noise, or nonsense, I know not: but sure I am, that there is ten times more twittle-come-twattle, than Truth. a Mr Fisher's Baby-baptism, page 408. If the man by twittle-come-twattle, means any thing contrary to the Truth (as his opposing it to the Truth importeth) he falls altogether as foul and heavy upon himself and his own say, and these near at hand, in charging ten times more of it, then of Truth, upon Mr Baxter, as upon him. For in the very next page he chargeth him, and this over and over, that in all his Discourse (which he makes to be very large) to prove naked-dipping to be a breach of the seventh Commandment, an intolerable wickedness, an immodest action, etc. He proveth nothing but what is acknowledged by himself, and universally by all his party: Yea, he demands; Quorsum haec? to what purpose doth he with such prolixity proceed to prove, what no sober minded man of either party doth deny? Is that which he and his party hold, twittle-come-twattle, or that which is contrary to the Truth? Another charge of a like contradiction to his former of twittle-come-twattle, he presently subjoineth, as viz. where he challengeth him, as most simply and sinisterly concluding against them, in a matter of four or five Arguments, that the chlidrens of Christians may not be baptised when they come to years, professing himself and his to be of the same mind. As for us (saith he) we say as much, etc. A little after the shame of the former words, he subjoineth those which are worse, and more maledictory: I must needs confess (saith he) that this is matter of weight indeed, and a stone is heavy, and the sand weighty, but a FOOL'S wrath is heavier than them both. This SOON SHOT-BOLT is big enough to hurt, where it hits, etc. Afterwards he insinuates his reports to be empty of Truth; and full of falsehood: and a little after this, his arguings against them to be silly Sophistry, his discourse against their dipping naked, to be a piece of paltry, a mess of balder dash, etc. But the best is for matter of report, Mr baxter's yea, is of as good (if not better) Authority, as Master Fishers, Nay. Page 206. He vilifieth him with a being so childish. In the same page, he tells him that he abounds and sinks himself over head and ears in absurdities: and again, that he thinks the man had not his wits well about him, Page 208. He saith Mr Baxter dreams, and page 210. O the wisdom! He that being in the fire would not come out to hear how bravely Mr Baxter brings about, and about again his business— 'tis pity but he should be burnt. Pag. 79. He tells his Reader, that he cannot but note by the way how egregiously Mr Baxter peddles in a long prate to Mr T s. etc. Pag. 362. and 363. (to let pass many other vilifying and reproachful expressions) speaking of Mr baxter's Book, and indeed (saith he) the whole is but a certain three-legged stool, which he hath made for people to sit at rest upon in their vain worships and servings of God, etc. And again, p. 419. the truest verdict which he can give (as he saith) of this book, is, that it is a threefooted Stool, the legs of which are all lame add decriped, made by Mr Baxter for the people of Kederminster and Bewdly, to sit at ease on, in that popish posture and practice, etc. A little after, p. 363. He driveth on beyond the bounds of modesty, truth, sense and reason, as far (I dare say) to the full, as God would suffer the Devil to direct, and drive him. Soon after: And so it seems to me, he [God] hath left Mr Baxter, as godly as he is; or else there could never have issued from him such inconsiderate crudities, such rank, venomous, viperous, ulcerous fluxes of folly, flesh, fierceness, fictions, falseness, fiery invectives, to the madding of the very Magistracy, if it would be any longer blinded by the bawling of a mistaken Ministry, etc. Domine, Deus meus! Anne haec est loquela filii tui? Ah, Lord my God, is this the language of a Son of thine? But alas! all this is but a small first fruits of that large Harvest of those rank, venomous viperous, ulcerous, fluxes of folly, flesh and fierceness, (expressions of his own Genius) which out of the abundance of his heart he hath poured forth upon the head of a person, of signal worth and honour, and who is a shining and burning light in his generation; yea and hath done (I verily believe) more real service unto Jesus Christ, and the precious souls of men, than all the Anabaptists, as such, and whilst such, in the Land; that I say not, in the world▪ But with such stuff as this, he evinceth Mr▪ baxter's reports to be full of falsehood, and his arguments to be sophistical and silly. And as for the notions, grounds and principles upon which he asserteth his Anabaptismal cause against him, are they not very importune and burdensome to any intelligent and considering man? Or are not these some of them, and their fellows like unto them? 1. That the true way of Baptism (which we must suppose to be that way of Baptism, wherein Mr Fisher § 6. Mr Fishers Principles. and his party are engaged) is the straight and narrow way which leadeth unto life, and which few find b Pag. 414. . Doth not this evidently imply, that Mr F s. sense is, that when our Saviour admonished his Disciples and others to enter in at the straight gate, yea to strive to enter in at it▪ because wide is the Gate, and broad is the way which leadeth to destruction, etc. his meaning was, that men should strive to be water-baptized, and this by dipping; and that by the wide Gate and broad way, he meant, either baptising by washing without dipping, or want of baptising at all▪ It is a wonder of the first Magnitude unto me, how such a conceit as this should ●ver climb up into his fa●cy, that by the straight and narrow way, which leadeth unto life, and which few find, should be meant his way of baptising; Considering 1. That no man needs strive at all to be thus baptised: all comers are entertained by the men of this way, and all are freely admitted to walk in it who desire it. 2. That this way can in no respect lightly imaginable by a s●ber man, be termed straight, or narrow. Not 1. In respect of any great trouble or offensiveness to the flesh, in the entrance into it; at least not in reference to many constitutions, especially in the hotter seasons of the year, when both men and boys are wont to disport themselves by ducking▪ and diving under water; least of all in the hotter climates of the Earth, where going into cool waters, is matter of solace and pleasure, as some of Mr Fishers own party do inform us. And (doubtless) the narrow and straight way of which our Saviour speaks, is one and the same in, and unto all Nations, and their respective Inhabitants. Nor 2. Can this way be termed straight or narrow, in respect of any disparagement or civil danger, or disadvantage, that is like to attend it, at least, when and where it is more generally practised, as it was in our Saviour, and John Baptists days: when Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, came unto John, and were baptised of him. Which notwithstanding, it seems that Christ made and baptised more Disciples than John; yea John's Disciples themselves complained unto him, that all men came unto Christ [meaning to be Baptised.] Lest of all can it be attended with any matter of dishonour or , when, or where it is countenanced by the Civil Magistrate, and places of honour, trust, and profit, indifferently, if not more frequently, conferred upon men of this way, as well as upon others; which lately was, and still is (in part) the condition of it in this State and Nation. Considering 3. that it cannot be said of Mr Fisher's way of Baptism, that few there are that find it, at least if it be supposed to be the same way with that wherein John and Christ baptised. For we lately heard, that about the time when Christ spoke the words, Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the Region about Jordan, with vast multitudes besides, had found the way of their Baptising. 4. That neither doth this way lead unto life, otherwise then in conjunction with, and by the mediation of Faith and Holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: and in conjunction with, and by the initiation of these, Infant-Baptism and Baptism without Dipping, will lead to life, as well, if not better, than Mr Fisher's way of Baptising. Therefore (however) his way is not the straight and narrow way, which leadeth unto life, and which so few find. Besides, by his asserting such a principle as this, he adjudgeth the whole Christian world ever since the days of Christ, and his Apostles; (a very inconsiderable number only excepted) unto the vengeance of eternal fire. For how few of all that lovely and blessed generation, I mean, of Saints, and holy men, Martyrs, and others, have found, entered, or walked in Mr Fisher's way of Baptising? But it is no new thing for men, who have a fancy of their own, to lift up to Heaven, to throw down whatsoever standeth in their way unto hell. But the saying of Mr Baxter to Mr Tombs is very considerable at this turn: It is (saith he) not small degree of evil that a man is fallen to, when he dare slander or make infamous, the whole or greatest part of all the holy Churches on Earth, to maintain the reputation of his opinion. a Plain Scripture Proof of Infant's Church membership, etc. p. 199. 2. Another Principle or Notion, upon the credit § 7. whereof, with importune confidence, he builds his Anabaptismal Fabric, against Mr B. and whosoever, is this That the children of the unbelieving Jews are not broken off, and excluded with their parents' [from Church and Covenant] upon the account of their parent's unbeleif only, but for want of faith in their own persons, etc. b Baby-Baptism. p. 110. How little truth, yea, or reason, or sense there is in this Assertion, especially if he intends it (as he pretends to do) in opposition to his Adversaries argument, drawn from the Consideration of the breaking off of the Jews Children from the Covenant, is evident from hence, viz. that the children [i. e. the Infants or young children, for of these only his Adversaries speak] of the jews, who were discovenanted by God, had no more want of faith in their own persons, then either Isaac or jacob themselves, whilst they were Infants like unto them, and all the the children generally of this Nation, whilst it remained upon the best and firmest terms in Covenant. Therefore if their children were not cut off from Church or Covenant by God, for want of Faith in their own persons, neither is it Christianly reasonable to think, or say, that children of the latter jews, whose parents were discovenanted for their unbeleif, were discovenanted with them for want of faith in their own persons. Besides, want of Faith, (in Mr Fishers sense) in Infants, is no sin: how then should God punish it, or deprive of any privilege inconsideration of it? So that what he subjoins for proof of his assertion, is extremely impertinent. And children (saith he) when at years, are the natural seed of their Parents, I hope, as well as in Infancy itself, if being the children of such or such Parents alone, would either engraft, or exclude; if I say, unbelieving Jews children do believe, the promise is so made to them that their Parent's unbelief cannot exclude them, etc. Quorsum haec: The question between him and his Adversaries, neither is, whether children at years be not the natural seed of their parents, as well as in Infancy, or yet whether the promise be so made, that the unbelieving jews children, when they come to believe, shall notwithstanding be excluded through their parent's unbelief, but whether the unbelieving jews children in their Infancy, were not together with their parents, excluded through these their parent's unbelief. Mr Fisher gives this question ago-by, as being too hard for him to resolve with the honour and safety of his cause. 3. Another Notion or ground, by the Authority § 8. whereof he sentenceth Mr Bs. Book, for being a threefooted stool, the legs of which are all lame and decrepit, a Pag. 419. is this, that the greater depth of Hell men fall into, that fall from them, proves the height of their Churches to be nearer Heaven, then that of those Churches, which Mr Ba. or any other Antipedobaptist approveth. But this principle or Notion, that the greater wickedness found in an Apostate, argueth the greater height of excellency in that Order, or way, from which he Apostotizeth, is a Notion or ground, like unto the rest, on which the An● baptismal faith is founded. Or if it were true, the height of that Christian Church, of which julian was a member before his Apostasy, whether it was the Church of Constantinople, or of Nicomedia (for of both these the Ecclesiastical History makes him a member, though of the latter more immediately before) should have been nearer to the Heavens than Mr Fishers, or any the Anabaptismal Churches; for that either of these were in Julian's days Anabaptismal, I suppose was never yet so much as dreamt by any man. So also the height of that way, and of that order of men, from which Nero fell, when of a sober and moral Pagan Idolater, he became the first born Son of Belial, and justified all the workers of abominations under the whole Heavens in his days, must needs be supposed, according to Mr Fishers principle, to have been much nearer the Heavens, than his way of Baptism, or any of those Churches to which he signs his Magnificat. For I cannot think, that any who have fallen from him, or his way of Churchship, have fallen into a greater depth of Hell, than these Monsters of men. For my part, I have both read of some, and know some others, who have fallen from his way, that I presume took no spiritual harm at all by their fall, however they might inconvenience themselves in worldly respects hereby. Yea I wish for the honour of the Gospel, and prosperity of the souls of the persons themselves, that the generality of those, who at present continue walking in his way, were as near to Heaven as many that have fallen from it. § 9 Such Notions and principles as these, are the Oracles which strengthen Mr Fishers hand against Mr baxter's Doctrine of Infant-Baptism. Doubtless there was never ab urbe conditâ, nor yet ab orbe condito, a generation of men, in whom confidence upon such contemptible terms, ever raged at that tedious and importune ra●● and height, as it doth in these men, for the asserting 〈◊〉 appropriating of all Baptismal glory and acceptation ●●to themselves, and their way of baptising. All th' 〈…〉 yet they have proved substantially from the Scriptures, or (I fully believe) ever will be able to prove from them, against Infant-Baptism, is, 1. That such Believers, who had not been baptised in their Infancy, were baptised at more maturity of years. 2. That ordinarily the Scripture Baptists did admonish those who came unto them to be baptised, to repent and believe. But neither of these are denied by their adversaries: nor have either of them the least shadow of an inconsistency with the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism; Their conjectures that no children were baptised in Christ's, johns, or the Apostles days, are so inconsiderable, that even before they be weighed in the Balance, they may be discerned to be too light; although if this also▪ were given in unto them, they could make small earnings of it for their cause (as I demonstrate in the second part of the ensuing treatise, § 15. 16. etc.) Reader, I might acquaint thee with more of the crazy and shaken pillars of Mr F s. Anabaptismal faith; amongst which he layeth the greatest stress, and (upon the matter) the whole, weight of his cause upon this, that circumcision under the Law, was ne●ther sign nor seal of the righteousness of faith unto any man, but unto Abraham only. * Pag. 18. 19 24. 154. 369. The crookedness of this principle I detect in the ensuing Treatise, by applying to it a straight rule. a Part 2. § 61. 62. 63. etc. He makes a like treasure of this Notion, that Baptism is indeed a sign, but not a seal. b Pag. 154. 155. 156, etc. The absurdity and self-inconsistencie of this conceit, together with the fiery contradiction it carrieth in it to the general sense of the wisest of his own party, I likewise make evident in the ensuing discourse. Sundry other the Apocryphal secrets of his faith and § 10. practice, in the point of Baptism, are discovered briefly and discussed in the tract now in thy hand, especially in the latter part of it, where I have to do with several the best colours (I believe) with which the face of that cause hath yet been painted, and set forth unto the world. In the former part of the discourse, I do not levy a Methodical or formal dispute, either for the necessity, lawfulness or validity of Infant-Baptism, nor yet against the Tenet or practice of Ana-baptizers, many discourses of this nature being already published; but only lay down and briefly prove certain Theses or Considerations, which (I conceive) are of a leading import, towards satisfaction in, and about the Baptismal controversies. However, as when several hills lie round about a City, there is no part or quarter of this City, but may be viewed from one or other of them: In like manner, I suppose, the entire prospect of the Baptismal controversy in all the respective parts or branches of it, may be taken from one or other of these Considerations. I have digested them under six several heads, according to the notice given in the Marge●, against the first under every head (respectively.) I cannot promise unto myself the satisfying or regaining of many that are wand'ring in, or wondering after, the Rebaptising way, by any thing argued or offered to them in these Papers. Non est medico semper relevetur ut aeger. Interdum doctâ plus valetarte malum. The best Physician cannot always give Health to his Patient sick: the malady Oft-times surmounts his skill, and to relieve His learned Art he finds but vanity. The name of the evil spirit that haunteth that way (especially in England) may be called in greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in English, Self willed, or Self affecting; which kind of spirit is very stubborn and stiffnecked, and (for the most part) hath▪ Pelidae stomachum cedere nescii; Achilles stomach stout, who knew not how to yield. For in Germany I read of several companies or societies of Ana-Baptists, who being in public disputations, convinced by learned and grave men, of the error and evil of their way, abandoned it immediately, and retreated with honour and peace. But the generality of our English Anabaptists may (I fear) too truly say: Aetas Parentum, pejor avis, tulit Nos nequiores, mox daturos Progeniem vitiosiorem. Our Parent's age, a bird full bad enough, Yet brought forth us a worse Progeny, Who ('tis not otherwise like) shall leave behind A see● yet greater in impiety. § 11. Some few I know amongst us and have heard of more, who within the compass not of many years, have outlived those great and high thoughts of this way which were the Orators that once persuaded them into it: and finding little but formality and pretence in it, excepting pride, conceit and contention faced about towards that good old way of the Churches of Christ, which they had, upon an unjustifiable account, forsaken. But these are a vein of men▪ Queis meliore luto finxit praecordia Titan: but the fare greater part of them, are of that kind, which David likeneth unto a deaf Adder that stoppeth her ear: which will not hearken to the voice of the charmer, charming never so wisely ᵃ But as Aaron did good service by standing between the dead, the living with his censer, and incense on it, in staying the plague from spreading further▪ although he did not restore unto life any of those that were dead; so if by the interposure of these papers between persons drowned in Anabaptism, and those whose heads are yet above water, I shall be able (through God) to preserve these from sinking, although I be not able to workmiracles in recovering any of the other, yet shall I do service acceptable unto my dear Lord and master Christ, and to many of his Churches, and servants. Or however God shall please to dispose of my labour herein, as to matter of success or event, liberavi animam meam, I have discharged my conscience. Notwithstanding I confess, that consulting with my Genius and spirit, I am apt to think that I should not have appeared in print in these Baptismal controversies, had there not been a fire of Anabaptism kindled in that house of God, which he hath committed to my inspection and charge, and this by one of the household; a man I acknowledge of a sober and grave temper, but of somewhat too passive a disposition from melancholic and superstitious impressions, and upon which his company (it seems) had, and hath, a stronger influence, than his Teachers. So hard a thing is it to watch Satan so narrowly, but that at one time or other he will insinuate and convey himself in the likeness of an Angel of light into the Temple of God. It is an observation of Luther (as I remember) that no Church of Christ ever continued in the native purity and entireness of it for twenty years together. But oportet esse haereses, etc. and the Christian Commonwealth is no loser upon the whole, by the disturbances occasioned in it by Sects and Schisms, & by opinions at enmity with the Truth. For (as the common saying is) ex malis moribus bonae leges nascuntur, evil manners beget good Laws; in like manner, many the truths of God have been more fully discovered, and commended to the judgements and consciences of men at the higher rate of beauty, lovelyness, and worth, by occasion of those engagements with her competitors (I mean, errors) unto which she hath been necessitated from time to time, & in which she hath always sooner or later, triumphed, or will triumph, in due time. Nevertheless I could very hearty have wished to have been excused from serving in that warefare, whereunto my friendly Adversary hath compelled me by his Baptismal Abuses, as well practised, as Printed. For I had rather be at the expense of seven years' labour and travail in an expedition against those, who will not suffer the Lord jesus Christ quietly to inherit the glory and praise of his ever blessed work of Redemption in the just compass and extent of▪ it, who presume to set bounds and bars to the grace of God, which he never set, who preach this (in effect) for Gospel unto the world, that God never bore any good will to the far greatest part of them, but decreed peremptorily from eternity, eternally to torment them with the vengeance of eternal fire, how innocently, blamelessly, spotlesly soever they should live in the world all their days; who preach also, that those whom they call Elect, though they prove the first born Sons of Belial, and provoke the God of Heaven to his face with the height of all abominations, may yet be true believers in God, may, nay do, abide all this while in his love of Election, and by means hereof are in no danger, no possibility of miscarrying in the high concernment of salvation (with twenty things more of a like hideous confederacy with these) yea and reproach those, who are any otherwise minded then themselves in these matters, with names of an odious and hateful import, as▪ Arminians, Socinians, Pelagians, with other Apocryphal diabolisms, which the great enemy of the truth puts between their lips, whilst they sleep with their mouths open; I had much rather (I say) serve seven years hard service against the Notions and Conceits of these men, so broadly and importunely injurious both unto God and men, then serve so many weeks, though with more ease, and less hardship, against the lighter dreams of persons led aside by the Anabaptismal spirit. But the Providence of God must be complied with by men, whether that comports with men, or no. In the mean time. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Well may King Priam, and his Sons ●e jolly, When they shall hear of your contending folly. Mr Kendal, and Birds of his feather, make mirth of these sad differences and distractions raised by Satan in that Church, where both their Interest and his, were like to have sustained so much damage, had not the danger been, in part, reprized by those unhappy and unkind breaches, that have been made upon it. But I trust that he that was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil, will in due time be above him in that, wherein (I believe) he much magnifieth himself; and build up again in this Church of his, with advantage, what the other hath pulled down with both his hands. But not to over-charge thy patience (Good Reader) with the burden of an Epistle (if it be not too much discourtesied already) I here take my leave, most hearty and humbly beseeching the God of all grace to anoint thee with a rich anointing of a discerning spirit, and to give thee a sound understanding in all things which concern thine own peace, and the peace of the Churches of Christ, and the whole Israel of God; that thou mayst find a way to thine eternal rest and glory, without treading and trampling under thy foot, as thou goest along, the peace and comfort of thy Brethren, partakers of like precious Faith with thee, and who with much singleness of heart and soul, love, worship, and serve the same God, and the same Lord Jesus Christ, whom thou servest; although thou shouldst suppose that God hath not revealed unto them the truth in all those matters of doubtful disputation, wherein thou presumest that he hath revealed it unto thee. He that fervently prayeth this Prayer for thee, is Thy assured Friend in Christ, JOHN GOODWIN. From my Study in Swan-Alley, December. 21. 1654. An Admonition to the remainder of the Flock and Sheep of Christ, yet under my hand and charge. DEar Souls, for whom I expect none other but to be called, and this very shortly, to give an account to the great Shepherd of the Sheep, for the time you have already been, and shall yet continue (respectively) under my hand; that I may give this account, with joy and not with grief, is the sum of all that either now, or ever hereafter, I shall desire of you. Nor do I, nor shall I, desire this great thing of you, so much (by many degrees) for mine own sake, as for yours. For as the faithful Ministers of the Gospel are (in the Apostles Doctrine) unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish; so is God unto them a sweet savour of reward through Christ, as well for their labour, care, and faithfulness towards those who perish from under their hand, as towards those that are saved. Every man (saith the same Apostle, speaking of the same men) shall receive his own reward, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. according to his own labour, not, according to the success or fruit of his labour. Nevertheless this very Apostle, was very richly paid and highly pleased with the Christian towardliness and tractableness of those, to whom he preached the Gospel, and as much affected the contrary way, when the children of his nurture and teaching, behaved themselves frowardly, and unworthy the Gospel in any kind. Unto the Thessalonians he writeth these things: Therefore Brethren, we are comforted over you in all our affliction and distress, by your faith: For now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord. For what thanks can we render unto God again for you, for all the joy wherewith we joy for your sakes before our God a 1 Thes. 3. 7, 8, 9 . Not long before, he had said unto them; For what is our hope, our joy, or Crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? For ye are our glory and joy [meaning, in respect of their constant adhering to the Gospel, as he had delivered it unto them, and their conversations excellently answering hereunto.] On the other hand, how great a sufferer in spirit was he, under the weaknesses and undue deportments of the children of his Ministry? Who is weak (saith he) and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? b 2 Cor. 11. 29. meaning, that when any professor of the Gospel did bewray any doubtfulness of the truth of it in any material point, or did shrink aside from the profession of it, for any carnal end whatsoever, he was weakened in his comfort and peace thereby, and much pained & aggrieved in his soul, until they were strengthened and recovered. To the same persons elsewhere, thus. And lest when I come again, my God will abase me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repent, etc. c 2 Cor. 12. 21. importing. 1. That the sinful miscarriages of this people, amongst whom he had preached the Gospel, were just matter of sorrow unto him, and were like, through the wise permission of God, to turn to his great disparagement in the eyes of many, To the Galathians, having charged them with the superstition of observing days, and months, and times and years, he professeth thus unto them; I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain d Gal. 4. 11. Fear (the Apostle John saith) hath torment. And though perfect love unto God, casteth out the fear of rejection or condemnation by him, yet th●m or e perfect and sincere our love is unto men, the greater is both our fear and torment for them, when we apprehend them in any great danger. Concerning myself, what my behaviour and conversation hath been among you from the first day of your gathering under my hand, you well know, and are ready (I doubt not) upon all occasions, to testify. What my heart hath been towards you, my heart itself knoweth; but he that is greater than my heart knoweth much better, and will declare in due time. I have spent the best and most serviceable part of my days with you, and have endeavoured with all my might (humane infirmities excepted) to train you up like Saints, and Heirs apparent to an Heavenly Kingdom. And now not being like long to continue with you in the world, (the keepers of my house, in Solomon's phrase, beginning to tremble, and they that look out at the windows, to be darkened) nor to publish many, if any, more Books than this before my change; I was desirous (the argument and subject matter of the work in hand, so well comporting with the design) to take the present opportunity, whilst I am yet with you, of being your Remembrancer of some few things, a conscientious minding and observing, whereof (I question not) will do you Christian and worthy service, and help to bless you, when I am gone. 1. Remember, and I say again, Remember oft § 3. and seriously, that it is much more easy to begin in the spirit, then to continue, end, and be perfected in the spirit; to run well for a time, then perseveringly to obey the truth; to interess yourselves in the love of Christ, then to continue in his love unto the end. There were four several grounds that had good seed sown in them, and three of them bare profession; but only one of them yielded perseverance. It is the observation of an Hebrew Doctor, that they were six hundred thousand men that came out of Egypt: but there were only two of this vast number that entered into the Land of Canaan. So (saith he) shall it be in the days of the Messiah. Afterwards, when God set harvest men on work to cut down and gather this Nation, being now (in all likelihood) much more numerous, there were very few ears of the corn that escaped them, their vintage afforded few Grapes for the gleaner: their Olive Tree, though full of fruit, being shaken, all the berries thereof dropped off to the ground, two or three only excepted in the top of the uppermost bough, and four or five in the outmost fruitful branches [meaning, that there were very few found amongst the great ones, & not many amongst the ordinary or meaner sort amongst them, whom God could judge meet to be spared in the judgement.] The New Testament likewise gives frequent notice, that the generality of persons, who should for a time engage solemnly in a Christian profession, would be like unto the Prophet's Figtrees with their first-ripe Figs: if they be shaken, they will even fall into the mouth of the Eater. a Nah. 3. 21. Many that are first (saith our Saviour himself) shall be [or will be] last. So again, (speaking of those, who should be professors of the Gospel, as well as others) he foretells that when times of persecution should come MANY would be offended: And again: that many false Prophets should arise, and would deceive MANY: and that, because iniquity should abound, the love of MANY should wax cold. b Mat. 24. 10. 11. 12. A little before he had declared, that many would come in his name, and would deceive MANY. The Scriptures of the New Testament, are full of such Items and forewarnings as these, as likewise of Instances and examples of hot and zealous professors for a time, who in the progress of their course, turned aside, some into one by-way, some into another, and so lost the things which they had wrought, and perished eternally. Such as these may be fitly compared to such horses, which are fierce and full of mettle at the Stable door, capering and prancing, as if no ground would hold them; who yet after a few Miles travel, either tire or founder, grow jadish or resty, and neither by fair means nor foul, can be gotten anend. Yea, how many of yourselves (I mean of your Church-body, though for number of members but small, not to mention the like deplorable do in other Churches) have within the compass of a few years (for you have not been embodied many) broken their ranks, and turned aside, some on the right hand, and others on the left, into dark and dangerous byways, where the light of life either shineth not at all, or very malignantly, like unto a dusky twilight, wherein many travellers lose their way? Yea, how many are there not yet separated from your Body, whose spiritual pulse beats very faintly, and concerning whom the ground of jealousy is great, that they have fallen, and are falling daily more and more, from their first love. What between spiritual wickednesses (I mean, Sects, ways, and opinions, pretending to the Truth) on the one hand, and fleshly wickednesses, the love of ease, pleasure, and other the contentments of this world, on the other hand, the trees of Christ's forest (in his respective Churches) are made few from day to day, that (in the Prophet's phrase) a child may tell them, and the glory of his Carme● is consumed. Therefore if you mean so to run, as to obtain, it mightily concerneth you, not only, or simply, to take care how to believe, or how to live holily, but (that which is of a far greater undertaking, and more difficult achievement) how to do both perseveringly. You must imitate those, who intending a long Voyage by Sea, fraight their Ship with provisions accordingly. A little oil will serve to make your Lamps blaze and burn for a while; but it must be a full Vessel that will keep them burning till midnight, or until the time of the Bridegrooms coming. 2. The Apostle Paul reminds the Corinthians in § 4. his time, that the ends [or latter times] of the world were come upon them; and withal informs them, that God, in consideration of the dangerousness of these times through the extraordinary activeness of Satan (perfectly fore-known unto him) had caused many transactions and passages of former times to be recorded; by the study, knowledge, and due consideration whereof, they might be admonished to look about them with so much the more care and watchfulness, and thus be able to redeem the season, how evil soever the days should be. Brethren, I may say to you, that the ends of those ends of the world are come upon you, and that you, with the present generation of the Saints with you, and if there be another yet future, are like to feel the power of the wrath of Satan, for the endangering of your eternal peace (and most probably, your temporal and civil peace also) above what all former ages have done. You must expect to be tempted, and tempted ten times over, to be very violently and restlessly haled and importuned by him, to turn aside out of, and to exchange that good and safe way of God, wherein at present you walk, for some or other of those crooked and by-paths, which he hath devised, and prevailed with some unstable and unlearned, with some proud and selfconceited men, who think they know more than all the world besides, and that the spirit of revelation hath forsaken all flesh besides, to invest them, to broach and set on foot in the Christian world. Yea you must expect that the Enemy of your peace will knock with Authority, and after the manner of an Angel of light, yea, or of the Spirit of God himself, at the door of your hearts and consciences, imperiously commanding that it be opened unto him, thundering and threatening, like God himself, the loss of salvation, the vengeance of eternal fire, if it be not opened unto him. Be therefore (I beseech you) admonished, and know for a certain, that importunity of an inward solicitation is no argument that the persuasion, unto which you are solicited, cometh from God. § 5. 3. You may reasonably expect, that before seven years more shall have passed over the head of the world, sundry of those Sects, and byways of Profession, which at present lift up their heads on high, and reign both in credit, and numbers of Proselytes and followers, will be crestfallen, and become like Bottles in the smoke (in David's phrase) withered and mis-seasoned, and which few, or none, will (in those respects) care to use; but withal, that Satan will soon recruit himself, and build up his waste places, and raise up new Sects and by-opinions amongst Professors, instead of those that are fallen. For as the wisdom of God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Eph. 3. 10.) i. e. Various, or manifold, so is Satan's cunning also: He knowing (at least in the general) the tempers, humours, weaknesses, and great instability in the judgements of the generality of men and women, is still forging and forming new opinions and conceits, new methods and ways of worshipping and serving God, such as he knows are likely to fall in, and take with the hearts and fancies of some or other of them, if he can but find Instruments or Factors (who are seldom far to seek) to publish and commend them unto the world. For as Livy reports it to have been the policy of the old Romans, to make many other shields like unto that, which fell from heaven (as they supposed) in the days of Numa Pompilius, with this Oracle accompanying it, that in what City soever that Shield should remain, it should be the most flourishing and prosperous in the world, that so this fatal Shield might not easily be discerned from the rest, in case any person should attempt to steal it away: in like manner the Devil knowing that God hath revealed from Heaven, and commended unto the children of men one way of life and salvation, he sets his wits on work to invent and form many other methods and ways of some semblance with this, that so he may amuse, distract, and confound the reasons, judgements, and consciences of men (at least of the generality of them) and cause them strongly to imagine, that one or other of those ways, which he hath devised, and procured a recommendation of, by some Pretenders to Religion, or others, unto the world, is that only true and living way, wherein God himself hath commanded men and women to walk, if ever they mean to be saved. This is evident in that late Diabolical Sect, commonly known amongst us by the name of Quakers, and so likewise in the Sect of high Anabaptism, and several others. And the truth is, that the Truth can by no Artifice or Method be more dangerously resisted or undermined, then by setting up counterfeit Tenants and practices by it of some plausible similitude, and correspondency with it. Jannes and Jambres are said to have withstood Moses, (2 Tim. 3. 8.) because, by sorcery they wrought false miracles, yet like unto those, which Moses wrought by the finger of God. Exod. 7. 11. 22. After the same manner (saith the Apostle) do men resist the Truth. Thus because the true Messiah was, according to the Scriptures, and the common belief of true Christians, born of a Virgin, therefore Simon Magus (the firstborn of Satan, as one of the Father's styles him) who affected the honour of being reputed the Messiah, gave out to his followers (as the Ecclesiastical history reporteth) that he also was born of a Virgin. 4. Take heed of minding or looking too narrowly, § 6. on that which is pleasing and taking in a new way, or Sect, without minding and considering altogether as narrowly, that which is dangerous and threatening in it. For as Wine hath that in it, which is very pleasant and enticing, as viz. his colour in the cup, and his sparkling and springing motion in the glass (Prov. 25. 31.) and yet again, hath that in it also, which is baneful and terrifying, viz. that it bites like a Serpent, and stings like an Adder (ver. 32.) and he that only mindeth the former, without thinking seriously of the latter, is apt to be ensnared by it to his ruin: in like manner every Sect and by-way, Anti-nomianism, Ana-baptism, Seeking, Quaking, Ranting, etc. have somewhat in them (respectively) of an insinuating nature into the minds and affections even of pious and well-meaning men, as on the other hand they have that also which is spiritually dangerous, and portending much evil to the soul: and they that only mind and consider the former, without laying their reasons, judgements, consciences, and considering abilities as close to the latter, are in danger of being carried away with them, some with one, and others with another, to the eminent endangering, if not to the utter undoing, them in their spiritual estate. 4. Remember (and remember it again) that the § 7. holy Ghost as well reckoneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. contentions, emulations, divisions, sects, [or heresies] amongst the works of the flesh (yea amongst such works of the flesh, which are manifestly so) as he doth adultery, fornication, wantonness, idolatry, drunkenness, etc. Gal. 5. 19, 20. yea the lusting, following after, and taking up, new forms and ways of worshipping and serving God, by the people of God, or (which differs little) the following after new and strange Gods, is by a frequent metaphor in the Scriptures, termed fornication, whoredom, and adultery. The reason may be (and probably is, at least in part) because a man or woman never forsaketh the true and right way of worshipping God, to worship him in a false, but it is to gratify the flesh, or some sensual principle or other; yea, although this new and by-way seems never so grievous or afflicting to the flesh. The Apostle pronounceth such a person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rashly, or vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, who teacheth men a voluntary humility [i. e. any such way of worshipping God, which carrieth an outward show of humbling, mortifying, or abasing the flesh, and yet is not prescribed by him] as the worshipping of Angels, abstinence from certain meats, from Marriage, etc. Col. 2. 18. 21, 22, 23. The Popish penances, of going barefoot, wearing sackcloth, whipping themselves, etc. as ill-pleasing to the flesh as near at hand they seem to be, are notwithstanding remotely subservient unto it, and very indulgent to the Interest of it, by strengthening the hand of those who practise them, to take up sin with more boldness upon a new score, as having discharged the old. 5. Take heed of Satan turning himself into an § 8. Angel of light. When he shall say unto you, Lo here is Christ, or, lo he is there (inwardly pointing you to one way, or another, differing from that wherein at present you walk, and have found Christ with you) know for certain that he doth it to delude you, either by seeking to draw you from Christ where he is, by putting you into a fools paradise of hoping to find him, where he is not; or else by tempting you to conceit more highly of yourselves, only for putting on a new garb or outside of profession. By this artifice he draws many into the like sad inconveniences, which Eutrapelus in the Poet projected to bring those into, against whom he intended mischief, by presenting them with costly and gorgeous apparel to put on and wear. When (saith he) men see themselves richly and gorgeously attired, their thoughts will importunely work and swell, they will be lifted up to hopes of great matters, and will put themselves upon great and high projects, the prosecution of which will be their ruin. I fear that Satan hath drawn many into a like snare of misery, by investing them with new habits of Religion, specious (it may be) and rich to an undiscerning and injudicious eye: as of Seeking, Quaking, Anabaptizing, Superordinancing, with sundry other forms and fashions of professing Christ, which he hath devised to please the humours and fancies of unstable persons in these latter days. 6. Beware especially of the Notions and §. 9 Doctrines of those, who to magnify (as they suppose) the inward teachings, enlightenings, and workings of God, or of the Spirit of God, in, or upon, the hearts and minds of men, vilify his Ordinances and outward administrations, judging these to be but impertinencies, and things which may without loss; yea and (as the profane madness of some uttereth itself) with no spiritual disadvantage, be laid aside. For though neither he that planteth be any thing, nor he that watereth, any thing; and so neither preaching any thing, nor hearing any thing viz. comparatively, or in respect of God, who giveth the increase] yet he that speaketh this, saith also (though with a modest expression) to Philemon, that he owed unto him even his own self. Philemon v. 19 And elsewhere, giveth thanks unto God, who always caused him to triumph in Christ ᵃ [meaning in respect of the great success of his Ministry in the conversion of men unto Christ, where ever he came preaching the Gospel] yea and ascribeth unto Timothy the saving of the souls of those, who should hear him, 1 Tim. 4. 16. All which (with very many more like unto them) clearly assert a Sovereign necessity of the Ministry. Yea where he that planteth and he that watereth, are despised, it is not God, but the Devil that giveth the increase. For we read of no increase, at least ordinarily, given by God, but upon, and by means of the planting and watering by men. Yea if there were nothing but mere sacramentality in the preaching of the Gospel and other Ordinances, the teachings and inspirations of God and of his Spirit, cannot upon any competent ground be expected without them; no more than Naaman had ground to expect a cleansing from his leprosy, without washing seven times in Jordan; or Moses and the Israelites, that the waters of the Red Sea, would have been divided, and afforded them a passage through on dry Land, had not Moses lift up his Rod over them, as God had directed him, and so divided them, Exod. 14. 16. 21. 7. If you shall at any time be by the Providence of God, seated and settled under such a Ministry, where the words of eternal life are preached unto you with power, and (as the Apostle speaketh) in the evidence and demonstration of the spirit, know that you cannot better yourselves by changing your Station; but you may by such a change endamage yourselves in the things of your eternal peace exceedingly. Lord (saith Peter) to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life, Joh. 6. 68 There is no removing or going from before the face of the Gospel, where the glory of it, from time to time shines out in the face of the inner man, but with imminent danger of spiritual loss upon the remove. For though there are that are called Preachers of the Gospel, whether in one form of a Religious profession, or of another (as there are Preachers of the Gospel many, and Teachers many) yet to those who have a true and lively taste of the Gospel, and of the spirit thereof, the able and faithful Preachers thereof, are very few. Nor will, nor can, the practice of any carnal Rite or Ceremony, one, or more, (especially by others, lest of all when not only the necessity, but even the lawfulness of the practice of them, is matter of doubtful disputation) balance the loss that is like to be sustained by exchanging the Sun for the Moon; I mean, a lightsome, spiritful and lively Ministry, for that which is cloudy, flat, and of small execution. 8. You can hardly enter into, and walk in any of § 11. those many byways, or new-devised forms of profession, which are at this day occupied and used by men and women pretending highly to Religion amongst us, but there is signal cause of fear that your spirits will receive some ill tincture or other even from the best of them, and that your hearts will be disordered, and levened with some un-Christian impression by means of them. Amongst those known by the name of QUAKERS, who are at present the rising and growing Sect, or Faction, and whose way hath in a short time (well-nigh) swallowed up quick the way of Ana-Baptism, which till of late magnified itself above all its fellows, there is little question to be made but that the Devil dwelleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, bodily, and subjecteth the Proselytes of this way unto his own most inhuman tyranny, under the pretence and show of mortification, self-denial, austerity of life, etc. teaching them to give heed unto, and follow the light (as they term it) which is within them, without any examination or search, whither this light be darkness or no, which the Lord Christ supposeth it may very possibly be. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! Mat. 6. 23. Such a Doctrine as this, viz. to forbid all examination or trial, when as God expressly counselleth us to try all things, is the express Character of the great enemy of the precious souls of men. Another Sect we have amongst us (borderers upon the former) whom I know not yet how to call by any appropriate name; but the way of their folly is, to cast behind their back, or trample under their feet, all the Ordinances of God, unless it be such a kind of preaching which strengthens their hand thereunto; teaching that God, or the Spirit of God, doth all; with a total exclusion of man's care, study, thoughts or endeavours whatsoever. A Doctrine exactly calculated for the Meridian of Hell, and serves with an high hand, for the advancement of the Devil's Kingdom amongst men. Amongst these men you will learn to honour every Spirit, that shall at any time enter into you, though never so frantic, and fanatique, though never so lying or unclean, with the worthy name of the Spirit of God. Yea, you will learn negligence, sloathfulness, and profaneness, as matters of duty, and regular submission unto God. Amongst the Ana-Baptists (I mean those of the § 12. Ana-Baptists. high form) you will be tempted to build upon the water, instead of the Rock, and to rejoice in a thing of nought. You will be apt to learn pride, peremptoriness, self-conceitedness, unquietness and turbulence of spirit, the despising of those that are good: the magnifying of a minute of will-worship, against, or above, the divine Nature itself in men, above Faith, Love, Holiness, Humility, Mortification, Self-denial, Fruitfulness in well doing, and whatsoever do most unquestionably commend both men and women unto God, and sober men. Antinomianism, is a School of Lawless Liberty, wherein is taught how without the least regret of conscience, to turn the grace of God into wantonness; and where the progymnasmata, or impure Elements of Ranting (the dregs and retriment of all Sects, and where men and women are taught to turn head upon conscience; yea and upon whatsoever is commendable in Nature itself) are plainly laid under the Notions and names of most worthy Truths, and such wherein the glory of the Gospel consisteth. The truth is, that a Ranter is nothing but an Antinomian sublimated. Amongst the Virgin-Livers, you will be taught, or § 13. Virgin-Livers. tempted to stop the course and current of Nature, until it breaks over, not only the dam wherewith you shall obstruct it, but even all the banks and bounds which God himself hath prefixed to it. Here also if you be easy of belief and tractable under a spirit of delusion, you will be provoked to make a breach upon all the Laws and Precepts of God, which concern the Christian management of Relations, and this under a pretext of sovereign devotion, and of signal sequestration from the world. Those commonly known by the name of Seekers, are a generation who think they do God a most Seekers. choice service in overlooking all that is written, upon pretence of looking after somewhat higher, more mysterious, and sacred, than any thing that is written; as if God, who (as the Apostle teacheth us) hath in these last days spoken unto the world by his Son, intended to reveal unto, and speak by these men somewhat beyond, and of greater import than any thing he hath spoken unto the world by him. Amongst these this snare of death will be spread in your way, you will be tempted to seek after another Jesus, with the neglect and contempt of him, besides whom there is no Saviour of souls. Amongst the Quinto-Monarchians, or persons § 10. best known by the name of the fift Monarchy men, Quinto-Monarchians. not so much from their opinion touching the said Monarchy, as by that fierce and restless spirit which worketh in them, to bring it in into the world by uncouth and unhallowed methods and ways, and this before the times of the other Monarchies be fulfilled, you will learn to speak evil of those that are in dignity, to curse the Ruler of your people, to entertain darkness in stead of a vision, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. to advance yourselves with confidence into the things which you have not seen, and to please yourselves most, when you neither please God, nor sober minded men. Amongst the Behemites, or Mysterialists, you Behemites, or Misteryal will learn little but uncouth and affectate words and phrases, under which you may intent and mean what mysteries you please, but nothing to the edification of any man, nor scarce of yourselves; together with an art or faculty to allegorise quite away the vivifique spirit, power and Authority of the Scriptures, and this under a pretence of teaching Repentance, Mortification, Humility, Self-denial, Resignation, etc. after a new and more excellent way, then hath been formerly taught or known. Here though you shall meet with strange and unheard of terms and expressions in a sufficient number to fill the world with new notions and secrets of truth, such as the hearts and minds of men, have been strangers unto until now; yet will the whole Encyclopedy of this learning hardly bless or enrich you so much, as with one distinct notion, veyn, or streyn of truth, which is not already abroad in the world amongst intelligent men, yea and this in a far more scientifical garb or habit of expression. Here you will be taught to comment upon the light with darkness. Contra-Remonstrancie (as it is commonly taught § 14. amongst us) is a model of divinity, or of Christian Contra-Remonstrants. Religion, drawn quite besides the platform, or pattern in the Mount, I mean, the mind of God revealed in the Scriptures. The appropriate principles of this way may reasonably be conceived to lead unto most (if not all) other sects, and those evils, whether of opinion, or of practice, that are found in them. Amongst the sons and daughters of this Divinity, you will learn such a Faith, which instead of working by love, will work by carelessness and security, and which will give such large quarter unto the flesh, that its own Life and Being, will be sorely endangered, if not utterly overthrown thereby, besides many most unworthy and hard thoughts and say of him, who is Grace, Love, Goodness and Bounty itself, and who is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, a 2 Pet. 3. 9 and be saved b 1 Tim. 2. 4. . Among the Arians, and Anthropomorhites, the life of godliness in you, if you carry any such thing with Arians and Anthropomorphites. you unto them, will be in danger of poisoning with dunghill notions and conceits of God, and of Christ. For here the abominable Idolatry of the old Heathen, who changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image ma●e like to corruptible man, which (as the Apostle informeth us) God most severely punished, is in the clear and plain pri 〈…〉 les o● it taught as a great and unquestionable truth. And He, who the Holy Ghost styleth, God blessed for ever c Rom. 9 5. , (I mean Christ the Lord) is allowed this Godhead in a diminutive sense only, and such, which dissolveth the glory of the mystery of the Gospel into a piece of odd and savour-less projection, without any length, or breadth, depth, or height of wisdom in it. Amongst the High-Presbyterians, and men baptised into their spirit, you must submit your faith to the test of men, and be content to be at a classical, or Synodical allowance for what you shall believe. And yet here you will be taught to sacrifice the peace liberties, and comforts of other men, and these (it may be) better, more righteous, yea and sounder in the faith, than yourselves, upon the service of such a faith, which is formed and modelled by the fancies, or weak understandings of men, and these superintended (for the most part) and influenced by some politic or corrupted interest or other. These are the principal Sects, and byways of Christian profession at this day on foot amongst us (as far as my knowledge and memory at present serve me to recount them unto you) into which (I mean, into one or other of which) if you be not throughly established with the knowledge of the truth, and of the good word of God, and withal, watchful in prayer unto God to keep you in the good old way of truth and peace, your foot will be in danger of sliding, and in so much the more danger, because these ways of errors (at least some of them) have deceived great, numbers of men and women, and are at this day occupied by many; according to that of Christ to his Disciples themselves: Take heed that no man deceive you: For MANY shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive MANY. Facilè transitur ad plures (is the saying of Seneca) i. A little consideration serves a man to make one in a multitude, or throng. Besides, there are reports abroad very credible, and not without arguments otherwise to confirm the truth of them, that there are cunning Emissaries of the Romish faction, Jesuits, and others, and these not a few, who secretly, and in a disguise, insinuate themselves with all, or most, of the prementioned Sects amongst us. These being the most exquisite and expert Artists in the world in glosses and colours, know how of plausible Arguments and Pretences, to make fair faces to set upon every Sect and by-opinion, whereby to allure the fancies of injudicious and inconsiderate people unto them, and to set every party agog with a conceit of their own way, and notions; their most wicked and dangerous design being to distract, rend, and tear the Nation, into factions, parties, and sects, especially all those in it, who seem to pretend with any zeal to conscience, or Religion, that so they may upon better terms of advantage commend the Romish Church and Religion for that unity which is found in them, unto the generality of weak and carnal men amongst us (being the bulk of the Natioan, and whose Sovereign grievance it is not to have a National or State Religion, wherein all must 'gree) and hereby have the bro ader and larger opportunity, either to work the Nation back again unto Rome, or otherwise to bring the misery of confusion, if not ruin itself, upon us. 9 As the English Proverb, that a rolling stone § 16. gathers no Moss, importeth, that persons who oft remove, and change either their dwellings, or employments, do not (ordinarily) prosper, or thrive in the world; so neither do the souls of such persons (usually) prosper, who are of desultory and light dispositions, easily and without great weight and evidence of argument, persuaded out of one form or way of worpshiping God into another, or out of one Church into another. Upon this account it is that the Apostle makes an opposition between being carried about with divers [or various] and strange doctrines, and having the heart established with grace: Be not carried about with various [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and strange Doctrines; for it is good that the heart be established with grace, not with meats, which have not profited them who have been occupied therein a Heb. 13. 9 , clearly implying, that such professors, who are apt to be hurried or carried round from one opinion to another, which are various and strange, not depending on, nor consistent with, one the other, or such, wherewith the Church of Christ have not been acquainted (for these are properly strange Doctrines) are never like to attain the great blessing of having their hearts and consciences well balanced or established, either with any excellent work of grace or holiness in them, or with the sense or sound belief of the rich Grace of God in the Gospel. The reason whereof might be given, but that the Law of brevity forbiddeth it. It was the confession of one who had some years before turned aside into the way of Ana-Baptism, at the time of his execution for the horrid sin of murder committed in this City (of which confession one of you, if I mistake not, was an ear witness) that from the time of his going under water, he sensibly found God departing from him. 10. If it be a duty solemnly charged by God upon § 17. you, as far as lieth in you, and if it be possible, [i. e. if you can compass or admit of it, without sinning; for unto Saints, all sin by the Law of their profession, is made and declared an impossibility b Joh. 3. 9 Rom. 6 2. 2 Cor. 13. 8. G●● 39 9 ] to have peace with all men, how much more ought you to judge yourselves bound by engagements of the highest, to have and keep peace amongst yourselves, and one with another? your Church and Christian fellowship, will be as a first fruits of that New Jerusalem, which is now coming down apace from Heaven unto you, if you be careful and diligent to knit yourselves together in love, standing fast in one spirit, with one mind and one judgement, and so continue. Be of one mind: live in peace: and the God of love and peace shall be with you, 2 Cor. 13. 11. your God shall be your glory, and you shall be the glory of all the Churches of the Saints round about you, if you shall carefully endeavour to keep the unity of the spirit in the band of peace. Behold, how good, and how pleasant it is for Brethren to dwell together in unity! It is as the Dew of Hermon, yea as that which descendeth upon the Mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing and life for evermore. Psal. 133. 1. 3. As on the contrary, where envying and strife is, there is confusion, and every evil work (Jam. 3. 16.) and consequently, God must needs behold persons and societics of this unworthiness, a far off. And to those, whom he thus beholdeth, misery and ruin must needs be near at hand. Therefore if differences at any time arise amongst you. 1. Let every man remember that he knoweth but in part, and consequently that the error, or mistake, may possibly lie on his side. 2. Let him candidly, and with an unfeigned desire of being overruled, though contrary to his present sense, into the truth, especially when love and peace are like to be gained and maintained withal, weigh and consider the grounds and reasons of him, or them, who descent from him. 3. Let him that hath any thing suggested to him, under the notion of a truth, contrary to the present sense of his Brethren, not over-hastily entertain it, but rather suspect, and expostulate with the suggestion. And if he cannot thus satisfy or free his conscience, let him argue and debate with himself the grounds of it upon such terms, as he would oppose or counterargue the Tenent of an Adversary. If this will not yet deliver him, let him by frequent and fervent prayer, seek an intemerate and chaste judgement at the hand of God. If this notwithstanding, he shall remain doubtful and unsatisfied. 4. In case the matter of his suggestion supposed to be a truth, be somewhat about the verge, or outworks of Religion, and not near the centre or heart, (as matters of doubtful dispute amongst Christians, for the most part, are) let him (as the Apostle adviseth in somewhat a like case) either have his faith to himself, and not trouble his Brethren, or the Church with it; Or else, let him declare and propose it like itself, I mean, with an acknowledgement that it is a point of inferior concernment, and for which he shall contend with no man to the breach of love or peace; especially let him not strayn or bend himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to hyperbolise or over-speak the consequence or concernment of it. In which kind of misdemeanour, the high Anabaptist is the firstborn of offenders, yea though his notion for rebaptising, or (as himself would fain have it pass) for baptising, should be yielded unto him for a truth. He that contendeth not as well, yea and as much, for love and peace, as for truth, is no good soldier of Jesus Christ, or of the truth. 5. If such a person cannot be delivered from his conceit of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some great thing in his new notion, § 20. or private opinion, let him declare himself before his Brethren in public, simply and plainly, that such is his judgement. By this means he shall give testimony unto that, which he conceiveth to be a truth, and so acquit himself in point of conscience both towards God and man, without making a breach upon the Church of Christ, or his godly Brethren, by separating or rending himself from them; as Peter Martyr, sometimes here in England did, and several other worthy and conscientious men have done else where in like cases. 6, (And last, for this) because men of unsound and strange notions, and separating principles, have frequently as the Apostle gives warning, Eph. 4. 14.) a slight and cunningness of craft, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and the generality of professors are weak, and easy to be ensnared, where the snare, especially with a plausible ba●t, is spread in their way; therefore admit not, without some special cause or providence leading you unto it, of much familiarity or intimateness of converse with such men, no not though they seem conscientious, yea or high, or hot spirited for God, and be of plausible behaviour otherwise. For as the Tragedian said long since, venenum in auro bibitur, Poison is commonly drunk out of a cup of gold; so is an error, or by-notion, soon taken into the judgement and conscience of a well-meaning person, from persons of fair carriage, and smooth conversation, especially when they are familiar and frequent with them, and of their bosom acquaintance. And if the ways of an angry man, which at first must needs be harsh and unpleasing to a person of a quiet and meek spirit, are yet apt by the advantage of a familiar converse with such a man, to insinuate themselves into him; much more are the principles and practices of men seemingly religious, and of loving and friendly behaviour, otherwise like to gain upon the minds and affections even of well-disposed persons, if they converse intimately and frequently with them. As for your occasional communion, let it be Christian, honest, fair, and civil towards all men. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as the Apostle exhorts. Heb. 12. 15.) i. Act ye every man (respectively) the part of a Bishop, Watchman, or Overseer, one towards, or over, another, lest any man fail of, or fall from, the grace of God, lest any root of bitterness spring up amongst you, and many be defiled. The exhortation implieth, that a member of a Church body, cannot lightly putrify or miscarry, but through the negligence of the body itself, or of its fellow members, as well as through the weakness or unworthiness of the member miscarrying. It is reported as the frequent saying of Mathias the Apostle in his days, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; If the neighbour of an Elect person [meaning of a Christian or Believer] sinneth, it argueth that the Elect person himself hath sinned, [meaning in being wanting unto him in such means, which might have preserved him.] Let every man's heart therefore be deeply set within him to take all his present company all along with him (if it be possible) in his way to Heaven, not suffering any person to straggle, or wander from his fellows in any by-way of sin or vanity. For it seldom happeneth, in case so much as one member in a Church Society breaketh his rank, or turneth after Satan in any way of ungodliness, but that the example will propagate, yea and occasion many fruits of bitterness and disturbance in the body otherwise. Therefore let every man of you labour to possess his soul with this apprehension, that it very narrowly concerns the interest of his own comfort and peace, to look diligently about him, and to bestir himself, that every member of his Church-brotherhood keep a Christian decorum all along his race, as well as himself. 12. Take heed of falling in your esteem of any the ways and Ordinances of God; and so of cooling § 19 or languishing in your zeal towards the enjoyment of them. You can want none of them, if the want be voluntary, but with certain detriment and loss in your spiritual estate. They are like the hollow Trunks or Pipes, which lying between the full fountain or River, and the dry and empty Cistern, join them together, and supply the emptyness of the one, out of the native fullness of the other. God is a fountain full of all grace, goodness, light, life, strength, wisdom, knowledge, etc. And his good pleasure is to derive and communicate of his fullness in all these, unto the poor, barren indigent creature, man. But his pleasure is withal to make this derivation (at least, ordinarily) by certain Ordinances and Administrations, which lie like golden Pipes fastened in the one end to his own heart and soul, and in the other, to the heart and soul of man. And as they dissolve and destroy the communion between the fountain and Cistern, who either obstruct, or cut off the Pipe, by which the water is conveyed from the one unto the other: so do they estrange themselves from God, and stifle their Communion with him, who without necessity or justness of occasion, forsake his Ordinances, and separate themselves from them. Most certain it is, that he that hath appointed them for the sons and daughters of men, hath not appointed them in vain: therefore they who forsake them, sin against, and forsake, their own mercies. The best means to preserve you in honourable and worthy thoughts of them, is to use and improve them conscientiously and carefully, and upon every enjoyment of them respectively, to take a steady account what you have spiritually gained by them. The lose and negligent use of them, deprives men of the benefit and blessing of them: and when men and women find themselves no ways blest by them, they are at the next door to a despising and forsaking them. I have hitherto been your remembrancer of such § 13. things, which more particularly relate to the keeping of your judgements sound, and untainted with error, and to the regulation of your behaviour and dep●rtment in your Church Communion. I shall only subjoin (with much more brevity) a few directions, more proper for the managing of your private and secret converse with yourselves and your own souls. Therefore 12. When you reason, or commune, with your hearts, either about the worth, or worthlesness, of of the world that now is, or the good things hereof, or about the worth and consequence of the things of that world, which is to come, let the discourse both of the one, and the other, be managed, maintained and carried on, as much as may be, in the language, phrases and term● of the Scriptures. For God (doubtless) hath sanctified the words and expressions of the Holy Ghost, to make both more adequate and lively impressions of the things signified by them, upon the hearts and spirits of men, than any other. 13. Amongst such Scripture terms and expressions, wherein the Holy Ghost speaketh either of Earthly, or Spiritual and Heavenly good things: delight most (in your said secret discourses) to use those which are most emphatical, and nearest to Hyperboles. Such words and expr●ssions as these frequently used in your Soliloquies, will by degrees habituate your minds to think very indifferently and meanly, of temporal good things, and most highly of the things of Jesus Christ, and of the world to come. The Scripture in some expressions maketh the greatest and most things of this world next unto nothing, yea nothing itself, and appropriates reality, substance, truth, worth and excellency of being, unto the things of the world to come. Let such expressions as these, be of choice esteem, and of daily use with you. It is the observation Amat tal●●s compositione Paulus Hug. Grot. In Rom. 5. 20. of one, that the Apostle Paul delighteth much in words compounded of the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the import whereof is to advance and raise the signification of the word compounded with it, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ to omit many others.) The use of such words, or of the notions imported by such words, in your meditations of spiritual and Heavenly things, will be of rich concernment unto you to work in time and by degrees, your judgements and apprehensions of matters relating to both worlds, to a steady conformity with the judgement of God himself, concerning these things, as it is declared in the Scriptures; and so to mould and form your lives and ways accordingly. 14. Know no accommodation, no gratification § 21. whatsoever to the flesh against the lightest or softest motion of the spirit within you, nor against the least jot or tittle of any the commands of Christ. If you shall deign to take any knowledge of them, you will run an extreme hazard of being ensnared and overcome, and so dtawn into greater inconveniency and danger in the end, than you can readily imagine in the beginning. 15. You have opportunity of a variety of Christian employment. You may meditate that which is good with your heart: You may do that which is good with your hand: You may speak that which is good with your tongue: You may hear that which is good with your ears. It is pity but that one or other of these ploughs should still be kept going: you can hardly be cast under any such disadvantage at any time, but that you may serve the dear interest of your souls, and better your accounts and reckon at the great day, by exercising yourselves in one or other of these worthy engagements. 16. Remember that all time lost, or misspent, though never so truly repent of by you, though never so freely and fully pardoned by God, yet will (occasionally, and in a sense not to be despised by considering men) turn to loss unto you all the days of eternity. For though God, upon the said suppositions, will not punish you in the least for your miscarriages in either kind, nor once mention them unto you, yet you cannot expect that he will reward you for them. The highest privilege that sin, or any unworthiness, is capable of, is pardon: reward is appropriate unto righteousness, Whereas had the time, which you spend idly, or mis-imploy, been sown with the good seed of righteousness, and well-doing, he that giveth to every seed it's own body, would have made your harvest of blessedness and glory in the world to come, so much the greater and more plentiful. Therefore be diligent and careful to improve the smallest shreds, or broken ends of time. And what shall I say more? For the time would § 22. fall me to set before you, or to recommend unto you, all that is in my heart for the Christian, comfortable, and safe steerage of your course through the world. I trust that without any recognition, through the grace of God that is given you, you retain in mind many things more of this blessed concernment, which God hath heretofore at several times given in (direction-wise) unto you, by my Doctrine; and that having so much Heavenly light shining round about you, you will not venture your dear souls upon any peradventure, upon any light or lose presumption whatsoever. Ye are in our heart, as the Corinthians sometime were in Paul's, to die and live together: and I trust I am not upon upon inferior terms in yours. And my hope is rich and precious concerning you, that you will fulfil my joy in being like minded, having the same love, being of one accord▪ and of one mind, in doing nothing through strife or vain glory, but in lowliness of mind each esteeming others better than themselves, looking not every man upon his own things, but every man also on the things of others, etc. Phil. 2. 2. 3. If you shall continue walking in this way, you will find the issues of it, life and peace: And the God of all grace will dwell amongst you for ever. Farewell my Joy, and Crown of rejoicing, in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming; at whose right hand my hope is to meet you all at the Great Day. Yours to serve you freely and faithfully, in the work of an under Shepherd. JOHN GOODWIN. From my Study in Swan-alley, Colman-steeet London. April 3. 1655. The Contents of the former Part. 1. COlourable arguments for the defence of Error, are more likely to take with men, then solid arguments for the truth, together with the reasons why, pag. 1, 2, 3 2. God requireth both faith and practice, upon grounds more remote, yea upon secret insinuations, p. 3 3. Many practices may be lawful, yea necessary, for which there is neither expresness of precept, nor of example, in the Scriptures, 5, 6, 7 4. The greatest part of such actions, which aught out of conscience to God, be to performed, are not either enjoined by expresness of precept, nor commended by expresness of example, 7, 8 5. Schismatics always have been extravagantly excessive and importune in magnifying their private opinions, and practices, 8, 9, 10, 11 6. No practice or example in Scripture is obliging unto imitation, but such as are grounded ●pon some precept or law, 11, 12 7. The less experienced, or skilful persons are, in drawing or framing regular consequences, the more ignorant they are like to be of the mind of God in many things, yea and in the greater danger to oppose it, 12, 13 8. To multiply bands of conscience above what God hath made them, is (constructively) to deny the Scriptures sufficiency, etc. 13, 14 9 Things plainly taught in the Old Testament, are more sparingly delivered in the New, 14, 15 10. To reject good consequences drawn from the Scriptures, is to reject the authority of the Scriptures themselves, 15, 16 11. One sound argument is sufficient for the eviction of a truth, 16 12. That way of worshipping God wherein a man's soul hath prospered, and prospereth yet daily, is not lightly to be forsaken or exchanged, 17, 18 13. To make any thing necessary which God hath not made such, is to Lord it over the consciences of men, and to usurp divine Authority, pag. 19 14. The subject of an Ordinance is no part of this Ordinance, 19, 20 15. The Law of Nature and personal accommodation, is to super-intend and overrule Ordinances and Institutions, 20, 21 16. Some things being extra-essential to the nature, and end of an Institution, though observed in the first administration, may be lawfully (yea and commendably in some cases) omitted in after administrations, 21, 22 17. Every defect in the administration of an Ordinance doth not void the effect of it, 23, 24 18. The same ground which giveth right to an Ordinance unto any one person, or persons, giveth the same right unto all, in whom it is found, 24, 25, 26 19 It is not necessary that Signs, Seals, or Sacraments should correspond in any natural similitude, 26, 27, 28 20. Institutions may be regularly used and observed, without the observation of any circumstance not enjoined, 28, 29 21. He is superstitious and a wil-worshipper, who placeth Religion in any circumstance, or observationont prescribed by God, 29, 30 22. Sacramental engagements the more early imposed, or taken up, are so much the more improveable, & binding also, 30, 31 23. Adult Baptism a seminary of contentions in constituted Churches, 31, 32 24. Infant-baptism more edifying both to the Church, and to the baptised themselves, when come to years of discretion, 32, 33 25. Children admitted unto Baptism in the days of Christ and of the Apostles, 33 26. Baptism a Seal under the Gospel of the righteousness of Faith, as Circumcision was under the Law, 33▪ 34 27. Church-membership a gracious privilege vouchsafed by God unto Children under the Law, 35 28. The Children of the Jews were involved together with their Parents in their rejection from God, 36, 37 29. The Jewish children were baptised into Moses, as well as their Parents, 37, 38, 39 30. The door of entrance into the Christian Church is more easy and accommodate for children, than it was into the Jewish Church, pag. 39 31. The Baptism of Children born of Christian Parents, was not deferred until adultness of years in the Apostles days, 40, 41 32. Infant-church-membership was no Levitical ceremony, nor abolished by Christ, 42, 43, 44 33. Infant-baptism was practised by such Christians, who conversed, if not with the Apostles, yet with their disciples, 46, 47 34. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to baptise, frequently signifieth any kind of washing, or rinseing even where not dipping is, 47 35. The derivative verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is never in the New Testament used to signify the act of dipping, but the primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, pag 47, 48. As on the other hand the Sacramental act of baptising is never expressed by the primitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but by the frequentative or derivative, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ibid. 36. The administration of waterbaptism is very frequently expressed by a baptism with water, seldom, or not at all, by a baptising into water, 48, 49 37. No Baptismal administration can regularly be performed, either in whole, or in part, by the person who is baptised, 50, 51 38. The water wherein the Eunuch was baptised was not deep enough for dipping, 51, 52 39 Baptising with the Holy Ghost, and baptising with Water, expressed in the Scriptures by one and the same preposition, 52, 53 40. To pour water on the body of the person baptised, doth more significantly resemble burial, than the d●pping into water doth, 53, 54 41. The nature of Baptism representeth the gracious act of Christ applying himself unto us, 54, 55 42. No kind of washing is performed or made only by the application of the thing to be washed, unto the water, but of the water unto it 55, 56 43. Dipping, either naked, or clothed, inconvenient 56 44. To dip or wash all over, was the practice of Idolatrous nations, 58 45. It cannot be proved that any Baptismal Administration recorded in the Scripture was performed by dipping; but is exceeding probable that many were performed without it, 59, 60, etc. 46. The baptising children of Christians (ordinarily) at years of discretion, is inconsistent with the Gospel rule for baptising, 70, 71 47. The custom of adult Baptism amongst th●se born in the Church, first entered into the Church by unhallowed door, and was entertained, when practised, upon unwarrantable and Popish grounds, 73, 74 48. The generation of men commonly known by the name of Anabaptists, have always been injurious to the Gospel, 75, 76, etc. 49. The wrath of God hath been from time to time revealed from heaven against the way of Ana-baptism, and those who unrepentingly have walked in it, 80, 81, etc. 50 It hath very seldom been known, that any opinion or practice, though never so wicked, uncouth, or absurd, was ever set on foot amongst Christian Professors, but that it gathered a considerable number of Proselytes to it, 89 51. By-opinions and practices, which bear, or seem to bear, hard upon the flesh, are apt to take with four sorts of persons, 90 91 52. No kind of Sect have (more generally) been more hardened in the way of their error, or more unperswasible out of it, than those who have been able to pretend the plain Letter of the Scripture, though misunderstood, for their opinion or practice, especially when a letter of like plainess cannot be produced against them, 91, 92 53. When men and women are inordinate in valuing or prising an erroneous, whether opinion, or practise, there is the less hope of reclaiming them from either, 92, 93 54. A● the Scripture sometimes under the word MEN comprehendeth Women as well as Men, yea and sometimes Children also, so under the expression MEN AND WOMEN, it more frequently comprehendeth Children, 94 55. It is lawful, yea commendable for believers to devote, separate, and design their children, whilst it is yet early with them, even from the conception and the womb, to the service of God and Jesus Christ, pag. 95, 96 56. The truth of an Ordinance, or Gods approving, or allowing of an Ordinance, as his, cannot better be estimated, or known, then when he blesseth it unto those who receive it, 96, 97 57 Baptism received in Infancy, and this without dipping, is neither a nullity, nor device, or institution of man, 97, 98 58. Baptism, as all types and typical Ordinances, is one of those things which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. which are instituted and given for some greater things sake than themselves, 98, 99 The Contents of the latter part of the ensuing Discourse, according to the respective Sections thereof. 1. STicklers about Baptism now, and about Circumcision of old, compared, Sect. 2 2. The present controversy not properly about Baptism itself, sect. 3, 5 3. The present contest relating unto Baptism, better laid aside by the party's contesting, then weak consciences disturbed with it. 5 4. Mr. A. doth n●t state his question clearly so much as to his own sense, 6 5. Mr. A. and his Scripture-proofs divided about the way to satisfaction, 7. 9 6. God hath authorized the L●w of Nature to overrule administrations of Institutions, 8 7. Persons not truly repentant may be duly baptised, 10 8. Primitive practices may be lawfully varied from, upon exigency of circumstances, 11 9 〈…〉 eer matter of fact, no good foundation to prove, either the lawfulness or unlawfulness, of a practice about an instituted Ordinance, in all cases, 13 10. Conclusio sequitur deteriorem partem, 14. 48 11. No particular Administration of an Ordinance, can answer the whole mind or counsel of God in, or about, the said ordinance, 14 12. W●y the Apostles might omit, though not neglect, the baptising of children, notwithstanding they might lawfully have done it, 15 13. How the reasons, upon which the Apostles might forbear Infant-baptism, may, and may not be binding to the like forbearance now, 16 14. Two reasons why the Pastors of Churches now, may be in a better capacity of baptising Infants, than the Apostles or their Assistants, were, 18, 19, 20 15. How Christ and the Apostles to be imitated in what they did, and did not, sect. 21 16. The total silence of the Scriptures about baptising Infants, what kind of proof, and how it may be construed, 22, 23 17. How the baptising of Households in the Scripture proveth Infant-baptism, 24 18. How Christ's laying on hands on Children, etc. proveth Infant-baptism, 25, 40, 132, 157, 158 19 Augustin, a frequent and constant assertor of Infant-baptism from the Apostles, 26 20. The testimony of Ancient Writers for the practice of Infant-baptism by the Apostles, upon what grounds, authentic, 27 21. No History recordeth the original of Infant-baptism, 28 22. Auxentius an Arrian, the first opposer of Infant baptism; and Ludovicus Hetzer (another Arrian, and somewhat worse) the first reviver of the opposition in Germany, 29 23. Mr. A's Baptism a nullity, according to his own principles, 29 24. No contests heard of from the Jews against the Apostles, for excluding their Children from Baptism, an argument that they were baptised, 30, 31 25. No reason imaginable why the Precept or Ordinance of Christ about the subject of Baptism should be changed by the Primitive Fathers, 32 26. Practise of Ana-baptism, standeth ●onely upon foundations, that are either lose, or irrelative, 33 27. A submission unto Baptism no argument of the great success of the Gospel, 35, 36, 38, 39 28. The Holy Ghost at liberty in drawing up his own records, 36 29. Under the expression of Men and Women, in the Scriptures, children also are sometimes comprehended, 37 30. Baptising of Men and Women no proof of the success of the Gospel, 38, 39 31. Suffer little children to come unto me, how proveth that Infants were baptised in the Apostles days, 40, 41, 158 32. A non-scriptum proveth not a nonfactum, 42 33. Neither the qualifications, nor the persons described of all that were baptised, 42 34. No firm arguing from order of expressing, 43 35. To teach, and to make Disciples, how widely differ, 44 36. When a man's grounds for his opinions are insufficient, and so evicted, answering of some objections, though never so substantially, will not relieve them, 45, 168 37. Mr. A's second argument, as much against the counsel of God in circumcision, as against the opinion of his Adversaries in the point of Baptism▪ 46, 49 38. The greater serviceableness of a thing in one case, proveth not the unlawfulness of it in all others, 47, 48, 53, 118 39 The manifestation of Christ to the world, no end of Baptism, 50. 51. nor yet to the baptised themselves, 53 40. When Baptising is customary and in fashion, it is no sign or proof of any man's Faith or Repentance, 54 41. Infant-baptizing, as much, or rather more, instructing, edifying, quickening, etc. unto spectators, as men-baptizing, 56, 73, 159, 160 42. How the Priests and Elders rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not having been baptised of John, 57, 58 43. Persons duly baptised, do not always take up the Ordinance out of a principle of Repentance, 60 44. Remission of sins to be looked for, upon Repentance, without, or before Baptism, 61, 131, 175 45. Circumcision, not a sign and seal of the righteousness of Faith, unto Abraham only, 61 46. The Verb substantive oft used in a declarative sense, 62 47. What it was that properly constituted Abraham the father of all that believe, 62 48. Rom. 4. 11. thoroughly understood, gives a great light into the Question about Baptism, 64 49. Children in a capacity of engaging to the practice of Repentance, as well as men, 64, 65, 68, 69, 182 50. One end of Baptism better answered or provided for by mens-baptism, doth neither prove the baptising of children unlawful, nor yet that another end thereof, may not be better provided for hereby, 67, 98 51. The end of planting not made frustrate, by the non-fructifi●ation of the tree immediately upon the planting of it, 69, 152 52. Baptism how needful for children, Sect. 71. 53. No profession or declaration made unto the world by Mr. A's. Baptising, 72. 75. 73. 54. Profession made by Parents at their children's baptising, a● available unto others, as by other men at their Baptism, 73. 55. A person duly baptised, is not an Agent, but a patiented, in his Baptism, 76. 56. Wh●ther a man be to sign and seal the Articles of his Covenant with God at the time of his entering hereunto, before witnesses, etc. 75. 76. 98. 57 Baptism not to be taken up in order to remission of sins, 77. 61 58. Mr. A most unchristianly taxeth the whole Christian world, 79. 59 Arguments, proving that a Declaration of a man's Repentance by Baptism is not required on his part, to interess him in remission of sins, 80. 81. 82, etc. 60. Faith and repentance, according to Mr. A, but dead works, until Baptism quickeneth them, 81. 89: 61. Submission to a carnal commandment is not of more accepration with God, then unto a spiritual, 80. 62. Mr. A. adjudgeth the whole generation of Christians (a very f●w only excepted) both ancient and modern, as well Fathers, Martyrs, and Reformers, as others, unto eternal condemnation, 81. 63. Baptism can be no Declaration of any man's Repentance. 82. 52, 64. The Apostle Paul no where interesseth Baptism in justification, or in the obtaining of remission of sins, 83. 65. The remission of his sins, who truly repenteth, or believeth, is not suspended up●n what another man may possibly refuse to do unto him, § 83. 18. much less upon what would be sinful in himself to yield unto, 84. 88 66. Abraham's spiritual children are justified after the same manner ●ith him, 85. 67. Baptism may relate unto salvation, as some other of the Commandments of God may do, and yet not unto justification, or remission of sins, 86. 87 68 Salvation not suspended by God upon any modality of acting not expressly and precisely determined by himself, but obtruded by men, 87. 69. Mr. A. cannot substantially prove, that baptising, Mark 16. 16. is to be understood of waterbaptism, 88 70. What remission of sins understood, Act. 2. 37. § 90. and what Baptism, §. 91, 92, 93. 71. Protestants (generally) against remission of sins by Baptism; Papists generally for it, 94. 72. A particular or personal injunction under some circumstance, not generally obliging upo● the same terms, or in order to the same end, 95. 73. The promise of remission of sins, was made unto faith and repentance long before Baptism was in being, and so could not be suspended upon it, 95. 148. 74. The prescription of one means for the obtaining of an end, is not exclusive of this attainment by all others, 95. 75. The order of things▪ as well that of time, as that of nature, is oft interchanged in the Scriptures, 97. 76. No man's public assent unto the terms of the Gospel is entered by Baptism, 98. 77. The justification of God in the sight of the world is no effect of Baptism, 99 100 78. Infant-Baptism contributes as much, or more, to the justification of God in the world, as the baptising of men and women, 101. 102. 79. Baptism no part of the Gospel, 102. 80. Gal. 3. 24, 25, 26 opened, 104. 105, etc. 81. Faith under the Gospel different from that under the Law, 105. 82. When a thing may be doubt after don● after different manners, they that do it not after one manner, may d● it after another, 107. 83. Baptism doth not characterise men to be truly Christ's, 108. 84. Whether, or how, Baptism makes visible Saints, 109. 113. 52. 85. Baptism is no partition wall between Saints and the world, 112. 86. Saints visible before baptised, 113. 114. 87. Mr. A's. similitude to prove that men and women receive a relative being ●n Christ by Baptism, lame, and halting right down, 115. 116. 88 To put on Christ in Baptism, d●th not signify, to make an actual declaration or profession unto the world, that men own and acknowledge Christ to be come in the fl●sh etc. 118. 89. Infant's ●ith as much propriety and truth of speaking, may be said to put on Christ in Baptism, as men, 119. 90. It cannot b● proved ●rom the Scriptures, that men put on Christ, ●or are said to put on Christ, by Baptism, 119 91. The Analogy or proportion between Infant-Baptism, and Infant-circumcision maintained, 120. 121. 122, etc. 92. Whether the remaining of circumcision in the flesh, any ground of a disproportion, etc. 121. 122, etc. 93. The validity of the testimony of Parents, Neighbours. etc. concerning men's Baptism, 123. 124. 94. The Jews had no knowledge of their being circumcised, but from their Parents or others, etc. 123. 95. Little or no inconvenience in being deceived by Parents, or others, touching a man's having been baptised, 124. 125. 96. Mr: A's. children left at more uncertainty touching their Baptism, in case of their parent's death, etc. then those baptised in their Infancy, according to the received manner of the Churches, where they were born, 125. 97. Circumcision, not profitable without keeping the Law, 126. 127. 98. The Gospel requireth as strict and absolute obedience, as the Law; but exacteth it not upon the like terms, 128. 99 Children void of understanding not more capable of holy things, or of the ends or benefi● of them under the Law, then under the Gospel, 129. 100 How the Answer or rather, demand, of a good conscience towards God, saveth us, 130. 101. The services of the Law of no better acceptance with God, without Faith and Repentance, than the services of the Gospel, 130. 102. That which is promised, and given, upon the Antecedent, cannot be suspended upon the consequent, 131. 103. Circumcision was not therefore weak or less spiritual, because administered unto children. 132. 104. Weakness and unprofitableness, comparatively only, imputed to the Law, 133. 105. Infant-Baptism as well reacheth the ends of Baptism, as Infant-circumcision the ends of circumcision, 134. 106. What is less edifying, is not therefore more suitable to the Legal ministration, 136. 107. The principal Arguments for Infant-Baptism, are not deducted from the example of circumcision, 137. 108. Mr. A. buildeth as well upon the rudiments of the world, as Pedo-Baptists, 137. 109. Circumcision ordered by God in the administration of it, to the best advantage for the Church's edification, that such an Ordinance or service could be, 110. In what respect the Gospel-Ministration, before the Legal, 139. 111. The guidance of the Holy Ghost, whether, or in what sense, at any time, or in any person fallible. 141. 112. Christ and his Apostles are to be imitated in the methods and grounds of their arguings, 142. 113. Things of a moral consideration, and of ready perception from the Scriptures, need not the voucher of the extraordinary Authority of the Speaker, 143. 114. Baptism supposed, with the ends of it, the baptising of Infants is of a moral consideration, 144. 115. Whether Infant-Baptism be agreeable, or disagreeable to the Gospel-Ministration, 145. 116. Whether Baptism be a part of the Gospel Ministration, 146. 117. Baptism no contributer towards the receiving of the Spirit, 147. 118. The mention of two things for the obtaining of a third, doth not always suppose a necessity of both for this attainment, 148. 119. The promis● of receiving remission of sins, and the Spirit, is an old, Testament promise, and so not made at all unto waterbaptism, 148. 149. 120. A comparative sense oft expressed in a positive form, 150. 121. A subsequent consent as valid to all ends and purposes, as an Antecedent, 151, 164. 122. Whether men baptised in unbeleef, aught to be rebaptised in case of their believing afterwards, 151. 123. Words and actions at present not understood, may do service, and obtain their ends afterwards, 152. 124. Why, and how, children capable of Baptism, and yet not of the Lords I able, 153. 125. Faith not put Gal. 3. 23. 25. for the whole Ministration of the Gospel, 154. 126. Infant-Baptism, to whom an apparent breach of the Laws of the Gospel ministration, 155. 127. That none ought to be baptised, but such who appear voluntarily willing, etc. refuted by sundry arguments, 156, 157, 158, etc. 128. Imposition of hands in what respect a greater Ordinance, than Baptism, 157. 129. Infant-Circumcision was more edifying, then men-circumcision would have been, 159. 160. 130. Infant-Baptism how comporteth with the exhortation, Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth, 161. 131. Baptism, in respect of the baptised, no action, or service performed, though a submission unto Baptism may be, 163. 132. Profession of Baptism, and perseverance herein, more rewardable by God, than the act of being baptised, or of once submitting unto Baptism, 164. 133. No argument of any pregnant import, to disable Infant▪ Baptism, 167, 171. 134. Any thing is sufficient to satisfy some, in some cases, 16●. 135. A cause is not made good by answering an objection. 168. 136. Sonship unto God how accrueth unto Children, 169. 137. Mr. Tombs, ●nd Mr. Fisher, yea the Rebaptised Churches themselves, at odds in points nearly relating to the question of Rebaptising 170. 138. How all children are capable of Baptism, and how n●t, 171. 139. Baptism why described, or termed, the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins, 176. 140. Baptism whether administrable unto Repentants only, 177. 141. Baptism the more for the good of man, because Infants capable of it, 178. 142. Baptism how beneficial without faith, 179. 143. What it must be that qualifieth for it, 180. 144. What love of God, and in what respect, immediately qualifieth for Baptism, 181. 145. The faith which was in Christ, was not of the same kind with the faith of other believers, 183, 184. 146. The sameness of expressions, doth not prove the sameness of thin●s, 184. 147. Whether Christ was baptised upon the account of his believing himself to be the S●n of God, 185. 186. 148. That faith qualifieth for Baptism, as it is declarative of spiritual Sonship, § 188, 189. and this by the will▪ or appointment of God, 190. 149. Christ did not make a dedication of himself to the service of the Gospel, by the solemnity of Baptism, 191. 150. The reason of Christ's choice of the season, wherein he was baptised, in reference hereunto, 193. 151. Persons may be baptised in conformity to a Law of righteousness, and yet not to that Law, by which Christ was baptised, 192. 152. Christ was not baptised in conformity to the common Law of Baptism, 194. CONSIDERATION. I. Colourable Arguments and Grounds levied and insisted The first head of Considerations, being of ● more general import, & ●elat●ng unto ●her case▪ & Controversies, as well as those about Ordinances, or Baptism. upon for th● defence of Error, are more likely to take with ordinary capacities and apprehensions, yea and with those that are somewhat pregnant and ripe, especially at first, and f●r a season, than those which are sound and substantial, and demonstrative of truth. Proof. Error befriendeth men's corruptions, comporteth with their lusts, justifieth them in their carnal and sensual ends▪ and consequently in such ways and practices also, which are proper and likely to advance and procure them. Upon this account it cometh to pass, that men and women (more generally) having several corruptions to gratify, worldly▪ and carnal ends to pursue, etc. have a secret and inward proneness and propension unto Error, as that which under the name of Truth pretends to bless them in their way. Now when a person, man, or woman, secretly wisheth that such a Doctrine, or Opinion, were a Truth, or may be sound to be a Truth, a very slender and weak argument in favour of it easily fills and satisfies them, and disposeth them to cry out with the High Priest, What have we any more need of witness? Mat. 26. 65. especially when their judgements and understandings, are but ordinary and weak. Yea men and women, for the maintaining of themselves in peace, in ways and practices that are corrupt and sinful, are of a listening and har●ening disposition, as well after Teachers, as grounds and arguments which will strengthen, comfort and support them therein; and when they meet with either, they rejoice over them, as if they had found great spoils. Whereas the Truth is a most severe enemy to all worldly lusts, to all sinister and corrupt ends of men; and consequently to all such methods, ways and practices, which are calculated for the compass and obtaining of them, giving men no countenance, rest or peace in such ways. From whence it comes to pass (neither can it in reason be otherwise) that persons generally are possessed▪ with a marvellous averseness and frowardness of spirit against the Truth, extremely unwilling that such an opinion should be owned or acknowledged for a Truth, especially by them, the face whereof is set, and which peremptorily threateneth, to separate between them and their beloved lusts, or otherwise to shame, trouble and torment them in the fulfilling of them. By means of this great averseness in men to be convinced of the Truth, it cometh to pass (as frequent expeperience teacheth) that Arguments and Grounds of greatest evidence and power, for the eviction, manifestation, and demonstration of the Truth, are but as the shadows of the mountains unto them, clouds without water, and words without weight. And so the Truth itself, though mightily evinced, is by them respected under the reproachful notion and name of Error. Both these particulars, as well the incredible averseness in men to admit of Truth, though coming to them in the clearest▪ light of Evidence and Demonstration, as that strange propenseness towards the entertainment of Error (lately mentioned) are plainly asserted by the Apostle, 2 Tim. 4. 3. For the time will come, when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts will heap to themselves Teachers, having itching ears. The metaphor of itching ears, implies, 1. The unclean distempers in the hearts and spirits of men, as the itch (properly so called) is to the flesh or bodies of men. 2. It implies also the great and impatient desire and propenseness which is in such persons to be spiritually scratched, i. e. to have these distempers of theirs, only so touched and handled by Teachers, that it may be matter of pleasure and gratification unto them; as indeed it is, when such things are delivered in the Name of God, and as from the Scriptures, whereby they are really comforted, and seemingly and to their own sense, justified in their evil ways. Consectary. If colourable and light arguments, levied and managed for the defence of Error, be more apt to take and satisfy ordinary capacities and persons unskilful in the Word of Truth, than arguments of greatest pregnancy and weight, raised and held forth for the vindication of the Truth, then need it not seem strange unto any man, that such multitudes should be ensnared and carried away in their judgements, as daily are, unto the opinion, which fighteth against the Baptising of Children, with such arguments which have little weight, worth, or substance in them. CONSIDERATION II. GOd requireth and expecteth from men, as well to believe, as to practise, not only upon Grounds plain and near at hand, (such, I mean, which as it were at the first sight, and by plainness and palpableness of inference, enforce, either the truth to be believed, or the thing to be practised,) but even upon grounds somewhat more remote, yea and secret insinuations, and from which, neither can the truth that is to be believed, nor the action or thing that is to be practised, be evinced, or inferred, but by a diligent exercise and close engagement of the reason, judgement, and understanding of a man. Pro●f. When God spoke thus unto Moses, out of the midst of the burning bush, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, (Exod. 3. 6.) he expected that men should believe the Resurrection of the dead upon the account of these words, (and practise accordingly.) This is evident from that of our Saviour to the Sadduces, (Mat. 22. 31, 32.) But as touching the Resurrection of the dead, have ye not read what was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, etc. clearly implying▪ that these men (and others) stood bound in duty, and in conscience towards God, upon the account and ground of such words as these, to have believed the rising again of the dead, and that it was their sin, having such a ground of proof for it, not to believe it. Yet could not the truth be gathered or inferred from the said words, but by a diligent, close and intense working of the rationative faculty and understanding, as is evident. No nor can our Saviour's own demonstration itself (in the place mentioned) of the said truths from the words, be apprehended, without some considerable engagement of the m●nd and intellectual powers of the Soul. So likewise he expected that from the example of David and his men eating the Shewbread, the Pharisees should have understood and known that it was lawful for men to pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath day, (Mat. 12. 23.) yet the argument here was not of so ready a perception. The Apostle saith that God hath exhibited faith, or given assurance unto all men that he will judge the World in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained [meaning Christ,] in that he hath raised him from the dead, (Acts 17. 31.) Yet it is a matter of no obvious conception, how to conceive or make the act of God in raising Christ from the dead, a sufficient ground of assurance that he will judge the World in righteousness by him. So when Moses avenged the Israelit▪ by smiting and slaying the Egyptian, who oppressed him, he supposed and expected that h●s Brethren would have understood, and believed, th●t God by his hand would deliver them, Acts 24. 25. His supposition and expectation in this kind▪ cannot be judged unreasonable; nay certainly they were regular and agreeable to the mind of God himself▪ Yet was this fact of Moses in vindicating the Israelite, and smiting the Egyptian, no such pregnant argument at the first sight, no ground of a ready or easy conviction unto his Brethren the Israelites, that God by his hand intended to effect that great Deliverance from the Egyptian Bondage, which afterwards (we know) he did effect by him. Nor did his Brethren the Israelites, no not so much as any one of them (as far as can be gathered from the Scriptures, and as is most probable) apprehend or understand any such thing thereby. The Apostle Paul expected that the Corinthians (and so, other Christians) should hear, know, and understand, that it was their duty to afford competent maintenance to the Ministers of the God, from and by means of, this Mosaical Law, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox, that treadeth out the corn, 1 Cor. 9 8, 9, 10. See also, 1 Tim. 5. 18. And yet this Law was nothing so obvious and clear a ground for such a duty and practice, as the Command of God for the Circumcising Children under the Law, is for their Baptising, the Commandment of Baptism, or the change of the Ordinance only supposed, under the Gospel. Consectary. If God requireth of men, as well to believe, as practise, not only upon plain and express grounds, such as from whence, that which ought to be believed, or practised, may readily, and without the mediation of a Consequence, be inferred, but upon grounds also more remote, and from which the thing to be believed, or practised, cannot be inferred or drawn, but by force of argument, & by a narrow and through debate of the understanding; than it roundly followeth that Infant-Baptism may be a duty, and necessary to be practised, though the grounds evincing it should lie much deepe● in the Scriptures, than now they do, and not be so obvious to persons uncapable (whether through passion, and shortness of spirit, or through weakness or scantness of understanding) of a narrow sifting of, and through searching into, matters of a more difficult consideration. CONSIDERATION III. MAny practices may be lawful, yea and necessary, which are neither enjoined by any expressness of precept, nor yet countenanced or warranted by any expressness of Example, in the Scriptures. Proof. 1. By expressness of Precept, I mean a Precept or Command of such a Tenor of words, which doth plainly, and according to the literal and grammatical sense of the words, and without the mediation of any inference, or deduction, require such or such a practice. So likewise by expressness of example, I mean, an action or practise every ways, or in all circumstances, semblable unto, or parallel with, the practice in question. As for example: Children are commanded to reverence or honour their Parents by expresness of precept in the fift Commandment; but they are not upon the like terms (I mean, by expresness of precept) here commanded to relieve them, when they stand in need, with their substance; though it be granted, that this may reasonably be understood, to be here commanded also; because to regard those that are in want, so as to relieve and support them, is a casting of honour or respect upon them. See 1 Tim. 5. 3. 17. Judg. 9 9 2. By necessary, I mean, that which ought to be done, or which a person stands bound in duty and conscience unto God to do. These terms explained by the way, we proceed to the proof of the consideration. It was lawful (yea and in a sense necessary) that the Disciples passing through the corn fields, though on the Sabbath day, should, being an hungry, pluck ears of corn, Mat. 12. 1, 2 etc. and eat; otherwise our Saviour would not have justified them in this action, against those which reproved them. But certain it is, that the Disciples were not able to produce, either expresness of precept, or example from the Scripture, whereby to warrant such an action: Nor doth our Saviour himself produce either the one or the other, upon this account. So also it was necessary and matter of duty, from the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel by men, for those that were instructed and taught therein, to supply their Teachers with things necessary, and to make them partakers of all their goods * Gal 6. 6. 1 Cor. 9 14, etc. . Even so (saith the Apostle) hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel: yet had they no expressness either of precept or example, to engage them hereunto, until afterwards; as viz. when this Apostle declared the Ordinance or Institution of God in this behalf (in the words now cited) and elsewhere; Let him that is taught in the Word, communicate unto him that teacheth, in all good things. Again, when Dav●d, and they that were with him, being an hungry, eaten the Shewbread, they did nothing herein, but what was very warrantable, yea and (in a degree at least) necessary, as our Saviour himself supposeth, Mat. 12. 3, 4. Yet had they neither plainness nor expressness of precept, nor yet of example, to warrant them in the action; nor doth Christ plead or allege either of these for the justification thereof; but only such an example, the warrantableness whereof stood upon the same or like grounds of reason and equity with this. Many other instances and cases of like consideration, might easily be added from the Scriptures. Consectary. If many actions may be warrantable, and necessary, for which the Scripture holdeth forth, neither expressness of precept, nor of example, then must the grand Argument and Plea against Infant-Baptism, viz. that it hath neither plainness of precept, nor of example in the Scriptures, to justify it, needs be impertinent and weak. For that the premised Conclusion holds good in matter of Institution (at least so far as concerns the Baptising of Infants, and the main design of this brief discourse) shall be showed afterwards. CONSIDERATION IU. THe far greatest part of such actions, which men and women perform out of conscience towards God, are not enjoined, or commended unto them, by God, either by expressness of precept, or particularity of example, in the Scriptures, but only, either by some general Precept or Rule, or by some example (one, or more) carrying in it some rational proportion thereunto. Proof. When a Minister of the Gospel preacheth unto his people out of the Gospel according to John, seasonably (for example) and faithfully opening and applying unto them, the 27 or 28 verse of the sixth Chapter (or any other,) he performs this work out of conscience towards God. Yet hath he neither expressness of command, nor of example, to justify or commend this action or exercise unto him. But that which he doth in this kind, is sufficiently warranted, partly by those general and indefinite precepts, which are given unto Ministers, to preach the Word, to preach the Gospel, etc. [2 Tim. 4. 2. Mark 16. 15. etc.] partly by those examples of worthy and faithful Ministers of the Gospel, and of the Lord Christ himself, who are reported in Scripture to have preached accordingly. When a Believer gives a shilling, two, twenty, or more, either by way of alms, or to promote some charitable and good work, he may well be presumed to do it out of conscience to God, and according to the exigency of his duty: yet is not such an act, I mean the giving of a shilling, two or more, upon that particular occasion, on which he giveth it, either imposed upon him, or warranted unto him, either by any express Command from God, or any particular example in the Scriptures. There is the same reason of our eating, drinking, sleeping, recreating ourselves, buying, selling, marrying, building, etc. There is none of all these, but a man and woman may do, yea and aught to do, according to exigency of circumstance and occasion, out of conscience towards God: and yet most certain it is, that none of all these actions, with all those circumstances under which they are, and aught to be performed by men and women, are any where expressly commanded by God, or warranted by any parallel example in the Scriptures. But the lawfulness, yea and necessity of them in case, is left by God to be inferred, gathered and concluded by men, by the exercise and engagement of their judgements, consciences, and understandings, from such general precepts and directions as likewise from such examples upon Scripture record, which concern and relate unto such actions. Consectary. If far the greater part of all we do out of conscience towards God, be not in all particularities of circumstance, warranted, or enjoined, either by particular expressness of precept, or example, in the Scripture, but only by the generality of either, it clearly follows, that the application or administration of Baptism unto Infants, may be warrantable, yea and necessary, and to be performed out of conscience to God, although it hath not the warranty of any express precept, or particularity of example. CONSIDERATION V. IT hath still been the manner and practice of men, who have turned aside from the Communion of other Churches, or from the sense of the generality of Saints, into any by-way of opinion, or practise, to be extravagantly excessive and importune in magnifying, ●it●er the necessity, or beneficialness, or both, of those opinions and practices, for which they have exchanged the Christian Communion of the Churches and Saints of God. Proof. Eunomius, the Heretic, maintained this Doctrine, (by way of dissent from orthodox Christians) That the Son of God is altogether unlike unto the Father, and the Holy Ghost unlike unto the Son. And notwithstanding the groundlessness (indeed the manifest and dangerous erroneousness) of this opinion, yet he attributeth this high Privilege unto it, that Whosoever believed it, could not possibly perish, how wickedly soever he lived a Eunomius desendit ●anc haeresiu, dissimilem per omnia Patri asserens Filium, & Filio Spiritum Sanctum. Fertur etiam usque adeo fuisset bonis moribus inimicus, ut ass▪ veraret, quod nihil cuique obesset quorumlibet perpetratio ac perseverantia peccatorum, si hujus, quae ab illo docebatur, fidei particeps effet. Aug. de Haeres. c. 54. . Jovinian a Monk (with his followers) ascribed such virtue to that which they called true Baptism, that they who were baptised herewith, could sin no more b A Joviniano quodam Monacho ista haeresis orta est aetate nostra— Hic omnia peccata, sicut Stoici Philosophi, paria esse dicebat: nec posse peccare hominem Lavacro regenerationis accepto, etc. Aug. de Haeres. c. 82. . The Donatists ascribed all Christian worth and excellency (upon the matter) to their Sect and Opinions, in denying that there was any true Church of Christ in all the world, but only amongst them, and despising all other Christians, but themselves; and yet giving entertainment to most vile and wicked men in their Communion c Nam illi (Donatistae) dicebant universum ●rbem Christianum Eccl●siam non habere— Deinde qui praese omnes alios Christianos condemnabant, severitatem censura in suos relaxaverant, & in suis Caetibus homines impurissimos, ut Optatos, Gildonianos', Primianosque pati●bantur. Pet. Martyr. Loc. Class. 4. c. 5. sect. 15. , as if the giving the right hand of fellowship unto them in their way, rendered them men holy and religious in the midst of the practice of all wickedness. Even as some of the Rebaptised Congregations (for I cannot say it of all) judge no better of the best and worthiest Christians, who refuse to do homage to their opinion and practice about their new Baptism, then as persons unclean, and with whom they should pollute themselves to hold Christian Communion in any part of God's Worship, though otherwise they be persons countenanced from Heaven both with gifts and graces, far above themselves: and yet in conjunction with this their Samaritanizing better Jews than themselves, they reward with the honour and repute of their Society, persons of unworthy, infamous and scandalous deportment, if their consciences will but serve them to bow down (or rather, to be bowed down) before them in the water. Theophanes attributed so much to the use of Images in Religious Worship, that he censured Constantine the Emperor, bynamed, Copronymus, as an Apostate from God, for opposing Images and Idolworship d Theophanes Missel. l. 21. c. ult. Et Joseph Mede, Apostasy of the latter times, p. 131. . Some Jewish Teachers laboured to possess men with such an high opinion of their Tradition and practice of washing hands before meat, as that they ought to look upon him that should neglect or not observe it, as one that lieth with an harlot e Ainsworth in Levit. 15. 12. . The Authors and Abettors of that hideous Doctrine, That God seethe no sin in persons justified, pronounce all those Traitors to the Blood of Christ that hold the contrary f P. Gunter Sermon of Justification, printed An. 1615. Preface to the Reader, p. 3. . The Monks, who generally were the Compilers of the Histories of this Nation in former times, placed so much of the very essence (as it were) of Religion in reverencing the Bishops and Monks of those times, that (as Daniel, a late English Historian observeth) they personated all their Princes, either religious or irreligious, as they humoured, or offended, the Bishop's Rochet and Monks belly. Mr Joseph Mede reports out of the Records of that Idolatrous Council (the second at g S●ectymnus Vindication, p. 8. Nice) that one Theodore an Abbot gave this advice to a Monk, who (as himself informed him) was threatened by the Devil, that he would never cease vexing and molesting him by temptations unto fornication, until he left worshipping the Image of the Blessed Virgin; that the said Abbot (I say) gave this advice to this recluse; that it were better he frequented all the Stews in the City, than not to worship Christ and his Mother in an Image h Apostasy of the latter times. p. 140. . Which plainly shows how highly conceited this Abbot was of his opinion and practice of Image-worship. The Papists are so intoxicated with a conceit of the Pope's Supremacy, and their Subjection unto Subesse Romano Pontifici est de necessit. te salutis. him, that they make it no less than the loss of Heaven and of Salvation, for any person to refuse subjection unto him. Even as many of the Contra-Remonstrant persuasion amongst us, with others of their fancy in the Doctrine of Predestination, and extent of the death of Christ, the efficacy of Grace, etc. although their opinions in these Points be most anti-rational, anti-Scriptural, and (though they consider it not) as near unto Blasphemy as Faith is to belief, or a reasonable creature to a man, yet do they begin, and this with an high hand, to lift them up so near unto Heaven, as to affirm, that there can be no true work of grace in any man, who is not persuaded of the truth of them. And thus many Anabaptists of late (as some have done formerly) commend the practice of their See the Epistle Dedicatory, sect. 2. 3. way of Baptising upon such terms, that they profess themselves jealous and doubtful of the Salvation of all those, whose judgements and consciences do not jump with theirs in the said practice; yea and seem▪ to suspect themselves as overcharitable, for doubting only, and not determining, in the case. Consectary. If it be, and always hath been, so extremely incident unto by-way men, to please themselves with high thoughts of the excellency of such opinions and practices, wherein they choose to walk alone by themselves apart from the Community of Saints, and holy men, then is it a strong presumption (at least) against the way (best known by the name) of Anabaptism, that it is a by-path, and none of the ways of God, because it hath this fatal Character engraven upon it: it is above all measure magnified by those that have separated themselves into it. CONSIDERATION VI. NO practice, or example in Scripture is obliging unto imitation, or conformity, but such, which were grounded upon some Precept, or Law. Proof. Neither need ther● any great light of argument, whereby to see the truth of this Consideration. For if there should be any thing done by any person, commendably, or worthy imitation, not commanded, or commended, unto men by some divine Precept, or other, the Law of God must needs be imperfect and defective, as not comprehending in it the whole duty of man. But the Law of God is perfect, Psal. 19 7. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Therefore there is no commendable or worthy action in one kind or other, which is not in some part or other hereof required of men. Consectary. If no example be obliging unto conformity or imitation, but what is otherwise, as viz. by some Precept, Exhortation or Command of God, commended unto us, then are not the Scripture-examples of baptising in Rivers, or by dipping the whole body under water (in case any example in this kind could be produced) or of baptising Believers only, necessarily binding to like practices, in as much as these practices are not commended unto Christians by any Precept or Command of God. CONSIDERATION VII. THe more dull, the less experienced and apprehensive m●n are, in arguing, debating, and evincing proper inferences, deductions and concl●sions, from their principles and grounds, they are so much the more like to remain ignorant of the mind and will of God in many things; yea and in so much the greater danger to oppose them. Proof. The truth of this Conclusion shines sufficiently with its own light: yet to that which hath, let it be further given. The Sadduces being dull, and little exercised in drawing Conclusions out of Premises, were not only ignorant of the Resurrection of the dead, notwithstanding this was sufficiently enough declared, or held forth, by God himself in those words (formerly mentioned) I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, etc. but even vehemently, and with the derision of those who asserted it, denied it: Even as many in these days are not only ignorant of the duty of bringing children unto Baptism, notwithstanding the grounds of such a practice lie large and fair enough in the Scriptures; but with all their might, and with an high disdain and contempt of those who judge it necessary, do oppose it. In like manner the Pharisees being unexpert in regular argumentations, and less able to discern legitimate consequences and deductions from such grounds, which naturally bear them, were ignorant of the lawfulness of plucking and eating ears of corn on the Sabbath day, for those that were an hungry; although the justifiableness of this practice was evident enough in that exam-of David, and those that were with him, when being an hungry, he went into the House of God, and did eat the Shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for those that were with him, but for the Priests only, Mat. 12. 23. And the Reason of this Conclusion is evident. For if the far greater number, both of matters of Faith, or things to be believed, and likewise of matters of practice, or things to be done, be matters of inference, consequence, and deduction from the Scriptures, and not of literal or express assertion (which is an unquestionable truth▪ and hath in part been proved already,) it follows with an high hand of evidence and truth, that they who are more defective, less experienced, less understanding than others, in drawing Conclusions from Premises, must needs be more ignorant than others, as well of the one, as the other; I mean, of the mind of God as well in matters of faith, as of practice. Consectary. If the more dull, less experienced, and apprehensive men are, in drawing regular deductions and conclusion● out of their premises, they must needs remain so much the more ignorant of the mind and will of God in many things, and so be in the more danger also of denying them; then need it not seem strange unto any man, that the generality or far greater part of those who oppose Infant-Baptism, should be ignorant of the mind of God, as well concerning Baptism, as many other things, considering that they are inexpert in the Word of righteousness, and have not through use their senses exercised to discern both good and evil; I mean, neither legitimate and sound deductions from the Scripture, on the one hand, nor those that are spurious and mistaken, on the other. CONSIDERATION VIII. TO multiply precepts or bands of Conscience, whether negative, or affirmative, above the number of those, w●ich God himself in his Word hath imposed in either kind, is (constructively) to deny the sufficiency of the Scriptures, the perfection of the Law of God, and to usurp his Authority. Proof. The truth of this Consideration, is (I presume) every man's notion and sense. For additionals are not wont to be made to things which are perfect, but to that which is imperfect. Nor if it be supposed, that the conscience of a man be sufficiently bound by the Law of God, in all cases whatsoever, need there be any additional obligations in this kind. Consectary. If the binding of men's Consciences with more bands, than those wherewith God himself hath bound them, be a sin of that evil import, which the Consideration expresseth, then do they, who impose it as matter of conscience upon men, to refrain the baptising of their Infants, and again to baptise, when they baptise, with all under water, transgress that great transgression; in as much as God hath no where in Scripture either prohibited the baptising of children by any Law, or commanded the baptising of any person by forcing, thrusting, dowzing, ducking, or dipping, the whole body under water. CONSIDERATION IX. WHat is more fully and plainly taught by God, and delivered unto the world in the Old Testament, or which may by clearness of deduction be evinced from this, is more sparingly, and with less expressiveness, delivered in the New. Proof. It is a word of soberness and of truth, though found among Philosophers; that Natura, sicut non deficit in necessariis, sic neque abundat in superfluis. As Nature is not wanting in things necessary, so neither is it abounding in things superfluous. This regularness in Nature, being neither penurious on the one hand, nor prodigal on the other, discovers an answerable property and perfection in him, who is the God thereof, and hath form her in his own likeness. So then, what he hath with sufficient evidence and clearness, declared unto us in one part of his Word, he doth but like himself, in not making a like declaration of it the second time. Nor is the New Testament less perfect than the Old, because such duties, which are to be practised under this Testament, as well as they were under the Old, are not as plainly and expressly enjoined in this, as they are in that. For both Testaments being parts of one and the same Scripture, and of equal Authority, that which equally respecteth the times of both Testaments, and is plainly and without parable, taught in the former only, is as sufficiently, and to all ends and purposes, taught, as if it were taught with a like plainness in the latter also. Thus the qualification of Magistrates, as that they be chosen out of the people [viz. over whom they are to bear rule] able men, fearing God, men of truth, hating covetousness * Exo. 18. 21 ; being thus plainly taught and declared in the Old Testament, there was no occasion why they should be again thus largely and distinctly mentioned or required in the New, neither hath the Wisdom of God done it. There is the like consideration of several other Subjects, as concerning the punishment of Adulterers, some special duties of Kings, the regulation of Wars in sundry particulars, Oaths before Magistrates, etc. Concerning which, enough being delivered, and this with clearness enough, in the Old Testament, we hear little of any of them in the New. Consectary. If there be no ground, either in Scripture, or in Reason, why the mind of God about any particular subject, when discernible enough by the writings of the Old Testament, should be again particularly revealed in the New, then is there a plain account to be given, why the New Testament speaketh so sparingly, concerning the mind of God touching the admission of Children into Church-membership, considering that his mind herein was so sufficiently declared in the Old. CONSIDERATION X. THey who reject, or refuse to be satisfied with evident Consequences, or Arguments, drawn by reason from the Scriptures, reject the Authority of the Scriptures themselves, and his that speaketh in them. Proof. The reason hereof is plain; viz. because whatsoever is substantially deducible from, or out of, the Scripture, must needs be contained in the Scripture, before the deduction of it made from thence; otherwise it could not be truly and substantially deduced from hence. For nothing can be drawn out from thence, where it never was, nor had any being. Now whatsoever is contained in the Scripture, is Scripture, and of Scripture Authority. Thus our Saviour himself teacheth us to call that Scripture, not only which is expressly, and in so many words, either affirmed or denied in the Scriptures, but that also which is the fair and clear result of the Scripture. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living waters * John 7. 38. , the Scripture no where affirming this, but virtually or consequentially only. So again he chargeth the Sadduces with ignorance of the Scriptures, because they held and taught, that there was no See Mr Baxter Plain Scripture proof, etc. p. 8 Resurrection of the dead; notwithstanding the Scriptures then in being affirmed no such thing in expressness of terms; especially not in that place, which yet our Saviour judged most pertinent and pregnant for the conviction of their error, Mat. 22. 31, 32. Suppose the Scripture had only said (as it doth, Mat. 1. 2.) Abraham begat Isaac, and had not where said, that Isaac was Abraham's son, yet he that should deny this, should deny the Authority or Veracity of the Scriptures, as well, or as much, as he that should deny the other. Consectary. If to reject solid and clear consequences or deductions from the Scriptures, be to reject the Scriptures themselves, then may they, who oppose Infant-Baptism, because it is not in so many words taught or asserted in the Scriptures, as much oppose and deny the Authority of the Scriptures, as they should do, in case it were in so many words here asserted, and they oppose it notwithstanding. CONSIDERATION XI. IF any man should levy, three, seven, ten, or any number of Arguments, to prove the truth of a Doctrine or Tenent, and only ●n● of them be found solid and unanswerable, all the rest upon consideration or debate proving fallacious and empty, the truth of this Doctrine ought to be acknowledged upon the account of this one Argument, as well as it ought to have been, in case all the Arguments besides had been of equal weight and conviction with it. Proof. The reason hereof is plain, viz. because an error, or a false doctrine, hath no more communion with any Truth, than light hath with darkness, nor can it be justified or supported by it. No Truth hath any right hand of fellowship to give, but unto its fellow-truths' only. Therefore what Opinion or Doctrine soever hath so much as one Argument, made of clear and shining Truth, to stand by it, is hereby sufficiently justified. Notwithstanding variety of Arguments for the eviction of one and the same Truth, is not superfluous; because the capacities and apprehensions of men being various, that Argument which corresponds with one man's apprehension and satisfieth him, may be less comporting with the capacity of another, and so not so convincing unto him, though both may be in themselves of equal pregnancy and strength. Consectary. If any one Argument, solid and clear, be sufficient to establish an Opinion, or Doctrine, though many others insisted on to the same purpose, should be detected of insufficiency in this kind, then may the Cause of Infant-Baptism stand honourable and just, although it should be granted, that many Arguments, which have appeared in the defence of it, have been disabled, or taken tardy by her Opposers. CONSIDERATION XII. WHen a man's Soul hath prospered, and is yet prospering, in such a way of worshipping and serving God, wherein by his Providence he hath been educated, and in which he hath walked from his youth, it is no wisdom for him to forsake it, unless it be upon the clearest conviction that is lightly imaginable, that God is displeased with this way, or that he better approveth another contrary to it. Proof. The Sun is not more visible by his own light, than the truth of this Consideration discernible by the very substance of the matter and purport of it. For when God hath graciously and savingly discovered himself to a person, walking in such or such a way of serving him, and is still revealing himself in this way further and further from day to day unto him, this cannot reasonably be interpreted, but as a Signal Confirmation from God of his approbation of this way. The Apostle Paul, to reduce the judgements and affections of the Galathians to the way of the Gospel, from which they began to decline, remembers them of those spiritual vouchsafements, which they had received from God▪ whilst they walked in this way * Gal: 3. 2, 5. , hereby clearly implying, that having experienced the rich Grace and Bounty of God in this way, ●. 4. 14. 15. they acted contrary to all principles of reason and sound understanding, in suffering themselves upon such slender grounds, as they were, to be turned out of it, especially to walk in such a way, wherein they could have no assurance of being alike graciously entreated by God, but had rather (indeed) cause to fear his high displeasure. So the Holy Ghost from place to place insisteth upon it, as an aggravation of the sinful folly of men, to forsake the worship and service of God, of whose Goodness, either themselves, or their Fathers, had had experience, and to fall to the worship of a strange God, whom neither of them had known: yea and frequently mentioneth the ignorance, or non-knowledg in men of that God, whose service they are about, or in danger to addict themselves unto, as a grand dissuasive from such a practice. See ●eut. 2. 6, 13. And Jer. 19 4. Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burnt incense in it unto other Gods, whom neither they nor their Fathers have known, nor the Kings of Israel, etc. Consectary. If it be repugnant to the principles, not only of sound reason, but of Christian prudence also, to relinquish such a way, wherein a man for a long time together hath walked with God, to the great enriching of his Soul with sound comfort and peace, to walk in a new and strange path, wherein he is ignorant whether he shall find the presence of God with him, or no; if (I say) it be folly to relinquish a way of a long experienced peace, otherwise then upon the clearest and highest conviction, that the way for which he exchangeth, is a way wherein his Soul shall prosper more then in the former, then are such persons children of great folly, and inconsiderateness, who having for many years together thriven spiritually, and enjoyed much of God, under their Infant-Baptism, shall notwithstanding abandon this Baptism, to take up another, which is (at least experimentally) unknown to them, and whereof, no not so much as in point of lawfulness, the greatest Patrons of it are not able to give any competent account to intelligent and considering men; being otherwise also a way, which in all places where it hath been occupied, hath been obstructive to the course of the Gospel * See Epist. Dedic. sec. 11 , and wherein more shipwrecks, than returns, as far as experience can judge, have been found. CONSIDERATION XIII. THey who make such or such a thing necessary, or matter of The second head of Considerations, which concern Ordinances & Institution▪ in general, and are applicable unto Baptism. conscience, in or about an Institution, or the Administration hereof, which God neither by any general Law, nor special, hath determined, make themselves Lords over the consciences of men, and assume the Interest of God himself. Proof. The truth of this Consideration also lieth near at hand. For it is a royalty appropriately belonging to the Throne of Divine Majesty, to impose Laws upon the judgements and consciences of men. And they who attempt to bring men into bondage, where God hath left them free, pretend to more, either wisdom, or righteousness, or both, than they are willing to allow unto God. Consectary. If it be a sinful encroachment upon the Divine Prerogative, to determine or bind the conscience, where God hath left it free, then are they inexcusable, who press it upon men as matter of conscience, either to withhold their children from Baptism, or having themselves been infant-baptized, to be baptised again, or to baptise, or to be baptised, by a total submersion of the body under water; in as much as God hath not determined any of these things by any Law, either general or special. Nor hath any such Law, either in the one hand, or the other, been as yet produced. CONSIDERATION XIV. THe Subject of an Ordinance, or Institution, [i. e. the person unto whom the Ordinance is administered, or aught to be administered,] is no part of the Ordinance itself, but really and essentially distinct from it. Proof. This Position is sufficiently evident without proof. For if if the Subject of an Ordinance, were a part of this Ordinance, then in every administration, one part should be administered unto another. The child appointed to be circumcised under the Law, was no part of the Ordinance itself of Circumcision. For then when men were circumcised, the administration should have been defective or maimed, wanting an essential or requisite part of it. Besides, if the Subject of an Ordinance were a part thereof, it could not be (for example) the same Baptism, or the same Ordinance of Baptism, which is administered unto a man, and which is administered unto a woman. For that which hath parts essentially differing from the parts of another, cannot be essentially the same. Nor (upon the same ground) should it be the same Baptism, which is administered unto an hypocrite, or pretended believer only, and which is administered unto a Believer indeed. For what communion hath light with darkness? etc. Consectary. If the Subject of an Ordinance be not part of the Ordinance, but somewhat really distinct from it, then is Baptism, or baptising only, the Ordinance of God, not the baptising of any determinate Subject, whether Infant or Believer: The baptising of the one, or of the other, according to circumstance, may be the Will of God, but the Ordinance of God, if we take the word, Ordinance, properly, neither the one, nor the other, is, or can be. CONSIDERATION XV. THe Law of Nature, and of personal accommodation and safety, is, by the Will of God, to super-intend and overrule Ordinances and Institutions, and all things appertaining to these, and to supersede whatsoever in them shall at any time be found threatening, or destructive, either to the lives, healths, or well-beings of men. Proof. The truth of this Consideration we have sufficiently proved from the Scripture, and otherwise, partly in the latter part of this Discourse, Sect. 8. partly also, and more largely in a Treatise not long since published, entitled, Water-Dipping, etc. p. 5. 6. 7. of the said Treatise. We shall not need to add any thing upon the account of proof here; but desire the Reader to repair for his satisfaction in the point, if he needs any, to the places now directed unto. Consectary. If the Law of Nature, and personal accommodation and safety, be according to the Will of God, to umpire and overrule all things in any Institution, wherein it is concerned, then, could it be proved, that the Baptismal Administration was constantly transacted by the Apostles, or other Baptists in their days, in the warmer Climates of Judea, and the Countries adjoining, by dipping over head and ears in rivers or ponds of cool waters, etc. yet will not this prove that therefore the same Administration is to be performed upon the same terms, or after the same manner, in cold Countries, or under the frozen Zone, nor (indeed) any where, when the person to be baptised, is, either in a way of reason, or according to experience in like cases, likely to suffer in his health or life, by being dowzed in the water. CONSIDERATION XVI. EVen in matters themselves of sacred Institution, some things, extraessential to the nature and end of the Institution, have been observed and done, according to the tenor of the Institut on, in the first Administration, and (haply) in some few more immdiately succeeding, which have been, and may be, not only lawfully, but commendably and of conscience, omitted in after Administrations. Proof. In the Institution of the Passover, besides the eating of the Lamb at the time appointed, these particulars were enjoined (and accordingly observed in the first Administration.) 1. That the Lamb intended for the Passover, should be taken and brought home from the flock on the tenth day of the Month. 2. That it should be here kept till the fourteenth day of the Month. 3. That it should be eaten in their several houses dispersed in Egypt. 4. That the blood of it should be struck on their door posts. 5. That they should eat it in haste. 6. That they should eat it with their loins girded. 7. That they should eat it standing. 8. With their staffs in their hands, etc. But all these circumstances were appropriate to the first Administration or Observation of it only; and were not required of the Jews in after generations, when they they came to possess the Land of Canaan. Neither were they, nor could they (at least the greatest part of them, as is evident without proof) be performed or obeyed by Christ and his Apostles, at that Passover, which he kept with them a little before his death * See Mr Ainsworth ●n Exod. 12. 6. & 11. . And yet it became him (as himself acknowledgeth, Mat. 3. 15.) to perform all righteousness: yea and most assuredly he did perform it. So in the first Institution of the New Passover (the Supper of the Lord) only men were admitted unto it: it was kept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in an upper loft, or chamber, and towards the evening: yet these particulars, though recorded in the Institution, and observed in the first Administration, being extraessential to the main end of the Service, were very lawfully, all of them, the first conscientiously, and as matter of duty; the two latter, prudentially, and for convenience sake, waved and laid aside by Christians afterwards. Consectary. If in matters of Divine Institution, some things have been both commanded in the Institution itself, and accordingly observed in the first Administration, which notwithstanding, being less relative to the standing and main end of the Institution, have been lawfully, yea and some of them conscientiously, declined or forborn afterwards, then doth it not at all follow, that Baptism must, or aught, to be always, and in all places, administered in rivers, or with a total submersion of the body under water, though it be granted that at first it was administered in rivers, yea and though it should be granted (which yet never was sufficiently proved, nor ever will be, by the Scriptures now in being) that it was at first, and for a time, administered with such a submersion; (although I find this to be the judgement both of many ancient, yea and modern Writers also, who notwithstanding are constant Assertors of Infant-Baptism.) The reason of this nonsequitur is, because as well a baptising in rivers, as with a total submersion, are particularities extraneous to the main end of Baptismal Institution (of which afterwards,) although they might have (and questionless had) their weight and worth of Consideration, for a season, and whilst they were continued; at least if we suppose them, or either of them, in respect of what was determinate and particular in them, to have been practised for any season, by virtue of an Institution, or Command. For Baptism may be commanded, and yet not commanded to be practised in rivers (no more than not prohibited) or with a total submersion of the body. CONSIDERATION XVII. EVery defect or mistake by men, in the Administration of a Divine Ordinance, or Institution, doth not so pollute this Ordinance to him that receives or partakes of the Administration, as to render the Counsel or gracious Intendments of God in the said Ordinance, void, or of no effect, no not in relation ●nto such a man. Proof. That Table of Divine Ordinances, which God hath spread for the benefit and blessing of the World, for the filling of the children of men with righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost would either prove a Snare, or at the best but as such a dream unto them, which an hungry man dreameth (as the Prophet Isaiah speaketh) and behold he eateth, but he awaketh, and his soul is empty * Isai. 29. 8. ; if every defect, or mistake, in these respective Administrations, should either pollute those that are partakers of them, or render them as a mere nullity unto them. For are not the Ordinances and Institutions we speak of, appurtenances of the Gospel, and so of the same consideration with the Gospel itself, and the Ministry thereof? Yea is not the Preaching or Ministry of the Gospel, one of these Ordinances, yea the firstborn and principal of them? And yet the great Apostle expresseth himself in this (whether bemoaning, or admiring) interrogation; and who is sufficient for these things † 2 Cor. 2. 16. ? (speaking of the managing of the affairs of the Gospel by men:) And elsewhere he affirmeth, that we know but in part, and prophecy in part * 1 Cor. 13. 9 . If then every defect, error, or miscarriage in the preaching or hearing the Gospel (and there is the same reason of other Ordinances) should render the Ordinance of Preaching sinful, or unprofitable unto men, in vain had this great and blessed Ordinance been vouchsafed by God unto the World. Nor can they who live under Ordinances, and partake of their Administrations from time to time, have any sufficient or substantial ground of reaping comfort or edification by them, if every defect in these Administrations were of such a malignity as to destroy their usefulness. For what assurance can any man have that he that performs the Administration, performeth the service with all requirements necessary, and appointed by God thereunto? They who preached the Gospel out of envy and strife in Paul's days, supposing thereby to add affliction to his bonds [meaning, that they conceited that he would be much troubled and grieved, that they should gain credit, and draw away his Interest amongst Christians to themselves by preaching, whilst he was laid aside by imprisonment, etc.] did service to the world notwithstanding by their preaching, although they preached upon such unworthy terms as these; otherwise he would not have rejoiced in such their preaching, which yet he professeth to have done * Phil. 1. 18. . The prayer of Hezekiah for those that are the Passover (in his days) otherwise than it was written [i. e. then God had appointed] was; The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purisication of the Sanctuary: and upon this prayer, it immediately followeth; And the Lord hearkened unto Hezekiah, and healed the people * Chron. 30. 18. 19 20. . How much more will he pardon such irregularities in holy Administrations, which have been committed through ignorance or want of light, in the Administration, so as not to make the persons partaking of these Administrations, sufferers or losers by them, upon their faithful applications of themselves in prayer unto him, on that behalf? Consectary. If every defect, or mistake, in the Administration of a Divine Institution, depriveth not him, that partakes of such an Administration of the benefit or blessing thereof, rendereth not the Administration null or void, then may that Baptism which hath been administered unto, and received by men in their Infancy, be available unto them for all gracious intents, ends, and purposes appropriated unto Baptism, though it should be made never so plainly to appear, that some irregularity cleaved unto, and attended the said Administration. CONSIDERATION XVIII. WHatsoever right or title unto an Ordinance or Privilege, accrueth unto any person upon a special consideration or ground, the same right and title appertaineth unto all those, in whom the same consideration or ground taketh place, or is to be found. Proof. The Apostle Peter justifieth this principle, Acts 10. 47. and by the Authority of it, pleadeth the Lawfulness of baptising those, on whom the Holy Ghost fell, whilst he was preaching unto them at Cornelius his house. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbidden water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? So if any person among the Jews had right to Circumcision, merely as he was, or because he was, lineally descended in a way of natural propagation from Abraham, it unquestionably follows, that whosoever in all the world was thus descended, had the same right to Circumcision also. It is upon the account and credit of this Maxim, or Conclusion, that believing women are, and aught to be, admitted with men-beleevers unto the Lord's Table, for whose admission hereunto there is neither precept, nor example (I mean, express, in either kind;) For whereas a late Defender of the Faith of new Baptists, pretends, by the grammatical indulgence of the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 11. 28. to find a precept for women's admission in this kind, his finding (according to the Greek Proverb) is no Treasure, but Coals. The tenor of the place, according to the original, is this: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. translated thus: But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, etc. The word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith this Critic) is of the epicoene gender, and signifieth both Sexes, either man, or woman; and therefore signifieth so here. His premises are strong, and not to be withstood; but his inference is weak and contemptible. For though, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth in the general signify either, man, or woman, yet doth it not always signify both; nay very frequently it signifieth the male sex only: Witness Mat. 8. 9 c. 8. 9 32. Mat. 11. 8. 19 c. 12. 10. Joh. 1. 6. c. 3. 1. etc. in all which places (to omit others without number of like import) the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, precisely and determinately, signifieth, man, or a person of the male sex only. Therefore if Mr D. will prove, that the said word includes both sexes in the Text now under consideration, he must produce some better argument, than the grammatical signification of the word at large. Otherwise he might with as much reason argue, and undertake to prove, that because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pneuma, signifies both the wind and the spirit, that therefore it signifies both in all passages where it is used; and so raise a storm of blasphemy, horrid i● one respect, and ridiculous in another, in twenty places. Besides the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself, relating in construction to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being not of the epicoene, much less, feminine gender, but of the masculine (determinately,) plainly showeth that the Apostle did not intent the female part of the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the masculine only. Notwithstanding it is not to be denied, but that the precept or direction in hand, doth relate unto and concern, women also, though not by force, or any express signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet by virtue of that capacity, which is in this sex, as well as in men, to perform the terms here required of men, in order to their partaking of the Ordinance here spoken of. So that the Conclusion last specified is unquestionable; being (indeed) nothing in substance, but that common Maxim in Reason, A quatenus ad de omni, efficax est illatio. Consectary. If the same right, or title, which accrueth unto any person upon a special consideration, accrueth unto every person without exception, in whom the same consideration is found, it undeniably followeth, that if persons of riper years have a right unto Baptism, by virtue of that interest of grace or favour in God, which they obtain by repenting or believing, and declare to have obtained by the profession of this their repentance or believing (which we have at large evinced for truth in the subsequent Answer) that then (I say) Children and Infants have the same right also (I mean unto Baptism) in case it be proved, and found true, that they have the like interest in the said grace and favour of God. CONSIDERATION XIX. IT is not necessarily required, either in Signs, Seals, or Sacraments, that they should correspond in any natural similitude or likeness, with the things, signified, sealed, or Sacra 〈…〉 z●d by them. Proof. First, (not to speak of natural Signs, between which, and the things signified by them, nothing is more evident than that no such similitude intercedes, as between smoke and fire, between a fiery red morning, and a rainy day, etc.) in Instituted Signs, an agreement, either in quality, or in form, between them, and the things signified by them, is not at all (at least, in many cases) regarded or looked after. A bush hanging down from a signpost, is a sign of wine to be sold in the house: but what similitude or agreement is there between the bush, and the wine? A garment of divers colours was a sign of a King's daughter in her virginity, 2 Sam. 13. 18. What similitude was there between the sign, and thing signified, here? It were easy to instance many particulars of like kind. Secondly, It is yet much more evident, that between Seals, and the things sealed, or confirmed by them, there is no need of any such correspondency, or agreement, as that of which we now speak. The impression made upon wax, affixed to an Indenture, or Conveyance, may be of any figure, or form, what ever the contents of the said Indenture, or Conveyance, may be. The great broad Seal of a State, or Prince, is one and the same, notwithstanding the great variety of Commissions, Grants, or matters, sealed and confirmed by it. In which respect there cannot be a similitude or resemblance between this Seal, and all the respective particular things that are sealed or ratified by it. Thirdly (and last) Concerning Sacraments, or such sacred Ordinances, whereby God is pleased to signify and confirm matters of Grace, of one kind, or other, unto us▪ neither is it necessary that these should be any pictures, pourtraictures, or resemblances, of the particular things signified or confirmed by them. The reason is, because God, in the appointment and vouchsafement of them, graciously intending to apply himself unto men in such ways and methods, which were familiarly practised amongst themselves, was no ways necessitated, or occasioned, to make any other calculation of them, then only to answer the manner of men in the calculation, institution or appointment of their signe● and seals; wherein (as was lately said) they are not won● much to mind similitudes or correspondencies. Indeed in Types or Ordinances merely Typpical, Analogy or configuration is requisite and proper: but in Ordinances properly and purely Sacramental, it is not necessary, although it be not denied, but that in some cases, and in some of these Ordinances, it may be expedient, and hath been accordingly observed by God. But that sundry Sacramentals have been appointed by God without any Typpical resemblance in them of the things signified by them, or intended to be effected by them, might be proved from the Scriptures. The Tree in the midst of Paradise, Sacramentally signified and confirmed unto Adam, that whilst he obeyed God, he should live (and in this respect, haply, was called, The Tree of Life, Gen. 2. 9) yet was there no similitude or resemblance between this Tree, and the Life Sacramentally signified and sealed by it. There is a like consideration of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil: and so of the Rainbow: and again of Moses his smiting the Waters of the Sea with the rod in his hand; of the Priests compassing the City of Jerich● seven days together with blowing Trumpets made of Rames horns (to omit many others.) Consectary. If it be not necessarily required, either in signs, seals, or Sacraments, that they should correspond in any similitude or likeness, with the things signified, sealed or Sacramentized by them, then may Baptism by sprinkling, or any other kind of ablution, as well as by dipping, be a sign, seal and Sacrament of a being buried with Christ in, or into, his death. However, CONSIDERATION XX. What is not expressly mentioned, in an Institution, nor particularly commanded, in, or about the administration of it, is not of the nature or essence of the Institution; but the administration hereof may be lawfully and regularly made without it. Proof. The reason of what is laid down and ●endered in this Consideration, is: because the Law or nature of an Institution, which in all things essentially requisite to the due Performance, or administration of it, dependeth upon the sole Will and pleasure of God, requireth that this his Will and pleasure thus far (I mean, in all particulars essential to it) be clearly made known unto men. Otherwise (as the Apostle argueth in a like case) If the Trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the Battle? In like manner, if the Tenor of an Institution be imperfect, and some things only appertaining to it, be expressed, and other things of a like relation, suppressed or concealed, how shall men either prepare themselves to a due observation of this Institution, or know at any time, whether it be duly administered, observed, or received, or no? Consectary. If an Ordinance or Institution, may be duly and regularly administered without any such ingredient, whether of Ceremony, or Morality, which God himself hath not prescribed or enjoined, in the Tenor of the Institution, nor otherwise, then may the Ordinance of Baptism be duly and regularly administered, and received, without a Total submersion of the body of the person baptised, inasmuch as this is no where expressly prescribed or enjoined by God. CONSIDERATION XXI. IN what circumstance or modality soever (in, or about, the Administration of an Ordinance) not prescribed by God himself, any person shall place Religion, or think that in the observation thereof, he performs an act of worship unto God, he is (in this point) Superstitious, and a will-worshipper. Proof. To evidence the truth of this Consideration, the descrip-of Superstition, and will-worship is sufficient. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive superstitio (as Cameron well describeth it) a Camer de Eccles. est cultus Dei, sed qualem sibi praescribit ingenium humanum, i. e. Superstition is a worshipping of God; but such a worshipping of him as the wit [or wisdom] of men prescribeth unto itself. Another defineth it to be, Cultus, seu modus c●lendi Deum arbitrio humano, sine Dei praecepto susceptus b Rivet. in Exod. 20. , a worship, or manner of worshipping God according to the will and pleasure of men, taken up without any precept of God. If this be the nature of Superstition, or will-worship, to worship God, or rather to conceit that a man doth worship God, by any ceremony, gesture or action, which himself hath not prescribed, it is a plain case, that whosoever placeth religion in any ceremony, circumstance or modality in the observation of any divine Ordinance, which God hath not enjoined, is in this behalf a son of Superstition, and a will-worshipper. consectary. If they who think they do God service, and truly worship him by the observation of any rite, circumstance, or action in the administration, or reception, of an Ordinance which God himself hath not prescribed, be upon this account will-worshipers, and Superstitious; it roundly follows, that they who administer Baptism by dipping allover, and think that by this mode of that Administration they worship God, are in the said condemnation of will-worship and superstition, inasmuch as God hath no where in his Word prescribed this mode of the Administration. From the same ground and principle it likewise followeth, that they, who having been once baptised (as suppose in their Infancy) shall conceit they honour or worship God aright by a second or after Baptism, are children of the same error, inasmuch as God hath no where prescribed a Baptism upon Baptism, nor yet declared Baptism received in Infancy to be null. CONSIDERATION XXII. SAcramental engagements the more early imposed, are so much the more improveable, and the more binding also. Proof. This Consideration also, is hereafter asserted, and the truth of it cleared, §. 161. 163. and elsewhere, in the second part of this discourse. Doubtless Circumcision under the Law, was never the less, but rather the more, both improveable by, and binding unto the Jews, because received by them in Infancy. Otherwise (as hath been formerly argued) there is little question but God would have imposed it, not upon Infancy, but upon maturity of years; nor is it to be believed, that He that hath made this order for men (as we lately heard) Let all things be done unto edifying, would impose a service, or action upon men, upon such terms, according to which it should either not not be edifying at all, or less edifying. Consectary. If Sacramental Engagements, be both so much the more binding upon those, who are under them, and likewise so much the more improveable by them, by how much the sooner they are imposed, then must Infant-Baptisme needs be more effectual for all baptismal ends and purposes, then after Baptism. The Consequence is apparent. CONSIDERATION XXIII. ADult Baptism standingly administered in constituted Churches, and amongst Believers, cannot lightly but prove a root of bitterness, and occasion perpetual quarrels, contests, and emulations amongst them. Proof. The reason hereof is, because the want of a positive and certain rule, whereby to adjudge, issue, and determine such cases and questions, which are frequently incident to any Society or Body of men, must needs, the ordinary temper and weakness of men considered, engender strife, contention, and discontents amongst them. If a Church shall pass by the time of Infancy, and not baptise the children of her Members under this age; by what rule will they baptise, them afterwards? To say they are to be baptised when they shall believe, and make known their faith to the Church by their lives or works, and withal desire Baptism, is to speak very inconsiderately, and to prescribe a rule every whit as dark and questionable, as the case itself that is to be measured and adjudged by it. For who knoweth not that the members of a Church are commonly of different judgements & apprehensions, as about other matters, so about nothing more than about the signs and properties of a true Faith? So that when a person shall come to desire Baptism, who (it may be) hath satisfied one part of the Church touching the soundness and sincerity of his Faith, another part hereof will remain dissatisfied▪ In this case, here will be Ephraim against Manasseh, and Manasseh against Ephraim; and both (indeed) against Judah, I mean the truth▪ The judgements even of sober and able Christians, for the most part, are about nothing more divided (nor in reason more like to be divided) then about the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or demonstrative effects of a sound Faith. I confess it is an easy matter for Master Tombs, or Master Fisher here to interpose their sense, instead of a rule, to decide such cases, as that specified, and to tell us Magisterially what they judge meet to be done: but whether their Churches will agree about the sense and interpretation of what they shall prescribe for a rule in such cases; or if they shall agree in this, whether they will own and consent unto the sufficiency of this rule, is very questionable. Yea, rather it is no question, but that there will be a battle fought by yeas and nay's, if not by more angry and fierce soldiers, about it. See this Consideration more amply propounded, and fully vindicated by Master Baxter in his Discourse for Infant-Baptism, p. 130, 131. where likewise he substantially proveth that the ordinary practice of baptising the children of Christians at age, must needs run all into confusion. Consectary. If the practice of baptising Christian's children at age in constituted Churches, be such a method or course of baptising, The third Head of Considerations, which more immediately relate unto Infant-Baptism, and argue the lawfulness of it; yea, and more than lawfulness (ordinarily.) which is apt to fill these Churches with perpetual contentions and strife, then is it not a Method allowed, much less prescribed, by Christ. CONSIDERATION XXIV. THe ordinary practice of baptising Infants in the Church, is much more edifying, both to the Church, and to the persons also baptised, when come to years of discretion, than the baptising of men, and women, only. Proofs. This Consideration, as to point of truth, is demonstratively argued and asserted, more than once in the latter part of this discourse: and so needs no traverse here. The Reader is desired for his satisfaction in this to peruse Sect. 56. 73. 159. 160. of that part. Consectary. If Infant-Baptism contributes more towards the edification, both of the Body of the Church, and of the persons themselves also baptised, than the baptising of men and women only, then is it the unquestionable Will of God that Infant-Baptism should be practised in the Churches of Christ, in as much as his order & appointment is very express in this; Let all things be done to edification, 1 Cor. 14. 26. And again, Seek, that ye may excel to the edification of the Church, 1 Cor. 14. 12. (of which Scriptures in the second part of this Discourse, Sect. 159. 48.) CONSIDERATION XXV. CHildren were admitted unto Baptism in the days of Christ, and of the Apostles. Proof. For proof of this, the Reader is only desired diligently to peruse the 22, 23. and so the following Sections of the latter part of this discourse, to the end of the 32 Section; as also the 40. 132. 157. 158. Sections, with several other passages hereof. Consectary. If Children were admitted unto Baptism in the days of Christ, and his Apostles, then can there no sufficient reason be given why water should be denied unto them in these days that they should not be baptised. CONSIDERATION XXVI. AS Circumcision was a Seal of the righteousness of Faith under the Law, so is Baptism a Seal of the same righteousness under the Gospel. Proof. That Circumcision was a Seal of the righteousness mentioned under the Law, and this simply and indefinitely, and not with any appropriation unto Abraham, or the righteousness of his faith only, is demonstratively proved in the latter part of this Treatise, Sect. 61, 62, 63. etc. That Baptism is a Seal of the same righteousness under the Gospel, cannot reasonably be denied: and is granted by the more considering persons of the adverse party. The Author of the Treatise entitled,▪ Of Baptism, having said, pag. 4. That the righteousness which Abraham had by Faith, the acceptation he had, was sealed up to him▪ by the sign of Circumcision, etc. immediately subjoineth, Now what Abraham had by Circumcision, that the Saints have by Baptism: for so the Apostle intimates, in Col. 2. 11. 12. Again (pag. 18.) speaking of Baptism, We shall find (saith he, beating it out as far as the Scripture gives light) that as it seals and confirms our union with him, so it also seals and confirms to us the most desirable thing in the world, which is the pardon of all our sins. Now we know that the remission or pardon of sin, and the righteousness of faith, are Termini convertibiles sive aequivalentes, words importing one and the same thing: And yet again the same Author and Book, pag. 20. Now for this God hath form an Ordinance on purpose to confirm and ratify unto us the remission of sins, and this is baptism: therefore be not amazed, but repent, and be baptised. The same Author delivereth the same Doctrine in the same discourse ten times over; yea, Master W. A. himself in his Treatise, styled some baptismal Abuses, etc. (as the Reader will find in the latter part of this Treatise) is not tender of breaking with his Tutor, (Mr. Fisher) in this point; although in the mean time he contradicts himself, as well as his Teacher herein. For if Baptism be a Seal of remission of sins, it cannot be required on man's part for the obtaining of remission of sins: it is not the property of a Seal to procure, unless it be the ratification and confirmation of what is already procured, or done. And indeed, Mr. Fisher's notion, which alloweth Baptism to be a Sign, but denieth it to be a Seal, is (upon the matter) contradictions to itself. For certainly God signifieth nothing, but what hath reality, and truth of being. If so, then by what means soever he signifieth a thing; he must needs seal, ratify, and confirm the being of it. But for the truth of the Consideration before us, were it not granted by our adversaries, (in which respect it needeth no proof) it might be clearly argued and evinced from that known Scripture Description of Baptism, wherein it is styled, The Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Consectary. If Circumcision under the Law, was a Seal of the righteousness of Faith [or, of the remission of sins,] and Baptism under the Gospel, be a seal likewise of the same righteousness, then must children under the Gospel needs be as capable subjects of the latter seal, (I mean, Baptism,) as they were of the former, (Circumcision) under the Law. CONSIDERATION XXVII. IT was a gracious privilege vouchsafed by God unto children under the Law, to be admitted members of that Church-body, which was most highly favoured, and respected by him, and amongst whom (besides many other most great and precious promises made unto them) he promised to dwell for ever. Proof. Neither should we need to levy any proof of this Consideration, if we had to do only with reasonable and considering men. For if it were not a gracious privilege unto children to be admitted members of such a body as that described, then was the Ordinance of God, enjoining men the Circumcising of their children, by which they became formal and complete members of this Body, either a kind of Idol Ordinance, which did neither good nor evil to those who received and enjoyed it; or else such an Ordinance, wherein or whereby God intended evil unto them. But as well the one, as the other of those conceits, are the abhoring of every Christian and considering Soul. Ergo, If it be said, that Circumcision might benefit children in some other way: though not by immembring them into the jewish Church? I Answer, 1. It is not easy to conceive in what other way it should benefit them. 2. What way soever may be thought upon, wherein it should profit them otherwise; Baptism must needs be conceived to be as profitable to them in the same. 3. (and last) it is very unreasonable and importune, and not worthy a sober man, to affirm or think, that children had no privilege or benefit, by being taken into communion and fellowship with that Church or people, to whom God bore, and shown from time to time, more and greater respects of Grace and love, then to any other people under Heaven; especially, considering that the Apostle having demanded thus, What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of Circumcision? returneth this answer to his question; much every ways, Rom▪ 3. 1. Consectary. If it were a privilege of Grace unto children under the Law, to be incorporated with the holy People, and Church of God then in being, then must it needs be a privilege of like Grace unto children under the Gospel, to be in like manner incorporated with Gospel Churches. And consequently such Parents, who are in a capacity of procuring this privilege, or blessing unto their children, by causing them to be baptised, and yet shall neglect or refuse to do it, must needs be looked upon as Parents of hard bowels, and un-Christianly injurious to their Children. And if God should interpose by any prohibition of his against children in this behalf, under the Gospel he also should be found by many degrees estranged in his care and affection from children, since the coming of his own Son Jesus Christ in the flesh, in comparison of his respects towards them under the Law; especially considering that under the Gospel, he hath not invested them with any other privilege of like Grace and favour, with that inchurching them under the Law: neither (indeed) are they investible with any like to it. CONSIDERATION, XXVIII. When the Jews through the just judgement of God, were for their Sins cast off from being a Church, or people any longer unto him, their children were involved in the rejection, as well as themselves (I mean, as well as their men and women, and those who were Parents) and had from henceforth no right to any Church Ordinance, unless (happily) it be unto Baptism, and this in such cases, and upon such terms only, as those specified. Part. 2. of this discourse. §. 171. Proof. This consideration also may well be numbered amongst those, which carry self-evidence enough in themselves, and need no labour of proof to commend their truth: and some of our Re-Baptizers themselves do acknowledge it: However, most certain it is, that circumcision, with the whole retinue of the Mosaical or Levitical Ordinances depending hereon (Gal. 5. 3.) is abolished by the death of Christ, and promulgation of the Gospel: in which respect, no person, whether Jew, or Gentile, whether Parents or children, are in any regular capacity of any of these. Therefore if the Jewish Children, under the rejection of their Nation, or Parents, be not in a capacity of Baptism, they are in no capacity of any Church Ordinance whatsoever. Consectary. If the Jewish children were, together with their Parents, dis-franchised, and deprived of their former rights and privileges, in respect of Church-membership, and Church-Ordinances, when their Parents were rejected by God, and their Church▪ state dissolved and abolished, then can it not reasonably, nor with any tolerable accord to the righteousness and goodness of God, be imagined, but that in case their Parents should repent and return unto God by Faith, & consequently be re-inchurched by him, they also (the children I mean) should partake of this Grace, and be together re-invested with them: and consequently hereunto, should by Baptism be members of the same Christian Churches (respectively) with them. Yea it is the judgement and sense of some of our Adversaries (and these not inconsiderable in their tribe) that when the Jews shall return by faith unto him, whom they have crucified, and embrace Christian Religion, they will expect, and demand Baptism for their children also. Now there is no reason to think, that the children of Jewish Believers, as such, should have any privilege in Church affairs, above the the children of Gentile Believers, who by faith are the children of Abraham, a well as they. If so, then are the children of these [believing Gentiles] regular subjects of the Ordinance of Baptism at the present. as the children of the other [the Jews] will be when their Parents shall believe. CONSIDERATION, XXIX. THe Jewish children were baptised into [or unto] Moses as well as their Parents, in the cloud, and in the Sea. Proof. This Assertion is the Apostles express Doctrine. Moreover, Brethren▪ I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our Fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the Sea. And were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud, and in the Sea, 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2. Now 1. That by all our Fathers, he means all the Jewish children at those times in being, whereof he speaks as well as their Parenrs, is evident. Because, those who were now children at the time of the Baptising here spoken of, were Fathers to the Jewish generation in Paul's time, as well as those who were then men, in as much as this generation descended from them, who were then children, as well as from their Parents. Besides, if the Jewish children now in being, were not Baptised into Moses, as well as their Parents, by the Cloud, and by the Sea, than were they no whit engaged to obey Moses in his conduct, or government over them during their passage through the wilderness, upon the account either of the miraculous protection, or direction of the cloud here spoken of, or of their miraculous deliverance through the red Sea, both being vouchsafed by God unto them under Moses his conduct for the confirmation of it unto them, as being from himself (I mean from God.) But this I presume is no man's thought, therefore the children of the Jews, as well as their Parents, are affirmed by Paul to have been baptised into Moses by the means specified. Consectary. If all the Jewish children were baptised into Moses, by the cloud and by the Sea, then may all Christian children be by water baptised into Christ. There can be nothing considerable objected against this consequence. For 1. Moses was a typical Christ, and his conduct or leading of the people unto Canaan, was a typical leading of men to Heaven. 2. The children of Christians are altogether as capable of being baptised by water, into the true Moses [I mean Christ] as the children of the Jews were of being baptised by the cloud, and by the Sea, into their typical Christ [I mean Moses] nor can any material difference be showed between the one case, and the other. If it be objected, that the Jewish children are metaphorically only, and improperly said to have been baptised into Moses, when as the baptising into Christ is literal and proper; I answer let this difference be admitted, yet it no ways disableth the consequence in hand. For what can there be required to give a capacity of a literal or proper baptism, more than is required to give a like capacity of a metaphorical, typical, or mystical baptism? Nay, in reason more should be required to qualify for this, then for the other. For things literally and properly such, are more readily apprehended and conceived, than things figuratively and mystically a M. Baxter affirmeth & proveth this kind of baptising to be no Ordinance of God, but an heinous sin; yea and flat murder and no better, and upon this account judgeth that the Civil Magistrate ought to restrain it, as being destructive to the lives ●f▪ their people: See this, and much more t● like purpose, p. 134. 135. 136. in his Plain Scripture Proof for Infants Church-membership. etc. such. Therefore if children were capable of a metaphorical or typical baptism, much more are they capable of that which is literal and proper. So that the Scripture now argued, is on the behalf of Infant-Baptisme, like Solomon's King upon his Throne, against whom there is no rising up. CONSIDERATION. XXX. THe ceremony or door of entrance or admission into the Christian Church, is less grievous or offensive to the flesh, and more accommodate to the weakness and tenderness of children, than the ceremony of like import was under the Law. Proof. The Proof, or evidence rather, of this Consideration, is near at hand. For the entrance into the Jewish Church under the Law, was by blood; which occasioned Zipporah to tell Moses, that he was an Husband of blood to her. Then she said, A bloody Husband thou art, because of the Circumcision [which, it seems, she was necessitated to administer unto her child, to save her Husband's life,] Exod. 4. 26. Whereas the ceremonial entrance into the Christian Church is by water, and the washing of the flesh herewith. Indeed as some form, and obtrude this Ceremony upon the consciences of men, the entrance into the Christian Church is made more bloody in many cases, I mean, more prejudicial unto health, and more threatening life, then that under the Law. For though Circumcision was smarting and painful, yet it made no breach upon the health, nor endangered the life of any that came under it. Whereas Bptizing in Rivers by plunging or dipping the whole body under water, in cold climates and seasons, must needs threaten not the healths only; but the lives also of many infirm and tender constitutions ●. Yea I am all thoughts made, that upon the account of this kind of Baptising, many amongst us at this day are sick and weak, and many also have fallen asleep. Several instances of persons who have suffered in these kinds, have been reported unto me, and this upon terms sufficient to secure the truth of the reports. Consectary. If God admitted Infants into his Church, when the entrance hereunto was more grievous, and not without blood, it is very unreasonable to conceive that he should now exclude them, having made the entrance hereinto more accommodations unto them and much better comporting with their weakness. CONSIDERATION, XXXI. IT cannot be proved from the Scriptures, that the Baptism of any child born of Christian Parents, or Believers, was deferred to adultness, or years of discretion: much less can it be prov●d that the Baptism of all such children was thus deferred. Proof. If that which in this Consideration is implicitly denied (the deferring of Baptism to the persons specified▪ can, or could be proved from the Scriptures, the proof must be, either first, by some example of an Infant, one or more, of the relation mentioned, who was not baptised until man's estate. But evident it is that no such proof as this can be found in the Scriptures. Or else 2. the said proof must be made, by producing some prohibition of Divine Authority, by which Believing Parents are restrained, from desiring Baptism for their children, until maturity of years. But as certain it is that no proof in this kind neither, can be found in the Scriptures. Or 3. and lastly, the proof we speak of must be made by producing some reason, or ground otherwise, from the Scriptures, by which the necessity of such a Dilation is substantially evinced. But neither do the Scriptures afford any proof of the point in question, in this kind, as our Adversaries themselves, upon the matter, as far as I understand, do confess, in that they never yet produced any. If it be objected and said; though there be no particular or special prohibition in the Scriptures restraining Christians from desiring Baptism for their children, whilst they are yet children, yet are their prohibitions in general laid as well upon them, as others, to restrain them from will-worship, and so from using the Holy things of God, in any manner not directed or prescribed by himself: and consequently, to restrain Believing Parents from offering their children, whilst such, unto Baptism, in as much as Infant-Baptisme is will-worship, or an act or kind of worship not prescribed by him? to this I answer. That every usage of the Holy things of God, after a manner not particularly prescribed by him, is not will-worship. To read a Chapter, two or three daily, is no will-worship; yet is it an using of the Holy Scriptures, nor particularly prescribed by God. To give the Holy things of God in the Administration of the Supper unto women, is an usage of these Holy things not particularly directed or prescribed by God himself, yet it is far from Will-worship. To pray about a quarter, or half, or an whole hour every day, is an usage of the Holy Ordnance of prayer not particularly prescribed by God, yet is it not Will-worship: many instances in this kind might be added. Therefore neither is the Baptising of Infants any strain of Will-worship upon any such account as this, viz. because it is an usage of an Ordinance not particularly prescribed by God. 2. Will-worship properly consists in this, when men exhibit or perform that in the name of worship, or for worship, unto God, which he hath not prescribed as any part of his worship. As they who conceit they worship God by being baptised men and women, having formerly been baptised infants, do most properly commit the sin of Will-worship, because it is certain that God hath not prescribed any such things, especially not in the nature of worship. Yea it is a kind of Will-worship, if Parents-place worship in offering their children unto Baptism, because God doth not require this of them in the nature of worship, but of obedience and duty otherwise. All duty is not worship: neither is every act not warrantable by the Scriptures, though supposed such, an act of Will-worship. 3. (And last) it hath been proved by many arguments and grounds, both in this discourse and in several others by other men, that the mind and will of God is, that Christian Parents should devote and consecrate their children by water, unto his service, upon the first opportunity from the beginning of their days. Which arguments and grounds, have (it may be) some of them, been replied unto, instead of answered, or had something said to them, which emphatically considered amounts to nothing: and others of them may (probably) in time, be triumphed over in the same kind. However, evident it is in the mean time, that no Christian Parent is restrained, by any prohibition in the Scriptures, whether general or special, against will Worship, from desiring Baptism for his infant, whilst such. Consectary. If it cannot be proved from the Scriptures that the child of any believing Parent remained, or was kept unbaptised, until years of discretion, then do such Believing Parents who thus practise in these days, herein act besides, and without, Scripture warrant or example. CONSIDERATION. XXXII. JNfant-Church-membership, was no Levitical, or legal Ceremony, nor was it ever repealed, or abolished by Christ. Proof. The former part of this consideration is unquestionable, That Infants were Members of the Church of the Jews, is given in by our Adversaries with both hands: otherwise it is ready of proof, and hath been substantially proved by others. a M. Baxter Plain Scripture Proof, etc. pag. 26. 27, etc. That it was no Levitical ceremony, at lest no more a ceremony in this kind, than the membership of men and women in this Church was, is too evident to be denied, but only in the case of despair. For what Communion was there between Infant-church-membership, and a Levitical ceremony, more than between such a ceremony as this, and the Church-membership of men? Or was there some mystical or spiritual thing signified by the former, and none signified by the latter? Or was the former appointed, or ordained by God amongst the Levitical observations, or rites, more than the latter? Or was the former Church-member-ship some part of the worship or service of God, and the latter none? Doubtless none of these things can be affirmed, but with a brow, either of Lead, or Brass. If then the Church-membership of Infants was no Levitical, no legal ceremony, by whom shall we judge it hath been abolished? We cannot either with reason, or with truth, judge it to be abolished by Christ, since it was no part of the hand-writing of Ordinances that was against us, and contrary to us; which is that, which he took out of the way nailing it to his Cross, Col. 2. 14 If it hath not been abolished by Christ, it must needs be Satan who so furiously attempteth the abolition of it. Would the Lord Christ have taken little children up into his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them, if his heart had been set within him to cast them out of his Church? Imposition of hands is no ceremony of excommunication, or casting out of the Church: nay it is practised at this day by many Anabaptists in their Churches, as a ceremony of receiving into the Church. To say that the whole policy and frame of the Jewish Church is now dissolved and taken away, and so Infant-Church-membership is ceased with it, is to say somewhat, but nothing to the purpose. For by this reason, as well men-Church-membership, as Infant-Church-membership, should be ceased, in as much as both were alike dissolved and taken away in the desolation of the Jewish Church and Nation. Secondly the dissolution or taking away of the policy or frame of a particular Church, in a way of judgement or punishment for sin (which was, and is, the case of the desolation of the Jewish Church, and Nation) proveth not that the species or kind of policy, according to which this Church was constituted and framed, is hereby declared unlawful, either to be introduced, or continued, by other Churches. For by this reason it should not be lawful for Christian Churches in these days, to admit of that Church-constitution and frame, according to which the seven Churches of Asia were constituted, these, with their Church constitution, being long since ruined and laid waist. If it be here replied; But the Jewish Church-constitution, should, and would, have been dissolved by Christ, and quite abolished out of the world, although the Members of this Church had not provoked God by sin, either to dissolve it, or to destroy their Nation; and consequently no part or piece of this constitution ought to be admitted or entertained under the Gospel, upon the account of the former establishment of it under the Law, I answer; 1. By concession, That that which was Mosaical, and so additional and accidental, in the constitution and frame of this Church, would (doubtless) have been abolished, and taken away by Christ, whether the Nation had provoked him to its own ruin and destruction, or no. But 2. By way of exception, I answer further that the Jews were a Church not only before the days of Moses, and before the setting up of the Levitical Priesthood among them, but even before Circumcision itself; and consequently were under some Church-constitution, or other: Now it cannot be proved, nor is it in itself probable in the least, that Christ by his coming did abolish this original constitution or frame of the Jewish Church, in any part or branch of it. Somewhat (indeed) of this fundamental Constitution was, for the ease and benefit of the Church, altered by God, when the Mosaical and Levitical additions were made to it, according to what we find, Numb. 3, 12. And I, behold I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel, instead of all the first born that openeth the Matrice among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine. Under the first constitution of the Church we speak of, the first born male in every family executed the Office of Priest (as Mr. Ainsworth gathereth from, and noteth on, Exod. 24. 5.) This in the superadditions of the Mosaical Oeconomy was altered; the first born in all the other tribes being discharged from this service, and an entire tribe (viz. that of Levi) substituted in their stead. But whatsoever of that primitive constitution of the Jewish Church, was not changed by the Ministry or Law of Moses, neither have we any competent ground to judge that it was changed, or taken away by Christ. Now then Infant-Church-membership being a special branch of the fundamental constitution of the Church of the Jews, and not being altered or changed by Moses, nor having any thing typical or significative in it, but constantly practised under him, and during his Oeconomy, it is a groundless conceit to think it was changed by Christ. No marvel if circumcision were changed and taken away by him, considering that it was a superadded ceremony to that original constitution mentioned, and so of the same nature and consideration with the Mosaical Rites and Ordinances. 3. And lastly, suppose the Nation of the Jews had not provoked God by their unbelief, and rejection of the Messiah, but had received him, and believed on him, as a remnant did, though their Mosaical Church-constitution should have been dissolved, and had ceased, yet they should have passed from under this constitution, into that which is now ordained for Christian Churches. And what? is it so much as tolerable to imagine, that coming hither, they should have left their children behind them? especially considering that they had enjoyed this great consolatory privilege of having their children fellow-members with them, in the Church of God, even from before the days of their Father Abraham. And if they had been informed, or had apprehended, that in case they should believe, themselves (indeed) should be numbered amongst the people of God, and be received as members into his Church, but they must expect no such thing for their children, these must remain in the condition of aliens and strangers, notwithstanding their (the Parents) believing, would not this have been a sore stumbling block in their way, and grand dissuasive and discouragement unto them from believing; especially considering (as was formerly observed from Act. 21. 21.) how mightily the hearts, even of those, who had begun to believe, was set upon the circumcising of their children, and how highly they were offended upon an information, that Paul taught the Jews, who were among the Gentiles, not to circumcise their children? If it were so great a grievance and offence to the believing Jews, that circumcision should be denied unto their children, how irreconcilable may we reasonably think, the spirits of the rest of them must needs have been with Christian Religion, in case they had understood that according to the principles hereof, their children must neither be circumcised, no nor yet baptised; nor have any Character or badge of any relation unto God, more than the children of Heathen Idolaters, or of those Nations that knew not God. That we hear of no murmuring or complaining in all the Scriptures of the New Testament, from any Jew against Christians, or their Religion, about the non-baptizing of their children, whereas we do hear of complaint made by them, for their opposing the circumcising of their children, it is an argument to me of a like unquestionable proof, that children in the times of the New Testament were as ordinarily baptised, as they were kept from being circumcised. Consectary. If Infant-Church-membership was no Levitical ceremony, nor repealed or abolished by Christ, then is it presumption in men, yea and would be in Angels, to attempt the abolishing of it. What God hath sanctified, that call not thou common, was an Item given unto Peter by an Oracle from Heaven, Act. 10. 15. CONSIDERATION, XXXIII. BY the best and most Authentic Records of Antiquity, it appeareth that Infant-Baptisme was practised in the Christian Church, by those, who lived and conversed, if not with the Apostles themselves, yet with their Disciples, and familiar acquaintance. Proof. The truth of this Consideration hath been so lately, and so substantially proved by others, and this in our own language, that I shall only need to refer the Reader, desirous of satisfaction therein, to these writings; which I do §. 26. 27. of the latter part of this discourse. Consectary. If Infant-Baptisme was practised by Christians, who either conversed with the Apostles themselves, or with their Disciples and familiar friends, than 1. It cannot be reasonably imagined, but that it was practised by the Apostles themselves also, inasmuch as 1. Their disciples could not be ignorant what their practice was about Baptism. Nor 2. Is it in any degree probable, but that had they seen, or known, any practice, which had been Anti-Apostolical, rising up, or beginning to be set on foot, (especially of so high a nature as that in question) amongst their Christian friends, they would have dissuaded and deterred them from it. 2. It follows from the same consideration, that they do very unworthily and un-Christianly, who seek to delude simple ignorant people, who are not able to confute them, by telling them that the Baptising of children is the Pope's commandment, and that Pope Innocent, by his Decree first brought it into the Christian world; whereas it is evident by substantial record, that Infant-Baptisme was practised in the Church some hundreds of years before he was born. See more of this §. 32. of the 2d. Part of this discourse. CONSIDERATION. XXXIV. THe word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to baptise, frequently signifieth any kind The fourth Head of Considerations concerning the rite of dipping in Baptism, proving the nonnecessity, and in some cases the nonlawfulnesse of it. of washing, rinsing, or cleansing, even where there is no dipping at all. Proof. For the proof of this I desire to refer the Reader to Mr. Edward Leigh his Critica Sacra, in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; where he proveth it, by a numerous quotation of Texts of Scripture; and withal affirmeth, that Hesychius, Stephanus, Scapula, and Budeus, the great Masters of the Greek tongue, make it good by very many instances and allegations out of Classic Authors, that the said word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth no more, than ablution, or washing. Consectary. If the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to baptise, ordinarily signifieth any kind of washing or cleansing, even where not dipping is, then can there no argument of value be built upon the signification of this word to prove the necessity of a Baptismal dipping. Yea it follows that the Baptismal Administration may be regularly made by any kind of washing. CONSIDERATION. XXXV. WHen the Holy Ghost in the New Testament, hath ●ccasion to signify or express the act of dipping, he never useth the frequentative, or derivative Verb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but always, the primitive, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: as on the contrary, whensoever he hath occasion to specify the Sacramental act of Baptism, he never useth the primitive word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifieth, to dip, but constantly the frequentative, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Proof. The truth of the former part of this Consideration is evident from these three places, Luk. 16. 24. Joh. 13. 26. Rev. 19 13. to which we may add, Mat. 26. 23. where the compound, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is found. The act of dipping is not any where in the new Testament mentioned, but in these four places only; and in all these it is expressed (as hath been said) by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, never by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Original may readily be consulted. The truth of the latter part of the Consideration, is evident by an induction of all those Texts or places in the new Testament, where the Sacramental act of baptising is spoken of, which in none of these places is expressed by the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signify (as was even now noted) the one to dip, the other, a dipping, but still by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which when the Holy Ghost expresseth common actions by them, never signify to dip, or dipping, but to wash or washing, constantly; witness these places, Mar. 7. 4. 8. Luk. 11. 38. He●. 9 10. which I suppose are all the places in the new Testament, where the said words, or any of them, are used to signify common actions. For brevity's sake, I omit so much as to point at the Texts, wherein the Sacramental act of baptising is mentioned, because they are many, and withal obvious to be found by the guidance of a concordance. Consectary. If the Sacramental act of baptising be never in Scripture expressed by a word, which properly signifieth dipping, but constantly by a word, or words, which in common acception, and when applied by the Scripture itself unto other acts, signify washing (indefinitely) then have we no ground to believe that the Sacramental transaction of baptising, essentially consists in dipping, or plunging the whole body under water; considering 1. That the term or word, whereby this transaction is held forth by God in the Scripture, doth not properly, at least not determinately, import or signify, dipping or plunging. 2. That no other thing relating to this transaction, mentioned in the Scripture, doth enforce us to such a notion or conception of it (as will be showed ere long.) CONSIDERATION. XXXVI. THe administration of waterbaptism is frequently in Scripture expressed by a baptising with water, seldom or not at all by a baptising INTO water. Proof. Luk. 3. 16. John answered, saying unto them all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. I indeed baptise you WITH water. Act. 11. 16. But I remember the Word of the Lord, how he said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. John indeed baptised WITH water: but you shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost. And in all those places where baptism is said to be administered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Mat. 3. 11. Mar. 1. 8. Joh. 1. 26. 31. 33. the proposition▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth, with, and is accordingly so translated in all these places, and is of like signification in many others, and must be so rendered likewise. As for that expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Mar. 1. 9) 1. The Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is (as is else where observed) frequently put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he dwelled IN a City called Nazareth. Mar. 2. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and it was noised that he was IN the house. Mar. 2. 1. (to omit many others.) 2. If we make any difference between baptising, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we must of necessity grant, that there were several ways or manners of baptising. For it is expressly said (Mar. 1. 5.) that all the people that came unto John, were baptised of him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the River Jordan. Therefore, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are but the same. Consectary. If Baptism may be truly and properly said to be administered, or performed WITH water, then may it truly and properly be administered, or performed, without dipping, or plunging, as viz. by washing, or any application of water to the body of the baptised: Yea it is altogether uncouth and improper, to say that a man is dipped, or, is to be diped, or plunged WITH water; and so to make John say, I indeed baptise you with water, if by baptising, be meant, dipping or plunging. CONSIDERATION. XXXVII. THe Sacramental Act of baptising, cannot be commodiously, for the understandings of men signified or expressed, by the verb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if it be supposed that it properly signifieth to dip. Proof. The reason of the truth of this Consideration is, because dipping, if this be requisite in Baptism (as it must be, at least ordinarily, and where the Law of mercy doth not interpose, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, properly signifieth to dip) doth express but the one half of the Sacramental transaction of Baptism, For he that only dippeth a person, man or woman, in the water, can hereby perform but one part, or the one half of the Sacramental act or transaction of Baptism; because this transaction is not finished or completed, until he who hath dipped, hath again undipped, or raised & lifted the person diped out of the water. Now it being certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth not signify to undip, or heave out of the water, it is in no degree probable that the Holy Ghost should express that Sacramental transaction, which we call by the name of Baptism, by this word, in case it be supposed, that un-dipping, or lifting out of the water, be a part of it, and this as material and necessary, and significant as dipping itself is; which I presume is the sense of those, who are baptised into the conceit, of a necessity of water-dipping. Consectary. If the Sacramental transaction of Baptism, cannot be commodiously, nor with any tolerable conveniency of import, signified or expressed, by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in case it be supposed that it properly signifieth to dip, then cannot this be the proper signification of it, or at least it cannot be the signification of it, when this transaction is expressed by it. For it is in no wise to be believed, that the Holy Ghost, should give a lame or defective appellation, to so great an Ordinance or institution, as Baptism is, or such a name, which should signify or import but the one half of it. CONSIDERATION, XXXVIII. NO part of the Baptismal Administration, or transaction, aught to be performed, or can be performed regularly by the person himself, who is Baptised, but he is to be passive under the hand of the Baptist, and the Baptist only to act in the service. Proof. All the Baptismal Administrations mentioned and recorded in the Scriptures, are here represented unto us as managed and performed upon these terms: nor is it any where to be found, where any party baptised, baptised himself, either in part, or in whole, but only that they came to be baptised, desired, and submitted unto Baptism. Consectary. If no part of the Baptismal Administration can regularly be performed by the party himself, who is to be baptised, but the whole business of the Administration is to be the work, or act, of the Baptizer only; then cannot dipping, or plunging the body all over in water, be the regular form or manner of this Administration. The reason is, because he that is baptismally dipped, dippeth a good part of his body himself by going into the water, and by standing▪ there up to the knees, middle, or neck, before the Baptist layeth hand on him. So that that which the Baptist dippeth of his body, is only a part of it, and this (ordinarily, I suppose) but a small part neither. He that properly dippeth, must of necessity hold some part of that which is dipped in his hand, or with some instrument in his hand. Therefore he that is baptised by dipping, cannot be reasonably thought to be regularly baptised, unless he be with clean strength heaved and lifted up into the air by the Baptist, and so gently let down into the water, the hand of the Baptizer not taken off from him all the while. CONSIDERATION, XXXIX. THe water wherein, or wherewith the Eunuch was baptised by Philip, Act. 8. 36. was not so deep, as wherein he could be dipped or plunged all over. Proof. Hierome, who lived several years at Jerusalem (than it seems called Aelia) and was well acquainted with the country of Judea and parts round about, and accordingly wrote a book entitled, De Locis Hebraicis, in this Book reporteth, that in the Tribe of Juda, about twenty miles from Jerusalem in the Road towards Hebron, there is a village or Town called Bethsoron: near unto which there is a Mountain, at the bottom or foot whereof, there is a certain spring or Fountain, where the Acts of the Apostles relate that the Eunuch of Queen Candace was baptised by Philip. a Et est hodie Bethsoron vicus euntibus nobis ab Aeliâ Chebron vicesimo lapide, juxta quem fons ad radicis montis ebulliens, ab eadem in qua gignitur, sorbetur humo. Et Apostolorum acta referunt Eunnchum Candacis Reginae in hoc baptizatum â Philippo. Eusebius before him had affirmed the same, and Bed● some hundreds of years after him reporteth the said village then remaining; consenting with the two former touching the baptising of the Eunuch in the said spring, or Fountain. Our Country man Mr. Sandys, who travailed through these places, mentioneth his passage by Bethzur, being in the upper way between Jerusalem and Gaza. Where (saith he) we saw the ruins of an ample Church: below that, a Fountain, not unbeholding to art, whose pleasant Waters are forthwith drunk up by the earth that produced them. Here th●y say that Philip baptised the Eunuch, whereupon it retaineth the name of the Ethiopian Fountain. And no question but that th● adjoining Temple was erected out of devotion to the honour of the place, and memory of the fact. b Sandys Travails, lib 3. p. 142. The Holy Ghost himself seems to point out the inconsiderableness of that Fountain, or water, after which we are now enquiring. And as they went on their way (saith he, speaking of Philip and the Eunuch travelling together) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. They came unto ASCERTAIN WATER, or (as our English Dialect would best express it) unto a kind of water. (Act. 8. 36.) The description or expression here used, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imports the water spoken of, not to have been any river, much less any deep River, nor other water known by any name, but some small spring, or fountain only. Consectary. If the water wherein the Eunuch was baptised. (Act. 8. 36.) was so small and shallow, that he could not be dipped over head and ears in it, it undeniably follows that then such dipping is of no necessity in, or to, a regular baptising. CONSIDERATION XL. Baptising with water, and baptising with the Holy Ghost, are expressed by one and the same Preposition in the Scripture. Proof. Mark 1. 8. John, speaking of the difference between his Baptism, or rather of that administration of Baptism, which he exercised, and the administration of that Baptism, which is po●ropriate unto Christ, expresseth himself thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. I indeed have baptised you WITH water; but he shall baptise you WITH the Holy Ghost. See also Mat. 3. 11. John. 1. 33, were we find both Baptisms in like manner expressed a Tit. 3. 56. God is said to save us by the washing of the new birth, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which is said to be poured out upon us; following the resemblance of water poured in the washing of Baptism. Nor can that phrase rationally admit another construction Act. 1. 5. when our Saviour promiseth h●s Disciples they should be baptised with the Holy Ghost not many days after, as John baptised with water. As they were baptised by the Spirit, so they were baptised with water: for so the proportian requires. And therefore it is an utter mistake to think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies the dipping into the water, when the Preposition [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as most frequently with the Hebrews, and generally amongst the Grammarians, notes only the cause or instrument, etc. Mr. ●h: Hooker Survey of sum of Church Discipline. Part 3. c. 2. p. 31. . Consectary. If both Baptisms, the one with water, the other with the Holy Ghost, be expressible, by one and the same Preposition, which importeth one and the same manner of their respective transactions, then is that Baptism which is with water, performable, as well (or rather) by pouring water on the baptised, as by dipping into the water; considering▪ that they who are baptised with the Holy Ghost, are not where said to be dipped, or plunged into the Holy Ghost, but to have the Holy Ghost poured on them. Act. 2. 17. 18. Act. 10. 45. CONSIDERATION XLI. TO pour water upon the body, or flesh of the person baptised, carrieth in it a more significant resemblance of the act of burying, than a dipping into water doth. Proof. Mr. Thomas Hooker, appeals unto the judgement of sense itself, whether this Consideration be not a truth. The applying (saith he) and casting the water upon the body, best resembles the nature of burial, as sense will suggest: the dipping of the body into the dust, doth no way so lively resemble burial, as the casting dust and mould upon it a Survey of the sum of Church discipline Part. 3. c. 2. p. 32. . And the evident truth is, that the thrusting, or putting, of the body, under or into the Earth, as (suppose) into the dust, or, into a grave, hath little or nothing of the nature or property of a burial in it, in comparison of a casting earth upon it. A corpse is not properly buried by being put into a grave, but by having Earth cast upon it, whether it be put into a grave, or not. Burial doth not consist in an application of the body to the Earth, as in an application of Earth unto the body. Consectary. If the pouring of water upon the body of the person to be baptised, carrieth in it a more significant resemblance of the act of burying, than the dipping it into water doth, then is that baptismal administration, which is made by dipping, less representative of a believers being spiritually buried with Christ, then that which is performed by pouring, or casting water upon it. CONSIDERATION, XLII. THe nature of Baptism, and the Administration hereof answers, or represents, the gracious Act, or work, of Christ, in his application of himself unto us. Proof. It is acknowledged on all hands (at least virtually and consequentially, if not formally and expressly) that the great end of Baptism, and of the administration of it, is to confirm and seal the Covenant of grace by Christ. For he that granteth, that Baptism, signifieth the death of Christ, and so the Covenant in his blood, and yet denyeth that it s●aleth this death, or Covenant, speaketh contradictions. For God cannot signify any thing unto me or any man, but what hath reality and truth of being: and therefore his very signifying of a thing unto me, is in the proper tendency or import of it, a confirmation or seal of the reality, truth, and certainty hereof. Now if the nature and end of Baptism be to seal and confirm unto men the Covenant of grace by Christ, it must needs be conceived to answer, signify or point out the gracious Act or Work of Christ in applying himself unto them. And look upon what terms, how, or after what manner, this Covenant and the Grace in it, is communicated or imparted unto us, it is reasonable to conceive, that it is sealed or confirmed unto us accordingly. Consectary. If the nature of Baptism, and the Administration thereof, answers and represents the gracious Act of Christ in applying himself unto us, than ought water, by which Christ with his washing, cleansing and purging grace, is represented, be first applied unto the body, or person of the baptised, and not this to it; in as much as Christ first comes in his promise and grace unto the soul, and not the soul unto him. So that such an administration of Baptism, wherein the water is first applied unto the body, as it is in sprinkling, or pouring water on the baptised, is much more agreeable to the nature and import of it, then that wherein the body is first applied unto the water; which is done by dipping. CONSIDERATION XLIII. NO kind of washing, if we speak properly, is performed or made only by the application of the thing to be washed, unto the water, but by the application of water unto it. Proof. A man is not said to wash his hands when he only dipeth or putteth them into the water, but when he applieth water to the one hand with the other, until the soil be dissolved, whether he plungeth them into the water, or no. The spiritual washing, as well from the guilt, as from the defilement, of sin, is not accomplished or made by the application of the heart or soul unto Christ, or his blood, but by the applying of Christ, and his blood, unto these, Let us (saith the Apostle) 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. Heb. 10. 22. The sprinkling of the book and the people, mentioned, c. 9 v. 19 and so the sprinkling of the Tabernacle, and all the vessels of the Ministry. v. 21. was not effected by any application of the Book, People, Tabernacle, or vessels, unto the blood wherewith they were sprinkled, but by the application of the blood unto them, by way of sprinkling. Semblably when the heart is sprinkled from an evil conscience. [i. e. is washed, or cleansed, from the guilt, or slain, of sin] this is not to be conceived as done, by applying the heart unto the blood of Christ, but on the contrary by an application of this blood unto it. And (to note this by the way) some conceive (and this not improbably) that the sprinkling with blood under the Law, did typically prefigure, or correspond with, the Baptismal sprinkling with water under the New Testament. Consectary. If no kind of washing, properly so called, be performed only by the application of the thing or person unto the water, but of the water, unto these, then is that administration of Baptism, which is made by dipping only, Heterodox and unproper, there being no washing of the body, in or by such an administration. CONSIDERATION. XLIV. Dipping naked, and without garments, especially of women, by, or amongst men, is not only un-Christian, but uncivil also, and repugnant to the Law of nature. Again, Dipping with garments is repugnant to the Law of Health and Self-preservation. Proof. Nature itself teacheth us the truth of the former part of the Consideration: and that it is a far greater shame for women Tum quoque cum caderet partes velare tegendas. Cura fuit, castique decu● servare pudoris. Ovid. Met. to be seen of men, naked, than it is to be shorn, or shaved. Reason and frequent experience teach in like manner, the truth of the latter part. To persons of weak, sickly, and tender constitutions, to be dowzed in cold water, must needs be as the shadow of death unto them: how much more when the coldness of the water shall for a time be (as it were) close bound unto their bodies, by their full of water. How many are there, who cannot so much as put their hands into cold water, or touch a wet▪ linen cloth, without certain prejudice to their health? And however Baptists of the new order abominate the saying, as the Jews did the imputation of murder charged upon them by the Lord Christ, yet it may truly, at least beyond all reasonable contradiction be said, that unto many, their burying under water, hath hastened their burial also under earth. Instances not a few, may be given of persons, who in all probability, laid the foundation of their approaching death in the waters of a Baptismal dipping, and of many more, who sew the seeds of many after sicknesses, weaknesses, and distempers, as of coughs, Catarrhs, Squinancies, Appoplexies, Consumptions, etc. in the same waters. Nor is it pertinent here to allege, that some upon their Baptismal dipping, have not only been ●ree, but freed from bodily maladies, etc. For, 1. The common saying is true: That which is one man Physic, may be another man's bane, or poison. I easily believe, that as the constitution and condition of the body may be, going into, and under, water, may be a natural and proper means to cure some infirmities thereof. But this proveth not but that the same course, or means may be threatening, yea destructive to the healths and lives of others. So that in respect of this different habitude of dipping, in reference to bodies of different tempers and constitutions, it is every whit as necessary to consult the Physician, as the Minister or Divine, about the receiving it. But whatever bodily cures may be wrought (or rather be conceited to be wrought) by Baptismal dippings, certain I am that Baptism was and is,— non hos quaesitum munus in usus, never intended by the great Founder and Father of it, God, to work the work either of Chirurgeon, or Physician. Therefore 2. The fancy, or imaginative faculty in many (I might say in most) of those, who are now upon the brink of the Baptismal waters, and ready to be cast into them, being extraordinarily affected, raised, and provoked, in case some sensible alteration in the state and condition of the body, whether for the better, or the worse, follow hereupon, it is no more than what is ordinarily seen, and felt by men & women upon a like occasion; I mean, some high acting or working the imagination. 3. (And last) the practice of Baptismal dipping, being (as was formerly argued and proved) especially after Infant-Baptism, superstitious, and will-worship, it is not otherwise like, but that He, who labours to uphold and cherish all the superstition in the world, will stretch out his arm to the full length of it, and do his best, to cause signs, and wonders, bodily cures, and other strange effects, to be wrought by it, or accompany it, or however to be ascribed unto it. Consectary. If dipping naked, and without garments, and again, dipping clothed, and with garments, be both repugnant to the Law of nature (in the cases and respects specified) then dipping cannot be the regular or right manner of the Baptismal Administration. The reason is, because God hath not subjected the Law of nature, to the Law of any ●eremony or institution whatsoever, but on the contrary, hath subjected the respective laws of all ceremonies and institutions unto this, a See §. 8. of the sec●nd part of ●h● discourse and Wat●r-dipping p. 5, 6, 7 CONSIDERATION. XLV. ●T was the manner and practice of Heathen Nations, and Pagan Idolaters, before Christ's time, to dip, or wash all over the bodi●s of those, who desired to be initiated into the superstitious and Idolatrous services of their Idol●●ods. Proof. The truth of this Assertion, is asserted by several Authors as well of the Pagan, as Christian persuasion. They who desire a more particular information hereof, may please to consult the Commentaries of Hugo Grotius, upon these words Mat. 28. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Baptising them: where having himself first affirmed, that the custom we speak of was practised among the Jews, when any person turned from the worship of false Gods, unto the true; and again, that it was used among profane Nations likewise of old, b S 〈…〉 Ostendi●●us apud Judaeos moris ●isse, ut Bapti●●ren●u● q●i se à falsorum Deorum cultu, ad cultum unius D●i convertebant Sed apud Gentes etiam prophan●s usurpatum antiquitùs fuit, ut qui i●itiari vell●nt, toto corpore prius ablue●entur, etc. he subjoins the testimony of sundry Authors, for the confirmation of this latter. Consectary. If Dipping, Religion-wise, was by the Jews practised upon their own account, and without direction, and command from God, and much more if it were practised by Pagan Idolaters, and those who worshipped the Devil, and this before Baptism was practised among Christians, then is it at no hand probable that God should prescribe, or enjoin the same practice unto those that▪ should worship him, and believe in his Son Jesus Christ. The reason of this consequence is, because God hath never been wont to learn of men, much less of Satan, or his followers, how to be worshipped himself, or what services to prescribe unto his worshippers. It hath indeed been observed long since, that the Devil is God's Ape, and borroweth many things from him, for the regulating, adorning, and completing of his own worship: but it never entered (I suppose) into any Christian man's heart to think that God should borrow any rite or ceremony from Satan, wherewith to accomplish his worship. Yea we read in the Law, that God expressly forbade his people the use of several rites and practices, used by Idolaters, and this for this very reason, because they were used by them. L●vit. 18. 3. Deut. 12. 30, 31. Deut. 18. 14. Herewith compare, Mat. 6. 31. 32. CONSIDERATION. XLVI. IT cannot be proved from the Scriptures, that any Baptismal Administration recorded there, was performed by dipping: but it is exceeding probable that many of these Administrations were performed without it. Proof. Concerning the first part of this consideration; I freely acknowledge that it is the sense and opinion of many learned men, both of ancient and modern times, that in Christ's and the Apostles days, the Administration we speak of was ordinarily in Judea, and the hot country's neighbouring thereunto, performed by dipping the whole body under water: Yet I am all thoughts made, that whatever ground they have or may have otherwise for this opinion, they have nothing demonstrative or firmly concluding from the Scriptures to evince it. That those metaphorical expressions of the Apostle, Buried with him by Baptism, Rom. 6. 4. Col. 2. 12. amount to no such proof, hath in two of our preceding Considerations been argued. That neither of these expressions about the baptising of the Eunuch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, translated, they went down both INTO the Water, And when they were come up OUT of the Water, Act. 8. 38, 39 prove the Eunuch to have been dipped under water in his baptising, hath been in part, if not sufficiently proved already, where by the testimony of more than two competent witnesses, as likewise by Scripture insinuation itself, we found the water, wherein he was baptised, to have been too shallow, to entertain him upon such terms. But besides, when it is said, they both went down, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth not always, or necessarily in this place, signify into, but sometimes unto; which signification is as proper here as the other: so that the clause may be rendered, and they both went down, to, or UNTO the water, i.e. to the waters side. The preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, oft signifieth to, or unto, and is accordingly translated. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. i. e. I am not sent but TO [or UNTO] the sheep, etc. Mat. 15. 24. So, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, UNTO himself. Colos. 1. 20. So also, That you may be filled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with, [or rather, unto, as Beza rendereth it] a impleamini A D omnem usque plenitudinem illam Dei. all the fullness of God, Eph. 3. 19 Again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They went unto Lydia, as Beza again translateth. b Introierunt A D Lydiam. Act. 16. 40. Once more, every Scribe which is instructed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 UNTO the Kingdom of Heaven. Mat. 13. 52. (to omit many other places.) Again for the latter clause, And when they were come up, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, OUT OF the Water, the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, might be as as well translated, FROM as, out of. For this signification of it is most frequent and obvious in the New Testament, and our English Translation accordingly owneth it in very many places. They who doubt hereof, may consult the original in these Texts (with many others) for their satisfaction. Luk. 1. 71, and again v. 7 8. Luk. 20. 4. (twice) Joh. 19 12. Joh. 21. 14. Act. 14. 8. Act. 15. 21, (as Beza rendereth) and v. 29. Act. 17. 3. and 31. Act. 22. 6. and v. 17 Act. 27. 34. Rom. 1. 17. Rom. 4. 24. Rom. 6. 4. and v. 9 and v. 13. and v. 17. etc. It would be tedious and needless, so much as to point at all those places, where the preposition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are found in the signification & import of our English particle from. And being so translated in the clause in hand, as very commodiously, and without any hardness at all of construction, it might be, (for it is as proper to say, when they came up from the Water, as when they came up out of the Water) here would be no footing, nor colour of footing, whereon to argue the Eunuches diping when he was baptised. Yea, own we the two English translations of both the clauses now under consideration, yet can there no convincing argument be drawn from them, either divisim, or conjunctim, to prove that Philip dipped the Eunuch when he baptised him. For supposing the water to have been very shallow (for the proof whereof more, I believe hath been said, then ever will be to prove the contrary) and the uppermost part of it to have been somewhat lower than the level or surface of the verge or bank about it (which is not unusual in many waters) there might be some necessity, or at least a convenience, as well for Philip, as for the Eunuch, to go down together into the water, that so the former might take up water with his hand to put, or pour, upon the head or face, of the other. Besides it is as well said of Philip, as of the Eunuch, that he both went down into the water, and came up from, or out of, the water. But no man (I presume) imagineth that Philip at this turn dipped himself. Therefore from the said phrases or expressions, nothing can be concluded for the dipping of the other; both expressions being indifferently used of, and applied unto, both these persons. Again, if the Eunuch went down into the water, he could not be dipped all over by Philip, and consequently could not regularly be baptised, if it he supposed. 1. That a regular baptising consisteth in a total submersion, or dipping of the whole body under water: And 2. That it is wholly to be transacted or performed by another. For he that goeth into the water dippeth himself in part: neither can another be said to dip him all over, except he first heaves, or lifteth him up out of, and above the water; and then, still holding his body in, or between his hands, gently convey, or let it down, into the water again. To pretend, that the Eunuch might have been duly baptised, without going down into the water, and without Philip's going down likewise, if Baptism could have been duly administered, either by sprinkling, or by putting a small quantity of water, upon his head, or face; as viz. by sending a servant to the Fountain, to fetch a Basin, or like vessel of water from thence, etc. to pretend thus (I say) amounts to little satisfaction. For, 1. It cannot be proved that either a basin, or like vessel was now at hand; Basins are not usually carried about in travel, especially not in long journeys. 2. Suppose there had been the opportunity of a Basin, or the like, yet might there be several reasons (though unknown to us) why Philip, being at liberty, whether to baptise, at, or in, the Fountain, or otherwise, might prefer the former. So that there is nothing in the pretence specified, nor in any thing expressed or recorded in the Scriptures, about the Eunuches baptising, which makes it so much as probable, much less demonstrable, or certain, that he was dipped under water, when baptised. Nor is there any whit more in John's baptising in Jordan, or in Aenon near Sali●, because much water was here (Joh. 2. 23.) to prove that John dipped when he baptised. For 1. There is nothing recorded by the Holy Ghost touching the particular external manner, according to which John baptised. Which (by the way) is an argument of much satisfaction unto me, that no one determinate external manner in baptising, or of managing, ordering, or using the water in Baptism, is essential unto the Ordinance, or the due administration thereof. For it is the firstborn of things incredible unto me, that God should prescribe unto men so great and weighty an Ordinance, as Baptism (more generally at least) is conceived to be, yea and which our Adversaries begin of late to say, is absolutely necessary unto justification (and consequently unto salvation itself) and yet not signify or declare, and this in the most plain, explicit and distinct manner, how this Ordinance ought to be administered, in case it be supposed that there is only one determinate manner of the administration, which is regular and legitimate; yea and which is so essential unto it, that without it nothing but a mere nullity, or humane device, can be administered; especially this determinate manner being such, which the clearest and sharpest understanding of men of greatest worth in the Church of Christ, and most diligently and conscienously exercised in the Scriptures, have not been able for many generations together, to discern or discover. 2. Neither is there the least intimation any where given in the Scripture, that the reason why John made his first choice of the River Jordan for his Baptismal station, or residence, or his second of Aenon (where much water, or rather many waters, was,) that he might have water enough to dip all those, that came to be baptised of him, over head and ears. Therefore this is but a matter of humane conjecture only, and this not very probable neither. For 1. It is not like that a reason of this consequence would have been left to humane divination, being so worthy of God's own pen, were it, or had it had been, a truth. 2. Though it be said that in Aenon, where John last baptised, there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, m●ny waters, yet this proveth not that there was any place within the compass of these waters of a sufficient depth for the dipping of a man's body all over. The expression (probably) importeth a confluence or meeting together, of several rivulets or small currents from several springs near adjoining; which (it is like) did overspread a great surface of ground, and yet were not so deep in any place, as to reach up to the knees of a man. We know there are many places not very far from the City, where there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, many waters, in such a sense and consideration as this; and more particularly in the ordinary Road to 〈◊〉, where in several places, when springs are open, there is a larg● confluence of waters, which spread themselves thin over a great planities or flat of ground, for several furlongs together, without being so deep in any place as to afford an opportunity to a travelling horse to drink. But in many other places of the Nation, there are such prospects of waters, as those we now speak of, which are to be seen all the year long, and where the waters run continually. Therefore many waters do not import so much as one man's dipping. Mr. Fisher is much mistaken, if learneder men be not, in conceiving Aenon to be a river. (Baby-Baptism p. 334.) Calvin (with some Lexicographers) maketh it a Town, (and Salim another) situate in the tribe of Manasseh. Mr. J. Deodate, maketh them both Cities. Hugo Grotius and Junius, conceive Aenon to be a Fountain. But Mr. Fisher it seems, though by swimming against the stream, will have it a deep River, lest his cause, like a crazy vessel wanting water, should strike upon the ground and founder. Some who have traveled in those parts, report this Aenon to be a little run or brook, over which a man may almost step at ordinary times. 3. If John dipped, when he baptised, either in Jordan or in Aenon, he must be supposed to have dipped both men and women, either naked, or in their . In some Authors (I confess) I meet with both sex's naked in their baptising: but the greatest part of writers judge it more Christian, and meet to allow them their apparel for a covering to their nakedness at such a time. And if it could be proved that John baptised both men and women, naked, and both in the presence and sight of either▪ the very retriment and dregs of all sects at this day amongst us (the Ranters I mean) might take a plausible occasion to glory in a very honourable Father and Founder of their Order. Nor can it reasonably be thought that John should baptise all that came unto him, with their garments upon them, in case it be supposed that he dipped them all under water, when he baptised them. For we do not read of any spare garments brought along with them, by those who came to be baptised (nor yet of any shifting or changing garments, either before, or after baptising) nor is such a thing in itself in any degree probable: and yet more improbable it is (of the two) that men and women, how weak and tender soever, should travel several miles in their soaked and steeped, and as wet as water could lightly make them. 4. It apposeth my reason, yea and imagination itself, to conceive how so many thousands, such vast multitudes of people, as the Scriptures overtureth had recourse unto Jo●n, day after day, to receive baptism from him, could be baptised of him, if it be supposed that they were singly and apart, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, man by man, and woman by woman, dipped by him. If Andrew reasonably judged 5 Barley loaves and 2 small fishes so insufficient & disproportionable a provision for 5000 men, as to demand, but what are these among so many? much more have we reason to demand concerning John, what was John among so many thousands of men and women as came unto him to be baptised, if he could not baptise them, without dipping them? Upon this supposition, the task which he performed in baptising, required the strength not of a man, but of stones, or of Mountains, to overcome it. Besides must he not be supposed to have stood deep in water, from morning until night, for several days together? which that he did, or was able to do, and yet live, I must borrow the Faith of some easy Believer, to believe. Other circumstances there are (too many to be insisted upon at present) which make it an invinceible difficulty to my Faith, to believe that John put under water the whole bodies of all those whom he baptised. That may be remembered by the way, that neither do we read, that John's Disciples ever baptised, though the Disciples of the Lord Christ did; nor that John, in or about his entrance upon his work of baptising, when it seems his labour in this employment lay heaviest upon him, had any Disciples (in that notion and relation of which we now speak) at all. Nor is this latter in itself so much as probable. 5. And lastly, we read Joh. 3. 22. that the Lord Christ continued some space of time baptising in Judea. Now if we may believe the Geographical descriptions of this land, which are presented unto us from several hands, there were few or no rivers or waters in it of any considerable depth, but only brooks, or smaller rivers: Therefore it is not like (much less certain) that the Disciples of Christ here had the opportunity of dipping men, when they baptised them; much less that they made the Administration by dipping. Thus we see how weak and faint the conjecture is, which presumeth, that the reason why John made choice first of the River of Jordan, and then of Aenon, where many waters are said to have been, for his Baptismal station, was, that he might have a convenience of deep waters, for the dipping of those, who came to be baptised. Nor doth the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where Christ is said to have been baptised of John, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 1. 9 at all prove that he was dipped by him into Jordan. For 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 9 signifieth no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 5. and Mat. 3. 6. where all the people that came unto him are said to have been baptised of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the river Jordan; unless it shall be said, that Christ was baptised after one manner, and the rest of the people after another: and so, that Baptism may be administered, & this lawfully, and without breach of any rule, after more ways than one, in respect of ordering or using the element of water, in, or about the said Administration. 2. The preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is very frequently (and so acknowledged by Mr. Fisher himself) a Mr. Fisher Baby-Baptism. p. 332. used in the sense and signification of the preposition' EN 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. he dwelled in a City called Nazaret. Mat. 2. 23.— That this is the true grace of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IN which, or wherein, ye stand. 1. Pet. 5. 12, Again, Thou wilt not leave my soul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, IN Hell, Act. 2. 27. Yet again, my children are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, IN bed with me, Luk. 11. 7. (to omit others.) Now John's baptising men IN Jordan, is no more a demonstration of his dipping them over head and ears in Jordan, than a man's being in a , or in a river, proveth him to be over head and ears in either. So that the reason assigned why John was drawn to baptise in Aenon, by reason of the many waters there, and so why he baptised in Jordan, (viz. that he might have sufficient dippage) is a very uncertain, yea improbable conjecture. But 3. And lastly for this, the reasons of greatest probability (in my understanding) why John chose to baptise, where plenty of water was, were these two (haply amongst others) the one respecting the commodiousness of the external work or act itself, of baptising; the other, to accommodate the spiritual design, or purpose of God in Baptism. For the first, It may well be presumed, that before John entered upon the work of Baptising, it was made known to him by God (or otherwise, that he apprehended the thing very likely to come to pass) that vast multitudes of people from several parts would from day to day have recourse unto him to be baptised. In this respect it concerned him to project and find out the best method and means he could, to accommodate himself in so great a work, as well in point of ease, as of expedition or dispatch. Now the work of Baptising being to be performed with, or by, water, and the numbers very great of persons to be baptised by him, it was very proper and expedient for him to make choice of such places for this work, where many persons might with convenience be so postured and disposed of, that he passing along by them in the water, might, whether with his hand only, or with some instrument for the purpose, cast water upon them. In such a way as this, where there are tracts of water commodious, for any considerable space together, for people so to stand, whether in the brink or verge of the water, or else near to it, that a person going along by them in the water, may cast water upon them▪ many thousands may be baptised within the compass of a day, or less: Whereas to dip every person apart, when there are several thousands to be baptised, and but one to baptise, is (in the ordinary phrase) an endless work. The common exception which Mr. Fisher, and others of his judgement insultingly make against this method, or manner of baptising, in terming it a rantizing, not a baptising, is pedantic, and makes only a sound without substance. To argue, that sprinkling with water, is not a baptising, because it is a rantizing, is such a kind of reasoning as this: Socrates cannot be a living creature because he is a man: Bucephalus is not a beast, because he is an horse. These are strange kinds of arguings wherein the genus is denied, upon the account of the species, or because the species is affirmed The Sacramental rite or Ordinance, best known by the name of Baptism, is therefore in the Scriptures ordinarily thus called, I mean Baptism, and the administration of it, a Baptising, because it is a generical term, and more comprehensive, then rantizing, or, sprinkling, and importeth as hath been showed, any kind of washing, whether by sprinkling, or by pouring on water, or by applying water to the thing, or person to be washed, after any other manner. And washing being that externality which was chief minded by God, in the administration of Baptism, it is not material by, or with, what species, or particular kind of washing it be performed. And Calvin accordingly, though his opinion be, that at first it was administered with the submersion of the whole body under water, yet placeth little in this modality of it, and supposeth the administration of it in another manner [as suppose by sprinkling, pouring on water or otherwise] to be no digression from the institution and rule of Christ. a Ex his verbis colligere licet Baptismum fuisse celebratum a Johaune et Christo totius corporis submersione. Quanquam de externo ritu minus anxie laborandum est, modo cum spirituali veritate ac Domini instituto ac regulâ congruat. Calvin in Joh. 3. 22. 23. But besides what the Scripture exhibiteth in favour of Baptismal sprinkling or pouring on water, as the typical applications of blood, as well to persons as things under the law, which were made for the most part by sprinkling it, and sometimes by putting it on, or anointing with it, Exod. 12. 7. Exod. 29. 12. 20. Levit. 4. 7. Levit. 8. 23. 24. Levit. 14. 14. Levit. 16. 18. So again those prophetical expressions found in those two great Prophets, Esa, and Ezekiel, the former prophesying of Christ that he should SPRINKLE many nations, Esa. 52. 15. the latter, that God would sprinkle clean water upon the Church, Ezek. 36. 25. [or as the former translation read it, I will pour clean water upon y●u] which expressions are unquestionably allusive unto, or rather expressive of the manner, wherein Nations should be baptised into the obedience and service of Christ, besides (I say) all the Scripture affordeth upon such accounts as these in countenance of sprinkling, or pouring on water in baptising, the difficulties which attend Baptismal dippings are so insuperable and irreconcilable with the Law of nature, and in this respect with the written Law of God itself, at least in many cases (formerly specified) that either sprinkling or pouring on water, must be allowed in the Administration of Baptism, or else no Baptism administered at all. This for the first reason why John made choice of such places for his Baptismal quarters, where plenty of water was to be found: Herein he consulted expedition and dispatch in his work of baptising. The latter reason of such his choice might respect (as we said) the spiritual and great end of Baptism, which was, and is, to set forth, commend, and confirm the abundant Grace of God in cleansing men as well from the stain and filth, as from the guilt of sin, by Jesus Christ. Now this grace of God being Sacramentally signified or represented by the element of water in Baptism; the sight or beholding of a fair and large prospect of this element at the time of their baptising, might occasion or raise, so much the greater, and more lively apprehensions within them of the great abundance of this grace of his towards them. Whether these, either one or both, be the true reasons, or no, of John's pitching his Baptismal Tent, so near unto rivers or currents of water; most certain it is, that both the one, and the other, are of a more reasonable and probable calculation, then that which maketh conveniency of dipping the ground hereof. This is a dull and spiritless conceit, as hath been showed. And thus we have given a large and full account of truth in the former part of the Consideration last propounded, which affirmeth, that it cannot be proved from the Scriptures, that any Baptismal Administration recorded here, was performed by dipping. For I know nothing pleaded by any man to prove the contrary, beyond what hath been now answered. We shall not need to insist upon any proof of the latter part of the Consideration, which only beareth, that it is exceeding probable that many of the said Administrations were performed without dipping. For if so be, there be so little probability, as hath been argued, that so much as any one of these Administrations were performed by dipping; there must needs be a like (or rather a far greater) degree of probability, that some of them (at least) have been performed without. More especially where we read of great multitudes or of several thousands, baptised together, or at one and the same time, it is hardly reconcilable with the lowest terms of probability, to imagine that they were all dipped. And those arguments and reasons, by which the dipping of the Jailor and his house, when they were baptised, is endeavoured to be salved, are not worthy reasonable or considering men. It was about midnight when they were baptised. Act. 16. 33. with v. 25. and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, straightway or immediately upon the washing of Paul and Silas their wounds, or stripes. It is but an hungry shift to suppose, that the Jailor might be provided with some vessel fit for bathing and washing the whole body. If this be supposed, it must yet be super-supposed that there was a sufficient quantity of water at hand to fill it, or else the former supposition will not do the feat. If this also be supposed, it must yet further be supposed likewise, that they were dipped, either naked, or with their garments on them. The former of these is an hard supposition, and will not (I suppose) down with sober men. If the latter be supposed, it must be supposed yet again that either they shifted themselves out of their wet garments into dry, before they spread a Table, and set meat before Paul and Silas; or else that they performed this Christian service with their garments full of water, and dropping. To suppose this latter, requires zeal without knowledge: to suppose the former, requires the faith of those that can believe what they please, without ask any question for conscience sake. For the context will hardly allow them so much time between their being baptised, and the performance of this service, as was necessary for their shifting. However, we clearly see what a long story of uncertainties yea of improbabilities, must be compiled, and believed, before we can reasonably come to believe that the Jailor, and all his, were dipped, when baptised. Nor is it easy to conceive where so much water should be in or about Jerusalem which might suffice for the baptising of 3000 persons within the space of about half a day (probably in a lesser time) if this be a true saying, no dipping, no baptising. How slender and faint the appearance of truth is in that Doctrine, which teacheth the dipping of the Eunuch by Philip, when he baptised him, was lately under consideration. The amount of the whole is, that it is by many degrees more probable, that no Baptismal Administration mentioned in the New Testament was performed with dipping, then that all the said Administrations here recorded were performed after such a manner. Consectary. If this be the fairer probability of the two, then can there no firm argument, no, nor yet any competently probable, be The fifth Head of Considerations, rising up against adult Baptism, ordinarily administered, & rebaptising. drawn from the Scriptures, to prove dipping essential to baptising. CONSIDERATION. XLVII. THe Baptising of the children of CHRISTIANS ordinarily at years of discretion, is utterly inconsistent with the rule of the Gospel for baptising. Proof. The rule of the Gospel concerning the time and season of Baptising, is, that Baptism be administered without delay unto persons, when they are first made Disciples. This to be the Gospel rule for the regulation of the time of baptising, is so evident from many express and clear passages of the Gospel itself, that it is, (I presume) owned in this capacity, and subscribed, by Ana-Baptists themselves: Or however, it is abundantly evinced by others to be such. a Mr. Baxter Plain Scripture Proof for Infant's Churchmembership, & p. 126. 127. Now that that practice of baptising, which the Consideration specifieth, is utterly inconsistent with this rule, is above all reasonable contradiction made good by this argument, viz. because it cannot ordinarily be known, or however, is not ordinarily known, when, or at what time, the children of Believers are first made Disciples, unless that they will grant that they are Disciples from the womb; which will altogether as much, and as manifestly, endamage their cause. That the children we speak of do ordinarily profess a believing in God, and so in Christ, long before they come to any adultnesse of years, many of them at 3, 4, or 5 years of age, yea and some sooner, is generally known to us; but when, or at what time a principle of Grace, or Faith, is first wrought in them, is altogether as unknown. Therefore if the children we speak of ordinarily be not baptised until years of discretion, it is impossible that the Gospel rule concerning the time of baptising, should be observed, or obeyed, in their Baptism. The Scripture itself gives large and frequent testimony unto this argument, yea and experience itself super-sufficiently ratifieth it. If any man yet questioneth the truth of it, he may please to repair for satisfaction to pag. 127, 128, etc. of the Discourse lately mentioned, where there is plenty of it to be found. Consectary. If the Baptising of Believers children, ordinarily at years of discretion, be utterly inconsistent with the observation of the Gospel rule, concerning the time and season for Baptising, then is the practice unquestionable sinful, and displeasing unto God. CONSIDERATION XLVIII. THe way and practice of Rebaptising, or of baptising upon those terms, on which those, who are best known amongst us by the name of ANABAPTISTS, do baptise, and are baptised, and do most importunately enjoin others to be baptised also, cannot be justified or evinced, so much as lawful, much less, necessary, by the word of God. Proof. It neither yet hath been proved, nor is there in the Scriptures, whereof to make any competent proof, that persons once initiated or consecrated by water unto the obedience and service of Jesus Christ, aught to be by water consecrated to the same service the second time. That passage Act. 19 3. 4. 5. which some would draw to such a sense as this, is of quite another interpretation, as hath been substantially argued and evinced by many. a M. Roger's Treatise of Sacraments, Part. 1. p. 13 Franciscus Junius. ad. Act. 19 5. Georgius Konig. Vindiciae S●●rae. Disput. 30. p. 534, 535. Those words, v. 5. And when they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, are part of Paul's speech to the Ephesine Disciples, in which v. 4. he openeth unto them the purport of John's Baptism, which it seems they understood not, although they had been baptised by him. And that which he declareth to them in these 2 verses, is this; that John before he baptised those, who came unto him for that end, admonished them, that his Baptism was the Baptism of repentance, [i. e. a baptism, or washing, instituted by God to engage or oblige men to repentance] and that they should believe not in him, but in another, who was immediately to follow, or come after him, viz. Christ. And (saith Paul) when they [i. e. the people, who came to John to be baptised] heard this [i. e. had been instructed by John concerning the nature and intent of his Baptism] they were baptised [by him] in the name of the Lord Jesus. This to be the unquestionable sense of the passage, is by sundry arguments from the context itself proved by several learned men, who have laboured in the interpretation of it, whose discussions are too large to be here inserted, and are extant in their respective Authors. And if it should be supposed, that the Disciples here said to have been baptised by John, or with the Baptism of John, were now by Paul, or by his appointment, baptised, it would rather have been said, that they were rebaptized, baptised again, or the like, then simply, that they were baptised; as the Galathians returning to Judaisme, from which they had been delivered by the Gospel, are said to return AGAIN to those weak and beggarly Elements, and to desire to be AGAIN in bondage unto them. a Gal. 4. 9 So those Professors spoken of, 2 Pet. 2. 20. relapsing to the pollutions of the world, which they had escaped through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, are said to be AGAIN entangled therein. To pretend or say, that a consecration of Infants to the service of Christ, especially by sprinkling, or pouring water upon it, is a nullity, or that a person is never the more consecrated unto this service, for his being sprinkled, or washed with water, in his infancy, and that in this respect a person coming to maturity of years, and believing, aught to be consecrated to this service, as▪ if nothing at all had been done unto him upon this account formerly; thus (I say) to pretend or plead, is to dictate a man's own notion and conceit, not to speak the words of soberness and truth, or any thing that can be proved from the Scriptures. These no where determine Infant-baptism to be a nullity, neither in respect of any incapacity in the person baptised, nor in respect of any mis-application of the element, whether applied by sprinkling, or affusion. Yea it hath been proved elsewhere (I suppose above all reasonable contradiction) that infant-baptism, whether administered by sprinkling, or affusion (although for my part I never knew any administration in this kind made by sprinkling) is for all Baptismal ends and purposes, as efficacious and valid, as the baptising of men after what manner soever. b See Water-dipping, etc. Consideration 16. p. 24. 25. etc. Consectary. If the practice of Rebaptising cannot be justified by the word of God, then must it needs be either an humane device, or delusion of Satan. CONSIDERATION. XLXIX. THe custom or practice of adult Baptism, or of deferring Baptism unto maturity of years amongst those, who were born in the Church, and amongst whom Baptism was used, as in the case of Constantine, Austin, and some others (mentioned in Church History) first entered into the Church by an unhallowed door, and was entertained upon unwarrantable and Popish grounds. Proof. The truth of this Assertion sufficiently appeareth by the light of the records of Antiquity. So that whereas some of the Anti-pedo-Baptistical party, ridiculously, and contrary to the main current of all sound Ecclesiastical Records of primitive date, bear poor ignorant people in hand, that I know not who, what, or which Pope Innocent, should be the first who commanded children to be baptised, the truth is, that they were Popish grounds (haply) in conjunction with some others no whit better, which made the first▪ breach upon infant-Baptism (formerly practised, and this generally in the Christian Churches, as is elsewhere proved) and prevailed with some to put off the bapt●ing of their children, and with others, their own baptising, until maturity of years; yea with some, until the apprehended approaches of death. Much might be gathered and cited from the writings of the fathers upon this account. Tertullian seems to have been the first, who persuaded Christians to delay Baptism, especially the Baptism of their children until afterwards; a Itaque pro cujusque conditione ac dispositione, etiam aetate, cunctatio Bap●ismi utilior est, praecipue tamen circà parvulos.— Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissi nem peccatorum. Tertul. de Baptismo. c. 18. which (by the way) clearly proveth that Infant-Baptisme, was ordinarily practised in his times. But the grounds upon which he persuadeth to such a practice, are very sandy and lose: and the principal of them, viz. that Remission of sins, whereof children being innocent, have no need, is obtained by, or at least conferred in, Baptism, is at this day by those (at least, the generality of those) who are reputed Orthodox amongst Protestants, adjudged Popish and erroneous: and besides, seemeth to suppose, that there is no other end of Baptism, but only the obtaining forgiveness of sins, or that Baptism ought not to be administered, except only in such cases, where all the ends thereof may presently be obtained. Besides this motion of Tertullian for the delay of Baptism, was (in all likelihood) much promoted amongst Christians, by means of some impressions which the consciences of some had taken of the Novatian error, fearing, lest in case of sin after Baptism, they should be uncapable of Repentance, and consequently of salvation itself. The opinion also which many Professors about these times had drank in, that all their sins should be remitted in their Baptism, in conjunction with a corrupt desire, to enjoy the pleasures of sin as long as they could without danger (as they supposed) together with a persuasion that they were only once to be baptised, contributed much towards the entertainment of Tertullia's Doctrinal advice, with many; as may be plainly gathered from several passages in Basil's Exhortation unto Baptism. But whatsoever his grounds or reasons were for this his Doctrine of Baptismal delays, the pious and learned fathers after him, especially Basil and Nazienzen, adjudged them altogether insufficient, zealously exhorting to a contrary practice. Hast thou an Infant (saith Nazienzen) let n●t impiety be gratified with an opportunity: let it be sanctified from its infancy, let it be consecrated unto the Holy Ghost from the very first sprouting of the nails of it: a Infans tibi est? ne occasionem improbitas arripipiat: ab infantia sanctificetur, ab ipsis unguiculis spiritui consecretur. Greg. Nazienzen. Orat. 40. in Sanctum Baptisma. (with much more to the same purpose.) And Basil expressly taught his hearers, that the whole life of a man was a time for Baptism; b Baptismi verò tempus, vita horinis tota Basil in Exhort. ad Baptismum. meaning, that it might be administered, and received at any time from the womb to the grave. Yea Tertullian himself clearly approveth of the Baptising of infants in case of necessity. Consectary. If the custom of adult Baptism, where children were born of Christian Parents, was first brought into the Church, and entertained upon Popish and unwarrantable grounds, than was it not practised by Christ, or his Apostles, but is rather Popish and Anti- Christian. CONSIDERATION. L. THat Generation of men best known amongst us by the name of ANABAPTISTS, have always been injurious to the Gospel, and obstructive to the course and free passage of it in the world. Proof. Peter, speaking of Christ, saith, To him give all the Prophet's witness (Act. 10. 43.) As all the ancient Prophets, give testimony unto Christ, so do all, or very many of the latter Prophets, (I mean those worthy instruments, by whom God hath enlightened the world, in, and since the Reformation began by Luther) given testimony against that generation of men we speak of, as men by whose unworthiness in several kinds the interest of the Gospel hath deeply suffered in the world. The course of the Gospel (saith Scultetus, Decad. 1. Anno. 1525.) was this year hindered and obstructed in Zuitzerland and Moravia by the Anabaptistical sect. Elsewhere speaking of the Church of Saintgal, he saith, it was variously exercised [or disturbed] by the Anabaptists. Elsewhere he writes, that these Anabaptists were extremely troublesome to the Christians in the two Cities of Ulme, and Augusta, or Auspurg in the lower Suevia. Again writing of the year 1527. he saith this year, the Anabaptistical and Sacramentary wars or quarrels, were very hot, to th● great damage of the [Reformed, or] Evangelical Churches, and that the Anabaptists acted the parts of mad, or furious men, in the Cities of Worms by the Rhine in Silesia, Bavaria, Zuitzerland, and Suevia. John Sleid●n reports how John of Leiden, a fierce Anabaptist, derided the Ministers of the Gospel for affirming, That children ought to be baptised. And a little after; that the Senate, fearing that the Anabaptists, daily increasing in their numbers, should, accompanied with their Teachers, thrust the Preachers of the Gospel out of their Churches, to prevent them of such a disturbance, caused the doors of all the Churches in their Cities, except one, to be shut up. Zuinglius in an Epistle to Conradius Somius, Minister in the City of ulm▪ expresseth the grief of his heart, to see Believers seduced by the Catabaptists; and declareth how that by their lies, their queritations, [wail, or complaints] their Hypocrisy, which, he saith, is more proper to this sect of men than any other, they had drawn great numbers of men to a most bitter hatred both of him, and others. He addeth, they will so act their parts, that for a tims they will obstruct the work of Christ [amongst us] but they will never go through with any great matter. For they are the most profligate and debauched persons, that fall in with them, and when their business doth not succeed, they fall off again from their sect, and then bear men in hand, that all the business of Christ [so much contended about] is but a fable. I think (saith Calvin) it can be no sober man's doubt, how inconsiderately they disturb the Church of Christ, who set on foot quarrels and contentions because that children are baptised. The truth and sincerity (saith Musculus) of that [Religion, or] piety, which the Gospel teacheth, hath no more deadly enemy than Hypocrisy. There are three kinds of men in whom this appeareth, the Pharisees, Monks, and Anabaptists. I speak nothing but what I know▪ a Musculus in Mat. 16. 6. And elsewhere he joineth, the A●abaptists with the Papists, and terms them both, the Adversaries of the Truth. Beza hath this passage: Our chief Magistrates have punished some Adversaries, not because they speak what they thought [or believed to be true] nor to compel them by force to embrace the true religion, but because they broke in pieces the band of all human society, because they were perfidious Apostates, because they most notoriously corrupted the word of God, because they made a laughingstock of the authority of the Church, because they factiously rend and tore the [concord or] consent of the Citizens. The Anabaptists therefore (saith Lavater) are not to be heard, to whom it is not enough to disturb the settled order [and peace] of the Church, unl●sse they fall soul upon the Commonwealth also, and down with all Magistrates fr●m their Thrones [or seats] etc. These men are not only enemies to Commonwealths and Magistrates, but even pests [or plagues] also to mankind. Calvin (in his Tract against the Anabaptists) professeth that it was his purpose and intent, to admonish all that were Godly, and yet not throughly versed [in matters of Christian Religion] how deadly a ●oison the Tenent of the Catabaptists is, and to arm and fortify, them with the Word of God, as with a most certain Antidote, l●st they miserably perish. Again [in the same discourse] But now (as I have said) it shall suffice, that I have admonished all th●t are stuaious of the truth, that what these wretched men by common consent hold and maintain for an impregnable ground of their Faith, is a deadly imposture, of which it becomes all men to take heed, as much as of the plague or pestilence. Vrsin declares his sense also in conjunction with the former, touching the persons and opinions of the men now under censure. From all which (saith he, having argued many things for Infant-Baptism) manifest it is, that to oppose Infant-Baptism, is no light error, but a wicked opinion, contrary both to the word of God, and to the comfort of his Church and people. a All, or almost all, of these quotations, the Reader may find in the words of their respective Authors, in the Epist. Ded. in the marg●nt relating to § 11. And he that desireth more testimonies of like import, I mean to prove that the Sect we speak of hath always been a backfriend to the Gospel, may plentifully furnish himself by a perusal of the 13. ch. of the second par. of Mr. Baxters' plain Scripture Proof, etc. p 139, 140, etc. By so much the more are these and other the deliriums [or frenzies] of the Ana-Baptistical sect to be avoided, a Sect which without doubt hath been raised up by the Devil, and is an execrable Monster composed and made up of various heresies and blasphemies. ● Bullinger reporteth that the Anabaptists did quite root out the Gospel from Waldshut, where Hubmer was Teacher, by banishing many of the Citizens that were good men and sincere, and drove them from their possessions (this was their liberty of Conscience) by which means, the Gospel which did there excellently flourish, was utterly rooted out. The very same they wanted but a little of doing at Worms. How deplorable a scandal, to Religion and the Gospel, the generation we now speak of, have been in England, and how much Satan is beholding to them and their unworthy deportments, that it hath not run, and been glorified amongst us at another manner of rate, then hath been seen hitherto, I can better (I conceive) express in a few of Mr. Ri. Baxter's words and passages, then in many of mine own; although his soul (it seems) was so full of the bitterness we speak of, that in the uttering of it, it abounded to a large discourse▪ Nay I desire (saith he in one place) any sober Christian but to look unpartially through all the land, and tell me where ever any such Teachers lived, but the place in general was much the worse for them. Where the Gospel before prospered, and Christians spent their time and their conference in the edifying of each others souls, and in heavenly duties, and mutual assistance, and lived together in unity and love, according to the great command of Christ, they ordinarily turn all this to vain janglings, and empty windy unprofitable disputes, which he that is most gracious doth taste least sweetness in; and they turn their unity into divisions and factions, and their amity into jealousies and contentions; one is for this, and another for that, and they seldom meet but they have jarrings and contendings, and look one on the other with strangeness, if not with secret heart-burnings and envyings; studying all they can how to undermine each other, and every man to strengthen his own party. And these are the usual fruits of the Doctrine of Anabaptistry where it comes. b Plain scripture Proof for Infants Chu. member-ship, etc. p. 146. He had said before (and proved it accordingly) that Anabaptistry hath never helped on, but hindered the work of God, where it comes. Nor hath God ordinarily blessed the Ministry of the Anabaptists to the true conversion of souls, as he hath done other men's, but rather they have been instruments of the Church's scandal and misery. a Pag. 138. Afterwards, But alas! what need we look into other Kingdoms to inquire, whether the fire be hot, when we are burning in it? or to know the nature of that poison, that is working in our bowels, and which is striving to extinguish the life of Church and State: England is now the Stage where the doleful tragedy is acting, and the eyes of all reformed Churches are upon us, as the miserable objects of their compassion. b Pag. 143. A little after; I have had opportunity to know too many of these called Anabaptists, and to be familiar with them. And having first examined my heart, lest I should wrong them out of any disaffection through difference in judgement, as I clearly discover that, I bear no ill-will to any one man of them, nor ever did, nor find any passion, but compassion moving me to say what I do; so I do impartially and truly affirm concerning the most of them, that I have conversed with, as followeth. 1. That I have known few of them so much as labour after the winning of souls from sin unto God— but the main scope of their endeavours in public and private, is to propagate their opinions. And if they do preach any plain wholesome Doctrine, it is usually but subservient to their great design, that the Truth may be as Sugar to sweeten their errors, that they may be the easilier swallowed, etc. c Pag. 144. Afterwards he compares the Doctrine and practice of those Anabaptists, who endeavour to persuade the people that it is sinful for them to hear, or join with their Teachers being unbaptised men, with the most mischievous Doctrine and insinuation of the Papists, whose only strength (he saith) amongst us is, to make the people believe it is a sin to hear us, or join with us, and then they are out of all ways of recovery; they may make them believe any thing, when no body contradicteth it. d Pag. 145. A little after this: Moreover that very scandal of these men's opinions and practices, hath been an unconceivable hindrance to the success of the Gospel, and the salvation of multitudes of souls. Oh, how it stumbleth and drives off the poor ignorant people from Religion, when they see those who have seemed Religious, prove such! And going on, he showeth how the Papists are hardened, the Episcopal party confirmed, the King's party, which began to stagger at their cause, now persuaded of the lawfulness of it, merely from the miscarriages of these men. All this, with much more, the worthy man reporteth (bewailingly) out of his own knowledge and experience of the way which is called Anabaptism, together with those who walk in it, and occasionally all along showeth the impertinency and weakness of whatsoever (can with any colour of Reason) be pretended to ease the burden laid upon them. So that there is little question to be made, but that the progress of the Gospel in those parts of the European world, where the late Reformation of Christian Religion, ever set foot, hath been more obstructed and retarded by the unsound Doctrines, and extravagant practices of Rebaptizers, then by the irregularities or disorders of any other sect. Consectary. If the way of Ana-baptism, with those who uphold and walk in it, have always been injurious to the Gospel, and obstructors of the course and passage of it in the world, it is at no hand to be conceived to be from God; because than God should be divided in, and against himself. CONSIDERATION, LI. THe Wrath of God hath been from time to time revealed from Heaven against the way of Ana-baptism, and those who unrepentingly have walked in it. Proof. The wrath of God is commonly revealed with an high hand, in one, or more, or all, of these ways. 1. By deliveing men and women up to an injudicious mind, or to believe lies and untruths. 2. By delivering them up to vile affections and practices suitable. 3. And lastly by pursuing them with ruinating judgements. That God hath plainly witnessed from Heaven, against the way and practise of Anabaptism, in all these several ways may be sufficiently evinced from the reports and testimonies of many witnesses (beyond exception) yea (I suppose) by all persons of worth and conscience, who in all places, where any considerable numbers of men have been engaged in this way, have been diligent observers of what hath passed between the providence of God, and them, and withal have had occasion to record what they observed in this kind, for the use of present and future ages. For the first, that Anabaptism hath been, and is, the ordinary harbinger to other fond, fantastic, uncouth, and pernicious opinions, and prepares their way into the minds and judgements (or fancies rather) of men and women, who suffer themselves to be ensnared with it, hath been the observation of former times, and is the experience of our own. Calvin in his Preface to his Brief Instruction for the fortifying of Believers against the Errors of the common sect of the Anabaptists, gives this account of this his writing, v●z. that many religious persons came unto him and told him, that there was a book sent from remote parts, which required his answer, unless th● ruin of many souls were pleasing to him. a Nisi multarum animarum interitus mihi gratus esset. The Treatise it sel● he gins in these words. If I should intena to write against all the errors and opinions of the Anabaptists, I should undertake a long work, and enter a gulf, from whence I should n●ver get out. For this rabble of men herein differ from [all] ●ther Sects of Heretics, that they do not err in some certain points only, but are a kind of immense [or vast] sea of portentous frenzies: insomuch that it is hard to find the Head of any one Anabaptist, which differs not in some conceit or other from all the r●st. S● that th●re would be no end of my discourse, if I meant t● examine, yea or so much as recite, all the impious Doctrines and opinions of this Sect. b Si adversùs omnes errores & falsas opiniones Anabaptist●rum scribere vellem, longum opus susciperem, atque ingrederer abyssum u●de mihi exitus non pateret. Nam ista▪ colluvies ab alijs haer●ticorum s●ctis in eo diff●rt, quòd non tan●um c●●tis in r●bus errav●rit▪ verum sitimmensum quod am st●pendor●● deliri●rum ●●re: adeò utvix ●nius Anaba●tista caput reperiri possit, quod non sit imbutum aliqu● opinion diversa a reliquis Itaque nullus esset operi finis, si i●pias omnes hu●us Sectae▪ Doctrin●● excutere, aut etiam recitare vellem. Soon after distinguishing this sect into two sorts, and acknowledging the one, though full fraught with many impious and pernicious errors, yet to retain more simplicity than the other, concerning this other he saith, that it is as it were a most intricate and perplexed labyrinth of mad conceits, so absurd, that strange it is that creatures in the shape of men should be so far bereavest o● reason and sense, as to fall into those imaginations, which the bruit beasts themselves would abhor. a Altera est velati implicatissima Labyrinthus deliriorum, & quidem adeò absurdorum, ●t mirum sit creaturas figuram huma●am ger●ntes ita ratione & sensu destit●i ut in ●as incidant imaginationes a quibus bestiae ipsae mutuae abhorrerent. He that desireth to know some of the more horrid and execrable opinions and Doctrines, held forth and maintained by these men, needeth only to peruse the sequel of the said discourse. That sort or kind of Anabaptist, in which he observeth somewhat more ingenuity and simplicity of heart, then in their fellows, consisteth (I suppose) of such of them, who are green (comparatively) in this profession, coming more lately from under the Ministry of sober and sound Teachers, and from the acquaintance and converse of good and worthy Christains. For (as the saying is Nemo repent fuit turpissimus. No man comes to the height of impiety all at once. And (according to another saying.) Quo semel est imbuta recens, servabit odorem. Testa di●.— The cask a long time will retain the scent, Which was at first by seasoning to it lent. An Anabaptist is not to be estimated by what he is, or continues to be (ordinarily) for 5 or 7 years' space next after his proselytism (Neronis quinquennium was proverbial amongst the Romans; Nero's goodness held out very commendably for the first five years in his Empire) for the most part he reteins somewhat of the spirit of that Christian ingenuity, with which he was seasoned under the propitious influence of his former (his best, and most benedict) Baptism, and comes not to his natural Genius, or to be an Anabaptist indeed, until he hath outworn all the candour and simplicity of his former profession, and comes wholly to settle upon the lees and dregs of his latter. But this only by the way in this place. Vrsin (as we formerly heard) describing the Anabaptistical sect (as he termeth it) saith, that without doubt it hath been raised up by the Devil, and is an execrable Monster composed and made up of various heresies and Blasphemies. Melchior Adamus in the life of Zuinglius, writeth to this effect. In the mean time as the Devil always useth to sow his tares, the Heresy of the Catabaptists crept in, whilst Zuinglius was carrying on the work of Reformation. At first they forbade the baptising of Infants, and rebaptised themselves. Afterwards they brought in a puddle of all the Heresies that ever were, etc. At Augusta, Basil, and in Moravia, there were Anabaptists (as Bullinger reporteth) that affirmed that Christ was but a Prophet, and that the Devils and wicked men should be saved. This last most dangerous and pernicious error, viz. that the Devils and all men without exception, shall at last be saved, hath lately taken the Fancy of a great Female Teacher, and Actress in the cause of Anabaptism, not far from this City, as I have been lately informed, by a person of her own Baptismal persuasion. The same grave and pious Author (Mr. Henry Bullinger) further speaking of this sort of men, saith: This no man can deny, that most of them do forsake their wives and children, and laying by all labour do live idly, and are fed by other men's labours; and when they abound with filthy and abominable lust, they say it is the command of their Heavenly Father, persuading women and honest Matrons that it is impossible they should be partakers of the Kingdom of Heaven, unless they filthily prostitute their bodies, alleging that it is written that we must renounce all those things which we love best, and that all kinds of infamy are to be swallowed by the Godly for Christ's sake, and that Publicans and Harlots go first into the Kingdom of Heaven. A while after, having challenged any man to deny the truth of these things, and affirmeth that all he hath said may be be proved by signed letters and certain testimonies, he addeth: For my part I have in prudence silenced their crimes, and speak less than they have committed, so much the more doth it grieve me, that men are so blind they do not observe these things, nor lay them to heart; yea that a great part of men do embrace and follow these erroneous men even as though they came down from Heaven, and were Saints among mortals, who preach nothing but what is Divine and Heavenly, when as they fare exceed the Nicholaitans and Valentinians in filthiness. It were endless to recite all that which approved Authors and of unquestionable credit, have recorded concerning the most absurd, horrid, and blasphemous Doctrites and opinions, which in all foreign parts, where that generation of men we speak of, have had to do, have been held, maintained, and importunely propagated by them. It is well known that the gravest and most judicious writers since the late reformation, as Calvin, Bucer, Zanchy, P. Martyr, Musculus, Beza, Chemnitius, Scultetus, Aretius. (with many others of like note) do in their writings commonly style the sect of Anabaptists, furious and fanatique, in respect of the wild, uncouth, and mad opinions held and vented by them. But it may be our English soil is more proper for the way, and breeds a more composed and better-headed kind of Anabaptist, less obnoxious to fumes and fancies, to strange notions and erroneous conceits, than other countries, or that God intreateth the Anabaptists amongst us more graciously, then to deliver them up to such enormous and vile opinions, as those found amongst persons of the same denomination, in other places of the world. The truth is, that Nec lacte lacti, nec ovum ovo similius, milk is not more like unto milk, nor one egg to another. Whether this be true, or not I am content shall be adjudged by the Native result and conclusion, arising from those unquestionable premises, which are delivered and asserted by Mr. Ri. Baxter, in his book of Baptism (so oft-mentioned) pag. 147, 148, 149. In the beginning of that part of his discourse, to which I now refer, he writeth thus: And as Anabaptism hath been no greater friend to men's salvation with us, so every man knows that it is the ordinary inlet to the most horrid opinions. How few did you ever know that came to the most monstrous Doctrines, but it was by this door? And how few did you ever know that entered this door, but they went yet further, except they died, or repent shortly after. I confess that of the multitudes of Anabaptists that I have known, at the present I cannot call to mind any one, that hath stopped there, etc. Afterwards he subjoins many instances for the proof of these things, from the very books and writings of several persons, after they had been initiated in the mysteries of Anabaptism. If I judged it convenient, I could out of mine own knowledge, furnish his stage with more Actors, and name some others, men of renown amongst the Professors of the Anabaptismal Faith, whose judgements since their bowing down to take up Anabaptism, have been ridden by many other corrupt and noisome opinions, unto which they are in bondage to this day. So that it is a thing too evident and manifest to be denied, that God hath from time to time witnessed, and doth witness at this day, against the Doctrine and practice of Anabaptism, by delivering up those who entertain them▪ to spirits of error and delusion. The equitableness of which judgement on God's part, may be considered in this, that it is a righteous and just thing with him, to leave those, through want of wisdom and manlike understanding to departed from Christ and the truth, who will not suffer children to come unto him, when he calleth for them. Concerning those two other kinds of Divine Testimonies, whereby God hath witnessed against the way of Anabaptism, (yea and doth witness) as well in foreign parts, as in our own land; the one, by delivering up those that will not be reclaimed from it in time, unto shameful, hateful, and vile practices and ways; the other, unto ruinating jugdements, in one kind or other, I shall not burden the Readers patience with any long discourse; partly because these two latter judgements or testimonies from God, must needs follow of course the former; (erroneous and vile opinions naturally issuing foul and vicious practices; and these again calling for ruin and destruction from the righteous God) partly also because various and large stories may be read in many Authentic Authors for the confirmation of the truth as touching both. Only thus briefly; Of the lying, Treachery, and sedition (saith Bullinger, speaking of the Anabaptists) wherewith, these disobedient people every where do abound, there is no end, or measure. A little before: This no man can deny, that most of them do forsake their wives and children, and laying by all labour do live idly, and are fed by other men's labours. Somewhat after in answer to an objector: Nor can you show me ONE MAN of them, who i● not blemished with some of the for●said wickednesses; I mean lying, treachery, perjury, disobedience, sedition, idleness, desertion, filthiness, etc. Mr. Tombs himself (it seems) being pressed unto it by Mr. Baxter, could not name unto him any one society of Anabaptists, (out of any good Author) that proved not wicked. But it may be the Anabaptists in these days, do not praise the say of their forefathers in the ages past, by imitating them in the evil of their ways, but are an holy, humble, and harmless generation, they resist not evil, but when a man smiteth them on the one cheek, they turn unto him the other also: when they are reviled, they revile not again: they love their enemies, and bless those that curse them, and do good to those that hate them, and pray for them that despitefully use them, and persecute them: they are poor in spirit, and peacemakers; they cause no rents, divisions, or offences amongst Saints in Christian societies: they are not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good: if their enemy's hunger they feed them; if they thirst, they give them to drink. Their forefathers indeed were a wicked generation, heathen-like, filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, etc. but these their posterity, have made all their [forefathers] crooked things, straight, and their rough things, smooth and plain; and with both their hands build up the truth, honour, and peace of the Gospel, which their forefathers pulled down. O that they were the children of such a testimony as this! or that the one half thereof were true concerning them! How would it be as a resurrection from the dead unto the world round about them! How would the Churches of Christ put off their sackcloth, in which they mourn for these men, and for the great evils they suffer from them, & gird themselves with joy and gladness for their sakes! But alas! we cannot say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; this blessedness hath prevented us. The sad complaints made against those men with whom we have all this while to do, by the Churches and faithful servants of God in former days, are taken up upon the same account amongst us in our days also. For the most part of them I know (saith Mr. Baxter) this is the most discernible judgement upon them of all the rest: what a multitude do I know that are most notorious for pride, thinking themselves: wiser than the ablest Teachers, when they have need to be catechised. Some of them ran up into the Pulpits to preach, and challenge the ablest Ministers to dispute, and openly contradict, what Ministers preach, when they neither understand themselves, nor others: and no man can persuade them that they are ignorant, though it be as palpable as the Egyptian darkness, to all knowing men that know them. A little after; in a word (saith he) let them that have tried them judge how many of Paul's characters appear upon them. 2 Tim. 3. 1, 2, 3. In the latter days perilous times shall come: For m●n shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, boastars, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to Parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, Truce-breakers, false-accus●rs, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure, more than lovers of God, having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof. The Apostle (I suppose) did not intent to predict any such times, which should produce any such generation or body of, men, in all and every of whose individual members, all and every of these characters of impiety should be found. No, I do not find my judgement much inclined to think, that in the description specified, he pointed at any determinate Sect, or sort of persons, that should in the times he speaks of rise up in the world: but rather that the spirit by which he spoke, gave notice how dangerously and desperately the great body of Christian Professors in the world, would in time degenerate and be corrupted; so that amongst them, all manner of impieties and abominations would be found. But if I should be persuaded to judge that any one particular Sect of men in the Christian world, were here eyed by the Apostle, I could not but single out, and pitch upon that, which rebaptizeth; because I know no other, amongst whose proselytes there is such an universal confluence of a●l the enormities here specified by him. And (doubtless) the times would be less perilous than they are, or are like to be if the persons we speak of would so far ease the danger and burden of the Christian world, as to distribute the Apostle black characters amongst them, not by two's or threes, or greater proportions, to a single person, but resolve every man and woman of them apart, that it is more then enough that any one of the said characters be found upon them, and that more than one shall not be found. By the way, because I would not be mista●en in any thing asserted by way of proof, either of the present or former Consideration; I here declare, 1. That whereas there are two kinds of Anabaptism, the one simple, the other compounded (I mean, by the former, that which rejecteth not the Christian Communion of Believers, because not rebaptized, nor placeth either justification, or salvation in its own appropriate way of baptising, but contenteth itself with a mere exchange of its own Baptism; by the latter, that which separateth itself from faith and holiness themselves, as impure and unclean, if they cannot stoop to their prescript about baptising) I declare (I say) that what hath been said, either concerning the sad sufferings of the Gospel from Anabaptism (in the former Consideration) or concerning Gods witnessing from Heaven against Anabaptism, in this, I desire to be understood only of the latter sort of Anabaptism, and not of the former. For though the former be an error or mistake, yet being simply and merely such, etc. not accompanied with pride, or malignity, against the honour or peace of the Churches of Christ, 1. The Gospel may run and be glorified without any considerable interruption or disturbance by it. 2. Neither is the God of all grace wont to inflict any exemplary or signal judgement upon the simple errors or mistakes of men, but covereth a thousand of these, with a covering made of his love and great compassion in Christ towards men. 2. I declare further, that notwithstanding any thing delivered either in this, or in the former consideration, yet my sense and belief is, that there are, or may be, many under the form of the latter and worse kind of Anabaptism, who are at present the sons and daughters of God. Only my belief is withal, that they are in a way full of danger unto perseverance, and of enmity unto all growth in grace, or in the true knowledge of Jesus Christ the Lord, and which frequently corrupteth and imbaseth, yea for the most part un-Christianizeth the hearts and spirits of those, who for any long time walk in it. Little do they know (saith Mr. Baxter, speaking of good men entered into the way of Ana-baptism) whither that way leads, nor where it will leave them, unless they return. And elsewhere (viz. p. 244.) For my part having diligently observed what hath become of those ●f my acquaintance who have been rebaptized, I have seen them fall to so many desperate opinions and practices, & some to mak● a Religion of Swearing and Blaspheming, none to grow better, and most to grow presently worse, as if a visible judgement of God did follow that action, that I cannot believe that men shall be cut off by Christ from his people, for want of being rebaptized. Concerning the third and last testimony, wherein (as it hath been said) God declareth himself from Heaven against high Anabaptism; I shall only transcribe a few lines from Mr. Baxter (pag, 143. of his Treatise for Infant's Church-member-ship and Baptism.) Leaving the Reader to peruse at his leisure, what other Authors have observed and recorded upon that account. And how they (saith he, meaning the Anabaptists) have withered every where, and come to naught, is too evident to need proof. So that when the light of the Gospel once broke forth, and the true work of Reformation was set on foot, [wherein Infant-Baptism was both taught and practised] God prospered it so mightily to the astonishment of the very enemy's, that in a short space it overspread a great part of the Christian world. But Anabaptistry which set The sixth and last head of Considerations, showing how and why the opinion and practice of Anabaptism may prevail and spread amongst Professors; notwithstanding so little, either from the Scriptures, or s●und principles of reason can be pleaded for th●m. out near the same time and place with Luther's Reformation, did only make a noise in the world, and turn Towns and Countries [where it came] into seditions and misery, and so died in disgrace, and go out with a stink. And I am all thoughts made that the same doom is written in God's books against the high Anabaptism in this nation, which doth little less than magnify it , against all that belong to God amongst us. Consectary. If God hath time after time witnessed from Heaven, against the way of Anabaptism, and those who have walked in it, by all those three kinds of judgements which have been now mentioned, then is it not a way of divine prescription, or approbation, nor doth he take pleasure in those, who embrace it, and pertinaciously adhere to it. CONSIDERATION, LII. IT hath very seldom or never been known, that any opinion or practice tho●gh never so uncouth, importune, wicked, or absurd, ever broke forth, or was set on foot in any p●rt of the Christian world, but that it gathered considerable numbers of proselytes both men and women unto it. Proof. There needs be no other proof made of the truth of this consideration, but only by enquiry into the Church records concerning the rise and progress of those ancient errors, Nicholaitisme, Ebionisme, Eutychia●isme, Manicheisme, Eunomianisme, Nestorianisme, Arrianism, (with others more without number) on the one hand, and by a recognition of those prodigies of opinions with their practices, which our own days have in great numbers brought forth amongst us, as viz. the opinions and practices of the Familists of the Antinomians (diversified into several sects and opinions) so again of those called Seekers, Ranters, Quakers, Adamites, Antiscripturists, Enthusiasts, Anti-Ordinancers, Superordinancers, Anthropom●rphites, Pneumatomachists, Erastians' (with their Antipodes) High- Presbyterians, Thero Johnnians, Coppian●, (with other names of a like doleful sound almost without end) all which, though several of them are most broadly irrational and absurd, yea beneath common sense itself, and some others, of very pernicious, wicked and hellish consequence, have yet taken the fancies of great multitudes both of men and women, (all pretenders to religion, yea to the most excellent way of worshipping God) who at this day go wondering after them (respectively.) Consectary. Then need it not seem strange unto any, that the opinions and practice of persons known amongst us by the name of Anabaptists, should heap up disciples to themselves amongst us, as they do. CONSIDERATION. LIII. BY Opinions and practices, which bear, or seem to bear any thing hard upon the flesh and outer man, are apt to take with four sorts of persons. 1. With th●se that are melancholily devout. 2. With those that are vain gloriously devout. 3. With those who through a spiritual unthriftiness, are behind hand with the things of their eternal peace. 4. (And last) With those who secretly hanker after a fleshly liberty otherwise, without check of conscience. Proof. The reason why the first sort of these persons are apt to fall in with such opinions, and practices, is, because their temper being over-obnoxious to jealousies, and fears, they seek to fortify and arm themselves against them, or to qualify them, by a conceit that they do more to please God, than the ordinary sort of Christians do. The reason why the second sort are propense or apt to be inclined the same way, is, because any strain of devotion which is singular, is a wind proper to fill their sails, and to gratify that fleshly humour which worketh in them. The reason why the third sort are alike obnoxious with both the former, is, because they finding themselves straitened in their inward comfort and peace, by doing less in religion then ordinary men, hope to recover themselves by a contrary course, viz. by doing more than ordinary men. The reason why the fourth and last sort are apt to be taken in the same snare with all the former, is, because they who look upon themselves as doing more to please God then other men, are apt to claim a liberty, as it were by a kind of right, to please themselves likewise more than other men. Consectary. The Premises considered, together with the great numbers both of men and women engaged in a profession of the Gospel, who fall under one or other of the four heads or sorts of persons mentioned, it needs be no cumber or trouble at all to any man's thoughts, to see the way of Anabaptism so pestered and thronged with Professors. CONSIDERATION, LIIII. NO kind of Sects or Opiners, have (more generally) been more hardened in the way, or found more imperswasible out of the way, of their error, than those wh● have been abl● to pr●tend the plain letter of the Scripture, though misunderstood, for their opinion or practice, especially when a letter, of a like plainness, is not to be found, or cannot be produced against them. Proof. The Papists (we know) misunderstanding these words of Christ, Hoc est Gorpus meum, this is my body, ar● so transported with confidence of truth in their most absurd and blasphemous Doctrine of Transubstantiation, it being no where in Scripture said, concerning the same thing, Hoc non est Corpus m●um, this is not my body, that they resolve with fire and sword to maintain it against all opposers. So likewise because they find it written. Ye see then ●ow that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only (Jam. 2. 24.) and not such words as these, ye see then that a man is not at all justified by works, but by faith only, found to contradict the other, therefore there is no removing them from their dangerous Doctrine of justification by works. Thus also the Arrian goeth a way rejoicing with an high hand over his accursed Doctrine, wherein he denieth the Godhead of Christ, because (Jo●. 14. 28.) he findeth Christ himself speaking thus, My Father is greater than I, and cannot be opposed in this his rejoicing with any such words as these found in the Scripture, I am as great as my Father. I shall not need to multiply instances. Consectary. This Consideration being unquestionably true, it needs the less trouble or offend any man, to meet with that enormous confidence in many Anabaptists touching the goodness of their Opinion and practice, wherewith they amuse the consciences of many weak, unlearned, and unstable souls; although the truth is, they can no more find any such words as these in the Scriptures, infants are not to be baptised, than we such as these, infants ought to be baptised; nor yet again, any such words as these, believers only ought to be baptised, more than we, such as these— Believers only are not to be baptised. CONSIDERATION. LV. WHen men and women are inordinate in valuing or prising an erroneous, whether opinion or practice, there is the less hope of reclaiming them from either. Proof. The reason hereof is ready of apprehension. What a man possesseth with contentment, and with an opinion of receiving good by it, or from it, he is careful, and endeavours to fortify and secure himself in the possession of it. And the greater the contentment and expectation of good is, in, and from, that, which a man possesseth, he is the more studious and industrous to make good his possession hereof, and the more unwilling to part with it. Now there is nothing, which any man, who is not of a mere Atheistical persuasion, possesseth, of which he maketh greater treasure, then of his principles, notions, and apprehensions in things appertaining unto God, and the saving of his soul; especially of such of these notions and persuasions, without which, or without the practic of which, he conceives that he cannot, or very hardly, be saved. That which made the Jews of old so importunely, yea even desperately tenacious of their opinion and practice of circumcision, that all the Apostle could say, or argue against them in these things, could not make them to relent in the least, was their conceit of the absolute necessity of this ceremony to salvation, according to that Act. 15. 1. And certain men, which came down from Judea, taught the Brethren, and said; except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, YEA CANNOT BE SAVED. Consectary. If there be less likelihood or hope, of recovering men out of the snare of an error, or erroneous way, when, and whilst they value either at an excessive rate; then need it not seem strange unto any man, that that spirit, which worketh in men and women of the new baptismal persuasion, should (generally) be so stiff▪ necked, peremptory, and resolved, that though the truth should arise upon them like the Sun in his might, yet they would see nothing to make them so much as to doubt, considering their overgrown, yea monstrous and prodigious conceit of the worth and goodness of their way. Postscript. These two Considerations following were omitted under the third Head of Considerations. Postscript CONSIDERATION. I. AS the Scripture sometimes under the word MEN comprehendeth women as well as men, yea and sometimes children also; so under the expression, MEN AND WOMEN, it more frequently comprehendeth children. Proof. The truth of this discourse is sufficiently evinced §. 37. of the latter part of this discourse; and repetitions, where originals are so near at hand, are altogether needless. Only that may here be added, that as threescore and fifteen souls, (Act. 7. 14.) importeth women and children as well as men; so the three thousand souls which are said to have been added [viz. to the Lord] Act. 2. 41. and implied to have been baptised, consisted of women and children, as well as men (as Cajetan observeth upon the place.) Nor doth it hinder that in the former part of the verse it is said, Then they that gladly received his word were baptised: For this doth not necessarily imply that only they, who thus received his word, were baptised, or that the three thousand souls presently said to have been added, did all receive the word gladly; but may (with much probability) import only this, that the number of those who did thus receive the word, and were upon this account baptised, did with their families, who were together baptised with them, make up the number of three thousand. But though this be very probable, yet the cause of Infant-Baptism aboundeth in strength without it. Consectary. This Consideration being true, it plainly followeth, that the frequent mention found in the Scriptures of men and women baptised, without any express mention of any children baptised with them, doth no ways prove that therefore no children were baptised with them, but the contrary rather; because more usually, where men and women are only named, children are also understood and comprehended; at least when those things, which occasion the mention of Men and Women, and are attributed unto them, are such, whereof their children also, are naturally capable, as well as they. Postscript CONSIDERATION. II. IT is lawful, yea comm●ndable and worthy, for believers to devote, separate, and design their children, whilst it is yet early days with them, even from the conception and the womb, to the service of God and Jesus Christ. Proof. That which is offered in this Consideration, needs no proof with intelligent and considering men. For by devoting and designing our children from the womb, to the service of God and of Jesus Christ, we mean nothing but our purposing and intending, as soon as God giveth us children, that as far as in us lieth to procure and effect it, they shall be the faithful servants of God, and of Christ. And what can with reason be imagined why such a purpose as this should not be lawful, yea of good acceptance with God? Hannah purposed and vowed, whilst as yet she had no son, or child, that if God would vouchsafe her the blessing of a son, she would give him unto him all the days of his life, 1 Sam. 1. 11. when the Lord said that he knew Abraham, that he would command his children and his household after him, and that they should keep the way of the Lord, etc. it implieth, that even then Abraham had a real purpose and intent, in case any more children should after this be born unto him, to procure as far as he was able, that they also should keep the way of the Lord. The like is to be conceived concerning Joshua, Jos. 24. 15. So that there is little question to be made, but that for Christian Parents to devote their children even from the womb, unto the service of God and Jesus Christ, is a devotion well becoming them, and approved of God accordingly. Consectary. If it be commendable and Christian for Christian Parents to devote their children from the womb, to the service of God and of Christ, then is it lawful (at least) to make known or manifest this their act, or council, of devoting them, unto the world. If so, I demand by what means, they can manifest or make such a thing known unto the world, better or more Christianlike, then by that, which Christ himself hath appointed for a special cognizance of persons devoted unto his service, I mean, Baptism? Postscript CONSIDERATION. II. Omitted under the third Head. THe truth of an Ordinance, or Gods approving or allowing an Ordinance, as legitimate cannot be estimated or known better, or to more satisfaction, then when he blesseth it unto those who receive it, and causeth it to prosper to the producing of those gracious ends, or effects for which it is appointed. Proof. The reason hereof is because the Scripture from place to place, maketh this signal difference between the Ordinances of God, with their regular Administrations, and the devices and inventions of men; that whereas the former are benedict, of a gracious and happy influence upon the hearts and souls and consciences of men, the latter are always, either noxions and destructive, or else vain and fruitless at the best Peruse, and compare diligently for your satisfaction herein these texts of Scripture (with others of like Consideration without number) 1 Sam. 12. 21. Levit. 20. 23. Deut. 5. 33. Deut. 12. 13. 25. 28. 30. Deut. 30. 16. 17. etc. Jos. 2. 5. 1 King. 13. 33. 34. Jer. 2. 5. Jer. 19 13. 14. etc. Jer. 10. 3. Ezek. 20. 11. 13. 25. Ezek 33. 25. Hos. 12. 1, 2. 11. Hos. 13. 1, 2, 3. Mat. 15. 9 Nor is it (indeed) reasonable to conceive, that God, whom the Scripture calleth a God of judgement, and who will not suffer the ungodly to stand in the Congregation of the righteous, nor make the wicked equal in favour, or reward, with the just, should make the faces of humane inventions, shine with that oil of joy and gladness, which he hath prepared to anoint the faces of his own institutions. So that God's blessing, either accompanying or following an Ordinance, is his countenancing and owning it from Heaven: and in vain do men labour to abase that, which he will exalt. Consectary. If the blessing of God upon an Ordinance, or Administration, or the prospering of a soul under, and by means of either, be a sufficient and satisfactory argument, that both the one and the other are legitimate, owned, and attested by God accordingly, than is that Baptism, with the administration of it, which hath been dispensed unto many in their infancy, regular and legitimate, and attested by God for such; inasmuch as thousands of souls have spiritually prospered, and this to an eminent degree, under it, yea and by means of it, at least with as much or more likelihood and proof, than it can be proved that ever any soul thus prospered, under, or by means of, that after-dipping, which is obtruded by many upon the Christian world, as the only Baptism. a Mr. S. Fisher with his fellowcon-subscribers. Postscript CONSIDERATION FOUR Omitted under the 4th. Head. BAptism received in infancy, and this without dipping, is neither a nullity, nor d●vice or institution of man. Proof. The rule which our Saviour delivereth (Mat. 7.) for the dijudication of good and corrupt trees, and so of true and false Prophets, By their fruits ye shall know them, is of like service for the discerning of true Baptism from false. A corrupt or false Baptism cannot bring forth the fruits of a true. For in as much as no baptism, no more that which is true, then that which is false, can operate or yield any spiritual or saving fruit, but by the gracious interposure of God with it, which is the seal of his approbation; it clearly follows, that in case it appears that Baptism received in infancy, and this without dipping, yields spiritual & saving fruit, yea such which is proper for true Baptism to yield, this must be true Baptism, and so approved by God. A corrupt Tree (saith our Saviour) cannot bring forth good fruit. Now that the Baptism we speak of, and for which we plead, yields all the real fruits of true Baptism, yea and richly accommodates all ends and purposes, which can reasonably, or upon Scripture grounds, be either expected from, or ascribed unto, true Baptism, hath been demonstratively argued and evinced by us elsewhere. a Water-dipping no firm footing for Church-communion, pag. 25, 26. Experience likewise informeth us, that great numbers of those, who walk under their Infant-Baptism only, do altogether as conscientiously both own & discharge, all Baptismal engagements, and withal in every whit as ample manner enjoy all Baptismal comforts and privileges, as those who glory and please themselves most in their way of rebaptising. Yea experience further teacheth, that very many of those, who have gone under water upon an hope conceived of finding more grace and peace there, than their infant Baptism had conferred upon them, have lost much of the former by the voyage, and it is exceeding much to be feared have not at all increased the latter, if not sustained loss in this also. Consectary. If Baptism received in infancy, though without dipping, be neither a nullity, nor an institution or device of man, then must after-baptism unto those, who have been infant-baptized, be either the one or the other, I mean either a nullity, or an instituted device of man. The reason of this consequence is, because the Scripture, which only hath power originally to declare the reality and truth of a divine Ordinance, hath declared nothing in this kind, on the behalf of a second or after-Baptism. Postscript CONSIDERATION. V Omitted under the fifth Head. BAptism, as all types and typical Ordinances, is one of those things, which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. which have been instituted and given by God for the sake of, and in reference unto, some other thing of greater and more weighty concernment unto men, than themselves. Proof. This Consideration is greater in evidence then exception, or doubt, even without proof. For that Baptism is a typical Ordinance, and according to the counsel and intention of the great father and founder of it, given in subservience to ends and purposes of higher consequence than itself, is (I suppose) the sense and joint consent of those, who disturb the peace of the Christian world about it. Or however, the thing is fully evident from that known description of it in the Gospel, wherein it is termed the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins, (of which more largely in the latter part of this discourse.) Now all typical Ordinances are appointed or prescribed, and given by God unto men, either 1. For the teaching and instructing them in something that is more spiritual and secret, or 2. For the confirming and securing them, touching, either the certainty and truth of things already past, or the enjoyment of good things, according to the promise of God yet to come; or 3. For the reminding them of something that is absent: or 4. (And last) for the engaging them to some future action, kind, or course, of acting. There may possibly be other ends of typical institutions, besides these: but these only at present come to mind. However, when the end, or ends, for which any such Ordinance, as those of which we now speak, was appointed, be once obtained and enjoyed by men (whether by the use of this Ordinance, or without it; for God is at liberty to work his good pleasure in men, and for men, without any Ordinance, though men be not left at liberty to omit them in their respective seasons, nor to neglect or despise them at any time) the use, or further use of such an Ordinance, is not required by God: nor can it in the use of it, be of any consequence, benefit, or concernment unto men. Now concerning Baptism, let the ends of it be supposed, what men reasonably can suppose or imagine them to be, they are all obtained and enjoyed by many, by means of that Baptism, or Consecration unto Christ by Water, which was administered unto them in their infancy, and which they still own, and in the strength and conscience whereof they still walk, without any other Baptism received by them afterwards; as I have fully demonstrated, pag 24, 25, 26, 27. of my Discourse, entitled, Water-dipping, etc. Consectary. If Baptism was not ordained by God for itself, or for the bare letters sake of it, but for ends and purposes, spiritually beneficial unto men, then cannot the receiving of it afterwards be any ways commodious unto them, who by means of their Infant-Baptism, or otherways, are actually possessed of these ends; nor doth God require a subjection unto it of such men. The Second Part. BEING A modest Examination of Mr. William Allen's Arguments, pretending clearly to prove (as himself expresseth it) the Invalidity of the Administration of Baptism to Infants. Sect. 1. I Trust that Mr. A. notwithstanding the great disservice he hath done (I presume not out of a worse Conscience, then what want of light in the particular, rendereth it) unto God, in the affairs of Jesus Christ, and the Gospel, by publishing his Baptismal abuses, hath yet so much interest in him, as to be heard by him in that Christian and worthy Petition (in the close of his Premonition) viz. that God will give unto his Reader, so much light, as to discern that which is of him, from that which is but of men. Nor am I without all hope, but that this prayer of his will unto many of his Readers, turn to a sovereign Antidote against the danger and infection of his following discourse. For if God shall vouchsafe so much light unto any man, as to d●scern that which is of God in this piece, from that w●ich is but of men, there is not much fear that his judgement will be overruled by the arguments, to espouse the conclusion commended by them. It is a saying too hard for my spirit, nor of any good comportment with my respects to the Author, yet was it the saying of a judicious and sober Christian, both in my hearing and in the hearing of some others, that they never met with, so many Scriptures within so narrow a compass, more abused, than those levied by Mr. A. to fight the battle of that cause, which he laboureth to assert in his book. But though I cannot with confidence rise up to the height of such a saying, or censure, yet very possibly they who spoke the words, might speak them with truth. Sect. 2. He enters his Discourse with this Observation; that, That which bo●h busies the minds, and takes up much time among the servants of God in debates, is that question about Baptism, viz. which Administration is most agreeable to the mind of God whether that which is made to Infants— or whether that which not made but unto persons, who either indeed believe the Gospel, or make profession so to do. I confess that the business of Baptism doth (indeed) much (if not much too much) busy the minds of many in these days, as Circumcision also did the minds of many of old. But as the great Apostle Paul, though circumcised himself according to the Law of God, yea and upon occasion, an Administrer of it unto others, yet severely rebuked, yea and wished the cutting off of those, that stickled for the practice of it by Christians, because of the great disturbance occasioned hereby in the Churches of Christ: Yea and threatened those with no less than loss of Salvation by Christ, who should submit to it upon the terms, on which it was importunely commended, and obtrued upon them by those who taught it: So if he were now alive amongst us, there needs be little question but that he would walk in the same steps of Apostolical severity against those, who are importune and restless in unsettling the minds, and troubling the Consciences of the people of God, in kindling fires of contention and strife, and making breaches and divisions in Christian Churches, by their vehement urging and pressing their new, captious, and ensnaring Doctrines about the adequate subject, the precise mode or manner of the Administration of Baptism, etc. Yea and would caution all those also, who should entertain these Doctrines upon these high terms, on which the necessity of their practice is urged and imposed by their Factors, with the hazard and danger (at least) of miscarrying in the two grand concernments of men; justification, and salvation. For the reason why the Apostle fell so heavy upon the fierce Advocates of circumcision, was not for circumcisions sake, as if he bore any peculiar hatred against this; or because it was now an obsolete ceremony, and as good as out of date; we do not find any such reason as this of his behaviour in that kind, so much as whispered, but because being an external rite and ceremony, they sought to enthrall the judgements and consciences of Christians to the practice of it, as if they could not have been justified or saved without it. This was that which made these men's Doctrines as fire and sword among the Churches of Christ. For otherwise the Prophets of God even under the Old Testament, when Mosaical Ceremonies and Observations were in the strength of their obligations, yet poured contempt upon them, as if God little regarded them, when the observers of them pleased themselves inordinately in them, and upon a confidence of pleasing God in the practice of them, lift up their hearts to commit much iniquity otherwise. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand to tread in my Courts? Bring no more vain Oblations, incense is an abomination unto me— your New Moons, and your appointed Feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me: I am weary to bear them, etc. Esa. 1. 11, 12, 13, etc. If Mr. A. were as infallible in his judgement, in all externalties of Baptism, as Paul, or Peter themselves, or were able to give an account 7 times more passable, then that which he hath yet given, of his opinion touching the appropriate subject of Baptism, yet if he shall idolise his judgement in this kind, or (which is the same) obtrude a conformity in practice to it upon the Consciences of men, as necessary for obtaining remission of sins, and justification in the sight of God (as he doth over and over, as will appear in the progress) or for the bringing of men into the honour and esteem of visible Saint-ship, as if an holy and blameless conversation of the longest continuance, yea though joined with the deepest sufferings for Christ's and the Gospel's sake, did not entitle any man to this honour▪ if (I say) he shall obtrude this his judgement upon Christian Churches upon such terms as these, he will certainly be judged by God, yea and by all considering men, as the Author of all those evils and inconveniences, whatsoever they shall prove to be, wherewith the Churches of Christ shall be infested and molested hereupon. He discovers (as he suppofeth) many other abuses of Baptism, which, if such, certainly are of the smallest moment; whereas himself in the mean time becomes guilty of one of the highest profanations of it, that can lightly be imagined, I mean, of idolising it, or rather (indeed) of that which is least considerable in it. Thus whilst he espieth a moat, (or rather the shadow only of a moat) in the eye of his Brethren, he seethe not the Beam that is in his own eye. Sect. 3. But that question about Baptism, which he meaneth, rather than expresseth (though immediately he maketh it, not properly a question about Baptism, as indeed it is not, but about the administration of Baptism, which is a thing essentially distinct from Baptism; no nor yet is it properly a question about the Administration of Baptism, but about the subject of this Administration, which is really also distinct from the Act itself of Administration) but the question he means, with which men of his opinion in the point, have unhappily disturbed the peace of the Churches of Christ, and obstructed the course of the Gospel (for this is the loud complaint almost of all the faithful labourers in the Lord's Vine-yard, especially beyond the seas since the Reformation) doth not only busy the minds of the servants of God at present, but according to all that can reasonably be judged, or expected in the case, without some very extraordinary interposure of God to prevent it, is like to busy them to the world's end, or at least until his coming, who will do a way (as the Apostle speaks) that which is unperfect, and bring perfection, and face to face with him. For those of Mr. A's judgement are neither able by the Scriptures, or otherwise, to satisfy the judgements and consciences of those, who are considering, and understand themselves, in their dissent from them, nor yet capable of such arguments and grounds from others, which are pregnant and of strength, sufficient in themselves to reduce them. Many of his persuasion boast indeed as if they had scattered the darkness of the question, with that light which they have shined unto the world; and are neither ashamed nor afraid to say, that all those who in these days do not Anti-paedo-baptize with them, must needs sin against their own light, yea and are come to the very brow and brink of this precipitate censure, that those who gather not with them, are like to scatter; I mean, who are not baptised with their baptism, cannot be saved. Poor men! the shadows of the Mountains seem men unto them, and men indeed seem but shadows. But this hath been the genius of by-way men in all ages, to make no less than matter of life and death of their opinions. Sect. 4. But what is the Question, which thus busieth the minds, and takes up so much of the time of the servants of God in debates? It seems it is this: Which Administration is most agreeable to the mind of God, whether that which is made to Infants, or wh●ther that which is not made, but unto persons who either do believe the Gospel, or profess so to do. [I suppose that neither Mr. Allen, nor men of his mind; busy their minds at all about the Question here propounded, unless it be in washing the Blackamoor side of it, to make it look white, and discolouring the other into blackness and deformity. For (doubtless) they are all thoughts made that the latter Administration is not only most agreeable, but only agreeable, to the mind of God. And for those that are contrary minded to them, at least the greater part of them, neither are their minds much busied about the said Question, unless it be in making straight, what the others have made crooked, and ●n drawing out the mind of God in the Question into the light, which the other labour to bury under darkness. For these also are fully persuaded, that the former Administration, not made irregular by circumstance is altogether as agreeable to the mind of God, as the latter; yea and much more agreeable hereunto then the latter, as (generally) practised and performed amongst us in these days; yea that this, the circumstances duly considered under which it is performed, hath neither footing, nor foundation in the Scriptures. Therefore the Question he speaks of, which Administration, etc. doth every whit as much, if not much more, busy Mr. OF s mind, and the minds of his party, as the minds of any of those servants of God, who descent from them. But that it should busy the minds either of the one, or of the other, or take up so much of their time in debates, as it doth, is of no good abode to the affairs of Christ Jesus in the world: therefore they who have kindled the fire of the contest, have the greater sin. Sect. 5. But Mr. A. somewhat handsomely covers the nakedness of those, as well who at first occasioned the said contest, as those who importunely keep it still on foot, by terming his question, a Question about Baptism. If it were (indeed) a Question about Baptism▪ i. e. about the nature or essence of Baptism, or about any thing much considerable in relation to it, as the necessity, end, benefit, etc. it might reasonably be put to consideration amongst the Churches of Christ; yet with this proviso too, that the sense of the propounders in any the said questions, be not imposed upon the Churches, as necessary to be embraced upon the sore penalty of being for ever excluded from Christ, or of being un-churched. This would be to threaten, not to argue, or dispute. But Mr. Allens Question is not about Baptism itself, nor about any thing much considerable relating too it, but only about the precise, adequate, and appropriate subject of the Administration of it. It is true, the will and mind of God, even about Tythingmint, Anise, and Cummin, yea though sparingly discovered, and hard to come at, is not to be despised, nor the knowledge of it neglected; but he, or they that should spend much of their time in hammering out such a notion ● with colourable arguments and grounds to commend and set it off) wherein they can please themselves, as if it were the unquestionable mind of God in the case, and then adjure all Christians to be of their mind, either upon pain of damnation, or of losing their Church-ship, or the like, such persons certainly would not approve themselves unto God, or unto Jesus Christ in so doing; no not though their notion; which they should obtrude upon the Christian world in this case, and upon these terms, should prove to be the truth. The mind and will of God was, that by the coming and suffering of Christ in the flesh, the Mosaical differences of meats should cease, and that Believers should be at liberty, (and so judge themselves) to eat what kind of meats they pleased. Yet was it expressly contrary to the Will of God, that they who knew the truth and will of God in this case, should be either troublesome, or ensnaring unto other Christians, so much as by the exercise or acting of this their liberty before them. Hast thou Faith [i. e. believest thou, that thou now lawfully mayest eat meats, that were prohibited by Moses Law!] have it to thyself before God; a meaning a Rom. 14. 22 that he should be content with the use and benefit of this his liberty, in private, and not by any importune use or venditation of it before others, who were yet weak and unsatisfied in the point, trouble or ensnare them. And yet the knowledge of the mind and will of God in this case, was by many degrees (I wis) of greater moment and consequence than the knowledge of his mind touching the precise subject of the Baptismal Administration, whatsoever it shall be found to be. For either to doubt, or to be ignorant, whether a man or woman ●ight lawfully eat meats prohibited by Moses Law, was (constructively) to doubt, or to be ignorant, whether Christ was come in the flesh, or no, and consequently, whether he was not to be expected afterwards; an error which occasioned the destruction of many thousands of the Jews temporally, yea (as is greatly to be feared) eternally also (not to mention many other Christian accommodations, which accompanied the knowledge of the truth in the case.) Whereas the knowledge of the mind of God touching the proper subject of the Baptismal Administration, especially if it be that, which Mr. A. and his party contend for, is by this (to omit many other arguments) evicted to be of very slender consequence, viz. that since, and where, it hath been discovered, and a practice corresponding with it submitted unto, the State of Christianity hath little advanced (if not retreated rather) nor any thing more of God, or of Christ, been seen or known in the world, than was before, yea and still is in such places, and amongst such persons, who do not acknowledge or own the said subject. But of this probably we may speak more at large elsewhere. In the mean time let not Mr. A. nor men of his opinion, any more call the Question argued in his book, a Question about Baptism, nor yet about the Administration of Baptism, but only about the appropriate subject of this Administration; which being truly interpreted, is (as hath been proved) a Question of small consequence; not of much greater, than the question about Melchizedek's Father, which also is very solemnly, with much devotion and gravity, argued by some. Sect. 6. Nor doth he state his Question with any clearness to the sense of his Adversaries. For they do not hold or teach, that an Administrator of Boptism made to infants, is more agreeable to the mind of God, than a like administration made to some, who believe, and profess the belief of the Gospel. They acknowledge that Baptism is administered to such persons, who newly come out of Judaisme or Paganism, and profess the Gospel, with as much agreeableness to the mind of God, as unto Infants. 2. Neither do they hold (at least some of them) but that Baptism may be administered to those who have lived loosely and profanely in a profession of the Gospel, upon their repentance, at least in case they have not been baptised formerly, and this with as much agreeableness also to the mind of God, as unto Infants. Nay 3 some of them (for I know not the sense of them all in this point) are not positive, but that the said administration may be made, and this with as much agreeableness unto the mind of God as unto infants, to such Believers, though formerly baptised, whose consciences cannot be satisfied without it; according to the saying of the Apostle in a like case, It is better to marry then burn; though if the burning could be healed without marrying, it were better then either. But that which they generally hold in the Question about the subject of Baptismal administration, is, that this administration may with good agreeableness to the mind of God, be made unto infants. And this (indeed) is that against which Mr. A's discourse is directly bend in the first part of it; and if his reasons and arguments, by which he opposeth this, be disabled by a fair and rational answers given to them (respectively) there will be no need of any further inquiry after either of his undertake in the latter part. Sect. 7. In order to the advance of his first argument, he prescribes us the best way (as he conceives) to come to satisfaction about the said Question, and this (saith he) is to observe the Mr. A. p. 1. footsteps of the Flock of Christ in the first setting forth of this Ordinance, etc. (he means, in the practice of Christians, in John the Baptists, and Apostles times.) To prove this to be the best way, he refers us to what the Apostle did in one case, 1 Cor. 11, 23. and to what Christ did in another, Mat. 19 4. 8. But first Mr. A. prescribes us one way to come to the said satisfaction, but his Proofs and Texts brought to commend this way unto us, lead us to another way. This way which his proofs and texts lead us, unto is (indeed) absolute and complete, and could he guide our feet into this way, in the case and question in hand, we should without ask, or making any more questions for conscience sake, walk together with him in it. But this way consisteth not in the footsteps of the flock of Christ, nor in the practice or example (one, or more) no not of the greatest Saints, but in the express letter of an institution. In the latter of the two places cited, our Saviour, for the reducing of marriage, and matters relating thereunto, to their primitive intent and use, doth not send the Jews to the practice either of Abraham, Isaac, or any of them that came nearest in practice to the Law, or institution of marriage, but to the institution itself. So likewise in the former, the Apostle, to make straight, what the Corinthians had made crooked, in the Administration of the supper, doth not send them to the practices of such and such Churches, who possibly in their administrations, came nearest to the institution, but to the institution itself. Which way of the two shall we take for our satisfaction? that which Mr. A. prescribes and follows, or that which the Scripture cited by him leads us unto? If he would have us to follow the former, we have no authority or rule of Scripture from him (if at all) so to do; if the latter, than he counsels us against his own practice, and prevaricates with his cause, and with the foundation on which he builds his first argument, viz. matter of fact (as himself calls it, p. 2.) And indeed it is the foundation of all the rest of his arguments, and of the arguments of all of his way, upon the subject in hand. Nor do we deny matter of fact to be a foundation in its kind; but in what cases, and how far, we own and reverence it in such a relation, may be showed in due time. Sect. 8. But 2. His more probable meaning and intent is (though his words fall short) that both together, practice and institution are the best way or means whereby to receive satisfaction in the Question before us. If so, then is it but reasonable to desire of him, either 1. To produce or show unto us an express institution for Baptism; this (probably) would soon compromise the difference between us: Or else 2. To prove substantially (for, as the saying is, old Colts are not to be taken with chaff, nor considering Christians to be satisfied with light or lose conjectures) that an usage or practice, though immediately following an institution, yea and this with good correspondency and conformity to the institution, is notwithstanding commensurable to the whole council and intent of God in the institution, or holds forth and expresseth adequately and completely all that, which the institution comprehendeth. Nay the certain truth is, that not only no practication of an institution, though with never so good conformity hereunto; but that not the letter itself, or Grammatical sense of the words of an institution, do express hold forth, or comprehend, the whole mind or counsel of God in any institution whatsoever. For God himself hath authorized the law of nature, and humane accommodation, to Umpire in the practice or administration of all institutions, and to overrule the letter of them, a See this more largely opened and proved, Water-dipping, etc. p. 5, 6, 7, etc. in these and such like say; I will have mercy and not sacrifice: b Mat. 9 13 12. 7. So again, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. c Mar. 2. 27. Again, Which of you shall have an Ass, or an Ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day? d Luke 14. 5 See also Josh. 5. 5, 7. 1 Sam. 21. 6. Mat. 12. 3, 4. Luke, 13. 15. Mat. 5. 23, 24. (with some others.) This being so, how far is Mr. A. out of the way, in his Doctrine towards the close of his discourse, where neither I, nor he, can truly say, for an institutions sake, but for a disputable circumstance or punctilloes sake, about the administration, nay about the subject only of the administration of an institution, he not only teacheth a lawfulness, but importunely urgeth and presseth a necessity upon men, to abandon Churches, as unclean, & so to break that faith, which they had formerly given unto Christ, and unto his Saints, touching the performance of all Christian services of love, for the edification, comfort, and well-being of those Churches, which they thus abandon, and separate from, having formerly been members of them. But to make disputable and uncertain notions, grounds of forsaking or omitting, evident and undisputable duties, what is it but to make the night an overseer of the day? But this by the way. Sect. 9 To this I cannot but add one thing more upon the same account. Mr. A, knows very well, that his Brethren, from whom he dissents in the present controversy, deny that there is any institution at all of Baptism upon record, either in the New Testament, or the old; yet takes no notice at all of it. And though it be matter of so great consequence to the business in hand, though he had so fair an opportunity, yea though the Scriptures cited by him imposed a kind of necessity upon him, to speak concerning it, as either to prove that there is such an institution, or otherwise to show how we may come to satisfaction in and about, the use and practise of Baptism, though there be no institution, yet he waves the consideration of it altogether. Whether this omission was casual, or prudential, shall be no part of our present enquiry. However by the light of what hath been said, we plainly see that Mr. A. knoweth not, or at least, that it doth not appear that he doth know, how to clear up unto us a way, or rule, how to receive satisfaction in the particular in hand. His Scriptures produced lead us to the institution of God; but his best way, to the practices of some men. The institution would be satisfaction unto us without the practices of men: but the practices of men without the institution, do but satisfy us in part, touching the institution, viz. how it may▪ or ought, in such and such cases, under such and such circumstances, to be administered. Yea the truth is, that for Mr. Allen's praetises themselves, as far as he is able from the Scriptures to declare and argue them unto us, they are not, no not to such a degree, so completely satisfactory, (as there may be occasion to show afterwards,) When the institution of circumcision was given, if an estimate should have been made of the mind of God, concerning the adequate or proper subject of this Ordinance, by matter of fact, or by the first administrations of it, evident it is that such an estimate would have led men into error, notwithstanding he that managed and ordered these first administrations, was as faithful, and as good a friend of God, as either John, or the Apostles themselves. For no administration was at first made of this Ordinance (at least we read of none that was made) but only unto persons that had outlived the eight day of their lives by many years, as unto Abraham himself, being now 99 years old, unto Ishmael, being 13 years old, and unto every male among the MEN in Abraham ' s house, Gen. 17. 23, 24, 25. And yet we know that the primary intent of God concerning the subject of this administration, respected children only of the eight day, Ger. 17. 12. He proceeds to tell us, That it is no man's douht who believes the Scriptures, but that Baptism was administered to believing and repentant persons in those times; but that it was administered to Infants, divine History, no where reports, nor can it be duly collected, from any part thereof. We answer, Sect. 10. 1. As it is no man's doubt indeed (in which respect Mr. A. might have spared the asserting it, without any detriment to his cause) but that Believing and Repentant persons were baptised, so neither needs it be any man's doubt, but that persons, neither believing (I mean, truly, unfeignedly, and to justification) nor Repentant, were baptised also. For who can think that the inhabitants of Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, were all believing and repentant persons, (who yet were all baptised. a Mat. 3. 6. ) considering that when the Apostles met before God about so solemn and weighty a business, as the choosing of a new Apostle, the whole number of Disciples present with them were but about an hundred and twenty? yea that whole multitude which John calls a generation of vipers, were all baptised of him, Luke. 3. 7. compared with verse 21. Nor do I suppose it to be any man's doubt, but that Simon magus was an hypocrite, and consequently no Repentant person, when he was baptised. Yea Mr. A. himself seems to suppose (pag. 15.) that men may lawfully t●●e up the Ordinance of Baptism, only to engage themselves to the practice of Repentance and Mortification afterwards. 2. Neither is it any man's doubt now (or the doubt of some few only) but that Baptism may, and aught, to be administered to believing and Repentant persons, in such cases, and under such circumstances, in, and under which it was administered unto them in the Apostles times. But▪ Sect. 11. 3. No ways, no not with so much as the face of a consequence, doth it follow; that because it was administered then in such particular cases, or under such and such circumstances determinately unto Repentant persons and Believers, ought If Mr. A. could show us such a command as this, for the baptising o●●ele●vers or Professors only, we sh〈…〉 d not decline to practise accordingly. it now to be administered in cases altogether differing, or under circumstances of a quite contrary nature and import, unto the like. It was Mr. A's opinion very lately (whether it be still alive, or since dead, I know not) that the anointing the sick with oil by the elders of the Church, in order to their healing and recovery, ought not now to be practised by them; yet I suppose he will not deny but that it was practised by the elders of Churches in the Apostles days, and this by expresseness of command, Jam. 5. 14. This his opinion touching a necessity of varying from a primitive practice, and and this imposed by an express command, he can upon no other account tolerably justify, but only by alleging that the case, in reference to such a practice is different in these days, from what it was in the days of the Apostles, when the gifts of healing were vested in persons of that relation in Christian Churches. So again, while he declines that primitive practice of greeting his Christian Brethren with an holy kiss, so oft, and so expressly commanded by God, b Rom. 16. 16 1 Cor. 16. 20 2 Co●. 13. 12. 1 Th●ss. 5 26 1 Pet. 5. 14. and withal so religiously observed by Christians for several ages after the Apostles (as appears from Justin, Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, and others) he can give no competent reason but only the difference of the case, or of circumstances between those primitive times, and ours, or rather (perhaps) between those countries or parts of the world, and ours. There is the same consideration of our common custom (at which Mr. A. is no more scrupled than others) of prophesying [i. e. of being present at the exercise of prophesying, or of preaching or opening the word of God] with our h●ads covered; which notwithstanding is expressly contrary to the practice, which the Apostles ordered and enjoined in the primitive Churches, 1 Cor. 11. 4. 7. Yea the Prophets or Ministers themselves in the French Churches, prophesy with their heads covered, and (for aught I know to the contrary) are therein blameless. Again Mr. A. takes, or at least allows a liberty to vary from the practice of Christ himself in his primitive administration of the Supper. He administered it unto men only; Mr. A. pleads the title of women also to the administration, page 11. Doubtless he cannot justify an administration so far differing from that of Christ in respect of the subjects of it, or persons administered unto, but by pleading that the case is otherwise with us, in reference to the ordinary administration of the supper, that aught to be practised amongst us, than it was with Christ, after this, or some like manner: Christ judging it meet to solemnize the first administration of the Supper, with his Apostles only, by whom he intended to erect the said administration in all Churches throughout the world, had no occasion to interess women therein; and besides, the administration being yet unknown and unheard of amongst Christians, no women more than men, could so much as desire part and fellowship therein. Whereas amongst us, and in our Churches, we have women-members, as well as men, who are in the same capacity with men to partake in the Ordinance, and who desire it with as much desire as they: and besides, we have no such motive or occasion, to confine ourselves unto men in our Administrations, as the Lord Christ had in his. If then difference of case, and diversity of circumstance, one or more, will justify a different practice in all the particulars now mentioned, from those, which were most regular and worthy in other cases, and under differing circumstances, is it not most rational to conceive & conclude, that the ordinary practice of the Apostles in Baptising Believing and Repentant persons, (supposing it to have been such) doth no ways argue or prove, but that the ordinary practice of baptising children now may be more justifiable▪ than such a practice would be, considering that the case of Christianity and circumstances relating unto Baptism, are so much altered, and differing as they are, from what they were in the Apostles days. In the Apostles days, the Believing and Repentant persons whom they baptised, had not been trained up in the knowledge of Christ, or in the profession of Christian religion, but were newly converted unto Christ, either from Judaisme, or Gentilism. In the like case, and under the same circumstances, we also judge that Believing and Repentant persons, at least professors of both, and these only, aught to be baptised. But in our days, and amongst us profession of the name of Christ being made by persons from their childhood, and it being difficult for men and women to determine the time of their effectual conversion; we, in regard of this great change of circumstances, and considering that Baptism is very improper to be administered after many years' profession, and having no ground or warrant in the Scriptures, for the administration of it in this case (lest of all for the ordinary and constant administration of it) judge it much more agreeable to the mind of God, and to the requirement of those circumstances, which lie before us, (in conjunction with other reasons and grounds, which we shall account for in due time) to make the administration unto children, then to defer it until after years. But, Sect. 12. 4. (And last) whereas he addeth, It cannot duly be collected from any part or circumstance of divine History, that Mr. A. p. 2. Baptism was administered to infants in the Apostles days; we Answer: 1. That here he boasteth, whilst he is only girding on his Armour, and triumpheth before the Battle. 2. That though the administrntion he speaks of, cannot be collected from any part or circumstance of Divine History; yet it maketh every whit as much against him, if it can be collected from any other passages of Scripture, though not Historical. Mr. A. himself, only upon grounds delivered in the Scripture for the doing of many things, presumeth them to have been done, both by the Apostles and other Christians, although the Historical part of the Scripture recordeth not their doing, as in the matter of women's admission to the Lords Table, of the baptising of many Christians, yea and of the Apostles themselves, whose Baptisms are not reported in the Scriptures. 3. We affirm and say, that what he saith cannot be duly collected from Divine History, may be duly collected from hence, especially other passages of Scripture being allowed to prompt the History i● the case. This we are confident we shall be able to make good in due time and place. 4. (And last) Neither ca 〈…〉 t be duly collected from Divine History, that Baptism was not administered to Infants in the Apostles days, which yet (it seems) is Vena Basil●ca the master vein in the body of Mr. A's Faith about Baptism. Sect. 13. After this Harbingery, his first argument, which (by the way) he tells us is drawn from matter of fact, advanceth. Mere matter of fact, is somewhat a strange principle or foundation▪ from whence to prove either the lawfulness, or unlawfulness, of a practice about an instituted Ordinance, especially in all cases. Nor is such a reasoning as this meet to make a pillar of any man's Faith: Such or such a thing was neither done by Christ, nor his Apostles. Ergo it ought not to be done by any others. For if the ●ctions and practices of Christ and his Apostles, be such e 〈…〉 es and so far binding to us, that we are wholly bound up ●●to them, in respect of acting, and non-acting, than they are thus binding either universally, and without exception; or else particularly, and with limitation only. That they do not bind universally, is evident from the consideration of the many absurdities, which will unavoidably follow hereupon, and which are obvious to every man's thought: In particular it would follow, that we should be bound to forswear, to deny our Lord and Master Christ, not to believe his resurrection, unless we should see in his hands the print of the nails, thrust our hand into his side, etc. with several other things of like notorious consideration.) If they bind us particularly only, I mean, if only some of them be binding unto us, and not all, then is Mr. A's argument, drawn from matter of fact, of little value, until he hath proved, that whatsoever Christ and the Apostles particularly did in the administration of Baptism, is of that kind of action, which bindeth both negatively and affirmatively all persons, in all cases, and circumstances whatsoever. When he shall have proved this substantially and workman like, I shall be his Proselyte without any more ado. Sect. 14. His first argument, which is spe gregis, the argument that must stand to it, and fight for all his fellows, is this: If Baptism were not administered to Infants in the days of Mr. A. first Argument. John the Baptist, nor of Christ, nor of the Apostles, than ought it not to be administered unto infants now. But it was not administered then, etc. Therefore it ought not to be so administered now. Because Mr. A, doth his business logically, and draws up his argument in mood and figure, syllogism-wise; I shall (by the way) desire the Reade●, who it may be) is no Artist to inform himself, that if either, the major or the minor proposition in a syllogism be disabled, and disproved, though both be not, yet the whole argument falls to the ground, and becomes null; and that, according to the common saying in Logic, Conclusio sequitur det●riorem partem, i. e. the conclusion is never better than the worst of the propositions, by which it is proved; as a ●●affe, anchor, cable, or the like, ●re not to be esteemed stronger, than what their strength is in the w●●kest parts. I confess there is no great need of delivering this Item here, because we shall find both propositions tardy. Only it may possibly be, that the weakness of one, will be made more manifest unto some, then of the other: and in this respect the notion now presented may be of use. But, 1. To the major proposition in the argument, we answer die benying it, and give this account of our denial. First no particular observation, or administration of an Ordinance, or institution, doth, or can, answer or express, the whole mind or counsel of God therein (I mean in the said Ordinance or institution.) When Abraham circumcised his son Isaac the eight day, (Gen. 21. 4.) he did not act or express the whole counsel of God in the institution of circumcision. For the mind of God was, that men Jews should be circumcised, as well as children at eight days of age, in case their circumcision was omitted, whilst they were children. In like manner when Joshua circumcised men (Jos. 5. 5. 7.) neither did he express herein, the full mind of God in the Ordinance, as is evident: nay he herein acted expressly contrary to the letter of the institution, which confined circumcision to the eight day, and yet was blameless. When the Priests and their families observed the Ordinance of God in eating the Show bread, they did not herein express the whole counsel of God in this Ordinance: For this extended to a lawfulness even for others also, who were not of any Priestly family, to eat of this bread, in case of much hunger, and defect of provisions otherwise; as is evident by what David, and those that were with him, did in the days of Abiathar the Priest. a Mar. 2. 26. When the Jews observed the institution of the Sabbath according to the greatest preciseness of the letter that can be imagined, as when neither themselves, son nor daughter, man servant, nor maid servant, , nor stranger within their gate, did any work at all, they did not by such an observation as this, express the whole counsel of God in, and about the Sabbath. For his counsel and intent herein further was, that they should do good on the Sabbath day, as well as on any other day, as in ministering unto the sick, in helping an Ox or an Ass out of a ditch or pit, whereinto they were fallen, &c, Our Saviour himself in his administration of the supper, did not act to the extent or compass of his own counsel and intendment in the institution. For he did not administer it unto women, when as notwithstanding, we generally believe (and this upon sufficient grounds) that his intentions in the institution reached unto these also. From hence then it evidently follows, that John's, and so Christ's, and the Apostles, administering Baptism unto Believers or Repentant persons only, and not unto Infants, is no sufficient argument or proof, that therefore it was no part of God's intent in the institution of Baptism, that it should be administered unto infants. God (as hath been said, and showed) always intends more in an institution, than any administration of it doth express. Sect. 15. If it be here replied; that in case it had been any part of the mind of God, in the institution of Baptism, that infants should partake of it, it is no ways likely but that either John, or Christ, or one or other of the Apostles, would first or last have made the administration unto them; I answer. 1. It hath not yet been proved, (nor I believe, ever will) that none of these ever made an administration of Baptism unto infants. But more of this in our answer to the minor proposition. 2. Why is it not as likely, supposing the counsel of God in the institution we speak of, to stand as well for the baptising of Infants, as of men, that yet neither John, Christ, nor any the Apostles, should baptise infants, as that Paul should baptise only so few, as himself reporteth he did, a 1 Cor. 1. 14, 15, 16. when as according to the counsel of God, he might have baptised twenty times as many, yea and (doubtless) had opportunity to have done it. 3. (And last) As the reason why Paul baptised so few as he did (and I suppose he had not sinned, in case he had not baptised these, yea or any at all) was, because he had another work of far greater weight, worth, and concernment unto him, to lay out himself upon (viz the preaching of the Gospel) then baptising was; in like manner, John, Christ, and the rest of the Apostles, probably did conceive and judge, that it did more principally in those times, concern them to look after, and provide for the baptising of men and women, then of children; and upon this account might, though not neglect, yet omit, the baptising of children. Yet this doth no ways prove, but that it might be lawful for them to have baptised children; as (questionless) it was lawful for Paul to have baptised a thousand more than he did baptise, the baptising of whom notwithstanding he omitted without sin. Again. 2. We deny the consequence in the said major Proposition, upon another account also, which is this. Circumstances, and aspects of probable inconveniences, may render, not only things that are lawful, but even such, which in some cases are necessary, in expedient in some others, and consequently, better and fit for the servants of God to let alone, during the said posture of circumstances, then to practise. This is so evident, both in the Scriptures, and in reason itself, that I suppose I may without loss, spare the proof of it. Therefore John, Christ, etc. might upon consideration of some circumstance, one, or more (possibly unknown unto us) forbear the baptising of infants in their days, though a practice lawful enough, and ordinarily, in Churches constituted, necessary. And whereas Mr. A. pleads the cause of his proposition, or consequence, which, upon the grounds now specified, we deny, by this reason, viz. That that which was a reason to them then to forbear baptising infants, and upon which they did forbear it, is, or aught to be a reason to all men now to forbear it likewise, we answer, that this reason hath but a very waterish and faint taste of reason in it. For, Sect. 16. 1. It proceeds ex non conc●ssis, takes that for granted, which is denied by his adversaries, viz. that John, Christ, etc. did forbear the practice in question. 2. If they did forbear it for a time, it followeth not that they did forbear it perpetually or altogether. 3. If they did forbear the said practice altogether, and never baptise any infant, in the next place we deny that the reasons of their forbearance are binding unto us, until 1. They be declared and made known to us what they were; and 2. Until it be proved that those reasons, upon which they forbear, (in case they did forbear) have the same influence upon, or relation unto, us, which they had upon, and unto them. For it is not reasonable that we should suspend, or forbear, the doing of that, which we conceive to be a duty, and that upon such grounds, which were never yet (at least to our judgements) sufficiently answered, or disproved, only because it was not done (or rather because some conceive it was not done) in the days of Christ, and the Apostles; especially considering that we are able to give a competent account, (at least) to ourselves; yea and (we suppose) to others also, who are not too deeply baptised into a spirit of prejudice and partiality (which in such a case as this we judge sufficient) why they did, or might forbear, in case it should be proved that they did forbear in this kind. This account we briefly mentioned, §. 15. and may somewhat enlarge upon it in place convenient. In the mean time we clearly see that hitherto Mr. A. hath only cleared doubts by darkness; and by the reason or proof exhibited, hath mediated no good accord between the consequent and Antecedent in his major proposition. For were both these granted. 1. That John and the Apostles did forbear infant-baptism in their days: and 2. That that which was a reason unto them to forbear it, aught to be a reason unto all men now to forbear it, (viz. in case all men had the same reason now, I mean, were under the influence or command of the same or the like reason) yet doth it no ways follow from hence, that therefore if they forbear infant-baptism, all men ought to forbear it now. The reason of the nonsequitur is, because God may subject one man, or some men, to a necessity of some forbearance, by such a reason, in individuo, or in actu excercito (as the Schoolmen speak) by which all men are subjected to the like forbearance, in specie, or in actu signato, who yet may never actually, or in individuo, be subjected hereunto, by this reason. As for example, the command of God, o● the motion of the spirit of God in men, to forbear such or such a practice, is in specie, and in the general, equally binding unto all men as to this forbearance. All men are alike bound (I mean, one man is bound, as well as another) to obey every command of God, that shall be directed to him, or imposed on him. But in case such a command be directed and given unto some particular men, and not unto others, (and there is the same consideration of an inward motion of the spirit) it doth not follow, that because the former are bound by it to the supposed particular forbearance, that therefore the latter, viz. to whom this command is not given, should be bound likewise, though the command of God, simply considered, be alike binding unto all. Therefore in case John, and the Apostles, were moved by the spirit of God to forbear the baptising of Infants, (which I presume Mr. A. himself will not deny) and upon this motion did forbear it, it doth not follow from their being moved hereunto, that those who are not moved, as they were, are, or should be bound by their motion, to the like forbearance. Particular motions of God's spirit unto actions (and there is the same reason of forbearances also) either besides, or contrary unto, standing and known rules, or laws, bind no man, but only those particularly inspired and moved by them, either to the actions or forbearances, unto which these persons are moved or led by them. But that as well John the Baptist, as the Apostles, did forbear the baptising of infants, in case it be supposed that they did forbear it (which was never yet substantially proved, nor I believe ever will be) by special and particular direction or motion of the Holy Ghost, and not otherwise, is clearly demonstrable by this argument. Either (upon the said supposition) they did forbear it by particular and express motion from the Holy Ghost, or else by some standing order, rule, or direction, recorded in the Scriptures or else by the motion or guidance of their own spirits. But they forbear it not upon either of these latter accounts. Therefore their forbearance (upon the supposition mentioned) was by extraordinary and particular motion of the Holy Ghost. If Mr. A. will say, that their forbearance was grounded upon any general or standing law or rule of Scripture, let him produce such, whether law, or rule, from hence, whereby men are prohibited or restrained from baptising infants. If he shall do this, the controversy between him and his Antagonists about Infant-Baptism, will soon be at an end. That the said persons (John, and the Apostles) did not forbear Infant-Baptism, out of the private dictate or motion of their own spirits, Mr. A. (I presume) will not affirm, in which respect it needs no proof. Sect. 17. But whereas we might here regularly have expected to see the reasons, why, as Mr. A. pretends, Baptism was not administered unto infants in the days of John, etc. behold quite another vision. He turns another way, and falls upon inquiry, what reasons, we should, or can, have to baptise infants, which they had not; as though he would imply, that he had showed what reasons they had, and would go somewhat further, viz. to see whether we had, or possibly might have any other. And thus whilst we were in expectance of some arguments from him to confirm his argument, he hath slidden from us like a Serpent over a rock, and we find him again creeping in at a whole on the other side. But let us follow him at this turn also, and draw him forth into the light. He makes an enumeration or recital of five reasons, which may be pretended for infant-baptism now, and which some may think were not obligatory unto them (John, the Apostles, etc.) and closeth (with confidence more then enough, as if he had surveyed the round world, and all that is therein.) Other [reason's] then these cannot lightly be supposed, or imagined ever to come up into the minds of men. Mr. A. was not comprehensive enough at this turn, there are several reasons here, which lie without the verge or circle of his imagination here; two of which have been already mentioned, and shall (upon this occasion) be again repeated, and a little further opened. Sect. 18. 1. We may be in a better, and more convenient capacity for baptising infants now, than they were, because the Apostles, yea and Christ himself, had a business of far greater weight and moment lying upon their hand, then baptising, not only infants, but even believers themselves, viz. the planting of the Gospel in the world, the constituting and inspection of Churches, etc. in comparison of which, the business of baptising, whether one sort of persons, or other, was but of an under consequence. And that de facto, they many times did, upon the account we speak of, omit other things as necessary as this (yea by many degrees more necessnry) sufficently aippears in that for the Gospel's sake, & ministry thereof, they frequently exposed themselves to all kinds of hazards, neglected their healths and lives, the preservation of which (being a work of mercy) was of more consequence, than any such sacrifice as the Baptism of infants is, yea or of believers themselves. The Apostle Paul in saying, that he was not sent to baptise, but to preach the Gospel (though yet he did baptise, as lawfully he might by his commission) clearly implies, that baptising, in comparison of preaching the Gospel, was but an inferior employment, & which he ought at some turns to omit, viz. when it fell nor in conveniently with his greater occasions (as will further appear afterwards) yea baptising, whether one or other, was of so small a consideration in the eyes of the Lord Christ, in comparison of the preaching of the Gospel, that at the first sending forth of his▪ Apostles to preach the Gospel (Mat. 18. Mar. 3. Luke 9) yea and when a while after, he sent forth seventy other Disciples about the same work, he spoke not a word either to the one, or the other, about baptising any. So then this is one reason, not reducible to any of Mr. A's five, why that Ministers of the Gospel, and Pastors and Elders of Churches in these days, may be reputed in a better capacity for the baptising of children, than the Apostles, and those that were assistants unto them in their days, were. Sect. 19 2. As Paul and Silas, were once forbidden by the Holy Ghost, to preach the Gospel itself, for a time in such a place, where otherwise they were then minded to have preached it, a Act. 16. 6. yea and where they did preach it afterwards, b Act. 19 10. 26. by the direction of the same spirit, so why may we not conceive, that in case the Apostles, and other Baptists in their times, did forbear the baptising of infants, they might receive a secret prohibition of the Holy Ghost in that behalf, not because the practice was any whit more unlawful, than the preaching of the Gospel was in Asia, when Paul and Silas were restrained from it, but because the will and pleasure of God was, that they should forbear it for a time? And I believe we are able to give as reasonable an account of such a will and pleasure in God, as this, as Mr. A. is to give a reason of that will of his, by which Paul and Silas were testreined from preaching in Asia. Besides, if they were taken off from a practice or course, wherein they had engaged, or exercised themselves for a time, (as viz. from ministering unto or serving tables, as themselves express it, Act. 6. 2. That they might give themselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the Word, v. 3.) if (I say) they were taken off from the employment of serving Tabl●s, upon such an account as this, by the motion or suggestion of the Holy Ghost, why is it not most reasonable to conceive, that upon the like, or rather the same account, they might by a like motion of the Holy Ghost, be dissuaded from entering upon, or engaging themselves in a course of baptising children; I suppose that neither Mr. A. himself, nor any considering man of his way, will deny, but that the Apostles, and those that were directed by, and assistants unto, them in the affairs of the Gospel, in their days were acted and led by the special guidance and motion of the Holy Ghost, in their forbearing Infant-baptism (in case it must be supposed that they did forbear it) as well as in any other course or practise, wherein they walked in order to the advancement of the Gospel. If then John, the Apostles, etc. by special order, advice, or admonition from the Holy Ghost, refrained the baptising of infants in their days, it followeth not, but that we, who in these days, have received no such order, advice, or admonition from the Holy▪ Ghost, neither by any word from the Scriptures, nor by any inward motion or inspiration, may lawfully practise infant-baptism, notwithstanding their forbearance; especially considering that we judge ourselves encouraged, yea obliged hereunto, by the Holy Ghost speaking unto us as he doth, in the Scriptures. Sect. 20. This is a second consideration (over and above those five suggested by Mr. A.) proving that we in our days may be in a regular, yea in an obliging capacity for baptising infants, although John, the Apostles, etc. in their days were not. We do not in all this imply, or suppose, that the Apostles or other primitive men, did always, or altogether omit baptising infants; our judgement is (as we shall further declare in our examination of the minor proposition) that infants were, even in the Apostles days baptised; but only show and prove, that in case it could be proved that they did never baptise infants, yet this doth at no hand lead us to the like forbearance, much less impose a necessity upon us by way of duty, of the like. So that Mr. A's argument or proof of his major proposition, from enumeration of some particulars, is not altogether so good, as the young man's proof of his integrity, from his observance of several of the commandments of God was. For our Saviour challenged him with the lack of one thing only: yet lackest thou one thing: a Luke 18. 22 But Mr. A's argument lacketh two things at least, and who knoweth how many more? And in the conclusion of this his argument, he windeth up much more, than he had spun in the premises. For thus he concludes: And therefore what ever the reasons, or considerations were upon which they (the primitive Baptists) did forbear to baptise infants, the same are binding to all men in these days to forbear it likewise. Will you please to consider how this hath been proved? Because (saith he) we have no other reasons for the doing of it then they had. This reason stands by the said conclusion, as David's friends stood by him, when God (as he complains) had put them far from him. b Psa. 88 18. For what though it were granted (which yet hath been denied, and a good account given of the denial) that we have no other reasons to baptise infants, than they had, yet is it no legitimate consequence from hence, that therefore their reasons of forbearance, are to be our reasons, or reasons unto us, why we also should forbear such a practice. For they might have all the same reasons for baptising infants, which we have; and yet their reasons might possibly, as to them, be overbalanced with others of a contrary import, upon which they might forbear the said practice. But such reasons as these not lying before us (as there is no necessity why they should) we may stand bound to the practice in question, by those very reasons, from the bond or obliging force whereof, the Apostles might be discharged by others of a preponderant consideration. Therefore the arm of Mr. A's reason is too short to reach his conclusion. Sect. 21. In the upshot of his proof of his major proposition, he tells us, that it might be backed (if needful; he might more truly have said, bellied, or made more bulky, then backed, or strengthened) from Philip 3. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 1, 2. From which Texts he would prove, that we ought to follow Christ and his Apostles, in what they did, as being rules and examples to us what to do, and what not, in all manner of worship or actions, which they did, or did not. Either this must be his inference from these Scriptures: or else his citation of them is no ways relative to his purpose. But evident it is from what hath been already argued, neither these Scriptures, nor any other of their calculation, do require any further, or any other imitation, either of Christ himself, or of the Apostles: then 1. In such ways and actions, which are prescribed unto us by some Commandment or other of God: and 2. In such cases, when we are engaged by, or are found under the same circumstances to follow, by which they were engaged to go before. But the said Scriptures do at no hand, nor with any tolerable face of probability, impose it as a duty upon us, to refrain all actions or practices, which, for aught we know, they refrained; especially not to refrain all such actions or practices, which in case they did refrain, they had ground and reason to refrain, and we not. Yet unless Mr. A. can tamper these Scriptures to speak this, they will (in effect) say to him and his cause, for which he seeks their advocation, Depart from us: we know you not. Thus we see by a light as clear as any the Sun shines at noon day, that the major proposition in Mr. A's first argument is very crazy, and so no competent material to make a pillar for any man's Faith or practice. And if this proposition be shaken, the whole strength and glory of the Argument (according to the rule mentioned, §. 14.) is already in the dust. Notwithstanding, lest any man should be so ignorant or weak, as not to give credit to the said rule, but think that if either of the propositions in an Argument, will stand, the Argument may by virtue hereof, be authentic and in force, let us bring the minor proposition, which he calls, The assumption, to the touchstone also. The tenor of this proposition, is this. But Baptism was not administered to Infants, neither in the days of John the Baptist, nor of the Apostles. If this proposition were true, and could be demonstrated, yet it comes too late to salve the credit of the Argument (as was lately said.) But being carefully weighed in the balance of the Sanctuary, it will be found too light, as the former also was. For, Sect. 22. 1. It is not where said or affirmed, that Infants were not baptised by John, the Apostles, etc. Therefore unless it can be proved by some light, and pregnant consequence, from somewhat that is written, that they were not baptised, (which to do, would make a new thing under the Sun) the proposition before us, is no proposition of Faith, nor stands any man bound to believe it. 2. Mr. A's proof from the total silence of the Scripture herein, is as good as total silence, or the speaking of nothing. For it is a common and true rule; that Argumentum ab authoritate ductum negatiuè, non valet, a negative Argument from Authority proves nothing. And Mr. A. from the total silence of the Scripture, may as well prove that neither husband men, nor Merchants, nor Tailors, nor Shoemakers, (nor persons of twenty other callings besides) were baptised, as well as that infants were not baptised. There is alike total silence of the Scripture, concerning the baptising of the one, and the other; or if there be any difference in this kind, the silence is not so perfectly or absolutely total concerning the baptising of children, as of the others (as will appear presently.) Sect. 23. 3. That total silence of the Scriptures, which he pleadeth to prove the non-baptizing of children in the Apostles days, may with as much reason be construed, as an argument, that they were baptised constantly and of course. For matters of common and known practice, the knowledge whereof doth not much concern future times, especially when these practices may be●evinced otherwise, are frequently, and as (it were) of course pretermitted in Historical narrations. There is very little mention made of children circumcised in the old Testament: the reason (questionless) is, because their Circumcision was so common a practice. There is much more notice taken of the Circumcision of men (see Gen. 17. 23, 24, 25. Gen. 34. 24. Jos. 5. 7. 8.) because this was a practice besides, yea and contrary to, the letter of the institution. I conclude therefore (saith Mr. Baxter, p. 116. of his Discourse for Infant-Church-membership, and Baptism) that it is a most evident truth, that Christ did not speak about Infants-Church-membership, because it was a known truth beyond controversy. Nor was there any one man found in those days (that we read of) that ever denied it: and all the Jews, yea and all other Church-members were in actual possession of it, and Christ never questioned their possession. Upon the like account it very well may be that there is so much spoken in the New-Testament of the baptising of men and women, and so little (or nothing at all, in so many words) of the baptising of children. The frequent mention of men and women baptised, may with as much probability (if not more) argue, that the first administrations of Baptism were out of course, and contrary to the order settled by the institution, made unto them, as that they should be exemplary or binding unto future ages: As the recording of so many men circumcised, about the first institution of Circumcision, was not intended to make these administrations standingly or in ordinary cases, exemplary, or obligatory unto aftertimes, because this had been to defeat the express letter of the institution; but rather to show that in like cases, and under like circumstances, viz. when male Jews, or Proselytes had not been circumcised the eight day, they might be circumcised afterwards, when ever they had opportunity. And probable it is, that the circumcising of so many men, Jos. 5. was warranted unto Joshua by the record of those examples. In like manner, the reason why the Holy Ghost maketh such frequent report in the New-Testament of men and women baptised, may (with greatest probability) be, not to leave these examples for patterns, or rules, in all (no nor yet in ordinary) cases, but only in such cases which parallel those, wherein the said administrations are reported to have been made, viz. when men and women should at any time be converted from an idolatrous and false Religion, and not have been baptised before. Much more might be added in confirmation of what hath been now asserted: but the thing itself hath so much face, as well as heart and strength, of reason in it, that until I hear whether that which hath been already said, will satisfy, or why it should not, I shall forbear any further engagement for the proof of it. Sect. 24. If children were not baptised by the Apostles, or in their days, it is at no hand to be believed, that the Holy Ghost would have cast any such snare upon the Christian world in aftertimes, as so frequent a report of households and families baptised, made in the New-Testament, and this without any limitation, or exception of persons, amounteth unto; especially considering that it both was, and is, a thing generally known, that under the Divine dispensation immediately preceding (I mean, that of Moses) children in families were the more appropriate subject of that Ordinance, which was a seal of the same Covenant with baptism [viz. of the righteousness of Faith, i. e. of remission of sins upon beleving, Rom. 4. 11. as we shall evince and prove in due time] and did perform the same, or like service (in the main) unto the Church of God under the Law, which Baptism now performeth under the Gospel (as some of the Doctors of the way of Ana-baptism themselves do acknowledge; though Mr. A. following his over-confident and sufficiently-ignorant leader, weeneth otherwise.) For what though that which Mr. A. laboureth to prove pag. 10. (though his enterprise be too hard for him) should be granted, viz. that there were no children in those families, which are reported to have been baptised by the Apostles, or by their order, yet from the very tenor of this expression, that they baptised Households, it is evident enough that they did baptise children; or (that which is every ways equivalent hereunto) that the mind of the Holy Ghost is, that children should be baptised. For it being left upon sacred record, simply and indefinitely, that households were baptised, and it being the ordinary dialect and language of the Scriptures, by the word, household and house, to understand and comprehend as well children, who are very considerable parts or members of an household, where they be, as persons of riper years, a Therefore we may conclude that the Apostles did baptise children or infants, and not only men of lawful age and that the house or household is taken for man woman and child, is manifest in the 17th. of Genesis, and also in that Joseph doth call Jacob with all his house to come out of the land of Canaan into Egypt. Mr. J. Philpot Martyr, in a letter directed unto §. 27. it cannot reasonably be thought, but that the Holy Ghost did intent that households simply and ablolutely▪ as well those which have children in them, as those which have none, yea and these children themselves, being (as was said) parts of these households, might be baptised. And if so, doubtless the Apostles, who complied with the mind and intent of the Holy Ghost in their sacred administrations, did baptise children. And if Mr. A. and his, from the simple and general reports of believers being baptised, argue and conclude, that therefore all believers may be baptised, why from the like report of households being baptised, where the grown members did believe, may not we infer, and conclude likewise, that all households where the grown members do believe, may be baptised also? Or if the intent of the Holy Ghost had been, that only actual Believers in an house should be baptised, would he have informed the Christian world, that households, whole households, or all in an house, were baptised, without giving some intimation at least, that children in every house were, & aught to be excepted? He that is so careful and desirous above measure to waylay and prevent every sin and every transgression in men, even to the speaking of an idle or vain word, yea to the conceiving or tolerating of a vain thought, doubtless would not have neglected at that turn we now speak of (especially not having done it elsewhere) to insert some word or other, by which so great a sin as the baptising of children, if it be a sin, might be prevented; much less would he have ministered such an occasion unto his Saints, as that specified, to draw and encourage them to the perpetration of such a sin. Sect. 25. 5. To me it is one of the Congregation of the first born of Probabilities, that the Children brought to Christ, with a desire in them that brought them, that he should lay his hands on them and pray (Mat. 19 13. etc.) had been already baptised. For it is expressly said Mar. 10. 16. that he put, or laid his hands upon them. Now we never read in the New-Testament, of the laying on of hands upon any unbaptized person, unless (haply) it were in order to the working of some miraculous cure on him, on whom they were laid, See Mar. 5. 5. 8. 23. Mar. 16. 18. Luke 4. 40. Luke 13. 13. Acts 9 17. Acts 28. 8. In all other cases imposition of hands was practised upon baptised persons only, Acts 6. 6. Acts 8. 17. Acts 13. 3. Acts 19 6. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1 6. And more usually this imposition of hands was practised on those that had, either formerly, or lately, been baptised, and this in order to the receiving of the Holy Ghost, the Apostles (it seems, haply with some Elders of Churches besides, in those days) having received this gift from God, viz. by laying on of hands and prayer, to obtain and impart the gift of the Holy Ghost unto Christians. Yea several Churches of the Anabaptists themselves amongst us, glory in the outward ceremony of laying on hands upon their proselytes newly baptised, as if they were the Apostles heirs, and by descent inherited all their spiritual royalties, and heavenly prerogatives; herein much resembling that ridiculous effeminate Emperor, who out of a foolish desire to be thought Hercules, or a man of strength and courage like unto him, would needs attire himself with a Lion's skin. But now it no ways appears, nor is it in itself a thing likely, that the children we speak of were brought unto Christ, to obtain any cure of any malady or disease from him. Besides if Christ had performed any miraculous cure upon them, there is little question but that this would as well, yea much rather, have been mentioned by the Evangelists, at least one or other of them, as his laying of hands upon them. Therefore (in all likelihood) they were baptised before they were brought to Christ, to obtain the laying on of his hands upon them. Or if we shall say that Christ laid hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost (supposing them at present unbaptised) yet being made partakers of the Holy Ghost, by, or upon, the laying on of Christ's hands, they were hereby put into an immediate capacity of receiving Baptism, according to that of the Apostle Peter, Acts 10. 47. Can any man forbidden water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? And what other benefit or accommodation the Lord Christ should intent to these children, or confer by laying hands on them, but the gift of the Holy Ghost, when Mr. A. demonstrates unto me, I shall demur upon the place. Sect. 26. 6. It is a law or rule established by God himself (repeated several times both in the Old, and in the New Testament) and that for the deciding of cases and questions of far greater moment, then whether children were baptised in the Apostles days (I mean cases and questions about life and death) that In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word should be established. a 2 Cor. 13. 1 Our Saviour more briefly reports it thus (speaking to the Jews) It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. b Joh. 8. 17. If Mr. A. and men of his judgement, will be content to be overruled by this law of God, and this so interpreted and, understood, as the Scripture itself useth and interpreteth it, the Question depending about children's Baptism in the Apostles days, will soon receive a clear issue. For who from amongst men can (lightly) be found a more competent witness in the case, than that great and famous light of the Christian world in his days, whose testimony in matters of fact, was never (to my knowledge, or hearing) so much as questioned or suspected (Augustine I mean.) In one place (speaking of children's Baptism) he saith: If any man ask for divine authority in the matter, although we most rightly believe that what the universal Church holdeth, and was not instituted by counsels, but hath been ever held, was not delivered but BY APOSTOLICAL AUTHORITY; yet we may truly conjecture what the Sacrament of Baptism performeth to Infants, by Circumcision, which the former people did receive. a Et si quisquam in hac re authoritatem divinam quaerat, quanquam quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec concilijs institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostolicâ traditam rectissimè creditur; tamen veraciter continere [potiùs conjicere] possumus quid valeat in parvul●s baptismi Sacram●ntum, ex circumcisione carnis, quam prior populus accepit, etc. Aug. de Bapt. Contà Donatistas'. l. 4. c. 23. In another place, reporting what Cyprian (who lived within an 150 years after John) with many other learned men, Bishops, and Pastors of Churches in his time, had resolved concerning the lawfulness of baptising children at any time, as well before the eight day, as on it (which was the doubt of one Fidus a Bishop) he affirmeth, that Cyprian with his fellows, did not in this their resolution of the case, make any new decree, but kept to the most constant [or settled] belief of the Church. b Beatus quidem Cyprianus, non aliquod decretum c●nd●ns novum, sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans, ad corrigendum eos qui putabant ante Octavum diem nativitatis non esse parvulum baptizandum, non carnem, sed animamidixit non esse perdendam, et mox natum ritè baptizari posse, cum suis quibusdam coepiscopis censuit. Aug. Ep. 28. ad Hieronymum. A little after, he calls the practice of baptising infants, Ecclesia fundatissimum morem, the best [or most] grounded practice of the Church. This passage of Cyprian, is by this famous Author reported c Quid senserit [Sanctus Cyprianus] the baptismo parvulorum, imò quid semper Ecclesiam sensisse monstraverit, paululum accipite. in several places of his works, De verbis Apostoli. Serm. 14. Contrà duas Epist. Pelag. ad Bonifacium. lib. 4. c. 8. Item Epist. 222. ad Marcellinum. Immediately before the former of these quotations, he affirms that Cyprian in that passage, did not so much declare what his own judgement was about the baptising of children, as what the Church had ALWAYS held concerning i●▪ Elsewhere speaking of Infant-baptism he saith that the Authority of the Church maintaineth or possesseth it, the well-grounded Canon [or rule] of truth (I suppose he means the Scripture) obtaineth [or evinceth] it: whoever runs at Tilt against this strength, against this impregnable [or inexpugnable] wall [or fortress] will be broken to pieces by it. a Hoc habet Authoritas matris Ecclesiae, hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet can●n; contrà hoc robur contrà hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat, ipse confringetur Aug. de verbis Apost. Serm. 14. In another place he saith, that by the ancient Canonical and most grounded usage of the Church, children baptised, are called faithful [or believers.] b Nam ideò & consuetudine Ecclesiae, antiquâ, canonicâ, fundatissimâ, parvuli baptizati fideles vocantur, ibid. In another, that that which made him solicitous, was not the opinion itself (meaning of Infant-baptism) which had been now long since founded, by the highest authority that is in the Catholic [or universal] Church, but the disputes of some men, which attempt the public and the subversion of the minds of many. c Solicitos autem nos facit non ipsa sententia jam olim in Ecclesiâ Catholicà summâ authoritate fundata, sed disputationes quorundam quae modo crebrescere, & multorum animos evertere moliuntur, ibid. Yet again he saith, that the custom of the Church in baptising little ones, is not at any hand to be despised; nor yet were it at all to be believed [or received] were it not an Apostolical tradition, d Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae in baptiz●ndis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est, neque ullo modo superflua deputanda, nec omnino credenda, nisi Apostolica esset traditio. Aug. de Gen. ad lit. l. 10. c: 23. [i. e. a practice handed over by, and from, the Apostles to the succeeding Church of Christ.] To add only this one testimony more from this worthy friend and Factor of Christ Jesus in his days: Let no man (saith he) buzz abroad any strange Doctrines. This [of Infant-Baptism] the Church always had, always held, this it received from the Faith of its Ancestors; this will it with perseverance keep unto the end. e Nemo susurret Doctrinas alienas. Hoc Ecclefia semper habuit, semper tenuit, hoc à majorum fide percepit, hoc usque in finem persev●ranter custodit. Aug. de verbis Apost. Serm. 10. Much more might be cited from this worthy Author, for the attestation of this truth, that Infant-Baptism was practised in the Apostles times, and from thence continued in Christian Churches until his days. Nor is it to be believed, the unparallelled integrity, ingenuity, wisdom and gravity of the man considered, that ever he would have opened his mouth, or lift up his pen, to assert such a thing, had he not known the truth thereof very perfectly, yea and been able to give a satisfactory and demonstrative account of what he affirmed in the case, unto all that should have opposed, or questioned him about it. Origen likewise, who lived about 200 years nearer to the times of the Apostles, than Austin, and not much above an 100 years after the death of the Apostle John, and consequently being a very learned, industrious, and enquiring man, could not but know what was done in a business of that public nature in the Apostles times; this Author I say expressly affirmeth, that the Church FROM THE APOSTLES had received a tradition [or practice] to administer Baptism even unto little ones. a Pro hoc & Eccl sia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis Baptismum dare. Sciebant enim illi, etc. Origen. ad Rom. c. 6. v. 5, 6, etc. Yea and subjoins a reason, which (as he conceived) induced the Apostles to this practice. However this Author was not so sound in many points of Doctrine, as some other of the Fathers (although there was none of them, who did not now and then step besides the way of truth; as neither is there any amongst those themselves, who are the severest observers of their errors, but are obnoxious also in the same kind) yet as to matter of fact, I suppose him as competent a witness, as the Law of God lately mentioned intendeth. He that desireth to see more of the sense of antiquity about the point in hand, may consult the writing of Dr. Holms, and Mr. Stephen Marshal, and especially Mr. Richard Baxter, against Mr. Tombs; the first, in his Animadversions upon Mr. Tombs his exercitation, etc. c. 13. p. 107. etc. the second, in his Defence of Infant-Baptism in answer to two Treatises, etc. beginning pag. 7. to the end of pag. 61. The third and last in his Plain Scripture Proof of Infant's Church-member-ship, and Baptism. Part. 2. cap. 15. pag. 152, 153, 154, etc. See also pag. 262, 263, etc. and pag. 374, 375. To which he may please to add a short Treatise, entitled, Infant-Baptism, published some years since by Mr. Robert Ram, Minister of Spalding in Lincolnshire. In this Treatise the Reader (amongst other things) shall find a breviate drawn out of the Centuries of the Divines of Magdeburgh, pointing at such passages in the said Centuries, wherein the continued practice of Infant-baptism for 1300 years together from the Apostles times, is demonstrated from Histories and Authors of best account. In the two former besides many pregnant testimonies from the most ancient writers, evincing the descent of Infant-baptism from the Apostles, he shall find both the authentiquenesse of the Authors, from whence the said testimonies are cited, fully vindicated against those pretences which are levied by Antipoedobaptists against their authorities (respectively) as also such colourable arguments substantially answered, which are by these men drawn [by head and shoulders] from antiquity. So that nothing needs to be added upon any of these accounts, beyond what hath been done lately by others, and is (I presume) of ready procurement by any, that is desirous of satisfaction in any of the particulars. Sect. 27. To the testimonies and authorities of ancient writers, who are one and all in asserting the lineal descent of Infant-baptism from the Apostles, I shall only subjoin the sense and judgement in the case of that learned and worthy Martyr in Queen Mary's days, Mr. John Philpot, in a letter written to a fellow prisoner of his at the same time in Newgate, recorded in the book of Martyrs, Vol. 3. pag. 606. of the last edition. A. 1555. together with a testimony from Robert L. Brook, cited by Mr. Tombs for Antipoedobaptism, in which respect I conceive his testimony will be the more passable with Mr. A. and men of his judgement. But first in one place the Martyr saith: Now will I prove with manifest arguments that children ought to be baptised, and that THE APOSTLES OF CHRIST DID BAPTISE CHILDREN. In another, Since the Apostles were the Preachers of the word, and the very faithful servants of Jesus, etc. who may hereafter doubt, that THEY BAPTISED INFANTS, since Baptism is in place of Circumcision? In a third. Therefore we may conclude, that THE APOSTLES DID BAPTISE INFANTS OR CHILDREN, and not only men of lawful age. More of like import might be cited from this letter, if it were needful. So that unless Mr. A. or men of his mind, can produce some negative testimony, or witness from the Scripture, which do as expressly deny the baptising of children by the Apostles, as these lately produced by me, and many more in far greater numbers produced by others, do affirm it, the affirmative is to be taken for truth, and this by the express law of God mentioned, which saith, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. This Law was made by God to overrule and issue cases and questions of life and death; and consequently of far greater import, then whether children were baptised or no, by the Apostles. Secondly, for the L. Brook, his words (towards the end of his book concerning Episcopacy) are these: First, for aught I could ever learn, it was the constant custom of the purest and most primitive Church, to baptise infants of believing Parents For I could never find the beginning and first rise of this practice: whereas it is very easi● to tract heresies to their first rising up, and setting foot into the Church. Again, I find all Churches (even the most strict) have generally been of this judgement and practice: yea though th●re h●ve been in all age's som●, that much affected NOVEL●Y, and had parts enough to discuss and clear what they thought good to preach; yet was this scarce ●ver questioned by men of note, till within these last ages. And sure the constant judgement of the Churches of Christ is much to be honoured, and heard in all things that contradict not Scripture. It may be Mr. A. will object, that the witnesses intended by God in his law, are only such, who can speak to the case in question upon their own knowledge, as having been either eye-witnesses, or ear-witnesses themselves, of what they testify; not such who testify upon the credit or assertions of others. To this I answer, that Justin Martyr, Ireneus, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, (with many other studious and learned men about their times) all things considered, had as considerable, as unquestionable grounds, for what they testify concerning the practice of Infant-baptism by the Apostles, as a witness, who speaks or gives evidence, upon the credit of his eyes, can reasonably be supposed to have, for such his testimony. For as it is possible for a man to have a mist cast before his eyes, or to suffer such a Deceptio visûs, a deception of his signt, that may occasion him to believe with confidence, that he seethe such or such a thing, which (indeed) he seethe not, yet this possibility disableth no man's testimony, who giveth evidence upon the authority of his eyes; in like manner there being no more than a bare possibility (and this not degreed neither like the other) that the Authors mentioned should be mistaken in the grounds, upon which they build their testimony of the practice of Infant-Baptism by the Apostles, it is very importune, disingenuous, and hardly consistent with a good conscience, for any man to reject their testimony in the case. And if Mr. A. himself, and three or four more of his judgement, of equal repute with him for sober and conscientious men (although I believe his new opinion and way hath not at all tenerized, or bettered his conscience, nor any other man's) should report any thing upon grounds as pregnant with evidence of truth unto them, as the grounds upon which the fathers testified the baptising of children by the Apostles, were unto them, I should without much scruple believe him, yea though the thing reported by him in this case, should in itself be much more incredible, than that children were baptised by the Apostles. Nor is it at any hand to be believed or thought, that the said Authors (their gravity, wisdom, interest and authority in the Churches of Christ, in their days, over and besides the most approved goodness of their Consciences, considered) would upon conjectural or light grounds, or such which had been liable to dis-proof, asserted any such matter of fact as that. Yea (that which is more than this) their adversaries themselves (I mean the Pelagians, who were great opposers of Augustine and the Orthodox Fathers about his days) men of great learning, subtle, diligent and studious in their way, against whose Doctrine and Tenants, the baptising of infants, was one of the grand arguments or objections, urged and insisted on by the Orthodox Fathers, yet never denied, or so much as questioned the truth of what they constantly affirmed, touching the descent of Infant-Baptism from the Apostles. To pretend, that the writings at this day passing under the names of the forenamed fathers, may for aught we know, be spurious and counterfeit, or else depraved and corrupted, and that upon this account, the authority of any thing found in them, is not much to be valued; thus (I say) to pretend argue, and conclude, is worthy only such men, whose consciences will serve them rather to say any thing, and to seek out any frivolous or puted evasion, then to yield to the truth. However if Mr. A. can offer any thing for proof of the negative (that children were not baptised by the Apostles) which in the eye of unpartial and considering men, doth any ways, to any proportion, or degree, balance the weight of what hath been alleged from many competent witnesses for the affirmative, I shall let go the hold I have taken on the credit of their testimony in the case, which until then I suppose himself will judge meet and Christian that I should keep. In the mean time the premises, together with what we shall upon somewhat a like account, immediately subjoin, considered; I do with very little less confidence believe, that Children were baptised in the Apostles days, than I believe the Sun to be up at noon day. Therefore, Sect. 28. 7. It is very considerable also for the discovery of the truth in the business in hand, that the times, when (and for the most part, the occasions whereupon) those additional ceremonies which for a long time accompanied the baptising of infants, as Godfathers, and Godmothers (so called) with some others, had their first rise and original, may from current histories, be showed and found. Whereas no history whatsoever undertaketh to report, when the baptising of infants came first into the Church; which is no light argument or proof, that this practice was more ancient than any Ecclesiastical history now extant; and consequently, as ancient as the times of the Apostles. For it is altogether improbable, that any History should take notice of appurtenances, or additional circumstances, and record the time of their introduction into the Church, and not withal take and give knowledge of the time, when the fundamental and main practice itself first began, in case the beginning hereof, had fallen within that compass of time, which the said History traverseth. What Mr. Tombs impertinently attempteth from the council of Carthage, hath been sufficiently staved and beaten back by others. a Dr. Hosms Animad. upon Mr. Tombs his Exercit. p. 167, 168. etc. Mr. Marshal Defence of Infant-Baptism. p. 40. Nor is there any thing more apparent from History, than the mention of Infant-baptism before that council. For the first council of Carthage (which it is like Mr. Tombs meaneth, though he distinguisheth not, there having been several of the name) was held about the year, 217. according to some computations several years after; whereas there is mention of infant-baptism (as we heard) both in Origen, who died before this council, as also in Justin Martyr, Ireneus, yea and Tertullian, who all lived nearer to the times of the Apostles, than Origen. And it may be worth some observation that Augustine (who as we have heard) so frequently & constantly (upon occasion) asserteth Infant-baptism itself, to have been practised in the Apostles times, yet speaking of the custom of interrogating the infant, to be baptised by the Susceptores, or those that brought it to Baptism (whom we call Godfathers and Godmothers) affirmeth no such thing concerning this, though otherwise he indeavoureth to give the best account of it he can, to his friend and fellow-Bishop Boniface, Epist. 23. Sect. 29. 8. Although no History records either when, or by whom Infant-baptism was first brought into the Church, yet is the first opposing of it ascribed by good History to an Arrian Heretic, named Auxentius with his adherents; as the most learned and worthy Martyr Mr. John Phi●pot, (formerly mentioned) affirmeth in that letter, whereof we took notice in the beginning of §. 27. The diligent perusal of this letter alone, is enough to make Ana-baptism the abhorring of any intelligent man's soul. This Auxentius I find upon the stage acting the part first of a subtle, and afterwards of an imperious insulting Arrian, about the year 369. So that until this time the baptising of Infants (it seems) was never so much as questioned in the Churches of Christ, and he who first questioned and opposed it, opposed withal the Godhead of Christ. So that Mr. A. and his, have no great cause to boast of the founder of their Faith in the Doctrine of Antipoedobaptism; as neither have they of one of the greatest defenders of it, since the late resurrection of it from the dead in Germany (Lodivicus Hetzer by name) who with Auxentius denied, the Divinity of Christ, and besides was a notorious Adulterer, and withal was confident that he was able to justify his adulterous practices by the Scriptures. Indeed the History reporteth that at last he very seriously repent of all, as well his Anabaptism (for so I understand my Authors, Quorum omnium) as of his Arrianism, and Adulteries. a Constantiae, quarta Februarij capite truncatur Ludovicus Hetzer Anabaptistarum Antesignanus, vir trium linguarum peritissimus, sed qui de multis fidei capitibus singulares opiniones habuit. Negavit divinitatem Christi— Causam supplicij de illo sumpti Blarerus in Anabaptismum rejicit, alij in crebra ejus adulteria, quae nonnunquam è Scripturis defendere sit ausus. Quorum omnium seria ductus poenitentiâ, etc. Scultet. Annat. Dec. 2. circa finem Anni, 1529. Those who of later times, and since the beginning of the Reformation attempted first by Luther, revived this opposition, whereas before the followers of the Lamb, as well as of the Beast, had continued the practice of baptising infant's time out of mind (as the saying is) without interruption, are known to have been one Nicholas Ciconia (in English Stork) Mark Stubner, Martin Cellar, and Thomas Munster; these in the year, 1521. went up and down from place to place in Germany, and ensnared many unlearned and simple people, with their pernicious Doctrine (as my Author termeth it.) Their manner was, to boast of colloquies (or private conferences) with God, to talk and inveigh both against Ministers of the Gospel, and men in civil authority: to clamour, that all things in the Church were corrupt and out of order, and therefore must be reduced, that there must be a new Church built, and the Citizens [or members] initiated with a second Baptism. What kind of persons these were, together with the far greatest part of those, whom they drew into their opinion, how they disturbed both the Ecclesiastical and civil peace in all places (almost) where they came, especially where they grew to any head or numbers considerable, I shall forbear here to relate, referring the Reader desirous of satisfaction in such particulars, to unpartial histories of those times. Or to contract his labour in this kind, I recommend unto him (upon this account) the perusal only of the 14th▪ chapter of the second part of Mr. Baxter's book, entitled, Plain Scripture Proof for Infants Church-membership and Baptism. Only I shall mention this concerning Martin Cellar, one of the four, and the learnedst man of them, that after he had stood by his sect several years, and had writ much for it, at last perceiving that his party declined, and matters did not answer his expectation, he went and settled at Basil, married and lived quietly, taught Divinity; and as being ashamed to be known or called by that name, under which he had professed Ana-baptism, he changed his name from Cellarius into Borrhaus; under which name he wrote learned Commentaries upon the five books of Moses, with some others, which are now extant under this name. By the way, I marvel not a little, upon what ground Mr. A. and his partisans can satisfy themselves touching the authentiquenesse of their new Baptisms, considering that (which I suppose is their own principle also) that no unbaptized Person hath any right, or is in any regular capacity to administer Baptism; and consequently that Baptism administered by, and received from such a person, is a mere nullity, and no true Baptism. For all persons baptised in infancy, being judged by them unbaptised, and there being no other but such in the nation, when their new Baptism was first administered here, it undeniably follows, that the first administration of it was a mere nullity: and upon this account how the second, or third, or thousandth, or ten thousandth administration should become any other than a nullity also, and this according to their own principles, I cannot understand. And to prove that their first administration here, had an immediate Commission from God, as John Baptist had, or from Christ, as possibly the Apostles had, to erect that kind of Baptism in this Nation, which he administered, is (I suppose) far above the line of their learning: Certain I am, that they must ascend far above that which is written, to prove it. Sect. 30. 9 Had not children as well as men and women been baptised by the Apostles, or in their days, why do we not hear of exceptions, quarrels, and contests made against them in that behalf, by some or other of their Antagonists, Lawyers, Sadduces, Scribes, Pharisees, or other Zealots amongst the Jews? This nation (we all know) had now for many generations, even from the days of Abraham their Father, been possessed by God of an holy privilege and accommodation for themselves and their children, I mean, circumcision; yea and were wont to boast, not only or simply of their prerogative of circumcision, but likewise of their admission unto it, and reception of it in their infancy, and at the eight day, as is clear from that of the Apostle, Philip 3. 4, 5. If any other man thinketh he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more; CIRCUMCISED THE EIGHT DAY, etc. Yea Mr. Fisher himself (Baby-baptism pag. 182.) acknowledgeth (or rather, as making for his cause, confidently avoucheth) that the circumcising of their children, was a business, which the Jews so doted on, that of all things they were unwilling to let it go. Yea (it seems) they were highly incensed against Paul, upon a rumour that he prohibited the circumcising of their children, Act. 21. 21. Now than if Christ or his Apostles should by their new Doctrine of the Gospel, against which they sought all manner of exceptions and pretences lightly imaginable, have excluded their children, not only from circumcision itself, but from all other accommodations or privileges whatsoever, that should any ways answer, or counterpoise it, is it to be believed that they would have taken no notice of it, or made it no matter of offence and quarrel? Or if they did stumble at it, and disparage or fault the Gospel, or the managing of it in the world upon such an account, can it be thought that the Holy Ghost would have made no record of such a thing, nor yet of Christ's or the Apostles vindication or justification of themselves and their practice against such an imputation; especially considering that very many things are recorded by him of far less moment, than such a vindication would have been? Yea (doubtless) the reason why the Apostle Peter immediately upon his exhortation to the Jews to repent and be baptised, subjoineth the mentin of their children, as interessed in the same grace and privilege with them, was to prevent the offence which they might justly have taken, in case themselves only had been admitted to Gospel privileges, and their children excluded. Sect. 31. 10. Whereas the Apostle Paul informs the Colossians, who (it seems) were bending towards the Jewish Circumcision, that they were COMPLETE in Christ, in whom (he saith) they were circumcised, also with a Circumcision made without hands— Buried with him in Baptism, etc. Manifestly implying, that Baptism was an Ordinance, as much, or as well, if not more, or more significantly completing them, as Circumcision (with all the retinue of legal observations depending thereon) did, or ever had done the Jews; if it be not supposed that their children, whilst such, had been, or might be baptised, as well as themselves, might they not justly have denied Paul's assertion concerning their being complete in Christ? might they not have objected and said, we are not as complete in Christ, or under the Gospel, as we were, or might be in Moses, or by subjecting ourselves to the Law? In Moses, or under the Law, we had the great spiritual privilege or accommodation of Circumcision, as well for our children, as ourselves; whereas in Christ, or under the Gospel, we want not only the Ordinance of Circumcision, but all other privileges, or accommodations of like import, in respect of our children. For the Baptism you speak of, and which you make the successor of Circumcision, you permit us not to administer unto them. In this respect therefore we are maimed or lame in Christ, not so well accommodated, not so completed in him, as we were in Moses, under the Law. 11. Some of the greatest Defenders of Mr. A's faith, in the point of Antipoedobaptism, acknowledge; that according to Mr. A's principles, touching the extent of the Grace of God, in the death of Christ, children ought to be baptised. If (saith Mr. Tombs Exercit. concerning Infant-Baptism, pag. 24.) it should be made known to us that Children are sanctified, I should not doubt that they are to be baptised. He expresseth his sense to the same purpose elsewhere, as viz. pag. 19 Now according to the tenor of Mr. A's faith, the Apostles did know, that Children were sanctified; and consequently (according to the sense of the prime head of his party) that they ought to be baptised. And if the Apostles doubted not but that children were to be baptised, how can I reasonably doubt, but that they did baptise them? I know some others of Mr. A's sense, in the point of Rebaptism, who join with Mr. Tombs in his sense touching the meetness of baptising infants, upon a supposal of their being in favour with God. Sect. 32. 12. (And last) there ●an no probable, no nor tolerable reason or account be given, why any such innovation or practice as the baptising of Infants, should be brought into the Churches of Christ, especially so soon after the Apostles, and in those times, wherein all records of Antiquity mention the use and practice of it. This is another consideration, pregnant of proof, that Infant-Baptism was the practice of the Apostles, as well as of later times. If it could be supposed to be any ways gratificatory to the flesh (which yet is a studied and far-fetched pretence) yet such a motive or ground as this, no ways suits with the zeal, diligence, faithfulness, painfulness, self-denial, most exemplary mortification of, the chief Pastors of Churches, and Ministers of the Gospel in those times. Non ut nunc, sic & olim; it is a very weak and childish conceit, to imagine that Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Austin (with many other worthy Agents for Christ, and the Gospel in their times) who were able and ready to be baptised in their own blood for Christ and the Gospel's sake (as 〈◊〉 of them actually were) should rebel against so great an Ordinance of Christ, and Gospel institution, as Baptism, or deprave and vitiate the Administration of it, through fear of going into cold water, and of administering it in a River; especially considering, that in those warmer Climates of the world, where they lived, cool waters were rather matter of delight, and refreshing unto nature, then of offence or inconvenience. Yea Mr. Laurence (for the Treatise entitled, Of Baptism, is generally reputed his, and is none of the worst pieces written in the cause of Antipoedobaptism) to salve his notion of the necessity of dipping, if it may be, out of the hand of the Holy Ghost, recording the baptising of the Jailor and his household by Paul, to have been in the night, is pleased to suppose, that in those Eastern and hotter Countries, bathing was of great, and continual use; and that in this respect, the keeper of the Prison MIGHT be provided of some vessel fit for bathing and washing the whole body, which might serve for the use of Baptism. a Of Baptism, pag. 81, 82. I confess this is a pretty ingenious conceit to help a lame notion over the wall, that standeth in the way; but in the mean time, we see how the greatest Patrons of Antipoedobaptism are necessitated to Sanctuary their cause under the shadow of their wits and fancies, the Scriptures ever and anon forsaking them, and many times rising up against them. They tell us, that we build only upon consequences and deductions from Scripture, wherein we are fallible, and subject to error: but certainly the weakest of our consequences, are much stronger than such suppositions as this, and more relative to the Scriptures. Yea the very truth is, that themselves hold nothing, that reacheth their cause in opposition unto us, but only consequences, such as they are, pretended from the Scriptures. They never yet produced (nor ever will) any Text of Scripture wherein Infant-Baptism is in expressness of words declared to be unlawful. Therefore they who undertake to prove it such from the Scriptures, must of necessity levy consequences to serve in their warfare. But the late mentioned Author, to preserve dipping from drowning in the Jailor's baptism, makes two suppositions, (like two corks) one upon another, neither of which hath so much as one dust or grain of sand in the Scripture, for a foundation. First, that the Jailor had a Vessel in his house fit for ba●hing and washing the whole body. 2. That this vessel served for the use of Baptism [by dipping.] If his intent was only to affirm and say, that he MIGHT have such a Vessel; and again, that such a Vessel MIGHT serve for Baptism, he supposeth indeed nothing, but what may well be supposed; but withal, saith nothing to his purpose. But this by the way. Only evident it is upon the credit of my Author, that in the hotter Regions of the earth, going into the water, could be no great affliction to the flesh; as neither is it in these colder Climates themselves in warm seasons, as well boys as men going into rivers, and dowsing themselves over head and ears for their pleasure. Therefore an unwillingness to administer Baptism in rivers, is no likely motive, occasion, or temptation, to have diverted the primitive and worthy Bishops and Pastors of Christian Churches from such an administration of it, to an administration by sprinkling, had they apprehended it to be the only regular administration. How otherwise the sprinkling of infants should accommodate the interest of the flesh, more than the baptising of Believers in Rivers, is (as far as I can apprehend) of no easy conjecture. And however, no accommodation whatsoever in this kind, is like either to have perverted the judgements, or polluted the consciences either of Cyprian, or, of any other those most zealous and faithful servants of God, who both before him, and after him, and in the same age with him, unanimously both pleaded and practised Infant-Baptism. It is a memorable saying of this Cyprian, and of a very pregnant import to acquit him in this kind: Whatsoever is instituted by the madness of men, whereby any thing of Divine disposition is violated [or corrupted] is adulterous, is impious, is sacrilegious. a Adulte●m est, i●pum est, sacril●g●m est, quicquid humano furere instituitur, ●t d●spositio d●vi●a violetur, Cypr. l 1. Ep. 8. He that shall at such a rate of severity as this, censure, condemn, and abominate all humane institutions whatsoever, whereby any divine institution shall be prejudiced or corrupted, cannot lightly, especially being a person of singular integrity, gravity, piety, and conscience, be an Abettor or Patron of such institutions. Mr. Tombs hath strained his wits and fancy to invent and devise, what with any colour or show of probability might first occasion Infant-Baptism in the Church. But what he hath obtruded upon the world upon this account, is so inconsiderable in itself, and besides hath been so fully answered by others, a Dr. Holms Animad. upon M. Tombs Excercit, etc. p. 191, 192, etc. that I cannot judge it worth the Readers patience to hear any re-examination of it. That which some pretend should move Pope Innocent to decree the baptising of children, viz. a desire to propagate and enlarge the Kingdom of Christ in the world, is altogether impertinent to the business in hand. For 1. The baptising of Infants is famously known to have been practised in the Church, some hundreds of years before this Pope was born; therefore nothing could move him to decree the first introduction of it. 2. Neither did he decree simply the practice of it, but only by his decree confirmed the practice of it; or rather (as the Pontifician Historians themselves report) confirmed the practice, or the necessity of the practice of it, for the taking away of original sin; or (which is the same, at least as he seems to have interpreted it) for the enlargement of the Kingdom of Christ. I confess the practice we speak of (Infant-Baptism) is a means very proper for the enlargement of the Kingdom of Christ, though not by taking away original sin, but by a timely engagement of the persons baptised, to the obedience and service of Jesus Christ (of which, occasion may be to speak more hereafter.) And though it be supposed, that they who practised Infant-Baptism long before this Innocent, built their practice upon the same mistaken ground with him, yet it followeth not from hence, that therefore it was not practised by the Apostles in their days; but only that they who used the practice after them, were mistaken in the grounds, upon which they (the Apostles) practised it. Nor is the practice therefore to be esteemed, or termed Antichristian, because a Pope decreed the confirmation of it, more than this Doctrine, that Christ is the Holy One of God, is to be esteemed Diabolical, because the Devil preached or avouched it, Mar. 1. 24. Luke 4. 43. Home to this point, is this passage of the most learned and worthy Martyr Master J. Philpot (formerly mentioned, in that letter of his specified, §. 27. and 28.) These authorities of m●n I do alledge●, not to tie the Baptism of Children to the authorities of men, but to show how men's testimonies do agree with God's Word, and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side, and that the Anabaptists have nothing but lies for them, and new imaginations, which FEIGN THE BAPTISM OF CHILDREN TO BEE THE POPE'S COMMANDMENT. Sect. 33. I expect none other but that to Mr. A. and men of his engagement, all these arguments and proofs of the baptising of children in the Apostles days, will seem poor, peddling, and paltry: For Mr. Fisher (it seems) never had the good hap to meet with any better from any of his adversaries, than such; yea and lest, either he, or his cause, might suffer through want of confidence in the highest, he affirms, that God himself knows them to be no better. a Baby-baptism, p. 305. However I hearty wish that some one or other of their persuasion, would exhibit and tender unto the world, were it but the one half (in evidence and pregnancy of proof) against the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism, of what hath been now delivered in the twelve Considerations propounded for the proof of Infant-Baptism in the Apostles days; that so the troublesome and tempestuous controversy about the appropriate subject of Baptism amongst the Saints, might suddenly end in a sweet calm of love and peace. For verily I have gone round about the whole body and Systeme of that Doctrine, which so much magnifieth itself against infant-Baptism, and have narrowly and with an un-prejudiced eye, observed all the parts, limbs, and joints thereof, and cannot find so much as one sound member, or clean joint in it. The whole structure and fabric of it stands upon such foundations, which either are sandy or lose, or else irrelative to what is pretended to be built upon them, and so are indeed no true foundations of this Doctrine, though otherwise Truths. But notwithstanding all that hath been said to prove Infants baptised in the Apostles days, or (as Mr. A. supposeth) can be said, he judgeth himself sufficiently enlightened to demonstrate the contrary. But his allegations in this behalf being weighed in the balance of the Sanctuary, how light will they be found to be? Sect. 34. To the first therefore I answer; 1. By denying that the Mr. A's arguments for the nonadministration of Baptism to Infants in the Apostles days, answered. Scripture is totally silent, touching the baptising of Infants (within the times queried) and that it no where directly, or consequentially, affirmeth or hinteth such a thing. For the ground and reasonableness of this denial (to spare repetitions as much as may be) I appeal to the premises in the 24 and 25 Sections. 2. For the rule which he citys from the Civil Law, in these words, that which appears not, is not, this Law indeed holds forth such a maxim is this, Non esse, & non apparere, aequiparatur in jure, i. e. not to be, and not to appear to be, are of the same consideration in Law; meaning, that the Law takes no judiciary or penal cognisance of what appears not by proof to be, more than it doth of that, which simply is not. But this rule maketh not at all for Mr. A. but rather, as far as it relateth to his cause, against him. For 1. Infant-baptism doth (as hath been proved) appear, and this by the light of the Scriptures, to have been in the Apostles days. 2. Mr. A's rule itself (now specified) supposing a possibility of the real being of that, which yet in Law appears not to be, applied to his cause, importeth a possibility of the practice of Infant-Baptism in the Apostles days; only denying that though it were indeed then practised, yet in as much as the practice appeareth not (viz. to Mr. A. and men of his judgement, for to many others it appeareth sufficiently) it ought not to be avouched, or supposed. Those Scripture reproofs 1. Of men's intruding themselves into those things which they have not seen. And 2. Of being wise above what is written, fall more directly upon himself and his Symmysts, then upon his Adversaries. For certain it is, that the non-baptizing of Infants in the Apostles days, is not written; and yet Mr. A. maketh himself so wise as to know it. Sect. 11. To his second proof, wherein (with its fellows) he rejoiceth, as being of a proper and potent tendency, to carry the minds of men that are at liberty [to believe any thing] and not under the bands of prejudice and partiality, to think and conceive that no Infants were baptised in the days mentioned. a p. 3. We answer likewise 1. That the Evangelist Luke, did not set himself to express and set forth the power and great success of the Gospel in Samaria, Answer to Mr. A's 2d. consideration to prove no baptising of Infants in the Apostles days, p. 3, 4. etc. in those words, They were baptised both men and women; but rather in those (in the former part of the verse.) But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, Acts 8. 12. A cordial and sound believing of the things of the Gospel by men and women, argues the power and great success of the ministry thereof; but a prevailing with them only to be baptised, is of no such interpretation or import. Jerusalem and ALICE Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, were so far prevailed with by John, as to be content to be baptised. b Mat. 3. 5, 6. And yet John himself, speaking of Christ, complaineth that no man [i. e. exceeding few] receiveth his testimony, c Joh. 3. 32. [i. e. truly believed on him.] And notwithstanding the vast multitudes that were baptised by John a very little while before; yea and greater by Christ himself and his Disciples * Joh. 4. 1. , yet the number of the names of the Disciples at the time of Christ's ascension, amounted only to an hundred and twenty. d Acts 1. 15. Nor was the great multitude that was baptised by John, any argument of the great power or success of his ministry; because many who in all likelihood had never heard him preach, yet upon the common fame of his being a Prophet, came forth with a desire and intent to be baptised of him. For we read not of his preaching any where, but only in the Country about Jordan, and in the Wilderness where he baptised; e Luke 3. 3. See §. 177. whereas, as well Jerusalem and all Judea (as we heard) as all the Country about Jordan, went forth to be baptised of him. f Mat. 3. 5. Mar. 1. 5. Therefore a persuasion wrought in men and women to be content to be baptised, is a weak proof of the power or great success of the Gospel. Thus we see the very basis and groundwork (which is but Mr. A's own supposition) of all he pleads, pag. 4. and 5. to be a pure mistake. Sect. 36. 2. The Power and great success of the Gospel, is expressed by Luke (and this in several places) where he makes no mention at all of the baptising of any person, man, or woman, but only of the conversion of persons to the Faith, and of some worthy fruits or testimonies thereof (far greater than a willingness to be baptised.)— Atd the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. And many that believed came, and confessed and shown their deeds. Many also of them which used curious Arts, brought their Books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. SO MIGHTILY grew the Word of God, and PREVAILED. a Acts 19 17, 18, etc. See also Acts 4. 4. Acts 11. 21. 24. Acts 13. 43. 48. Acts 14. 21. Acts 16. 5. Acts 17. 3, 4. 11, 12. 34. In all these places Luke (questionless) intended to set forth the power and great success of the Gospel; yet mentioneth not the baptising of so much as any one person. Therefore according to Mr. A's principles, if we shall suppose that there were any such thing as baptising amongst any of the persons recorded in these passages to have been converted to the Faith, we must suppose that the Holy Ghost not recording it, scarcely did that to the one half, which he should have done totally and entirely in relation to his proposed end. These kinds of reasoning are most lamentable grounds whereon to build the pulling down of Churches. 3. Whereas he urgeth the record of Moses declaring Abraham's obedience to the Word of God, not only and barely by his own personal circumcision, but by his circumcising, first himself, after that, his Son, and then his servants also; it seems that if Moses had not been thus punctual and particular in drawing up this record, M. A. would have blamed him for it, and arraigned him of unfaithfulness, had he known that such things had been done by Abraham, and he (Moses) not recorded them. Is it so hard a thing for Mr. A. to allow unto the Holy Ghost the liberty of his own understanding in framing his records and reports of matters done? Or must it needs be supposed that because he is more particular & express in one place, he must needs be so in another, or in all? Or must he be charged, either with superfluity in Matthew, because he, in making the report of the greatness of the miracle wrought by Christ in feeding several thousands with five loaves, and two fishes, besides the number of the men who were fed, maketh mention both of women, and of children; a Mat. 14. 21. or with deficiency in his two other Evangelists, Mark, and John, because they, in their reports of the same miracle, mention only the number of the men, but take no knowledge at all either of the women or children b Mat. 6. 44 Joh. 6. 10. ? Or doth it follow, that because he directed his penman Luke, to record the baptising of men and women in Samaria, upon their believing, and did not direct him to make the like record concerning those, who believed in Jerusalem, Acts 4. 4. or in Ephesus, Acts 19 18. 20. that therefore he was either superfluous in the former direction, or defective in the latter? Sect. 37. 4. His marginal instances (pag. 5.) make much more against him, then for him. For if Children in the Old Testament were brought by their Parents before the Lord in their holy Assemblies; is it not a pregnant argument, that then they were Church-members; and consequently in a sufficient and regular capacity of this member-ship? And if God be no accepter of persons, more under the Old Testament, then in the times of the New, children being every ways qualified alike, and in the same capacity of Church-member-ship, under both, how they should enjoy the privilege of such a relation under the former, and yet be excluded from it under the latter, I confess I understand not; especially considering. 1. That Infant-Church-member-ship, was no Mosaical ceremony (nor ever hath been so adjudged by any understanding man, as far as I have heard) and so not liable to that abrogation or dissolution of ceremonies, that was made by the body of Christ (as the Apostle speaks.) 2. That the grace of God, in the vouchsafement of privileges and means of Salvation, is not more contracted (no more I mean, in respect of ages, then either of sexes, or of nations) under the Gospel, than it was under the Law, but rather every ways enlarged, where there is place or opportunity for enlargement 5. There is somewhat alike consideration of his observation, from Acts 21. 5. where he finds Luke reporting how the Disciples at Tyre accompanied Paul on his way, with their wives and children. For if he grants that the wives of the Disciples here spoken of, were Disciples also (which I presume he will not stick to do) then why he should not grant that their children likewise, who are joined with them in the same action of service and respect unto the Apostle, were Disciples, I believe he is no whit more able than I, to give a reasonable account. Or is it reasonable to suppose, that when Luke saith, that the Disciples accompanied Paul on his way, with their wives and children, that his intent or meaning should be, that they accompanied him with their baptised wives, and unbaptised children? or that the Apostle should accept of a Linsey-woolsey retinue, compounded partly of Christians, partly of Pagans, or little Heathens? But however, though it should be granted to Mr. A. that this act of the Disciples, accompanying Paul with their wives and children, should be less [i. e. an act of less weight or consequence] then the act of Parents causing their children to be baptised; yet supposing this to have been frequently and ordinarily done (which Mr. A. knows to be the sense of his adversaries) and such acts as that of the Disciples accompanying Paul, with th●ir wives and children, more exemplary and rare, the reason is apparent enough why there should be mention made of children in the record of this act, though there were no record at all made of the other. It is recorded concerning Barnabas (Acts 11. 24.) that he was a good man, full of the Holy Ghost, and of Faith; but no mention of his having been baptised. But will Mr. A. upon the account of a non-mention of his baptising, give us leave to conclude, that therefore he was not baptised? If he will not give us leave to conclude upon such premises, he must not take it himself. Instances in this kind might be produced without number. Sect. 38. 6. Under the expression of men and women in the Scriptures, children are sometimes comprehended; yea sometimes where men only are named, both women and children are understood. When Mark saith, And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men, he meant, besides women and children; otherwise he must contradict his fellow Evangelist Matthew (who speaking of the same business) saith, And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, besides women a●d children, Mat. 14. 21. Compare also herewith, Joh. 6. 10. again J●s. 8. 25. And so it was that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai. Here is mention made only of men and women. Yet evident it is, from v. 26. and from the context of the story round about, that under these terms, both of men and women, children also were comprehended. The Evangelist Mark, recording the other miraculous feeding of multitudes by Christ, and coming to report the number of those that were fed, saith only thus; And they that had eaten were about four thousand, and he sent them away Mar. 8. 9 Whereas Matthew recording the same miracle, reporteth the number of those that had eaten, to have been foore thousand, BESIDES WOMEN AND CHILDREN, Mat. 15. 38. So that it is customary and frequent in the Scriptures, both under the word men, to comprehend as well women and children, as men; and again under, men and women to comprehend children. And it is the probable opinion of some, that amongst the three thousand said to have been added unto the Church [or rather, un●o the Lord, as Acts 11. 24.] there were both women and children. 7. Whereas (p. 6.) he laboureth to prove that the scope and intent of the Evangelist in the words, They were baptised both men and women (Acts 8. 12.) was to set forth the great success of the Gospel in Samaria, sufficient proof hath been made of the contrary, § 35, 36. the perusal of which two Sections, is upon this account commended unto the Reader. Yet let us weigh the double proof he levieth to get his conceit the victory. First he argueth from likeness of phrase and words, Acts 5. 14. used (as he supposeth) by the same Evangelist, to the same purpose, viz. to set forth the great success of the Gospel, etc. 2. From the scope of the place and context. To the former of these I answer; 1. That when it is said, Acts 5. 14. And Believers were the more added unto the Lord, multitudes of men and wowen, the great success of the Gospel is not at all set forth by the bare mention of both sexes, men and women but by the BELIEVING of MULTITUDES of both sexes. 2. I wouldly gladly know of Mr. A. whether there be any thing at all in this his parassel place, concerning the baptising, not of both, but of either men or women. If not, I would gladly learn of him, what likeness of phrase, or words, here is, to prove that Luke intended to set forth the power and great success of the Gospel in those words (Acts 8. 12.) they were baptised both men and women, more than there is in these, Jos. 8. 25. And so it was, that all that fell that day BOTH OF MEN AND WOMEN, were twelve thousand. 3. (And last, for this) I would soberly ask Mr. A. whether in case there had been no mention at all of women, either as believing, or as baptised, in either of the places compared by him, but only that so many men more, as the number of the women (whatsoever it was) amounted unto, had believed in the one, and been baptised in the other, would not this have argued and set forth the success of the Gospel as considerably, as now the mention of women believers, and women baptised, in conjunction with men, doth? If so, than his plea from the phrase, both men and women, amounts to little for his purpose. Sect. 39 To his latter plea from the scope and context (p. 6.) I confess I cannot well tell where to strike with my answer, because I cannot well discern where the vein of proof lieth. For though it be granted, that Luke speaketh v. 12. of the same person, of whom he had spoken, ver. 10. 11. and who had given heed from the least unto the greatest, unto Simon the Sorcerer, yet what is this to prove, that therefore his intent was to set forth the power and great success of the Gospel, in these words, they were baptised men and women, considering (as hath been lately observed and proved, viz. §. 35, and 36.) that (in this verse) he speaks of the believing of men and women, as well as of their being baptised; and that if there be any thing intended here to set forth the power and great success of the Gospel, it is projected rather by the mention of their believing Philip, preaching the things of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, then by the mention of their baptism: in as much, as the Evangelist having frequent occasion elsewhere in this book to report the great success of the Gospel, still upon this account mentioneth only the faith of those who were converted by it, and not their baptism? Besides, Mr. A's supposal (the ground of this vein of his discourse) viz. that Luke speaks of the same generality of the people, ver. 12. of which he had spoken, ver. 10, 11, where it was thus expressed, To whom they all gave heed from the least to the greatest, is not so authentic or clear. For it is hardly credible that amongst the great numbers of the inhabitants of such a City as Samaria, there should not be found so much as one unbeliever left upon the preaching of one Sermon only. Certain I am that there can be no instance produced from the Scripture of like nature, or import. Nor is it said v. 12. either that they believed Philip, or were baptised, from the greatest to the least: Or if by this expression Mr. A. understandeth simply and absolutely the generality of the inhabitants of Samaria, doth it not follow from his said supposition, that as well children, as men and women, were here baptised; unless he will either understand this expression, from the least unto the greatest, exclusively, or else say, that children are not to be numbered, either amongst the least or the greatest, nor yet amongst those that are between both? But (for a close of the point now in hand) to give Mr. A. a brief account of his men and women, with whom he hath had so much to do, to so little purpose for his cause, the reason why the Evangelist Luke, having in the beginning of the verse, mentioned the believing of the Samaritans, without distinguishing the different sexes of those who believed, in the latter part of the verse, speaking of their baptising, distinguishing them into their respective sexes of men and women is to show, that though under the law, the one sex only (that of men) was capable of, and admitted unto circumcision, (which was then the initiating Ordinance, answering in that respect, as in several others, Baptism the successor of it under the Gospel) yet now, since the coming and suffering of Jesus Christ in the flesh, both sexes, as well women, as men, were made capable by God of being baptised. This (I believe) is all the mystery, that an intelligent Reader will find, in the clause (so much courted by Mr. A. to be friend him in his cause) they were baptised hoth men and women. Sect. 40. His third proof for his conceit of no Infant baptised in Mr. A. p. 6, 7 Christ's or the Apostles days, borrowed from Mar. 10. 13, 14, 15, 16. wherein some are said to have brought young children to Christ (p. 6, 7.) hath been already, not only answered, but clearly argued and proved to make against him. I presume a considering Reader, will be of the same mind upon an attentive re-perusal of the 25th. Section. I shall here add, that the judgement and conscience of that learned and worthy Martyr, Mr. John Philpot, were so full of conviction and satisfaction touching the pregnant validity of this passage, for Infant-baptism, that (in that Epistle of his, formerly mentioned, once, and again) upon the mention and recital of this clause, Let the babes (so he reads it) come unto me, he breaks forth with an holy indignation into this demand; why then do not these rebellious Anabaptists obey the Commandment of the L●rd? For what do they now a days else that bring their children to Baptism, then that they did in times past, which brought their children to the Lord, and our Lord received them, and putting his hands on them, blessed them, etc. And if Christ judged little children capable subjects of imposition of hand●, which (according to some of the most Seraphical Doctors themselves of the faith of Anabaptism) is an Ordinance subsequent unto Baptism, and not to be administered before it, it roundly follows that these children brought to Christ had been baptised. But either for Mr. F. the Mr. or for Mr. A. the Disciple, to put us to prove by whom they were baptised, is such a yoke, as themselves are not able to bear, no not in such cases, where the demand of proof in that kind is much more reasonable. For if we, in arguing the controversy, whether there can be no true Church of Christ, and with which communion is lawful, without their baptism by dipping, should put them upon proof by whom all and every the members of the 7 Churches of Asia, were thus baptised, or by whom those Christians mentioned, Acts 5. 14. Acts 4. 4. and in many other places, were after that manner baptised, would they not cry out against such our demands as importune, captious, and unreasonable? That Mr. Fisher Baby-Baptism, p. 141. evasion of Mr. Fishers, viz. that the imposition of hands here recorded to have been administered by Christ, unto the children brought to him, was another kind of imposition, viz. that which was frequently used in order to cures or healings, not that which pre-supposed baptism, is magisterial enough (as seventy times seven assertions more in the same book with it are) but altogether prooflesse. The contrary hereunto is, little less, then clearly demonstrable upon these grounds. 1. There is no intimation in the context, that any of these children (much less all of them) were either sick, or diseased. Now there can (I believe) no instance be produced, where, any, young or old, either came, or were brought, to Christ, to obtain any cure or healing from him, whose infirmity or disease was not mentioned and named. 2. Whereas all the miraculous cures wrought by Christ, are either particularly (as when he wrought but only one, or some few in the same place) or else in the general (as when he wrought many in places near adjoining) recorded, here is not the least or lightest mention (in one kind, or other) of any cure wrought upon these children by him. 3. Had the children been any ways sick, or diseased, it is at no hand credible that the Disciples would have rebuked those that brought them: it would have argued want of common civility, yea of humanity itself to have done it. 4. The reason given by Christ unto his Disciples (and in them unto others) why they should rather, countenance and further, then restrain or hinder the access of little children unto him, viz. because of such was the Kingdom of God, Mar. 10. 14. or the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat 19 14. sufficiently declareth, that they were brought unto him upon a spiritual account, or in order to the obtaining of some spiritual benefit, or privilege, rather than for any bodily cure. 5. The general order of Christ directed unto the Disciples, and in them unto all men, to suffer not those little children in particular, that were now brought unto him, but little children in general, to come unto him [Suffer, saith he, little children, and forbidden them not to come unto me, Mat. 19 14.] this general order (I say) and injunction of Christ▪ plainly shows, that his will was, that little children should be brought unto him, whether they had any bodily ailment upon them, or no: inasmuch as there is nothing more certain, then that all little children have not bodily ailments or diseases. And if his will be, that little children in general, and whether diseased, or no, should come, or be brought unto him, doubtless the reason or end why he ordereth their coming to him, must needs be the receiving of some spiritual grace, benefit, or privilege from him, and this by means of such their coming. 6. It is said Mar. 10. 16. that Christ did not only lay his hands upon these children, but that he blessed th●m also; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. prayed for them (as the word frequently signifies, and the best interpreters understand it in this place.) Now though Christ frequently prayed, and sometimes preparatively (as it were) and in order to the working of some great miracle, as before the raising of Lazarus from the dead, etc. yet we never find that he wrought any bodily cure by prayer simply or only, but very oft by words of a divine-like authority and command. I will, be thou clean, Mat. 8. 3. As thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee, Mat. 8. 13. See also Mat. 9 29. Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house, Mat. 9 6. Stretch forth thine hand, Mat. 12. 13. Be it unto thee, even as thou wilt, Mat. 15. 28. Lazarus come forth, Joh. 11. 43. (to omit many the like.) 7. Mr. A. himself giving this account why the Disciples rebuked those that brought these children, viz. that they thought it an impertinent thing to trouble Christ with them, plainly enough supposeth, that they were not brought to receive any bodily cure from Christ: for than they (the Disciples) could not have thought it an impertinent thing to trouble Christ with them, more, or otherwise, than they judged it impertinent, for any others to come unto him upon the like occasion. And doubtless Mr. A. himself doth not judge it an impertinent thing for him to trouble the Physician by repairing, or sending unto him when he is sick, and standeth in need of his help. So then by the fortified light of this great constellation of circumstances, it fully appeareth, that Mr. Fisher casteth out his net on the wrong side of the ship, when he affirmeth that these children came to Christ for another kind of imposition of hands, then that asserted by us, which (●aith he p. 141) is otherwise called, Touching. I confess that Touching is another, a new, a strange kind of imposition of hands: but Anabaptism can now sail with any wind And whereas to salve his opinion, he saith, this Ordinance of laying on of hands, [he means, which we plead for] was not LIKELY yet in use and being, although he qualifies the magistrality of the assertion a little, with the term, likely, yet is it venturous and daring enough to march in the retinue of such notions as these, That Baptism is only a signing or signifying not a sealing Ordinance, * Baby-baptism, p. 154. 193. that Circumcision was neither sign nor seal of the Covenant of grace, that it was a seal of the righteousness of Faith unto Abraham only, * Baby-baptism, p. 153. (with twenty and ten more of a like unhallowed inspiration, confederate in the same warfare against the truth, with it.) Sect. 41. Whereas Mr. A. bestows the greatest part of his seventh page, upon the probat of this, that the children spoken of in the passage represented by him, were not brought to Christ to be baptised (although all he saith upon the account falleth short of such a sum) he laboureth in the fire to make a ●old purchase, and raiseth a great dust of contest for that, which he might have had of me (and I suppose of others also) only for the ask. But whether the children brought to Christ, were brought to be baptised, or no, I shall (I question not, God assisting me) in due time manifestly evince the lawfulness of Infant-baptism from the said passage. In the mean time, I shall take notice of these words (towards the close of Mr. A's third proof of his minor) that if the baptising of Infants had been AN ORDINANCE OF GOD, the knowledge of it w●uld have been of as great, or greater use unto the world, than the knowledge of those other things are, touching Christ's embracing and blessing of infants, etc. In the first clause of this passage, doth he not plainly enough charge, or challenge, his adversaries, as if they held the baptising of Infants, to be an Ordinance of God? How some of them may at unawares express themselves, I know not, but they can with no more truth (in propriety and strictness of phrase) affirm the baptising of Infants to be an Ordinance of God (neither do they I suppose, ordinarily so speak or affirm) than their Opposers do affirm the baptising of unbaptised believers to be the Ordinance of God. Well may the baptising of the one, or the other, be the precept, or will of God: but certainly, the subject of an institution or Ordinance, or the person to whom an Ordinance is, according to the will of God, to be administered, is no part of the Ordinance itself. Neither Abraham nor Isaac were any essential part of circumcision. This is Mr. Fisher's Doctrine itself, who (Baby-baptism, p. 211.) complains of the Priests, (I know not well whom he means, at least extensively) for adding other subjects to God's Ordinaces. In which expression he plainly enough makes an Ordinance a thing by itself, and the subject another by itself. In which respect, he is no more consistent with himself, then with the principles of Christian modesty, when he thus rates his opposers, for their conjectural sin of Infant-baptism: will you imagine and suppose, and dream, and dote, and fancy, and fame a Baptism, which the Scriptures and first Churches never knew? For may they not imagine, etc. the baptising of Infants, and yet not imagine another Baptism, than the Scriptures know, if Infants be no part of the Ordinance administered unto them. See also, pag. 312. 314. Again, whereas Mr. A. saith, that had infant-baptism been an Ordinance of God, the knowledge of it would have been of as great, or greater use to the world, then etc. I answer, 1. That it doth not follow, because the knowledge he speaks of is not given in this place unto the world, therefore it is given no where else. Nor 2. That because this knowledge is not yet arrived at Mr. A's or at Mr. Fisher's understanding, it is not therefore sufficiently given unto the world, or not convincingly enough arrived at the judgements and understandings of other men, as considering and conscientious as they. Nor 3. That the knowledge of Christ's embracing and blessing infants, is so inconsiderable as Mr. A. seemeth to represent it unto the world, because he hath no higher esteem of it. Nor 4. (And last) Doth it follow, that because Mr. A. makes an opposition between the giving knowledge unto the world, that Infant-Baptism is an Ordinance of God, and, the giving knowledge that Christ embraced and blessed infants, therefore the knowledge of this latter, doth not give sufficient knowledge of the former (in his sense of the word, Ordinance, lately expressed.) However we shall not at present argue the case, whether it be so, or no; but only leave it to all considering men to judge, whether his minor proposition be preferred to any degree of light, by all he hath delivered in this third proof of it, or whether the native darkness remains not still spread round about it, rather condensed and thickened, than any ways lessened or cleared by all this discourse. Sect. 42. To his fourth proof we answer; 1. That to argue from Answer to Mr. A's 4th, proof of the minor proposition of his first Argument, p. 8. what is not recorded, to what was not, or was not done, in Christ's or the Apostles days, is extremely weak and inconcluding. It is not recorded that the Eunuch, Acts 8. was baptised either naked, or with his upon him. Doth it therefore follow, that he was baptised, neither naked, nor with his upon him? It is not recorded that the spring or water wherein the Eunuch was baptised, was so deep, as to reach or come up to his ankles. Doth it follow from hence, that therefore it was not thus deep? It is not recorded that all the members of the 7 Churches of Asia, were baptised. Is this a sufficient proof that therefore they were not baptised? It is not recorded that John the Baptist, when he executed his office, and baptised those that came unto him, put off either his Camels-hair garment, or leathern girdle, nor yet that he kept them on. Doth it therefore follow that he did neither, because neither is recorded? Or is it a sufficient proof that no woman was admitted to the Lords Table in the Apostles days, because the admission of none is recorded? But such arguings as these are the pillars of Antipoedobaptisme; which for brevity's sake, and not to offend any man, or to reproach the opinion, from hence forth we shall call, Ana-baptism. Secondly: Whereas he saith, that the description which the Scripture every where mak●s of persons, or qualifications of such, whose Baptism it recordeth, argues them to be no Infants, the saying is captious and encroaching, taking that for granted which is to be denied, viz. that the Scripture still describeth the persons and qualifications of [all] such [though Mr. A. craftily leaves out this particle All, lest his proof should appear to be too narrow and scant for the length and breadth of his position; though the truth is, that to those who understand the principles and rules of arguing, the omission of the said particle invalidates the process of his argument] of all such (I say) whose Baptism it recordeth. Yea himself pag. 10, 11. essaying to answer that unanswerable objection about the Baptising of households, though with much regret and reluctancy of spirit, yet yields that there is not the same account given of the qualifications [he might with as much truth have added, and then he had done somewhat ingenously, nor of the persons] of those that were baptised of the family of Lydia. So that himself, with speaking only a little truth, hath cut the sinews of his fourth proof. Yet Thirdly: Whereas he here supposeth that the Name or Title of a Disciple is incompetible unto children, and cannot rationally be applied unto them, doth he not condemn the Holy Ghost himself of irrationality, who very expressly, Act. 15. 10. termeth children, as well as their Parents, Disciples; unless he will suppose that the yoke of Circumcision▪ in case the Parents had been persuaded by their Judaizing Teachers to subject unto it, would not at all have concerned their children, or been any yoke unto them. I confess Mr. Fisher (Baby-baptism, p. 176.) out of the ingenuity and Christian meekness of his spirit, terms the citing of this scripture to prove Infants to be called Disciples, a frivolous flim flam: But the best is, that these wild Figtrees (I mean, insolent and uncomely jeers) grow so abundantly in the plain of his book, that ten thousand of them are not worth the price of two Sparrows. But Mr. Fisher knows better how to triumph, than how to conquer: And if you will take his own word for it, Tanquam umbrae volitant alij: solus sapit ipse. All other men like shadows vain On earth flit to and fro: He, he alone the wise man is: Truth none but he doth know. Yet let me say this by the way (by Mr. Fishers good leave) that the yoke of Circumcision (with all the burdensomeness of the Mosaical Law attending it) was indeed no yoke at all, in comparison of such a Baptism as Mr. A. or at least many who rejoice in his light, violently obtrude upon the world, in the name of Christ's Baptism. But I hear there is one wise man amongst them (whose prudence, I suppose, many others will follow) who hath found out a way to conjure the spirit of winter out of the water by an application of fire; a commendable project to reconcile winter-dipping itself with the lives of men, and especially of women, which, without such a mediation, is like to deal very severely by them. He that baptiseth upon such terms as these, baptiseth both with water and with fire; and so, in this respect, administereth a more complete Baptism than either John, or any the Apostles of Christ. But Mr. Fisher disdains all warming of water, unless it be with the fire of men's zeal that are to be baptised. This only by the way. But might not Mr. A. more rationally contest with Christ himself, for giving the Name or Title of a man to a child new born (Joh. 16. 21.) and especially for giving the Name and Title of a Believer to a little child (Mat. 18. 5, 6.) than with us, for giving the name and title of Disciple unto a child? Or is it not somewhat less to be a Disciple than a Believer? For that our Saviour in this Scripture, by, one of these little ones, who believe in me, meaneth, any such child, as that mentioned ver. 5. and now pointed at by him, is evident from the context (as Musculus well conceiveth, and expoundeth the place accordingly.) Sect. 43. Against his fifth proof (p. 8.) there is matter of exception enough to make a little volume. For, 1. What if the instructions g●v●n to those who were commissioned to baptise, and the practice of such persons, who did baptise, argue the persons [i. e. some of the persons, for he was tender of saying all, for fear of after-claps] that were baptised by them to have been no infants? Doth it follow, because all that were baptised, were not Infants, therefore none that were baptised were such? Or that they who had instructions to baptise persons of ripe years, had no instructions or commission to baptise any others? 2. Whereas he saith, that the instruction which Christ gave those whom he commissioned on this behalf, was, that they should first teach persons, ●r make them Disciples, and then baptise them; I confess he mentioneth teaching in the first place, and baptising after; but this is not to instruct them to teach in the first place, and then to baptise them after; but only, in the first place to instruct them to teach, and in the second to baptise. And such an expression of Christ, as this is so far from proving, that therefore all that are, or aught to be baptised, aught to be taught first, that it doth not prove that any one person who is, or aught to be baptised, must be first taught; however it be granted, that this latter, [viz. that some are, and aught to be taught before baptised] may both by other Scriptures, and by ground in reason, be evinced for truth. But there is nothing more frequent or familiar in the Scriptures, then to find such things mentioned or ●amed ●n the first place, which according to the order of nature, and sometimes of time itself, should be mentioned after Gal. 5. 22. love j●y, peace, etc. are mentioned before faith▪ 2 Cor. 13. 14. The second person is mentioned before the first, as Revel. 1. 4, 5. the third before the second, Rom. 10 9 confession with the mouth, is named before believing with the heart, Ezek. 14. 14. Daniel is named before Job, who notwithstanding was long after him in time; so Mic. 7. 20. Jacob before Abraham, Levit. 12. 8. The offering, is first mentioned; but the Sin-offering though after-named, was always first offered. In the business of regeneration, water is mentioned before the Spirit, Joh. 3. 6. and Mar. 1. 4. Baptising itself is mentioned before the preaching of baptism. John did baptise in the Wilderness, and preach the Baptism of Repentance, etc. Therefore from Christ's mentioning teaching in the first place, and baptising in the second, it cannot be proved that persons must always be▪ first taught, before they be baptised; no more than from the Apostles informing the Corinthians, in the first place that they were sanctified▪ and in the second that they were justified (1 Cor. 6. 11.) it can be proved, that their sanctification, did in time precede their justification. Sect. 44. 3. Though nothing can be inferred from our Saviour's mentioning teaching in the first place, and baptising after, touching the necessity of teaching to go, always (or indeed at any time) before baptising, yet if we speak of baptising nations (of which it is a clear case that Christ here speaketh) it is granted (upon another account) that teaching always aught to precede baptising; my meaning is, that no nation, nor any person, or numbers of persons, in a nation, aught to be baptised, until the Gospel hath been preached unto, or in this nation, and withal received and believed. But this at no hand proveth, but that in case the heads of a family, one, or more, in a nation▪ shall receive the Gospel, and be baptised themselves, their children also, if they have any, may be baptised likewise. In this sense it is granted that t●ac●ing ought always to go before baptising; the teaching of nations, before the baptising of nations; and so the teaching of families, the baptising of families; that is the generality of a nation (and so of a family) old and young, men and children, ought not to be baptised, until those who are capable of teaching in both, have been taught, yea and have learned too (to some degree) the things which have been taught them. But, 4. Whereas he useth these two expressions, as synonymous, or of like signification, to teach persons, and to make them Disciples, he maketh black and white the same colour, and fire and water the same Element. For Stephen taught those (and this with great authority, wisdom, and faithfulness) who stoned him to death, yet made none of them Disciples. So Paul taught many Jews at Damascus, and elsewhere, whom he could not make Disciples. To teach, and to make Disciples, differ (upon the matter) as much, as sowing, disfers from reaping, or fight from conquering. Whereas he addeth; The practice of those who did baptise, was answerable to this Commission; they first instructed person: in the things Gospel, and then baptised them; I suppose his meaning is not, that they baptised all, whom they first instructed in the things of the Gospel, but only those who voluntarily offered themselves unto Baptism, or desired it, after they had been thus instructed: they compelled no man to be baptised, neither threatened they any man, or delivered any man up unto Satan, for not being baptised. But that when they first brought the Gospel to a family, City, or Country, they first instructed, before they baptised, is easily granted, and fully accords with our sense and notion in the premises. Sect. 45. And thus we see how much, and to how little purpose much, hath been said by Mr. A. for the confirmation of the minor proposition in his first Argument, viz. that Baptism was not administered to any Infant, neither in the days of John the Baptist, nor of the Apostles. We have both weighed his arguments for confirmation in the balance of the Sanctuary, and found them light, or wanting, and given you others for infirmation of them, of sufficient weight. In the Rear of this his first argument (pag. 8, 9, etc.) he frameth two objections against himself, and essaieth a solution of them respectively, but with no better success than some novice practitioners in the Black Art, who sometimes raise such stubborn spirits, which their skill failing them, they are not able to conjure down. He hath not in either of his answers infringed, nor indeed so much as touched, the spirit or strength of either of the objections, as they are manageable both against his argument, but especially not as they are manageable for the cause of Infant-baptism. This we shall (God willing) demonstrate in due time and place, viz. when we come to argue our grounds for the baptising of Infants. However, when the grounds and reasons, which are held forth and pleaded for the justification, either of an opinion, or practise, are evicted of weakness and insufficiency, no answering of objections is able to repair their strength, or relieve them. A man may answer, and this very substantially two, and ten objections (especially framed by himself) against his opinion, and yet be never the more solid or substantial in his grounds, by which he asserteth his opinion. But his first argument being fallen, let us see whether his fellow (the second) will help him up, or supply that, which we found lacking on the behalf thereof, for the support of his cause. Sect. 46. His second Argument he informeth us by the way, shall be Mr. A's second Argument against Infant-baptism answered. taken from the nature of Baptism, and from the declared ends and uses of it. I wish he thoroughly understood the nature of Baptism: for than I presume he would abhor himself in dust and ashes, from that un-Christian and needless disturbance, which he hath made amongst the servants of God about it. And for the declared ends and uses of Baptism, of which he speaks, it will appear by the management of his argument, that he is at a loss in himself about them, and uncertain what they be. But the argument, which he prefaceth, as ye have heard, riseth up before us in this form. If that administration of Baptism, which is made to professed Believers, doth more conduce to, and better answer the ends of Baptism, then that doth, which is made to Infants, than Baptism ought not to be administered unto Infants, but to professed believers. But that Administration of Baptism, which is made to professed Believers, doth more conduce to, and better answer the ends of Baptism, then that which is made to Infants. Ergo By the way, this argument with that strength which it hath magnifieth itself every whit as much (if not more) against the council and wisdom of God in Circumcision, as against his Adversaries opinion and practice about Infant-Baptism. For may it not altogether as rationally, and with as much truth be pleaded and said; that that administration of Circumcision, which was made to professed Believers, did more conduce to, and better answer the ends of this Ordinance, then that which was made to infants, as it can be pretended, that that administration of Baptism, which he exalteth, more conduceth to, and better answers the ends and uses of Baptism, then that other which he depresseth? For (assuredly) Circumcision was in the ends and uses of it (at least in the chief and principal ends and uses of it) altogether as mysterious, as sacred and holy, as Baptism, yea and very little, if at all, in these differing from it. Sect. 47. But let us partially weigh and consider both the propositions The major Proprosition answered. now before us in their order. To the major we answer; that the consequence herein is void of strength and truth, yea and hath scarce so much as a face of probability in it. For the better or greater serviceableness or conducement of a thing to the ends intended by God in it, in some particular cases, is no argument at all to prove, that therefore the use of this thing is in all other cases simply unlawful. Breast-milk given unto new born babes more conduceth to the end intended by God in this creature, then when it is given unto healthful and strong men; yet this proveth not that therefore it is simply unlawful to give this milk unto such men, or for them to use it for food, especially in some cases. The Ordinance of marriage, more conduceth unto, and answers the ends and use●, intended by God in it, when it is embraced by persons of competent years for the procreation of children, etc. then when it is entertained by men and women who have outlived such a capacity; yet this proveth not but that persons strucken in years beyond the procreation of children may lawfully marry. The Ministry or preaching of the Apostle Paul did more conduce unto the ends of preaching (as viz. the glorifying of God, the saving of souls) etc. then the ministry or preaching of some other the Apostles, or however then the ministry or preaching of ordinary Pastors and Teachers, either in these, or in former days. Yet this no wise proveth, that the ministry or preaching of the other Apostles, or of ordinary Pastors and Teachers, is unlawful. The administration of Circumcision which was made to infants, did more conduce unto, and better answer the ends of it (as appears by the standing law given by God himself for this administration, Gen. 17.) then the administration of it made unto men. Yet it followeth not from hence, that therefore the administration of it unto men, was simply, universally, or in all cases unlawful. 2. When he saith, that that administration of Baptism, wherein he so inordinately pleaseth himself, doth MORE conduce to, and BETTER answer the ends of it, etc. doth he not plainly grant or suppose, that the other administration, which is made to infants, and which his soul so greatly abhorreth, doth notwithstanding in some degree, both conduce unto, and answer the ends of Baptism also? If so, can it be simply and absolutely unlawful? Or if we suppose, or say, that Paul's ministry or preaching the Gospel, did MORE conduce unto, or BETTER answer the ends of preaching, than the ministry of some other of the Apostles, do we not in so saying, suppose the ministry and preaching of these Apostles, to be (at least) lawful, and in some degree conducing unto the ends of preaching? More reverence is due to the Consciences of men, especially of the Saints, then to trouble or disturb them with such slight reasonings as these. But Sect. 48. 3. Neither doth he express himself so handsomely, when he saith, that the administration of Baptism, whether to the one subject, or the other, doth more or less, either conduce to, or answer the ends of Baptism. Baptism is one thing, and the administration of Baptism is another, far differing from i●. They differ more than toto genere the one from the other. Now to say that one thing conduceth more or less to, or more or less answereth the ends of another thing, which is of quite another nature and consideration from it, makes no pleasant harmony in the ears of any considering man's understanding. But (to overlook this oversight.) 4. How impertinently doth he argue the consequence in the proposition now under canvasse, from these Scriptures, (p. 12.) Cursed be the deceiver, which having in his flock a male, and voweth and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing, Mal. 1. 14. And again, Seek to excel to the edifying of the Church, 1 Cor. 14. 12. Doth it follow from these texts, either divisim, or conjunctim, that If that administration of Baptism, which is made to professed Believers, doth more conduce unto, and better answer the end of Baptism, then that doth which is made to Infants, than Baptism ought not to be administered unto Infants, & c.? Or is that, which conduceth to a good end, though in an inferior or less degree, than (haply) some other means or thing may do, necessarily a corrupt thing? That Tree which bringeth forth GOOD Fruit, is adjudged by our Saviour, a good tree, though it bringeth not forth the best fruit, or the most fruit, that is possible for a tree, yea or for itself, to bring forth? Or were all the rest of the Apostles corrupt things, because the Apostle Paul laboured more abundantly than they all, a 1 Cor. 15. 10. and so promoted the end or ends, of Apostolic mission above them all? Or may not he truly and cordially, seek to excel to the edifying of the Church, who sometimes edifieth the Church less, by his labours and endeavours in this kind, then at some other time? But when propositions are false, proofs cannot be pertinent. And thus, through a manifest defectiveness in the major proposition, the glory of Mr. A's second argument against Infant-baptism is laid in the dust. Neither is there any hope or possibility of relief from the minor proposition, though this should be found never so Orthodox. For it is a sovereign maxim in argumentation (as hath been formerly said) that Conclusio semper sequitur deteriorem partem, the proof of a conclusion by a syllogism, is never valid or strong, when either of the propositions therein are weak. So that we might wave the examination of the minor proposition in the argument before us, without any detriment to our cause at all. Notwithstanding to make it evident, even to prejudice and partiality themselves, if it be possible, that there is no sound part in the whole body of this argument, let us arraign the minor proposition also, at the Bar of reason and truth. The tenor of this proposition (as we heard) is this. But that administration of baptism, which is made to professed Believers, doth more conduce to, and better answer the ends of Baptism, then that which is made to infants. Sect. 49. That Truth is a sufferer in this proposition also, is to me sufficiently evident from hence, viz. because God himself, who (questionless) knows much better than Mr. A. or any of his judgement, what administration of an Ordinance most conduceth unto, and best answers the ends of it, judged the administration of Circumcision (an Ordinance of like import with Baptism, as shall upon occasion be showed, God willing elsewhere) unto Infants, more conducing unto, and better answering the ends of it (the principal of which was to signify and seal the righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 11.) then unto Believers, or unto persons of ripe years. Otherwise I presume he would not have ordered the ordinary and constant administration of it unto children, but rather unto men. For it is very importune and burdensome to my Faith to believe, that God should appoint such an administration of his Ordinance, which should be in any degree disadvantageous or prejudicial to the ends thereof. If therefore the administration of Circumcision made unto Infants under the Law, did as much, or more, conduce unto the ends thereof, as this administration made unto men could have done: in like manner, the administration of baptism made to infants under the Gospel must needs more, or as much, conduce unto the ends thereof, as it would do, in case it were made unto men. They who think, writ, or say otherwise, do they not make themselves wiser than God? How, and in what respect, one, or more, that administration of Baptism, which we prefer, conduceth as much (or more) to the ends of Baptism, as that administration which Mr. A. commendeth, might readily here be showed; and may be in time convenient. In the mean time let us consider how Mr. A. maketh his rope stand right up on the one end. Sect. 50. 1. (Saith he) One end of Baptism is to declare Jesus Christ unto the world, Joh. 1. 31. And (a little after) this manifestation of Christ is better made by the Baptism of Believers, then by the Baptism of Infants, whether it respects the party, who is baptised, or others, who behold it. For answer; 1. The end indeed of John's sending to the Jews to baptise, was that Christ should be made manifest unto Israel. This the words cited by himself (Jo●. 1. 31.) expressly affirm. But this proveth not that therefore the end of Baptism is to declare Jesus Christ unto the world, Baptism and John's sending to the Jews to baptise, are two very different things; and so are Israel, and the world. Nor was Christ declared unto the world, but unto Israel only, by John's baptising. Yea when John himself saith, that he therefore came baptising with water, that Christ might be made manifest unto Israel, his meaning is not, that the manifestation of Christ, no not to Israel, was the proper end of that Baptism, which he administered, but of his administration of it, the manner and terms, upon which he came to administer it, and according unto which he did administer it, considered. For had the same Baptism which John administered, been administered by an ordinary person, or a man ignorant who Christ was, or that he was now come into the world; yea or without those or the like additional discoveries, which John made of Christ in his preaching, it would never have produced any such effect as the manifestation of Christ unto Israel; nor was there any thing in it any ways proportionable unto such an end, or effect as this. Therefore certainly, the manifestation of Christ unto the world, is no end of Baptism; or however, no such end as this can be proved from John 1. 31. which text notwithstanding is our whole allowance, for our satisfaction therein. Sect. 51. By the way, the reason (I conceive) why John, being the messenger of Christ sent before his face to prepare his way [i. e. to awaken the Jewish nation to own and entertain him, being now come unto them, though as yet they knew it not] came baptising with water, in order to the manifestation of him unto the Jews, was; because this new undertaking to baptise, was a proper means to occasion the generality of this people to inquire more diligently after him (John I mean) to examine more narrowly his Commission, and authority by which he did baptise. By means of which inquiry, they came to understand that he was a man sent from God unto them; and consequently could not but so much the more reverence and believe the words of his mouth; the first born of which was the testimony which he gave of their Messiah, as now ready to discover himself unto such of them, as desired his coming. Upon this account John's baptising with water, might contribute towards the manifestation of Christ unto Israel, and yet the manifestation of Christ to the world be no end of Baptism, simply considered, or in its ordinary or standing administrations. 2. Reason itself interposeth with an high hand against such a conceit, which maketh the manifestation of Christ unto the world one of the ends of Baptism. If Christ be in baptism, he is here only tanquam in aenigmate, darkly, and as in a riddle; and he that doth not plough with God's Heifer (the Scripture) will never know or understand this Riddle. In this case, it is not the Riddle, but the heifer ploughed with for the unfolding of it, that maketh Christ manifest. The end of shadows, types, figures, enigmas, parables, etc. is not to make either things, or persons MANIFEST, but rather to veil and conceal them, at least in part, or at the most to reveal them sparingly and with reservation. And he said unto them, to you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; but to others in parables: that seeing, they might not see, and hearing they might not understand, Luke 8. 10. And certainly Baptism is such a mysterious and profound parable of Christ, that without an Interpreter it would never be understood, nor Christ be found in it. Therefore the end of it cannot be his manifestation to the world. Sect. 52. 3. The manifestation of Christ unto the world, is the end of the Scriptures, and more especially of the Gospel, (I mean of the writings of the New-Testament) and of the preaching and publishing of these in the world. a Eph. 6. 19 2 Pet. 1. 16. Rom. 16. 25, 26. Col. 4. 3, 4. So that as the Apostle reasoneth against justification by works, Gal. 2. 21. If righteousness come by the law, than Christ is dead in vain, so may we reason and conclude against the manifestation of Christ to the world by Baptism: If Christ be manifested unto the world by Baptism (which must be supposed, if this manifestation of him be the end of Baptism) then is the letter of the Gospel, and the ministry thereof in the world in vain. Yea and Paul whose great work and employment was to make Christ manifest unto the world, should rather have been sent to baptise, then to preach the Gospel, if the manifestation of Christ unto the world had been the end of Baptism. But this notion of Mr. A. concerning the end of Baptism, is so broadly obnoxious, that an over-operous refutation of it would be but an impertinency. And, Sect. 53. 4. Whereas he affirms, that the manifestation of CHRIST is better mad● by the Baptism of Believers, then of Infants, whether it respects the party who is baptised, or others who behold it; 1. It seems then that there is a manifestation of Christ made in or by the Baptism of infants, as well as by the Baptism of Believers, although not so good [I suppose he means, not so full or perfect] a manifestation. If then there be a manifestation of Christ in the Baptism of infants, although not so pregnant, rich, and full, as in the Baptism of men, how can he judge it to be unlawful? Is any manifestation of Christ, though in a lower or lesser degree, unlawful? Or is the ministry of all such Pastors and Teachers unlawful, who do not, (haply cannot) manifest Christ unto the world therein, with ●● much power and glory of manifestation, as the most able, and best qualified Minister or Preacher in the whole world? 2. Upon what account, can he suppose Christ to be manifested to the party baptised, supposing him a Believer, by his Baptism? I thought that his sense had been, that none ought to be baptised, but only such to whom Christ was manifested before their baptising. And if Christ be manifestable to a Believer in some further degree, by Baptism, it must be by the Baptism of others, rather than his own; at least if he be baptised by a total submersion under water. For during the while of his being under water, he is in no good capacity, notwithstanding any former use or exercise of his understanding, to receive any further information or knowledge concerning Christ, being taken up with thoughts about his emersion, and how to recover and come off with the safety of his life from the water. Or if it be said, that Christ may be said to be further manifested by Baptism to a Believer, although the effect itself of this manifestation doth not take place, till after such his Baptism; I answer, upon this account, may Christ be manifested to an Infant also by his Baptism, viz. when he shall grow up to a capacity of understanding what his Baptism meaneth, and what the counsel of God, was, or is in it. Sect. 54. 3. Whereas he pleadeth (p. 13.) that that end of Baptism, whereof he speaks (i e. that end of Baptism, which is no end thereof, as hath been proved) is more effectual unto Spectators, when Baptism is administered unto Believers, then when unto Infants, because their Faith in Christ, and repentance, are visible in their willing submission unto Baptism, and their example apt to quicken, etc. whereas there is nothing of all this in the Baptism of Infants, who are merely passive herein, etc. I answer. 1. That when and where, the baptising of men and women, under the notion of Believers, becomes customary and in fashion, (which are the terms and state of it amongst us in these days) the truth is, that there is a very poor and faint visibility of any man's Faith in Christ, or Repentance, in their willing subjection unto that Ordinance. When all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and all the Region round about Jordan, went out unto John to be baptised of him, and were baptised accordingly, what exemplariness was there in any particular man's subjection unto this Ordinance? or what visibility of any man's faith or repentance, whereas John himself, notwithstanding this voluntary offering themselves unto Baptism, called them a generation of vipers, (Luke 3. 7.) and complaining of the unbeleef of the generality of them, saith; And what he hath seen and heard that he testifieth, and NO MAN receiveth his testimony? John 3. 32. Yea many of those who willingly offered themselves unto Baptism (yea, and were immediately after baptised of him, were so far from believing in Christ, that they were doubtful whether John himself was not the Christ, Luke 3. 15. Therefore there is no such visibility of Faith or Repentance in any man's offering himself unto Baptism, or in his being baptised, especially under such a circumstance, as that mentioned. It was Postquam in tanto culmine nomen coepit esse Christianum crevit hypocrisis. the observation and saying of Austin long ago; that When the name of a Christian began to be in honour and esteem, hypocrisy increased. Yea all things duly considered, we have reason to judge, that there is a better or clearer light in any one act of charity or mercy, towards the poor, to render any man's saith and repentance visible, then in a willing offering himself to be baptised. Sect. 55. 2. What religious affection, devout carriage, matter of edification, quickening, or the like, unto spectators Mr. A. can pretend or imagine to accompany the Baptism of Believers, may, and this as seasonably, as regularly, proceed from them upon a thousand occasions otherwise, as upon the occasion of their being baptised. When any afflicting hand of God is upon them, as by sickness, loss of estate, friends, etc. and so when God lifteth up the light of his countenance upon them, blesseth or prospereth them in one kind or other, (and the like) these are as proper occasions for Believers to express themselves with devotion, and religiousness of ●ffection, to the affecting, edifying, quickening of bystanders, as their baptising. Therefore if there be any such Christian and worthy do by Believers at the time of their Baptism, as Mr. A. speaks of, they are not the proper fruits or effects of their being baptised, or of their being to be baptised, but merely accidental hereunto, and so no ends of Baptism, more than of afflictions, or of mercy in any kind received from God. Yea Sect. 56. 3. When the Infants of Believers are baptised, there may be (and haply aught to be) the same Christian actings and deportments in every kind, in the Parents, or those who offer them unto baptism. So that the Spectators, may by means, or by occasion of their baptising also, be as much instructed, edified, quickened, etc. as they can or could be, by the baptising of these Parents themselves. He that offereth his child to be baptised in the name of Christ, hereby maketh as solemn as serious a profession of his faith in Christ, and so of his Repentance, as he could do by being baptised himself. So that Spectators are no whit greater gainers by Beleevers-baptism, then by infant-baptism. Nay the truth is, that they are, or may be, greater gainers by the latter. For when a Believer having been himself formerly baptised, shall offer his Child also unto Baptism, this argueth a greater stability and triednesse of faith in him, than his offering himself unto Baptism doth, who newly believeth. A testimony given upon, and after, a thorough experience, is (coeteris paribus) more authoritative and convincing, then that which is given upon little or no trial. Yea the baptising of Infants must needs in this respect turn to a better account unto Spectators (if by Spectators, we mean, either the Church, or the world, who may as well the one as the other, if they please, and have opportunity, be present at any kind of baptising) then the baptising of Believers; because if Believers only be baptised, the occasions and opportunities of all baptismal edification are like to be fewer by many, than they would be, in case Infant-baptism were generally practised. For many infants are taken away by death in their infancy, and so never come to be Believers (in Mr. A's sense) in which case, if they be not baptised, all those opportunities of Baptismal edification are lost, which might have been taken and happily improved, by their baptising. I take no notice of the Anti-Scriptural notion, upon which he argueth all along this part of his discourse, viz. that Infants and Believers are two contra-distinct, or opposite species of men. We may have occasion to touch this hereafter. Only by the way I cannot but a little marvel, why Mr. A. should ascribe unto his baptism of Believers, such great matters of edification in respect of Spectators, when as (as far as I can yet understand) the practitioners of this Baptism seek and take, both times and places of greatest privacy for the administration and practice of it. But the very truth is, that Mr. A. doth but merely trifle in all that longsome discourse (pag. 12, 13, 14, etc.) wherein he builds upon this supposition (formerly detected of the crime of vanity) that One end of Baptism is the manifestation of Christ unto the world. But Sect. 57 4. Whereas (p. 14.) he supposeth, that the Faith and Repentance of the Publicans and Harlots was made visible to the Priests and Elders by their being baptised upon their believing the Doctrine of John, he sides more with his cause, then either with reason, or truth. For 1. We lately shown, that in that universal and promiscuous recourse of people unto John to be baptised of him, of which the Scripture speaks, there could be no visibility of the truth or soundness of any man's faith or repentance, in his being baptised; much less of any particular species or kind of persons amongst them, more than of others. Nor doth the Scripture hold forth any such thing. For 2. Whereas he saith, that that which Matthew, (c. 21. 32.) calls their believing of John, Luke speaking of the same thing (as I conceive) calls it their justifying God, in being baptised of John, I conceive that he cannot lightly conceive that, which here he saith he conceiveth. For evident it is that what Matthew speaketh (in the words cited) he speaketh particularly, of the Publicans and Harlots: and as evident, that what Luke speaketh (in the words cited from him) he speaketh of all the people. And all the people that heard him [viz. Christ, speaking verily worthily of John] and the Publicans, justified God, being baptised, [or rather, having been baptised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] of John; not [as Mr. A. again misreports] IN being baptised of John. The proposition IN, which only is the smiling lineament upon his cause, in the face of the words as he transcribeth them, is neither in the original, nor in either the former, or latter, English translation. A little after, he stumbles at the same stone, of mis-alledging the text (whether wittingly, or at unawares, let the reader judge) where pretending to represent the sin of the Priests and Elders, in opposition to the Faith and Repentance of the Publicans and Harlots, visible (as he saith, but untruly as hath been showed) in their baptism, in the words of Luke 7. 30. he saith it was their rejecting the counsel of God against themselves, IN not being baptised; whereas (as was now said) there is not the least appearance of the proposition, IN, either in the original, or translation. The sense and import of the place, is plainly, and without parable, this; that the Priests and Elders in refusing the Baptism of John, hereby discovered the prodigious folly, and wickedness of their hearts, in rejecting the counsel of God concerning their justification and salvation by Faith in the Messiah, whom John preached, and this with so much the more authority and advantage to have been believed in his Testimony or Doctrine concerning him, because he was extraordinarily raised up and sent by God to administer a new Ordinance amongst them. The meaning is not, as if that counsel of God, which they are here said to have rejected against themselves, consisted in this, that he would have had them baptised by John; but in this, that he had purposed to justify and save them by Faith in his son Jesus Christ. This was the great and blessed counsel of God, which they rejected▪ [frustrated, or made void] against themselves, i. e. to the depriving of themselves of the two great blessings, justification by the way, and salvation in the end. Concerning their not being baptised by John, had they otherwise believed in Christ, this could have turned to no such great prejudice unto them. Nor was it the counsel of God, that either they, or any other sort of men, should be baptised of John by way of necessity, either to their justification, or salvation. For if so, than all those who were not baptised by John, although afterwards baptised by Christ, or his Disciples, must be supposed to have perished eternally. But certain it is, that all those who rejected that counsel of God, and continued in this rejection, which the Priests and Elders are here said to have rejected against themselves (especially having like means with them to embrace it) did perish eternally. Therefore nothing can be more plain, then that they sit down quite besides the mind of the Holy Ghost in this text of Scripture, who conceive the counsel of God here mentioned, to respect John's baptism, or any man's being baptised by him. Sect. 58. Besides the present unbeleef, and wicked frame of heart, of the Priests and Elders considered, they did not so much as sin in not coming to John to be baptised; as Turks and infidels during their infidelity, do not sin, in not offering themselves either to Baptism, or to the Lords Table, among Christians; albeit it is true, that they sin in neglecting to put themselves into a regular capacity of offering themselves both to the one and the other. Therefore certainly it was not the counsel of God, that the Priests and Elders, under that irregularity of heart, which they had at present contracted, should have been baptised by John, inasmuch as this had been a manifest profanation in them of this great Ordinance; although I do not conceive that John had sinned in baptising them, in case they had desired it of him. Nor is it any part of the counsel of God, that men should sin or act any thing to their own condemnation. The result of the late premises, is, that the sin of the Priests and Elders in rejecting the counsel of God; [so termed in the words before us] against themselves, did not consist in their not being baptised by John, but in rejecting their Messiah, the Lord Christ sent unto them: and that their refusal of being baptised by John, having been invited and exhorted unto Faith and Repentance by his ministry, was a sign or evidence of this their rejection. Nor doth it follow, that in case their refusing Baptism at the hand of John, plainly argued their unbeleef; therefore the accepting of baptism from him did in like manner argue the Faith and Repentance of all those who accepted it. A remotione unius contrarij ad position●m alterius, non valet argumentum. A continual blaspheming of the name of God, demonstratively argueth a man to be desperately wicked and profane; but the forbearance of such blasphemies doth not prove a man to be truly pious or religious. The sin of covetousness proveth a man or woman to be in the gall of bitterness, and band of iniquity, but freedom from this sin, doth not argue a man to be in a state of Grace, or in favour with God, Many like instances might be given. We have done at last with Mr. A's first end of Baptism, which he makes to be, the manifestation of Christ unto the world, and have proved. 1. That this is no end of Baptism. And 2. That granting it to be an end, yet it is in all respects as effectually promoted, (as in some more) by Infant-Baptism, as by the Baptism of men-beleevers. Sect. 59 He proceeds, and tells us (pag. 15.) of another end or use of Baptism, which he terms, the serving the design of God touching the great business of Repentance for the remission of sins. And having instructed us by the way, that, as he conceives, there are several considerations, in respect of which, or some of which, Baptism is called the Baptism of Repentance, for the redemption of sins, he undertakes the asserting of this conclusion; that all these considerations are better answered in that said administration of Baptism, which is made to men and women Believers, then in that which is made to infants. By the way, whereas he here speaks somewhat masculinely, though in a female phrase, viz. that, as he conceives, there ARE several considerations in respect of which, etc. when he comes to deliver out these Considerations in particular, he bewrays more effeminateness, and delivers none of them positively, but under the protection of this particle If, If saith he, If, If, and If, and If. 1. He gins; If it shall be conceived, that it is therefore called the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of sins, because such who are at any time duly baptised, do take up the Ordinance out of a Principle of Repentance, upon which they look for remission of sins according to the promise of God in that behalf (which if it be, the saying contains a metonymy of the cause for the effect, a Where, or in what word, or phrase, of the saying he speaks of, his metonymy of the cause for the effect resideth, verily I understand not. a thing not unusual in Scripture) yet this denomination and use of it is better served in men's baptism then in children's; because Children have no such principle to act in them, as Repentance is, etc. I have much ado to make any competent sense of this period: but as fare as I apprehend, I answer; Sect. 60. 1. Delivering himself only thus; IF it shall be conceived, that therefore it is called, etc. doth he not encourage and teach others to doubt with himself, whether Baptism be called the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins, in any such consideration, as here he suggesteth? Or himself only being in suspense about the truth of the notion, why doth he build castles in the air, or offer sacrifice to an unknown god? undertaking to assign us a reason of that, which, for aught he knoweth, yea or pretendeth to know, may be of the house and lineage of that which is not? He acteth this part of vanity no fewer than five times over within the compass of two pages, viz. p. 15. & 16. 2. That which he sacrificeth to his unknown God, is a corrupt thing. For they who are duly baptised, do not always take up that ordinance out of a principle of repentance. Simon the Sorcerer, being baptised by Philip, was (I suppose) in Mr. A's judgement, duly baptised; yet it appears by his story that he took not up this Ordinance out of a principle of Repentance. Or if Simon the Sorcerer were not duly baptised, yet certainly the Lord Christ was. But did he take up the Ordinance of Baptism out of a Principle of Repentance? And if none be to be looked upon as duly baptised, but only those, who take up the Ordinance out of a Principle of Repentance, both He, and we, have cause in abundance to demur, and doubt, whether the far greater part of those in this nation, who have lately been dipped, have been duly baptised, or no Yea Mr. A. himself, according to such a principle, cannot upon any certainty of knowledge, affirm any person to have been been duly baptised, unless (him haply) self. Nor indeed doth the regular and due administration of Baptism depend upon any principle of Repentance in the person to be baptised. It is a true saying of Musculus, that Baptism is indeed the Laver of Regeneration; but not so, that only they who are actually regenerate, aught to be sealed therewith, but those also, who are to be regenerated afterward. a Baptismus est lavacrum regeneration is; sed non ita, ut regenerati tantum illo debeant obsignari, verùm etiam regenerandi. Mus. in Mat. c. 22. And Calvin answering an objection against the Baptising of Infants, affirmeth that they are to be baptised, in futuram poenitentiam & fidem b Calv. Institut. l. 6. c. 14. Sect. 20. 1. in order to that Repentance, and Faith, which afterwards should be found in them. And herein their Doctrine is expressly consonant to the Scriptures. I indeed (saith John the Baptist to those, who were at present a generation of vipers) baptise you with water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for, or, unto Repentance; [1. to oblige or engage you the more effectually to Repent] Mat. 3. 11. So v. 8. Bring forth therefore [therefore, 1. since you have now been baptised] fruits worthy Repentance. 3. When he saith, upon which they look for remission of sins according to the promise of God in that behalf, I do not well understand with what antecedent he intendeth, a match for his Relative, WHICH. If he intends it barely & nakedly with Repentance, that which he saith, nothing concerns the Interest of his cause. If, with this clause, do take up the Ordinance of Baptism out of a Principle of Repentance, so that his meaning be, that upon such a taking up of the Ordinance as this, viz. out of a principle of Repentance, persons look for the remission of sins according, etc. Sect. 61. 1. Remission of sins is promised by God unto Repentance, whether it be accompanied with Baptism or no, (Act. 3. 19 Act. 5. 31. Luk 24. 47. Prov. 28. 13.) And consequently he that truly repenteth, may look for remission of sins according to the promise of God in that behalf, whether he taketh up the Ordinance of Baptism, or no. Yea according to Mr. A's. own principles, no person ought to be baptised, until he believeth: and what is believing, being interpreted, less than a looking for remission of sins upon Repentance according to the promise of God in that behalf? If so, than men may, nay must, or aught, to look for remission of sins upon Repentance, according, etc. before the taking up of the Ordinance he speaks of, and consequently, without it. 2. In the Scriptures I find neither precept for, nor example of, any looking for remission of sins by any man, simply upon his taking up the Ordinance of Baptism, no though taken up by him out of a principle of Repentance. 4. What he meaneth by his Denomination and use of Baptism better served in men's baptism, then in children's, I am again to seek. If by this better service, he means any thing meet for the understandings of men, I know no reason why the Denomination and use of Baptism he speaks of, should be either better, or so well served in the Baptism of men, as of children, considering that God himself judged the like Denomination and use of circumcision better served in the circumcision of children, then of men; Otherwise I suppose he would have ordained by Law the circumcising of men, rather than of children. And whereas the Apostle declares the use of circumcision by this Denomination, a sign and seal of the righteousness of Faith, (Rom. 4. 11.) is not the Denomination of it, and consequently the use of it, the same in substance, both with the Denomination and use of Baptism? For what is Repentance but Faith in implication, as Faith also comprehends Repentance in it, the Scriptures accordingly by reason of this mutual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, making the same promises indifferently unto the one, and the other? Again, what is Remission of sins, but the righteousness of Faith? Or what is the Righteousness of Faith, but in strictest propriety of speech, remission of sins? As for that new-fangled conceit, that Circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of Faith only unto Abraham (personally considered) it is so ridiculously importune, that an operous and solemn confutation of it would be little other itself. Certainly God did not enjoin two kinds of circumcision, the one specifically differing (in the signification and end of it) from the other; one, to signify and seal both covenants, as well that which was temporal or carnal, as that which was spiritual; another, to signify that covenant only which was spiritual. Besides, if circumcision had signified and sealed nothing to the Jewish nation, but only the covenant of God to give them the land of the earthly Canaan, why should God covenant with them (long after Abraham was dead) that he would circumcise their heart, and the heart of their seed, to love the Lord their God with all their heart, and with all their soul, that they might live? Deut. 30. 6. Doubtless these things import much more in circumcision, then either the signifying, or sealing, of an earthly covenant, unto those, to whom it was given. This appears from many other passages of Scripture, which may be considered at leisure. Rom. 2. 28, 29. Philip. 3. 3. Col. 2. 11. Act. 7. 51. (besides other) As for the great argument in defence of the wild conceit now opposed, built upon Rom. 4. 11. it is built quite besides the clear meaning and import of the place. For because here it is said, that He [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the Faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised, THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FATHER OF ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also; Mr. Fisher a See Mr. Fisher Baby-Baptism. p. 18. 19, 24, 154, 269. and Mr. A. would infer, from these words, that he might be the Father of all them that believe, that Abraham received circumcision [viz. in his flesh] as a seal of the righteousness of Faith, for this end, that by receiving it upon this account, or upon these terms, [viz. as a seal of the righteousness of Faith] he might hereby be made, or become, the Father of all that believe, etc. Which honour they weakly imagine could not accrue unto him by his receiving of circumcision, if any other of his posterity should receive it upon the same terms with him; I mean, as a seal of the righteousness of Faith. This is the strength (or weakness rather) of their arguing from this place, that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of Faith unto Abraham only, For 1. Though Abraham did receive the sign of Circumcision in his flesh, (Gen. 17. 24, 26.) yet is it not this receiving it, which is here spoken of; but his receiving it in the Law or Ordinance of it [from God] in such a sense as John the Baptist may be said to have received Baptism; viz. because he was the first to whom the Ordinance of Baptism was delivered by God. Thus also Moses is said by Stephen to have RECEIVED the lively Oracles to give unto them. Act. 7. 38. In this sense also Christ is said to have RECEIVED of the Father the promise of the holy Ghost, which he shed forth. Act. 2. 33. And if Abraham's RECEIVING Circumcision in this place, signified his being circumcised in the flesh, it must follow, that all his posterity, receiving circumcision in this sense, as well as he, should at least in part, all of them be Fathers of them that believe as well as he; in as much as this prerogative is manifestly by the Apostles suspended upon that receiving of Circumcision, which is here spoken of, not upon the end, for which he received it. 2. By the Faith, which Abraham is here said to have had being yet uncircumcised, and of the righteousness of which he is said to have received Circumcision, as a sign, and seal, is not meant that individual Faith, whether act, or habit, which was in Abraham, but the species or kind of Faith, which he had. In such a sense as this, the Apostle saith that that Faith which was in Timothy, dwelled first in his Grandmother Loïs' [2 Tim. 1. 5.] meaning, the same species or kind of Faith, i. (as himself also expresseth it) of Faith Unfeigned. When I call to remembrance the unfeigned Faith that is in thee, which first dwelled in thy Grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice, and I am persuaded that in thee also. In like manner, by the Faith of Abraham, twice in this very chapter (Rom. 4. 12, 16.) is meant that species or kind of Paith which Abraham had. 3. For the clear understanding the Scripture before us, it is diligently to be observed, that the Apostle doth not say, that Abraham received circumcision as either sign, or seal of his Faith, but, of the righteousness of the Faith, which he had, i. of that justification, or justified estate, wherein by virtue of the counsel, will, and decree of God in that behalf, he was invested or instated, by, and upon, his beleving. Circumcision was neither sign, nor seal, of Abraham's Faith, nor of any other man's Faith how like soever unto Abraham's, but of the righteousness of his Faith; yet not as his, but as true, and unfeigned, 1. such, as unto which God by covenant and promise, had annexed the Grace and blessedness of Justification. From whence it follow's, 4. That circumcision could not be a sign or seal of the righteousness of Abraham's Faith only, individually or personally considered; but must needs be this sign and seal of the same righteousness of the like Faith, in what person, or persons soever it should be found. Yea it was a sign and seal of the righteousness of Faith, simply and indefinitely considered, i. as promised or covenanted by God unto mankind. So that whether any person among the Jews had been circumcised, or not, and so whether any circumcised person had believed, or not, yet was Circumcision a sign and seal of the righteousness of Faith unto them, as well as unto those, who were both circumcised, and believed. i. As God made this covenant with the world, or mankind in general, that whosoever truly believed in him, should hereby become righteous, or (which is the same) be justified; so likewise upon the same general and unlimited terms, he gave the Ordinance of circumcision (by the hand or ministry of his servant Abraham) for a sign and seal of his truth and faithfulness in this covenant [i. that he would justify all those without exception who should truly believe] This is evident from these words [in the fall of the verse] in their dependence upon the former; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also [unto them, i. unto all] that should believe [whether circumcised, or uncircumcised] as if he should have said; Therefore Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of that kind of Faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised, that so all those without exception, who should believe as he did, might have the same assurance with him, that righteousness should be imputed unto them also, as it had been unto him, i. that they should be as certainly justified by God, as he had been. Mr. Fisher's notion, denying Circumcision of old, and Baptism now, to be any sign at all unto children, is very childish, and unworthy a Considering man. Circumcision was the same, i. the same sign, unto children, which it was unto men: nor was there any difference, change, or alteration in it, or in the signifying nature or property of it, when it was actually apprehended and understood by these children being now become men. But the present inability or incapacity in children to understand the language or signification of a sign, doth not prove that that which is really a sign, is no sign unto them: it only proves, that it is not apprehended as a sign, or in the signifying relation of it, by them. If signs be no signs unto children, because they do not at present understand their signification, it will follow, that there are none at all in the world unto men, whilst they are asleep, or whilst thorough any engagement of their minds or thoughts otherwise, they do not actually mind or attend the significations of them. A sign is not therefore called a sign, because it always actually signifies one thing, or other, unto any man, but because it is apt to signify such or such a thing, unto those that are in a capacity (whether more immediate, or more remote) to understand it, and withal, actually mind the signification. But the conceit we now speak of is so waterish, that there is no taste either of truth, or reason in it. Sect. 62. 5. By the premises levied in the consideration of the Scripture before us, duly considered, it clearly appeareth, that when Abraham's said to have RECEIVED the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised, THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FATHER OF ALL THAT BELIEVE; the meaning is, that God, by casting this peculiar honour upon Abraham, to make him, from amongst all the men in the world, the Receiver of, and (as it were) his Great feoffee in trust for, his Great Ordinance of Circumcision, which he intended for a sign, and seal of that blessed Covenant of Grace made with him and his seed, and in them, with all the world, did characterise and commend him unto the world as the Father of all that should ever after believe, i. for the most exemplary and signal Believer that ever the world had seen, the worth and transcendent excellency of whose Faith was enough to replenish the earth with a generation of believers. The meaning of this expression, That he might be the Father of, etc. according to the frequent use of the verb substantive in the Scripture, is, that he might be declared, or made known, to be, the Father (in the sense mentioned) of all that believe. That ye may be the children of your Father, etc. [1. that ye may be known to be so] Mat. 5. 45. And the man whom the Lord shall choose, shall be holy. [i. shall be owned or acknowledged for holy] Num. 16. 7. So again: And now I beseech thee let the power of my Lord be great, [1. appear, or be discovered to be great] Num. 14: 17. That sin might BE out of measure sinful by the commandment, [1. might appear, or, be known to be so] Rom. 7. 13. Besides many the like a This interpretation of the verb Substantive, BE, Mr. Fisher himself attesteth, affirming that Circumcision was a seal to Abraham to honour the greatness of the Faith he had, and to NOTIFY him to be the Father of the Faithful, as is plainly expest, Rom. 4. 11. Baby-Baptism. p. 153. As God by choosing Moses out of all the children of Israel, yea out of the whole world, to be the first and immediate Receiver from himself of those lively Oracles (as Stephen expresseth them, Act. 7.) hereby declaclared and commended him both unto the nation of the Jews, and then to all the world besides, for a Great Prophet, & Person highly interessed in his favour, etc. and did the like by John Baptist, in making choice of him from amongst all the holy & worthy persons in the world▪ to be the first & immediate Receiver of Baptism from his hand, that s● by, and from, him it might be propagated unto all those, to whom it was intended; in like manner by singling, and choosing Abraham out from amongst the generation of men spread upon the face of the whole Earth, to be the first and immediate Receiver of the Great Ordinance of Circumcision, intended and given for a sign and seal of the Righteosness of such a Faith, or kind of Faith, as he had being yet uncircumcised, by, and from, him to be derived unto all those, that should desire, or be found meet to partake thereof; he did (I say) by casting the Spirit of this glory upon him, recommend and set him forth unto the world as the Father of all those that should believe, [i. for a person, whose Faith he so highly esteemed, that he invited the world to follow his steps herein] So that Abraham was not properly or formally constituted, or made the Father of all that believe, (in the sense declared) by his receiving the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness os the Faith, which, etc. but by that great and worthy spirit of Faith acting, and showing itself from time to time so exemplarily in him in several cases, upon occasion (as appears, Rom. 4. 18. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become, the Father of many a) See Rom. 4 18, 19, 20, 21. Heb. 11. 8, 9, 17, etc. nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be, etc.) Only the honour of this Fatherhood, which was Abraham's equitable right upon the account now specified, before his receiving Circumcision, God was pleased to attest and set his seal unto, in the sight and presence (as it were) of Heaven and Earth, by revealing that his mysterious and great Ordinance of circumcision first unto him, as for his own personal accommodation, and heavenly security in matters of highest concernment unto him, so likewise for the like benefit and blessing unto his posterity, and all those who should incorporate, and make one nation and people with them. And that the world might understand and know, that the consignment of this great Ordinance unto Abraham, was intended by God as an honourable cognizance of that signal Faith, which was in him; he was pleased to impose this sense and signification upon the said Ordinance; viz. that it should be a seal, or means of confirmation unto the world, that in whomsoever that kind of Faith, which was in Abraham, should be found, he should with Abraham, be justified in his sight, Rom. 4. 11, 22, 23, 24. Gal. 3. 6, 7, 8. 9 Sect. 63. 6. (And last, for this) evident it is, 1. that Abraham his being circumcised, or his receiving this Ordinance in the flesh, is not in this Scripture so much as mentioned, or intended, but only his receiving the first discovery and command of it from God, as a Feoffee in trust, for his posterity, and those who should desire to incorporate with them. 2. That Circumcision, the Ordinance whereof Abraham thus received, was not intended, or given by God, as either a sign or seal, either of Abraham's Faith, or of the Faith of any other person; nor yet as either sign or seal of the righteousness of Abraham's personal or individual Faith, as such, but of the righteousness of the same kind of Faith, in whomsoever, or in how many soever it should be found, during the time assigned by God for the continuance in it in the world. 3. That Abraham was very notably and solemnly declared by God unto the world to be the Father of all that believe, not by any kind of receiving Circumcision in his flesh, wherein all his posterity were equally privileged with him, but by receiving the Ordinance and commandment of it immediately, and before any other person, from God; which was his prerogative alone. 4. (And last) That the counsel and mind of God in circumcision, was, that it should be both a sign and seal of the righteousness of a true and unfeigned Faith. [i. of that kind of Faith which was in Abraham] in whomsoever it should be found, as well as in Abraham; yea simply and indefinitely so,] i. whether this Faith had ever been found in any man, or no; inasmuch as neither men's believing, nor their non-beleeving, do, or can, at all alter the purpose or counsel of God in any of his Ordinances.] Sect. 64. Did I not judge the explication given of the Scripture lately argued, abundantly sufficient to satisfy and convince any man, to whom Paul, being alive, would not say, if he be ignorant, let him be ignorant, that Circumcision was not a sign or seal of the righteousness of Abraham's personal or individual Faith only, but generally and universally of the righteousness of the same kind of Faith, in whomsoever it should be found, I should add much more for his satisfaction in that behalf. I trust the Reader will pardon the digression, considering that the text of scripture opened herein, thoroughly and distinctly understood, gives little less than a thorough light into the Question about Infant-Baptism. And I am in no degree doubtful, had but Mr. Fisher, and Mr. A. been both willing, and able to reach the mind of the holy Ghost therein, and withal quitted themselves like men in the consideration of it, they had been preserved in the straight way of God and of the Gospel, and not turned aside into the crooked path of Ana-Baptism. But let us now return, and hear what Mr. A. hath farther to say, why God's design touching Repentance for the Remission of sins, should be better served, or answered, by the Baptising of men, then of children. Therefore 2. (Saith he) If it be called the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins, because men by taking up that Ordinance, do engage themselves to the practice of repentance and mortification, as the Apostle supposeth the believing Romans Mr. A. p. 15. 16. to have done, Rom. 6. 2, to 6. (By the way, what need we an IF, If it be called, etc. if the Apostle hath determined the case?) then this end is better provided for in the baptism of men, then of Infants. Surely Circumcision under the Law was an engagement unto men to the practice of repentance and mortification, as well as Baptism under the Gospel. And yet God judged this end of it better served, and answered, by the administration of it unto Infants, then unto men; otherwise we presume he would have prescribed the Administration of it unto men, rather than unto children. That men were engaged by their being Circumcised unto the practice of Repentance and Mortification, I suppose is no man's doubt or question. If it be, resolution in abundance on that hand we speak of may be had, Deut. 10. 16. Jer. 4. 4. Rom. 2. 28, 29. Phil. 3. 3. (besides some other places) Therefore unless Mr. A. can give us some better reason, than God himself knew any in the like case, why a Baptismal engagement unto Repentance and Mortification, should be better provided for by the baptising of men, then of children, it concerns him to retract his assertion in this behalf, But 3. The reason (or rather, vice-reason) which he gives of such his assertion, is, because an engagement to practise repentance, supposeth, 1. An end of Repentance. 2. A capacity of performing that, to which they do engage; neither of which are to be found in Infants, etc. I answer, Sect. 65. 1. An engagement to practise Repentance by those who were circumcised, supposed as much an end of repentance, as it doth in those who are baptised (and so likewise a capacity to perform that, which was engaged unto) yet these, neither divisim, nor conjunctim, were judged any reason by God why Infants ought not to be circumcised. But the wisdom (it seems) of men rebaptized is super-infinite. 2. I confess, I do not understand what he meaneth, when he affirmeth, that an end of repentance is not to be found in infants, but in men. And therefore reverencing that saying of the wise man, He that answereth a matter before he heareth, [i. understandeth] it, it is folly and shame unto him, I shall make no further answer at present unto it, but this; viz. that when Mr. A. shall enable me to understand how the end of repentance is in men, and not in children, I shall freely give him my sense of his notion. 3. Nor is Mr. A. a friend either unto reason, or to the truth, in affirming, that there is no capacity in children of performing that, to which they do engage. For, 1. in such a sense as there is a capacity in them to engage unto any thing, there is likewise to perform. Children are in as good and proper a capacity to perform that, which is or aught to be engaged unto in Baptim, as to make the engagement itself. Secondly, though children be not in a present, actual, or immediate capacity to perform that, which Baptism engageth unto, yet are they in a remote and mediate capacity hereof, and which by the use of means, and blessing of God upon these means, may in due time become actual. Nor can I think that all those, who according to Mr. A's. notion, are, or have been duly baptised, have been in an actual and present capacity at the time of their baptising, to perform every Luke 3. 13. thing they engaged unto by being baptised. They who as yet doubted whether John was the Messiah, or no, were not in a present or immediate capacity of beeleeving Christ to be this Messiah; yet were they engaged by their being baptised to believe this; and notwithstanding their actual incapacity of believing it, were lawfully baptised. So likewise they, who think they truly believe, and are supposed by others to believe accordingly, and yet both these suppositions notwithstanding, do not truly believe, may and ought nevertheless to be baptised; yet are they in no actual capacity to perform that to which they engage by being baptised; I mean to believe in Jesus Christ, and to persevere believing unto the end. Yea Mr. A. himself by being baptised, engaged to a perseverance in Faith and holiness unto the end of his days; yet was he not at the time of his baptism in an actual capacity to perform that, which he engaged unto in this kind. For a present standing in Grace, or Faith, is no more an actual capacity of persevering in either to the end of a man's life, than a present healthful state or condition of the body is an actual capacity of preserving himself in health until he dieth; or then the present possession of an estate worth 1000 l. per annum, is an actual capacity in the possessor of paying a debt of a 1000 or 2000 l. twenty years after. So then the difference which Mr. A. pretends to find in the consideration before us, between men and children in reference unto Baptism, is altogether inconsiderable, and turns to no account at all for the support of his cause. Whether this second consideration, which he supposeth may be the reason why Baptism is termed the Baptism of repentance for remission of sins, be consistent with the first, I shall not trouble the Reader to discuss; but rather desire him to consider. But Sect. 66. 3. He advanceth in his supposals about the business in hand, thus, p. 16. If it be called the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of sins, because God thereby signifies and SEALS unto men the remission of their sins upon their repentance, this end and use likewise is BETTER answered in men's Baptism, who do repent, then in Infants who do not, etc. I answer, 1. His conceit of any End, or Use, of Baptism better answered in the baptism of men, then of Infants, hath been again & again put to rebuke by the consideration of the Counsel of God himself in circumcision. We shall not need to repeat the consideration here. There was everywhit as much reason, why it might have been said in the days of Circumcision, that such & such an End, or Use, of Circumcision, is better answered by the circumcising of men, then of infants, as it can be said under the Gospel, that any End, or Use of Baptism is better answered by the baptising of Men, then of Children. But 2. When he saith, that the End of Baptism (so with some regret of jealousy supposed by him) is BETTER answered by the baptising of men, then of children, doth he not very plainly imply and grant, that this End is competently (at least) answered in the baptising of children also? If so, then certainly the baptising of children is neither a nullity, nor yet a thing unlawful. But this consequence, & the goodness of it, have been sufficiently vindicated in the premises. As the Apostle in the case of marriage, affirming that he that keepeth his virgin [meaning unmarried] doth BETTER, granteth with all, that he that giveth her in marriage, doth WELL, 1 Cor. 7. 36, 38. So he that teacheth that any End of Baptism, is BETTER answered one way, undeniably granteth, that this End may WELL and to a commendable degree, be answered in another. Sect. 67. 3. Whereas he supposeth, that Baptism may be called the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins, because God thereby signifies and SEALS the remission of sins upon Repentance, etc. he takes the boldness to lift up his pen against the great Apostle of his Faith (in the doctrine of Antipedo-baptism;) Mr. Sam. Fisher, whose avowed Doctrine it is, that Baptism, as it is not so much as signifying unto children, (a) so is it not SEALING Ordinance Baby-Baptsm p. 154, etc. unto any. In which notion of his he lays the honour of the Ordinance of Baptism in the dust, unto which notwithstanding otherwise he crieth, Hosanna in the highest. 4. Whereas he gives this for a reason, why the End and Use of Baptism, of which he speaketh, should be better answered by the baptising of men, then of children viz. Because men, who have begun to repent, are in a good capacity to receive confirmation and establishment in their hope and confidence— whereas Infants, whilst such, are uncapable of any such thing, etc. I answer, 1. That which himself here, only doubtfully, and with proviso, calls one End and Use of Baptism, (viz. the signifying and sealing unto men, the remission of their sins upon repentance) one greater than He in the cause of Ana-Baptism (as we lately heard) denies to be either the one, or the other. Himself being doubtful, whether there be any such End or Use of Baptism, as that here mentioned by him, upon what sober account doth he trouble the world with telling them, that in case there be such, either End, or Use, they are better answered, by the baptism of men, then of children? Is that which may not be, as well as be, better answered by one means, than another? These are strange speculations. 2. Supposing that one End and Use of Baptism should be better answered by the baptising of men, then of children, what follows from hence? It neither follows (in the first place) that therefore every end and use thereof is better answered by such an administration; nor (in the second) that Baptism therefore is not to be administered unto children. One end of meats and drinks (as for example, the preservation of the health and strength of men and women come to their just statures and growth) is better answered by the eating and drinking of men and women, then of children: but it followeth not from hence, that therefore eating & drinking are not to be allowed unto children. One end and use of marriage is better answered by the marrying of persons in the strength and vigour of their youth: but this proveth not, that therefore it is unlawful for persons of more maturity of years to marry. This very End and Use of Baptism here suggested, was better answered by the Baptism of men, who had sinned and repent, then by the baptism of Christ himself, who was uncapable of repentance, and of remission of sins hereby; yet this proveth not, that therefore the baptism of Christ was unlawful. Therefore Mr. A's. reasoning at this turn is to little purpose. Sect. 68 3. Whereas he attempteth to prove, that the End and Use of Baptism now under consideration, is better answered by the baptism of men, then of children, by this argument; viz. because men WHO HAVE BEGUN TO REPENT, are in a good capacity to receive, etc. doth he not reason at as lose a tate, as he that should go about to prove that men shall be saved, because righteous men shall be saved? or should infer, that such and such things do belong to a subject simply considered, because they belong to this subject so and so qualified? 4. Though Abraham, when he was circumcised, was in a good capacity to receive confirmation and establishment in his hope and confidence, both that God would give unto him (in his posterity) the promised land of Canaan, and likewise that he would justify him thorough his believing, whereas Isaac, at the time of his circumcising, was in no such capacity of either, yet was the circumcising of Isaac every whit as regular and lawful, as the circumcising of Abraham; yea was of the two, more agreeable to the standing Law for Circumcision. In like manner though children be in no such capacity at the time of their baptising, to receive confirmation and establishment in their hope and confidence of obtaining remission of sins upon their repentance, as repentant men are, when they are baptised, yet may their baptism be every whit as lawful, yea and more regular, than the baptising of such men. Therefore Mr. A's. discourse in the quarters we are now beating up, is without sinews. Sect. 69. 5. (And last for this) when he saith, whereas Infants, whilst such, are ALTOGETHER uncapable of of any such thing; in respect whereof this end is made frustrate, when Baptism is given unto them, he speaketh truth neither in the premises, nor in the conclusion. For 1. Infants, whilst such, are not ALTOGETHER uncapable of that, whereof he speaketh. For although (as hath been formerly argued) they be not in an actual capacity of the thing, I mean, in such a capacity whereby they are enabled to receive the Confirmation and establishment he speaks of, at the time of their baptising, or whilst thy are infants, yet are they in some capacity, and this proper and direct, (though mediate and remote) of receiving these accommodations in due time, as they are in such a capacity, as soon as born, of speaking, thinking, apprehending, etc. however this capacity is not ordinarily reduced into act till after several years. Secondly, from hence it follows, that neither is that End of Baptism, of which he speaks, made frustrate, when Baptism is given unto children, any whit more, than the End of planting is made frustrate by the non-fructification of the tree planted immediately upon the planting of it; or the end of sowing made frustrate by reason that the seed doth not yield an harvest-increase, as soon as it is sown. What I do, thou knowest not now (said the Lord Christ unto Peter, and in him, to the rest) but thou shalt know hereafter; Joh. 13. 7. Christ's action here spoken of, was not hereby made frustrate unto Peter, because he understood not the meaning or import of it, when it was acted. And many of his say to his Disciples, which they understood not when they were spoken, were understood by them with advantage afterwards. See Sect. 152. Sect. 70. Whereas he addeth, that there is a greater APPEARANCE both of the wisdom and goodness of God in vouchsafing and applying such a means as Baptism is, to strengthen men's Faith in his promise of Remission of sins upon their repentance, unto such, who 1. have need of this Confirmation; and 2. are capable of receiving it, than there is in that application of it which is made unto Infants, who neither have need of it, not yet are capable of receiving it; I answer, 1. What appearance there may be of the wisdom and goodness of God in such a disposition as he speaks of, in his own eyes, or in the eyes of men of his judgement, I shall not prejudge; but certain I am that there neither is, nor hath been, any such appearance in the eyes of many men, as sharp-sighted in matters of this nature, as they. 2. Nor doth it argue, either greater wisdom, or goodness to withhold from a man such supplies, which he may have urgent occasion to make use of, until the very pang of his necessity in this kind cometh upon him, than it doth to prevent him with such accommodations against the time of his need. Suppose that Circumcision was a sign and seal only of the faithfulness of God in his promise of giving the land of Canaan unto the Jews, yet did there appear as much wisdom and goodness of God in vouchsafing and applying this means of their confirmation herein unto them, whilst they were yet children, and so at present uncapable of receiving it, as there would, or could have done, in vouchsafing and applying the same means unto them afterwards, when they were both more capable of the said confirmation, and withal stood in more need of it. Sect. 71. 3. (And last, for this) Though children have no present need of that Confirmation he speaks of, yet have they even present need of the application of such an Ordinance unto them, by means whereof they may receive this Confirmation with advantage in due time. As the children of the Jews, had need (at least some kind of need, unless we shall say, that Circumcision was altogether superfluous unto them) of such an Ordinance to be administered unto them, by which they might be confirmed afterwards, in the truth and faithfulness of God for the performance of that promise, whatever it was, which was signed and sealed unto them by circumcision, although they were uncapable of any such confirmation as this, at the time when they were circumcised: in like manner children under the Gospel, though whilst children, they stand in no need of confirmation in the truth of the Covenant of Grace, yea and are all this while uncapable of it, yet this is no argument to prove that therefore they do not stand in need of being prevented with such an Ordinance from God, by which they may be confirmed herein, when they shall arrive at a capacity of this confirmation. Mariners, or such who traffic by Sea, whilst they are yet on shore in their own land, or whilst they are sailing upon the seas, may stand in need of many things, of which notwithstanding they have no use, or benefit, until they come to another land, whether their course is intended. And though the same things may possibly be procured and had in this other land, whether their voyage is bend, yet if they cannot be had here upon terms equally beneficial with those, on which they may be had in their own land, the men we speak of may truly and properly enough be said to stand in need of them before they go to sea, and whilst they are yet in their own land. In like manner though children have no actual or present benefit by Baptism, nor are capable of any, until years of discretion & knowledge, yea & though they may be baptised, when they come to be men, as well as whilst they are yet children; yet neither of these considerations, nor both together, argue any thing, but that baptism may be needful for children, and that, whilst such, they receive it upon terms of better advantage for their future occasions, than they could do, in case they should not receive it until they come to be men. But the truth is that Mr. A. in all these reasonings, on which He insists in his second argument against Infant-baptism, seems to strive to out-wisdom God: and all they who rise up against the same practice with arguments pretending inconvenience, unprofitableness (or the like) therein, dash their foot against the same stone. Sect. 72. 4. We have yet (p. 16.) another possible reason proposed to us, why it may be called the Baptism of Repentance for remission of sins, viz. this, Because the persons who are baptised do thereby profess and DECLARE UNTO THE WORLD, that they look for remission of sins from God, upon their repentance. If (saith he) it be called, &c, yet this end also is better answered in men's Baptism, then in infants. (I answer as formerly) 1. But what if this be no reason of that Denomination of Baptism, of which we have heard so much to so little purpose? what then becomes of that, which Mr. A. builds upon it? The air may be afraid of being beaten by it. That the five reasons here suggested by him, should all of them be reasons in reality and truth) of the said Denomination, is (I suppose) scarce his own thought, or notion: nor are they all well consistent amongst themselves (as was formerly hinted) nor hath he declared his mind which of the five, one, or more, should inherit. 2. The reason or end of the said Denomination here waveringly, and upon supposal, suggested by him, is (probably) no true reason or end thereof. For how can persons baptised (upon the terms allowed by him, and frequently practised in his way) thereby profess and DECLARE UNTO THE WORLD that they look for remission of sins upon their repentance, when as 1. many are baptised in hugger-mugger, privately, and in the night, and of whose baptism its self the world (possibly) may have no knowledge whilst they live? Yea I know, and Mr. A. knows, a person not inconsiderable in the Commonwealth of new-baptism, who kept his Baptism to himself for a eleven or twelve years together, before the world, yea or his fellow-dippers themselves, one or two haply present at the solemnity, excepted, knew any thing thereof. Doubtless all this while he made no profession or declaration unto the world of any thing at all by his baptism. 2. In case the persons baptised should make proclamation in the streets or market-places, that they are baptised, the world is at liberty whether they will believe them, or no. If (saith Christ, Joh. 5. 31.) I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true, [meaning, legally true, or such, which you, being strangers to me, are necessitated to own] And it is no easy matter for the world to receive testimony of any man's baptism [in Mr. A's way of baptising] from two or three witnesses present at it. 3. (And last) in case the world might be satisfied touching the truth and certainty of the baptism of all that are baptised, yet do they not understand any such profession, or declaration, imported or made by it, viz. that the persons baptised look for remission of sins upon their repentance. Therefore no such profession or declaration as this is made by baptism unto the world: and consequently this is no end of baptism. To what purpose then doth he pretend, that it is better answered in the baptism of men, then of Infants. Sect. 73. Whreas he saith, that men are capable of making such a profession and declaration of themselves to the world IN and BY their Baptism, when as infants are altogether uncapable of doing any such thing; I answer, 1. That men themselves are very ill capable of making that profession he speaks of, or any other, in their Baptism, [1. during the time of their being under water] 2. As uncapable altogether are they of making either the one, or the other, BY their Baptism. A man cannot profess or declare that, BY baptism (at least orderly & regularly) which God never intended should be professed or declared by it Now Mr. A. himself speaks doubtingly whether such a profession and declaratin as we now speak of, be any end of baptism, or no. If they be not (a negative already proved by us, as well as questioned, or doubted, by him) then can they not by any man be made by it. 3. There is very seldom much of the world, for the most part nothing at all, present at the baptising of those, who Mr. A. here supposeth should make the profession and declaration which he speaks of, in and by their Baptism. In what capacity then are they of making them unto the world at such a time? 4. (And last for this) though they who are baptised men, are able to make what professions or declarations by words they please, about the time of their baptism, which infants at the time of their Baptism, by themselves, or in their own persons, cannot; yet he that offereth his Infant unto baptism, and so he that baptizeth it, may at this very time make the same, whether professions, or declarations, with men. And how, or why such a profession and declaration as he speaketh of, made by these persons, when an infant is baptised, should not as well answer and accommodate that end of Baptism (if such it be) which he here suggesteth (at least in reference to the world) as the like made by other men, when they are baptised, I verily understand not. Truly these arguments are no honour or strength to the cause of Antipedo-baptism. 5. He yet supposeth once more; If it be called the Baptism of repentance, etc. because it seals and confirms the Covenant or promises of God made to men touching the remission of their sins upon their repentance, yet this end and use Mr.] A. p. 16, 17. also is attained upon far BETTER TERMS in the Administration of Baptism to believers, and to men of understanding, than it is, or can be, when administered unto Infants who have neither. I answer, Sect. 74. 1. This fift (and last) IF, is the same in substance and import (and partly in words also) with the third. Wherefore (to avoid Repetitions) the Reader is desired to re-peruse the preceding, 67, 68, etc. Sections, where he shall find the impertinency of the contents of it argued and discovered. And 2. Whereas he here pleads, that If the intent of God in making Baptism a seal of his Covenant and Promise, is not to make his Covenant more sure in itself, but to give it a more sure, stable, and unquestionable being in the minds and apprehensions of men, than this end cannot be attained in infants by their Baptism, because they want the use and exercise of their reasons, judgements, etc. without which the articles and terms of God's Covenant will never take place, or have a being in the minds of any, by way of belief; doth he not again put the wisdom of God to rebuke in his counsel and Ordinance of Circumcision? For whatsoever Covenant or Promise it was which he intended to seal thereby, it was no whit more to make it more sure in itself, but only in the minds and apprehensions of men, than his intent is to make that Covenant and Promise sure, which he sealeth by Baptism: and yet we know (and it hath been oft noted) that he judged his end in this kind as well, or rather better attained, by the application of that seal unto Infants, then unto men. But God, and Mr. A. (it seems) are divided in their respective senses upon the case. 3. (And last for this) be it granted, that without the use and exercise of men's reasons and judgements, the Articles and terms of God's Covenant will never take place, or have a being in the minds of any, etc. yet this is no reason at all, why such a Seal, by which [i. by the knowledge and consideration of which] God intends to give being, or a more sure being, to the said Articles in the minds and and apprehensions of men, should not be administered, or applied, but only where there is an actual and present use and exercise of these faculties; a See more of this, Sect. 71. Especially this is no reason why this administration should not be made in the case mentioned, when there are reasons why it should be made; which is the case in Infant-Baptism, (as it was also in Infant-Circumcision.) What these reasons are, I mean, why the Seal of Baptism should be administered unto Infants, we shall (God willing) declare in due time. By the way, Mr. A. seems to be a man of more than ordinary foresight, in delivering himself so provisionally, under the protection of so many IFS, touching his sense, why Baptism may be called the Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. For hereby he seems to foresee, that by that time he had traveled a little further in his discourse, he should start a better reason of that Denomination, than any of those now offered by the shaking hand of any of his IF'S. We shall hear of this in due time. 3. Mr. A. in his progress acquainteth us with another SEEMING end of Baptism. Another end of Baptism (saith he, p. 17.) SEEMS to be this; viz. that such who are baptised, might thereby signify their acceptance of, and consent unto, the terms of the Gospel, or Covenant of Grace. But the substance of this seemingness, we had lately under the conduct of the fourth, IF (p. 16.) and in part also, of the first IF, p. 15. And if the Reader desires further satisfaction herein, he is desired to repair back to the rifling of the two said IFS, Sect. 60, 61, etc. and Sect. 72, 73, etc. Sect. 75. Nor doth he tell us any news, when he addeth: For the Covenant of God with men doth consist of certain articles to be observed and kept by each party covenanting, as covenants among men generally do. But this old story (it may be) makes way to a new. Therefore he steereth on his course, thus: And as amongst men parties covenanting are wont to signify their mutual consent to their respective articles, by some solemn act of theirs in presence of witnesses, as by signing, sealing, delivering, etc. So God in the Covenant between him and men, will have something like unto this done by men PUBLICLY, to signify their consent to the terms of it, as well as what is done by him to declare his readiness to do and perform what he hath undertaken on his part. We are yet in a safe road; or however, not much beside it. Only a touch upon two things. 1. If by PUBLIQVELY, he means, in the sight of the world, or, upon such terms, that all men, or the generality of persons round about, may readily come to know and understand, than his rule condems his practice, and the practice generally observed by persons of his judgement. For neither did himself, in this sense, publicly, signify his consent to the terms of the covenant by his being baptised, the generality of us knowing nothing of his Baptism, but only by tradition (whose information in other cases is not very authentic, or authoritative) or by common fame, which is known to be Tàm ficti pravique tenax, quàm nuncia veri. i. As well an holdfast of ●hat feigned is, As a Reporter of Truth's certainties. And (as hath been noticed formerly) that most of those, who are led, as they think, to Christ by the way of new Baptism, choose Nicodemus his season, either formally or materially, for their voyage. Therefore what they do in this kind, they do it not so PUBLICLY. 2. The will of God, in the Covenant made with Abraham & his posterity (whether spiritual or temporal) was as much that something should be done by men publicly to signify their consent unto the terms of it, as it is that any thing in this kind should be done by men to signify their consent to the terms of the Covenant of Grace in the Gospel. Therefore how impertinent is that which follows; Now faith in Christ, and an obediential subjection to ALL his Laws and precepts, being the condition of this Covenant on man's part, at WHAT TIME SOEVER HE ENTERS INTO COVENANT with God, and undertakes the performance of the condition, he is to sign and seal the same IN THE PRESENCE of w●nesses by that solemn ACT OF HIS in being baptised. For answer, Sect. 76. 1. I had thought until now (and shall think so still, notwithstanding Mr. A's thought to the contrary) that a person in his being baptised, is a patiented, or sufferer only, not an Agent, or Actor, much less that he performs any Solemn Act herein. For they who act in their being baptised, must needs be Sebaptists, and not baptised after the manner of the Gospel. So that his notion about men's signifying their consent to the terms of the Gospel by some solemn ACT, falls to the ground. If he pleads, that men act in offering, or submitting themselves unto Baptism, though not in their Baptism itself, I answer; Be it so, yet mens offering, or submitting themselves unto Baptism, are no solemn or Sacramental actings, nor can their consent to the terms of the Covenant, be said to be signified by these actings, unless it may be said withal that men may testify that consent we speak of, without being baptised. For that men may offer themselves, and submit unto Baptism, without being actually baptised, is (I suppose) no man's question. 2. Whereas he makes an obediential subjection to ALL Christ's laws and precepts, (without any explication, or proviso) as well as Faith in Christ, the condition of the Covenant of Grace on man's part, doth he not make a Law, by which, were it of any force or authority, as well himself, as all other men, should be condemned, unless he can approve himself an exception from that General Rule of the Apostle James, In many things we offend all? If no person can claim interest in the good things of the Covenant, but only they, who shall perform the condition of this Covenant, and this condition be (either in whole or in part) an obedien●iall subjection to all Christ's laws and precepts (as Mr. A. determines) then in case he doth not obedientially sub●ect to all these laws and precepts (which I am fare from thinking that either he, or any other person doth, yea or that they do so much as know what all these Laws and Precepts are) he hath fast shut the door of life against himself. 3. Whereas he saith, at what time soever a person entereth into covenant with God, he is to sign and seal the same in the presence of witnesses by the solemn act of his being baptised; 1. I would demand of him, whether he thinks the Lord Christ was not en●ered into covenant with God, before his being baptised; or whether he acted besides rule, that at the time of his entering into covenant with God, he did not sign and seal the same by his being baptised. Yea I cannot but think that the Eunuch was entered into covenant with God some considerable space of time, before his being baptised. Nor is it an extravagant thought to conceive the same of Cornelius. 2. Nor is he able to prove (nor is the thing much more probable, then provable) any presence of witnesses, either at the Baptising of the Eunuch, or of Paul, besides many others)▪. (& last) I would gladly learn of him, whether the children of the Jews entered into covenant with God at the time of their circumcising, or not till afterwards, when they were able to make profession of their Faith in God. If he teacheth me the former for truth, then would I gladly learn this lesson further, why the children (at least the children of believers) under the Gospel, should not be as capable of entering into Covenant with God, as they: and if so, why they should not be baptised (according to his own principles.) If the latter, than what necessity was there (& consequently, now is there) that at what time soever a person entereth into Covenant with God, he should sign and seal the same. Sect. 77. Of his further conceptions about the business, he delivers himself thus, p. 17. In this respect especially I CONceive it is, that Baptism is called the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins. (Mark 1. 4. Luk. 3. 3.) because men are to take up that Ordinance upon their first beginning to repent, in order to the remission of their sins. For like reason I SUPPOSE it is called the washing of regeneration, Tit. 3. 5. because men upon their being born again, are to be baptised according to what was practised in the Apostles times. Hence it is likewise, as MAY WELL BE CONCEIVED, that men's being born of water and of the Spirit (John 3. 5.) the washing of Regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Tit. 3. 5.) are joined together, not because the Spirit works regeneration, in, and by Baptism, if we respect the beginning of it, etc. The day will fail us to gather up, by animadversion, what Mr. A. hath scattered here by inadvertency and inconsiderateness. For, 1. After five several accounts lately given in by him (as we have heard) with the Imprimis of an IF, in every of them (respectively) why Baptism should be called, The Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, now, as IF he had but dallied, and played fast and lose with us in these, he delivereth us in a sixth account, of the truth whereof he seems to be more confident, then of any, then of all the former; and yet we have this also tendered unto us somewhat tenderly (though with an, especially) viz. with an, I conceive; In this respect especially I CONCEIVE, it is that, etc. But 2. Doth not his Comparative term, especially, relating to all his five former accounts, suppose, that all these had done virtuously, though this last surpasseth them all? And yet are not some of them, at least one of them (if not more) altogether inconsistent with this? The tenor of this sixth and highest-prized account being this, because men are to take up the Ordinance upon their first beginning to repent, in order to the remission of their sins, renders it very hardly consistent with that before delivered in the third place, which (as we heard) was this, because God thereby signifies and seals unto men the remission of their sins upon their repentance. If Baptism be therefore called the Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, because men are to take it up in order to the remission of their sins, God cannot thereby either signify or seal unto men the remission of their sins upon their repentance. The reason of the inconsistency is plain; If God seals unto men the forgiveness of their sins upon their repentance, Baptism cannot be taken up (I mean, regularly &, according to the mind of God) in order hereunto; because Baptism is not to be taken up (according to Mr. A's own principles) but after repentance, and consequently, after remission of sins (if this be given by God upon repentance) If the remission of sins precedes Baptism (which it must needs do, if it be given upon repentance) then ought not Baptism to be taken up in order thereunto. Or if it be taken up by any person in order hereunto, the intention represents the action hateful and abominable in the sight of God. Therefore another IF would better have become this sixth account also, than an, ESPECIALLY. How ill consistent it is with some other of his former accounts, I judge it beneath the Readers edification to examine. But Sect. 78. 3. How lamely doth he plead the cause of his beloved Conceit, that Baptism should especially be therefore called the Baptism of repentance for &c. because men are to take it up upon their first beginning to repent IN ORDER TO THE REMISSION OF SINS; For like reason (saith he) I suppose it is called the washing of Regeneration, Tit. 3. 5. because men upon, etc. So again: Hence it is likewise, as may well be conceived (but much better not conceived, nor once thought) that men's being born of water and of the Spirit, etc. What can a man reasonably imagine that he should see or notion in any one of, or in all, these passages, to countenance his notion, that Baptism should be taken up— in order to Remission of sins? The clause, which in face would best have befriended him at this turn, he suppresseth, notwithstanding it was at his pens end. For having cited these words Act. 22. 16. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptised; immediately followeth, And wash away thy sins. Why, being to act the part he had now in hand, he should keep these words behind the Curtain, is a secret that I know not how to enter. All that can with any face or colour of reason be proved from the scripture passages as yet produced, is nothing, but what will be granted unto him without proof, viz. that Baptism, by persons adult and believing, and not formerly baptised, aught to be taken up upon the first opportunity after their believing. But this, Mr. A's principles considered, according to which he was not baptised till many years after his believing, putteth him to rebuke; but concerneth not us, who judge ourselves to have been baptised in our Infancy. But for the countenancing of the darling notion mentioned, it is like we shall hear somewhat to more purpose ere long. Mean while 4. It may not be amiss to observe by the way, how full of stonds Mr. A's faith is (or at least seems to be) about the particulars argued in that part of his discourse, which is under present consideration, and how lightly he treads the ground, on which he is now walking. First, he only conceives it is, as he saith; In this respect especially I CONCEIVE it is, etc. Next, he supposeth it is. For like reason I SUPPOSE it is, etc. Thirdly, he tells us, that it may well be conceived that it is; Hence it is likewise, as may WELL BE CONCEIVED, etc. Lastly, his doubtless it was, though according to the grammatical import of the particle, doubtless, it seems to imply confidence, yet according to the more passable sense of this word in ordinary construction, it notes some degree of hesitance, or question-making; I do not make this observation, as blaming in the least Mr. A's. modesty, or dubitative manner of expressing himself in things questionable and obscure; Only herein I judge him to be in no better case than Peter was, when Paul said of him, that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be condemned, (Gal. 2. 11.) viz. that he should trouble the world, rend and tear Ch●istan societies, upon the account of such ●otions or apprehensions, of the truth whereof himself hath no better assurance, than conceit, or dubitation. 5. (And last) His respective senses and expositions of Joh. ●. 5. born of water and of the spirit; and so of Tit. 2. 5. the washing of regeneration, are so much his, that our best Expositors do not own them; nor do either the words themselves, nor yet the scope of the Context in either place require them. Concerning the former of these places, Calvin expressly professeth, that he can at no hand be persuaded that Christ speaketh here of Baptism; adding, that it had not been seasonable for him so to do. a Quantumve●ò an hunc locum attinet, nullo modo adducor ut Christum de B●ptismo verba facere credam: hoc enim fuisset intempestivum. Calv: in Joh. 3. 5. And not long after this; The water (saith he, of which Christ here speaks) is nothing else but the inward purgation and vegetation of the holy Ghost; subjoyning this rule (for the confirmation of his exposition) that it is no● unusual that the copulative particle should be taken Exegetically, when the latter member is an explication of the former. (b) Ergo nihil est aliud, quam interior Spiritus sancti purgatio ac vegetatio Ibid. a Add quòd non est insolens copulam exegetio● sumi, quum scilicet posterius membrum est explicatio pri●ris. Ibid Mr. John Deodate, commenteth the place thus; Of water] He seems to intimate two distinct and several parts of this change: and by water he means the expiation and remission of the sin, and by the Spirit, the whole work of regeneration. Hugo Grotius findeth the figure Hendiadis in the clause, born again of water, and of the Spirit, i. (saith he) of the Spirit, who is like unto water in his working. b Est autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nam sicut in spiritu & igne, Mat. 3. 11 significat per spiritum igneum, ita hic ex spiritu & aqua est, ex spiritu aqueo Neque obstat quòd vox altera quasi limitans hic praecedat. Nam sic Act. 17. 25— Gen. 3. 16. & Gen. 2. 7. & 11. Col. 2. 8. etc. in Joh. 3. 5. 8 etc. Grotius. Of which interpretation he gives a further account upon the place. Concerning the latter place, Tit. 3. 5. Calvin indeed conceives, that the Apostle in the phrase, by the washing of regeneration, alludeth unto Baptism; in which apprehension I judge it not worth a while for any man to descent from him. Yet neither doth the phrase itself, nor the scope of the Context or subject matter in hand, enforce any such interpretation; much less do they, either divisim, or conjunctim, so much as invite us to think the Apostle thereby meaneth Baptism. And Marlorat upon the place citeth a Protestant Exposition (with whom himself seemeth to accord) who, by the Laver, or washing of Regeneration, understandeth, the virtue, or power, of the holy Ghost, because he is the Author of that interra●l newness whereby our hearts are purged from the [filth, or] defilements of sin. So that Mr. A. hath sufficient cause for all that tenderness, with which he citys the said Scripture passages for his purpose. Sect. 79. But let us (in the next place) see how like a man he quitteth himself, and what strength he produceth, in the defence of his golden dream (formerly mentioned) viz. that men do take up the Ordinance of Baptism, about the beginning of their repentance, IN ORDER TO THE REMISSION OF THEIR SINS. For I confess that if he be able to make truth of this notion (in the sense, which his words bear in ordinary understandings) he will gain the prize which he runeth for in the second part of his discourse; viz. that necessary it is for persons to be baptised after they believe, their Infant-Baptism notwithstanding. But what he pleadeth in proof of the said notion, the Reader may find p. 18. of his discourse, beginning thus: Finally, Believing and being baptised, are con●oyned as relative to s●lvation (Mar. 16. 16.) And a little after; That both repentance, and the declaration of it by Baptism, is required on man's pa●t to interest him in remission of sins, and sanctification of the Spirit, the things covenanted or promised on God's part, is too evident to be denied by any, BUT THOSE THAT WILL NOT SEE, from Act. 2. 38, 39 Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost: for the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that, etc. For answer, 1. How insupportable is he in that most heavy Sentence, which here he denounceth against many thousands, as holy, as upright, as worthy men, as ever the earth bore any since the Apostles days, yea (in a manner) against the whole Christian world; viz. that they are persons THAT WILL NOT SEE, i. that will fully oppose the light of divine truth shining unto them. For how few are they of this generation of men, but have denied, that the Declaration of repentance by Baptism, as well as repentance itself, is required on man's part to interest him in remission of sins? Or do they not all (generally, and as it were with one mouth) profess and teach, and this with the full current of the Scripture, that there is nothing essentially requisite on man's part to in●e●ess him in remission of sins, [i. to put him into a state of salvation] but a true faith in Jesus Christ, which includes repentance from dead works; unto which also upon this account, the said promise of remission of sins is sometimes made. Indeed, speaking of that full and final remission of sins, which shall in the hearing of Heaven and Earth be awarded by the Great Judge in his day, unto all Believers, to the obtaining of this they require of men, over and above either the simple act, or habit, whether of the truest Faith, or soundest Repentance, a perseverance in both, and in the fruits or actings of both, unto the end. The truth is, that as the notion here maintained by Mr. A. is one of the worst and most dangerous opinions owned by him in his book; so is the moral misdemeanour mentioned, simply the worst and most unchristian strain therein. But 2. To detect the error of the said notion, or Doctrine, viz. that Baptism is therefore called the Baptism of Repentance, because men are to take it up in order to the remission of sins, (or in the latter edition of it) that the Declaration of repentance by Baptism, as well as Repentance itself, is required on man's part, to interest him in Remission of sins, and Sanctification of the Spirit, It is to be considered, Sect. 80. 1. That as Remission of sin is no where in Scripture promised unto Baptism apart from Faith, or from Repentance, but unto these (sometimes to the one, and sometimes to the other) apart from Baptism, and without relation hereunto; (see and consider Joh. 3. 16, 18, 36. Lu. 24. 47. Act. 5. 3. Act. 3. 19 Ac. 8. 22. Ac. 11. 18. 2 Pet. 3. 9 Rom. 3. 28, 30. Rom. 4. 3, 5, 16, 23, 24. to omit many other places) so is the sanctification of the Spirit promised unto Faith simply, and sometimes unto prayer, sometimes to the love of God, yea and hath frequently been vouchsafed unto men by God upon their believing, without Baptism. See for this express Scripture, Joh. 7. 38, 39 Act. 10 44, 45, etc. Act. 11. 17. Gal. 3. 2. Luk. 11. 13. Gal. 3. 14. Eph. 1. 13. 2 Thes. 2. 13. Act. 6. 5. Act. 9 17. Act. 15. 7. compared with ver. 8. Therefore certainly Baptism is not required of men (at least in a way of necessity) to interest them either in remission of sin, or in sanctification of the spirit. For if so, how could these be obtained without it? 2. If Baptism, or a Declaration of men's Repentance by Baptism, be required on man's part to interest him in Remission of sins, how can men besaid to be justified by faith thorough the blood of Christ? or the blood of Christ be said to cleanse men from all their sins? Rom. 3. 22, 24, 25. 1 Joh. 1. 7. (besides other places without number.) Baptism (without all question) is no part either of Faith, or of the blood of Christ. Therefore justification, or remission of sins, which is attainable by Faith in the blood of Christ, may be obtained without Baptism. 3. If Baptism be required on man's part to interest him in remission of sins, and sanctification of the spirit, then hath God suspended both the justification and sanctification, of men (and consequently, their eternal Salvation) upon a ceremony, or carnal Ordinance (as Baptism by some of the most learned of Mr. A's party, as we formerly heard, is acknowledged to be) as well, or as much, as he hath done upon Faith, or Repentance themselves; and thus men shall be perfected by the flesh (as the Apostle speaketh) Yea 4. If a Declaration of Repentance by Baptism be required on man's part, to interest him in remission of sins, or in Sanctification of the Spirit, then is a Declaration hereof by Baptism, or by submitting to an outward and fleshly ceremony, more accepted with God, than a Declaration made by mortification, innocence, holiness of conversation, etc. The reason of this consequence is plain; viz. because a Declaration of a man's Repentance by these, or any of them, is not required by God, nor yet accepted by him, upon any such account, as to interest him in remission of sins, or to translate him from an estate of sin and death, into a state of justification; no, nor yet to entitle him to the sanctification of the Spirit. For he that is not a justified person before any Declaration be made by him of his repentance, by such fruits or expressions of it, as these, will never be justified afterwards. Nor can any man bring forth any such fruits of Repentance, as these, unless he be interessed in the sanctification of the Spirit before hand. Therefore Baptism is not required on man's part, nor yet a Declartion of his repentance by Baptism, to interest him, either in Remission of sin●, or sanctification of the Spirit. Sect. 81. 5. If it were so, then only children of wrath, and persons not yet reconciled unto God, should be the regular and lawful subjects of Baptism. For if Baptism be required on man's part to interest them in Remission of sins, all they who are yet unbaptised must needs be under the guilt of their sins, and so liable to eternal condemnation for them. And if the case be thus, Faith and repentance are but dead works, until Baptism quickens them, and raiseth them up from the dead. 6. If Mr. A's Position now protested, were Orthodox and sound, John the Baptist was in his blood (I mean, in the guilt and pollution of his sins) when he entered upon the work and ministry of baptising with water; yea and (for aught appears to the contrary) so lived and died, and consequently perished eternally: for it no where appears that ever he was baptised; and if he were not baptised by the verdict of Mr. A's Doctrine, he could have neither part nor fellowship in the blessed business of Remission of sins, and so must perish. 7. If both Repentance, and the Declaration of it by Baptism, be required on man's part to interest him in remission of sins, and Sanctification of the Spirit, then, according to Mr. A's judgement and notion about the truth and requisite terms of the administration of Baptism, either all, or far the greatest part of, the ancient Fathers of the Christian Church, with the generality of Christians in their days; all, or far the greatest part of the worthy Martyrs both in latter, and in former times; all, or far the greatest part, of our late Protestant Divines, whose zeal, learning, labour, and faithfulness God was pleased to use about the Reformation, and for the Restauration & propagation of the truth of Christian Religion, as Luther, Calvin, Musculus, Bucer, P. Martyr, Zuinglius, etc. together with our own worthies, Perkins, Dod, Hildersham, Preston, Sibs, etc. together with the generality of the people taught and instructed by them; against all these (I say) we must write bitter things, and conclude, that whilst they lived, they were in the gall of bitterness, and bands of iniquity, and that they died, and consequently perished in their sins. For most certain it is, that these were not baptised, as Mr. A. and men of his judgement count and call Baptism; and consequently could not make any Declaration of their repentance by Baptism. And if so, they must all to hell, unless Mr. A's Doctrine be content to be sent thither in their stead. Sect. 82. 8. If no person can make a Declaration of their Repentance by Baptism, then cannot a Declaration in this kind, or that which M. A. calls a Declaration, interest any man in remission of sins. The reason of the consequence in this Proposition is evident: That which is not, cannot act: nor can any such thing, or Act, interest any man in●●remission of sins, which may be as well found in those, whose sins are not remitted, as in those, whose are. Now that persons, who are baptised, may be in the gall of bitterness, and bands of iniquity, (and consequently not have their sins remitted) their Baptism notwithstanding, is apparent in the case of Simon M●gus; to whom, soon after his baptising, Peter said, Thou hast neither part▪ nor lot in this matter: for thine heart is not right in the sight of God— For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and bands of iniquity, Act. 8. 21, 23. Nor is the Baptism of a very great part of those, who have been of late baptised (and this as Mr. A. calls Baptism) amongst us, any Declaration of their repentance (at least not of any such repentance, which hath any thing to do with remission of sins, their unworthy ways and actions proclaiming them aloud to be persons void as well of the knowledge, as fear of God. 9 The Grandees themselves of Mr. A's party, yea and (I presume) himself also with them, believe and hold, that amongst the Heathen, unto whom the Name of Jesus Christ was never brought, nor the Gospel ever preached (orally, or by the mouths of men) and consequently, who were never Baptised, there are or may be found persons interessed in Remission of sins. If so, with what truth can Mr. A. affirm, yea rather with what face can he avouch with a most unchristian censure of all those who shall deny it, that both Repentance, and a Declaration of it by Baptism, are required on man's part to interest him in Remission of sins? Sect. 83. 10. In case as well a Declaration of Repentance by Baptism, as repentance itself, be required on man's part to interest him in remission of sins, would the Apostle Paul have thanked God he baptised none of the Corinthians, but Crispus and Gaius; [i. that he interessed none of them in remission of sins, but these? 1 Cor. 1. 14] Or should he have had cause so fare to underrate the office and worth of baptising beneath the preaching of the Gospel, as to say that Christ sent him not to Baptise, but to preach the Gospel? [i. not to do all that which might interest men completely in remission of sins, but only somewhat, that might somewhat further them in the way thereunto] 1 Cor. 1. 17? 11. Suppose a person truly believing in Jesus Christ, and repenting of his sins, being desirous withal to be baptised, but wanted an opportunity duly (according to the light of his conscience) to partake of this Ordinance, as put case he were not satisfied touching the lawfulness of the calling of any person he knoweth, to baptise▪ (which either is, or very possibly may be, the case of many thousands in England) is it Mr. A's sense that this person is, all this notwithstanding, in the gall of bitterness, and band of iniquity, only because he hath not been, nor is ever like to be actually baptised? Or is not his act in refusing Baptism at the hands of those, from whom he cannot with the peace of his conscience receive it, of better acceptance with God, than a receiving it, with the violation of his conscience, would have been? 12. If a Declaration of a man's repentance by Baptism, be required on man's part to interest him in remission of sins, than was the oscitancie and forgetfulness of the Apostle Paul inexcusable, who in all his discourses about justification, or the means of the obtaining remission of sins; and more especially in his Epistle to the Romans, where he professedly undertakes, and more at large then in any other place, handleth the said most important Doctrine of justification, never so much as mentioneth Baptism as any ways, or in any consideration whatsoever, conducing thereunto, much less as required on man's part to interest him therein; but only finds occasion for the mention of it in the business of sanctification. Certainly a maid may sooner forget her ornaments, and a bride her attire, and a woman her sucking child, than such an Apostle, in arguing a point of that transcendent nature and import, as justification is, forget any thing of an essential requirement thereunto. Sect. 84. 13. The remission of no man's sins, no man's justification, (lest of all the justification of a true Believer) is by God made dependent either upon the wills or pleasures of other men, or upon any such condition, which (possibly) the person may never have an opportunity, no nor possibility to perform, at least not without sin. Now 1. no person can compel another, how regularly soever qualified for the act of administering, to baptise him. 2▪ It may very possibly be that a true believer shall, or may, not meet with a person whilst he lives, from whose hand he can with the peace of his conscience, and consequently without sinning, receive Baptism. Therefore certainly a Declaration of Repentance by Baptism, is not required on man's part to interest him in Remission of sins. 14. If a Declaration of Repentance by Baptism, (at least as Mr. A. calls Baptism) as well as repentance itself, were required by God of all men, to interest them in remission of sins, than should he require of many true Repentants, and true Believers, that which would be sinful in them to perform, to interest them in this high privilege of Remission of sins. For there is nothing more certain than that many, who have truly repent, want faith to believe that Mr. A's Baptism is so much as lawful for them to submit unto. And it is the express Doctrine of the Apostle, that whatsoever is not of Faith, is sin, Rom. 14 23. Sect. 85. 15. By the same way, or means, by which Abraham the Father of those who believe, was justified, or interessed in remission of sins, are all his children, or spiritual seed, justified also. Upon this, as a foundation not to be questioned, the Apostle builds that excellent discourse, Rom. 4. all along the chapter. See more particularly v. 23. 24. of this chapter, and v. 30. of the next precedent Chapter. Now certain it is that circumcision was not required of him, (nor yet any other ceremony) to interest him in remission of sins; but he was interessed in this blessed privilege, whilst he was yet uncircumcised (as the Apostle expressly affirmeth, Rom. 4. 10, 11.) by means of his faith. Therefore certainly the ceremony of Baptism is not required of any of Abraham's spiritual seed, to interest them in remission of sins. Yea I am horribly afraid lest they, who join waterbaptism with faith in Christ as necessary in the business of justification, or remission of sins, incur the same heavy doom with the Jews (mentioned, Gal. 5. 2, 4.) who judged it necessary for them to be circumcised in the flesh (& accordingly were circumcised) in order to their justification. For (doubtless) that which in this casc abolished them from Christ [or, made Christ of none effect unto them] was not that the precept enjoining circumcision was now exauthorized or abolished by the death of Christ, but because they judging somewhat necessary to their justification, besides Faith in Christ, practised accordingly For (questionless) their foot had been in the same snare, had they practised circumcision even whilst it stood in greatest force, upon a like account. 16. The Doctrine of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, is much differing from that which Mr. A. delivereth unto us in the point under preset debate He the Apostle Paul) teacheth us, that with the heart man believeth UNTO righteousness, a Ro. 10. 10 [i unto remission of sins, at least] but Mr. A. teacheth us (in effect) that with the heart man believeth but half way towards righteousness; and that he must march the other half of the way by water, or else he will never come there. For is not the tenor of his Doctrine this; men are to take up that Ordinance (speaking of Baptism) upon their first beginning to repent [and consequently, to believe] IN ORDER TO THE REMISSION OF THEIR SINS? And p. 18. to the same tune, thus; That both Repentance, and the Declaration of it by BAPTISM, is required on man's part to INTEREST HIM IN REMISSION OF SINS, and sanctification of the spirit, the things covenanted or promised on God's part, is too evident to be denied by any, but those that will not see, from Act. 2. 37, 38. etc. I wish for those Christian and worthy respects, which in great numbers I bear unto him, that, being so willing himself to see, as here, plainly enough, and somewhat more, he intimates himself to be, God will graciously please to give him eyes wherewith to see, that so he may mistake darkness for a vision no longer. Yet until very now he had eyes to see that truth, which on the sudden (it seems) is withdrawn from his sight. For 17. The Lord Christ (as was observed, Sect. 18.) at his first sending forth his Apostles to preach the Gospel (Mat. 10. Mar. 3, Luk. 9) yea and when awhile after he se●t forth seventy other Disciples about the same work, he spoke not a word either to the one, or to the other, about baptising any. If Baptism had been essentially requisite unto salvation (which it must needs be, if it be essentially requisite to remission of sins) can it be any man's thought, or imagination, that Christ would not have so much as once mentioned it in neither of those solemn Commissions, which he gave at several times for the preaching of the Gospel? Or was that ministry of the Gospel, which was by the Lord Christ himself committed unto men, without any order or direction to baptise, ineffectual effectually to convert those unto God, who should believe and receive it and so to save them? Nor can it with any colour of reason, or proof, be pretended, that those, at least all those who were now sent forth to preach the Gospel, had received a commission to baptise before, the scripture no where affirming it, no nor so much as overturing it of them all. Nor can it upon any whit a better account be said, that in the commission which Christ gave them to preach the Gospel, he virtually or consequentially, included a commission also for them to baptise. For 1. this is pretended at a single peradventure, neither the Scripture, nor any competent reason persuading it. 2. When Christ gave a commission for such a preaching of the Gospel, which he intended should be accompanied with a power to baptise, he maketh particular and express mention of baptising, as well as of preaching, Mat. 28. 19 3. (And last) Neither do we read of so much as any one person baptised, either by the Apostles themselves, or by the seventy, by virtue of that mission, or commission from Christ to preach the Gospel, of which we now speak. 18. (And last) doth not himself (p. 16. of his present discourse) affirm and teach, that Baptism may therefore be called the Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, because God THEREBY SIGNIFIES AND SEALS unto men the remission of their sins UPON THEIR REPENTANCE? If God by Baptism signifies and seals unto men the remission of their sins upon their repentance, then certainly men are interessed in remission of sins, upon, and by means of their Repentance, and so before Baptism be taken up by them; otherwise God should seal unto men an untruth, and that which is not. Again, doth he not (a little after, in the same page) suppose that Baptism may be called the Baptism of repentance, because the persons who are baptised, do thereby profess and declare unto the world, that they look for REMISSION OF SINS FROM GOD UPON THEIR REPENTANCE? And yet again, that it may be called the Baptism of repentance, etc. because it seals and confirms the covenant or promises of God made to men, touching the remission of their sins upon their repentance? If it be the covenant or promise of God to give unto men the remission of sins upon their repentance, certainly repentance itself by virtue of this covenant of God, interesseth men in remission of sins, without the interposure of Baptism, or without any contribution from Baptism thereunto. Sect. 86. But if a Declaration of a man's Repentance by Baptism, be nor requisite to interest him in remission of sins, as well as repentance itself, what answer is to be given to those two texts of Scripture, which Mr. A. useth (I will not say abuseth) to prove the same, especially to the latter, Act. 2. 38, 39 Wherein (if he speaks truth) that Doctrine of his is too evidently asserted to be denied by any, but those that will not see? The former of the two, is that known place, Mar. 16. 16. He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved. Here (saith he) Believing, and being baptised, are conjoined, as relative to Salvation. In which saying he seemeth to imply, that Baptism in the letter, and properly so called, is as necessary to salvation as believing itself. For if he will endure to be understood to speak of Baptism metonymically, or synechdochically taken, [i. for an outward profession of Faith, or believing, which is our Saviour's sense of the word baptised, in the Scripture before us, as we shall show presently] that which he saith is nothing to his purpose. And though Baptism (properly so called) both in the Institution or precept of it, as likewise in a regular subjection unto it, or reception of it, must needs be conceived to relate, in one kind or degree, or other, unto salvation (as all the Commandments of God, and the creatures obedience unto every of them do, and as Circumcision itself, by the Apostles own acknowledgement, sometimes did) yet 1. It is not necessary that it should relate in one kind or other (much less with the same kind of relation, wherewith Believing relateth) unto that Justification which consisteth in remission of sins▪ or consequently, that it should interest men in this Justification? For many things relate, and conduce (and this by way of necessity) unto salvation, which are no ways necessary to invest a man in an estate of justification. 2. Neither is it necessary that baptising should be relative to salvation itself, upon the same terms with believing For Sect. 87. 1. Believing, in persons capable, is universally and indispensably in all cases whatsoever necessary thereunto; as the clause and words immediately following those under present consideration, do (with the whole current of the Scriptures besides) import, But he that believeth not, shall be damned. But Baptising, though it be granted to be in ordinary cases simply necessary thereunto, yet in the case lately mentioned (and possibly in many others) viz. when he that truly believeth, is not s 〈…〉ed in his judgement and conscience touching the regular capacity of such persons, who are willing to undertake the work, to baptise. Nor can I believe, that, in case the Eunuch baptised by Philip, had, after his believing Jesus Christ to be the son of God, been prevented by death before he had come to the water, wherewith he was baptised, he should have perished eternally for want of it. And this (questionless) if we understand our Saviour to speak (in the place in hand) of Baptism literally and without a figure, is the reason, why having in the former part of the verse, included Baptism together with believing, condition-wise in his promise of Salvation, thus, He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved, yet leaveth it out in his opposite threatening of condemnation, denouncing this, not against persons who shall not be baptised, but only against such, who shall not believe; But he that believeth not, shall be damned. Baptism, in conjunction with Faith, may be available, or contributary towards salvation; and yet the want of it not necessarily exclusive of Salvation. When Solomon saith, wisdom is good with an inheritance, he doth not imply, or suppose, that it is evil, or not good, without an inheritance. So when the Apostle saith, it is good for a man not to touch a woman [meaning, not to marry] he doth not suppose, that it is evil, or inconvenient for him (at least in all cases) to marry. He that promiseth salvation unto a meaner qualification in conjunction with a greater, doth not hereby threaten this greater qualification with the loss of salvation for the want of the company of the lesser, especially if in stead of this it be accompanied with another much better, and greater, and of higher acceptation with God, than it. But 2. Suppose Baptism were every ways, and in every respect, as necessary to salvation, as believing (which yet is notoriously untrue, as we have proved) yet will it not follow that Baptism in such or such a particular mode, or Externall manner of administration, should be thus necessary. For certain it is, that the Lord Jesus Christ hath not suspended the eternal salvation of his creature, especially not of those who truly believe in him, upon any modalitie or formality of acting, not particularly and precisely determined and enjoined by himself, but only conjecturally obtruded upon them by men. For what if any one man, ●r any ten men should please themselves never so highly, be never so confident of the authentiquenesse, or legitimacy of their inferences and deductions (in one kind or other) from the Scriptures? will their confidence in this kind amount to an infallibility, yea or to any competent proof, that either the belief or practice of what they upon such terms deduce and infer from the Scripture, is essentially necessary unto salvation? Or hath the Lord Christ any where in the Scriptures determinately enjoined or prescribed the particular mode of dipping as essential unto Baptism, or to the regular administration thereof? Therefore (however) Baptism in this form cannot with any tolerable face of reason, be pretended as essentially requisite unto salvation, as believing. Sect. 88 3. Neither can Mr. A. with all his fellow-dogmatists substantially prove, that the Baptising here spoken of, is to be understood of a Baptising with water, considering that there is another kind of Baptism which the Scripture from place to place makes by many degrees more necessary unto salvation, than a baptising with water. This is, the Baptism of affliction, or sufferings for righteousness sake. See for this, Mat. 20. 22. compared with Mar. 10. 38. Luk. 12. 50. Rom. 6. 8. 2 Tim. 2. 11, 12. Mar. 8. 34, 35, etc. Act. 14. 22. (besides many other places.) Besides, the grounds and arguments of those, who judge waterbaptism, at least as to the necessity of it, to have expired with the Ministry of John the Baptist, or at farthest, with the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, and the dissolution of the Jewish Church, have not been yet sufficiently answered; not yet balanced by any arguments or grounds for Mr. A's opinion and practice, extant (that I know of) in the world. Which grounds and arguments (I mean, for the non-necessitie of water Baptism) although I do not yet apprehend them so demonstrative, as to overrule my judgement that way, yet I judge them nothing so easy of solution, as those, which have served in the warfare of Rebaptising hitherto. 4. Suppose we the place to be understood of waterbaptism, and that some kind of a necessity hereof unto salvation is here likewise insinuated by our Saviour, yet can it not upon any tolerable account be understood of the actual or literal perception of Baptism, as if this were necessary to Salvation. But of an inward obediential frame of heart to submit unto Baptism, when opportunity serveth; i. when there is a conveniency of water, and a person, who according to the light of a man's conscience, is regularly capable of administering it, and withal, willing to perform the work. The preparation of the heart for the performance of a duty, when opportunity serveth and requireth it, as well as the performance itself, is oft in Scripture enjoined in such terms or words, which properly signify the Act, or performance itself. See Luk. 14 33. Luk 12. 33. 2 Tim. 2. 3. Mat. 5. 25, 44. For it is against the main current of the Scriptures, and against the sense of all considering men, that God should suspend the eternal salvation of any man, especially of a true Believer, upon the will and pleasure of another man, or upon the receiving of any thing, especially any external thing, which may be withheld from him against his will, or which possibly he may never meet with an opportunity to receive. Therefore however, such a Baptism as Mr. A. and his have taken up, and as he presseth from the Scripture in hand, is not simply or universally, but only in particularity of case (if this) in any degree necessary unto salvation. But 5. (And last) the clear and unquestionable sense of the place, is, to understand the Baptism, or Baptising, here spoken of, synecdochically (a form of speech, than which there is none more frequent or familiar, in the Scriptures) viz. for a profession of that Faith or beleeving which our Saviour speaks of, Baptism, especially in those times, when, and of which our Saviour now speaks, being a known part, or piece of this profession. In this figure of speech, to fall by the sword, to die by the sword, with the like, signifies any kind of death by the hand of an enemy, as well as that which is properly and literally executed by the sword; the sword being an ordinary or known weapon, by which men are slain in war, 2 Sam. 11. 25. Psal. 44 3. This interpretation is every ways consonant to a master-vein of texts in the body of the Gospel, viz. all such which hold forth a public and open owning, or professing of the Name of Christ, and of the Gospel, as required of all Believers in order to their being saved. See more particularly upon this account, Rom. 10. 9, 10. (which two verses are a very plain and significant exposition of the clause in hand) as also Mat. 10. 33, 34. 2 Tim. 2. 12. Mar. 8. 38. (to omit several others) whereas Mr. A's sense of the place, who understands it properly, strictly, and literally, of waterbaptism, hath neither so much as any one text of Scripture, nor any argument of weight, to stand by it. And how unreasonable is it to conceive or think, that a true Faith in conjunction with a Christian and holy conversation, on the one hand, and with sufferings for righteousness and the Gospel's sake, on the other hand, should not be as available for all ends and purposes with God, especially for that great end, Salvation, as a like Faith, only in conjunction with a single act of once going into water to be baptised? All Protestant Expositors that I have had opportunity to consult upon the place, agree in the Substance of the interpretation last asserted: yea some of them parallel it with Rom. 10. 9, 10. which passage (as we lately hinted) is a better commentary upon the clause in hand, than we are like to receive from any person whatsoever in these days, dissenting from it. Sect. 89. The other Scripture, which (it seems) hath been a snare upon Mr. A. not only to entangle him with this most dangerous Doctrine, that a Declaration of a man's Repentance by Baptism, is required on man's part, as well as Repentance itself, to interest him i● remission of sins, but also with the guilt of this hard and unchristian saying against his Chr●stia● brethren, who therein descent from him; viz. that the said Doctrine is too evident from it to be denied by any, but those that will no● see, is Act. 2. 38, 39 The words being these, Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost. For the promise is made to you, and to your children, and to all that are a fare off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. I answer, 1. It hath been lately proved by a cloud of impregnable arguments and demonstrations, that to be baptised is not required on man's part to interest him in remission of sins; I here add and explain; not in any other sense, or upon any other terms however, than any other act of obedience unto any the precepts of God is. Therefore 2. When Peter exhorts the Jews to Repent and be baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, if by being baptised, he means, strictly and precisely, a being actually baptised with water, he cannot by remission of sins, mean the estate of justification consisting in remission of sins, wherein a person is invested by God immediately upon his Repenting and believing; because then (as we formerly argued) there could none be lawfully admitted to Baptism, but only children of wrath, or such, whose sins were not yet remitted. For that which is necessarily required on man's part to interest him in remission of sins, must of necessity precede his being actually interessed in this privilege: and consequently, persons not yet baptised, how repentant and believing soever, are not, cannot be, interessed in remission of sins, until baptised; and so must needs be children of wrath, and in a state of condemnation. Sect. 90. If you ask me, but what can we understand by remission of sins in this place, but only such an estate of justification, as that mentioned, and which consisteth in remission of sins? I answer; We may very commodiously, and without the least straining either word, or context, understand by it that great and solemn Act of absolution from all sin, which the great Judge shall in the great day pronounce over all those, who shall be found to have lived and died in the Faith of jesus; or else (taking the word Remission, passively, which I judge the better) the happy effect, or consequent of this sentence which is a state of blessedness and of glory. This interpretation fully accords with a passage of the same Apostle in the following chapter, spoken to the same people (the jews) and (probably) to some of the same persons. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. i. When the Lord Christ shall return from heaven, to refresh the bowels, and make glad the hearts of all those, who have been sufferers for his Name in this world, by investing them with a rest glorious and blessed, and which shall never have end; according to what the Apostle Paul writes to the Thessalonians; Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them which trouble you, And to you, WHO ARE TROUBLED, REST with us, when the Lord jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, etc. a 2 Thes. 1. 6, 7, etc. If it be here replied, and said; be this interpretation of the words, for remission of sins, admitted, still it will follow, there is a remission of sins, and this absolutely necessary unto salvation, which cannot be obtained without being baptised; I answer, True it is, that if we speak of persons living to years of discretion, and under the ministry of the Gospel, they must be baptised in one kind or other, either with a baptism literally and properly so called (I mean, a baptism with water) or else with a Baptism virtually, or equivalently, so called. Now there are two, or rather three kinds of Baptism, which may be thus called (viz. Virtually, and Equivalently) The first is, an obediential frame, or willingness in heart and soul, actually to submit unto a waterbaptism, 1. upon a regular conviction of the necessity of such a submission (necessity I mean, in respect of the command of Jesus Christ) 2. Upon such an opportunity for the actual reception of it, under which it may be received without any regret or scruple in the conscience of a man, as about the regularness or meetness of an administrator, about the strength of a man's bodily constitution to bear the burden of a plunging under water, in case this shall be proved, or apprehended, to be the only lawful way of Baptising, etc. Another kind of Baptism, Virtually or interpretatively so called, is an open and free profession of the Gospel, and of the Faith of jesus Christ in the world. The third (and last) is a suffering persecution for a man's profession sake in this kind. Now both these, divisim, but especially conjunctim, may be termed Baptisms, much in such a sense as John Baptist, is in Scripture termed, Elias, viz. because he served his generation with such a kind of spirit, and upon somewhat the like terms, as Eliah served his. For a profession of the Gospel, especially joined with sufferings for the Gospel, serve for all ends and purposes, for which Baptism literally, and properly so called, serveth, yea and this with an higher hand, than it. Insomuch that this kind of Baptism, (waterbaptism I mean, actually received) is the lowest and meanest of all Baptisms. Sect. 91. Now to the Objection, or reply mentioned, we plainly and directly answer, that one or more, of the three Baptisms now specified and described, is indeed necessary for the obtaining of such a remission of sins, as that meant by Peter in the Text before us; and more particularly, that mentioned and described in the first place. If it be yet replied; but is it not evident that Peter here spoke of waterbaptism itself, and that he commanded them to be baptised herewith, as well as to repent, for the remission of sins? And was it not in obedience to this his exhortation, or command, that they were accordingly (many of them) baptised with waterbaptism, v. 41. I answer, Be it granted that he speaks of waterbaptism, yet it must be granted withal, that he exhorteth no man to be baptised herewith, but upon this supposition, or presumption, that they should be every ways and in respect of all circumstances, satisfied in their judgements and consciences touching the lawfulness of their act, in yielding themselves to be baptised in this kind. Therefore that Baptism, which we speak of and allow, viz. a readiness and willingness of mind to be baptised with water, when we are satisfied touching the will of God concerning us in that behalf, and otherwise have an opportunity of a like satisfaction in all points unto us, for the actual reception of it, is the Baptism, unto which especially, and in the first place, Peter (in the Scripture before us) exhorteth men sin his exhortation unto them to be baptised. Otherwise we must make the sense and meaning of this his exhortation, to rise thus; Be ye baptised, whether you be convinced of the necessity, yea or of the lawfulness of it, or no; and whether you have an opportunity for it, which your consciences can in every respect approve of, or no, I suppose that Mr. A. himself will not put such a construction as this upon the Apostles exhortation unto Baptism. Therefore it is a most unquestionable and undeniable truth, that Peter, in the Text in hand, doth not simply, or in all cases, no nor yet principally or primarily, exhort Repentants unto the actual reception of water baptism; but only unto such a virtual, eminent, and constructive Baptism, as that lately described; and not at all unto waterbaptism, but only upon the terms and conditions specified; under which indeed he that shall refuse this kind of Baptism, declares himself a rebel against the Lord Christ, (as all Anti-paedo-baptists, in the judgement of that worthy Martyr Mr. John Philpot, do, in not suffering children to come unto Christ by Baptism) and during this rebellion cannot be interessed in remission of sins. Sect. 92. If it be yet objected, and said, that (questionless) the repenting Jews, whom Peter exhorted to be baptised, understood him to speak of waterbaptism only, and of none other: and consequently submitted unto his exhortation thus understood, and were actually water-baptized without any more ado I answer, 1. It cannot be proved, that the Jews, to whom he spoke, understood him in such a sencc only, as that specified in the Objection. 2. In case this could be proved, yet will it not follow from hence, that either they did well in not apprehending a further sense in his words, or that Peter himself did not intent a further sense (some such as that represented) in them. 3. Nor doth their ready and speedy betaking themselves unto Waterbaptism, at all argue, that they understood him to speak of this Baptism simply, or only; because they being already, before they came at the water, baptised with that inward Baptism of the heart we speak of, and being under no scruple or doubt, whether it was the mind and will of Jesus Christ that they should be Water-baptized, or no, or whether the opportunity before them was in all points legitimate, or no (the Apostles express order for their baptising, either by himself, or by others authorised by him, being a sufficient ground for their satisfaction in all these particulars) they were obliged in conscience without any more ado to be actually Water-baptized: and it is freely acknowledged, that all persons whatsoever being under the same terms of satisfaction with them, both as touching a necessity, as touching a complete legitimateness of an opportunity, are bound in conscience to be baptised with water, as well as they; Only with this proviso, that though persons now be as fully satisfied touching a necessity of being baptised, as they were, yet if the grounds of men's satisfaction in this kind now, be unsound and sandy, (as they must needs be, in case their opinion be true, who judge the date of the necessity of Waterbaptism to be now expired) their submission unto this Baptism, though less sinful, than the contrary, yet is it not justifiable. Sect. 93. If it be yet said, that it is no ways probable that Peter himself had any other meaning in his words, when he commanded them to be Baptised, but simply and plainly, that he would have them forthwith to be water-baptized, and consequently that he had no thought of any such Baptism (eminently, or virtually so called) which you put upon him. To this also I answer (as hath, in part, been answered already) That it is somewhat, yea much more than probable, that though Peter did not formally or explicitly mean any thing more in the words in question, than what the Objection pretendeth, yet he presupposed that kind of Baptism which we plead, and that he would not have exhorted them to be baptised (with water) unless he had known them to be baptised already with that other Baptism. The reason is evident, because had he not supposed them, either already satisfied before his exhortation directed unto them, or at least that they would be satisfied by it, that it was the will of Jesus Christ that they should be Water-baptized, and that there was an opportunity before them every ways legitimate for their reception of this Baptism, he would in the first place rather have endeavoured to satisfy them, that this was the will and pleasure of Christ concerning them, and that the opportunity before them for receiving Baptism was every ways legitimate, and approvable, then have either commanded, or exhorted them to be presently baptised. The result of this clear and thorough Examination of Peter's exhortation to the jews to be baptised for the remission of sins, amounteth to this, that the said Exhortation imposeth a necessity upon no man of being water-baptized for the remission of sins in the great day, but upon such persons only, who stand under the like terms of satisfaction every ways touching the said baptising, under which he exhorted the jews to be thus Baptised. If so, then Mr. A's Notion or interpretation of this exhortation must needs fall to the ground, which beareth, that the said exhortation maketh it evident (yea too evident to be denied by any, but those that will not see) that a Declaration of the repentance by Baptism [he means, by an actual reception of Waterbaptism] is required on man's part [he means, universally, and in all cases, otherwise he would have distinguished] to interest him in remission of sins [he means, in such an estate of justification, as the Scripture so frequently appropriateth unto true Believers, immediately upon their believing] Such an inference or notion as this hath no more communion with those words, for whence it pleads (with such an unseemly confidence) legitimacy of descent, then shows have with substances, and mere appearances with realities and truths. Sect. 94. 3. Our Protestant expositors generally leave Mr. A's confidence and conceit upon the Text (in the point in hand) for the Papists to gather up, who fall greedily upon them, and make great treasure of them. Although (saith Calvin) in the contexture of the words, Baptism goeth before remission of sins, yet in respect of order it followeth after, because it is nothing else but an obsignation [or sealing] of those good things, which we obtain by Christ, that they may be ratified in our consciences. a Tametsi in contextu verborum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remissionem peccatorum hic praecedit, ordine tamen sequitur; quia nihil aliud est quàm bonorum, quae per Christum consequimur, obsignatio, ut in conscientiis nostris rata sint. Calv. in Act 2. 38. Gualther saith, that Peter admonisheth them of outward Baptism, which he commandeth them to receive for the remission of sins, which words are not to be taken in any such sense, as if Baptism washed men from their sins. And a little after. Unto those who are justified, Baptism is administered, for the remission of their sins, 1. the righteousness of God, which he confers upon us by Christ, is sealed i● [or by] Baptism. b Deinde de baptismo externo admonent, quem ipsos in peccatorum remissionem accipere jubet. Quae verba non eo sensu accipi debent, quasi baptismus à ●eccatis abluat. Et posteà: lis qui— justificati sunt, baptismus in remissionem peccatorum datur, id est▪ baptismo obsignatur justicia Dei, quam ita per Christum nobis contulit. Gualther. Homil in Act. P. Martyr saith, that the head [or, principal ground] of the superstition is, that these men (speaking of the Papists) are of opinion that sins are first remitted by Baptism. c Sed caput superstitionis illud est. quòd isti homines opinantur, baptismo externo primum condonari peccata: sed vehementer falluntur. P. Mar. Loc Class. 9 8, ●8. And Lorinus the Jesuit, who speaks the common and known sense of his fellow Pontificians herein, boldly saith, that Baptism was directly instituted, as an efficacious sign, AND 'CAUSE OF THE REMISSION OF original sin, and of other SINS also, if there be any other found with it. d Baptismu per se insti●●t●, est, ut signum efficax, & causa remission is originalis peccati, & aliorum qu●que si quae cum illo reperiantur, Lorinus in Act. 2. 38. So also Eugenius the Pope in the Florentine council, made this an article of Faith, that the effect of the Sacrament of Baptism is the remission of all sin, both original, and actual, and of all punishment also due unto both. e Hujus Sacramenti effectus est remissio culpae originalis & actualis, omnis quoque poenae quae pro ipsâ culpa debetur. Council Florent. Consonant thereunto is the Doctrine of the Trent Catechism. This (saith this) is first to be taught, that sin, whether originally contracted from our first parents, or committed by ourselves, although it be so above measure heinous, that it seems to be even beyond all magination, is [notwithstanding] by the admirable virtue of this Sacrament [Baptism] remitted and pardoned. It were easy to show by an Induction of many Authors of the Romish Credulity, that they (generally against f) Ho● primum tradere oportet, peccatum, sive à primis parentibus origine contractum, sive à nobis ipsis commissum, quamvis etiam adeò nefarium sit, ut recogitari quidem nonposse vid●atur, admirabilis hujus saecramenti virtute remitti, & condonari. Catcehism. Trident. the Truth) require Baptism of men to the interessing of them in remission of sins; and no whit more hard on the other hand to show by quotations from Protestant Writers, that they generally hold the contrary against them. So that Mr. A. giving sentence, that a necessity of Baptism for remission of sins, is too evident to be denied by any, but those that will not see, from Act. 2. 38, 39 condemneth all Protestant Writers (almost, without exception) of a wilful shutting their eyes against the light, and justifyeth all Popish writers as men willing to open their eyes that they may see the truth. But Sect. 95. 4. Suppose it should be granted, that Peter required Waterbaptism of those, to whom he now spoke, as well as repentance, for the remission of their sins, yet will it make but a lose consequence, to infer from hence, that therefore the like Baptism is required by God of all other persons whatsoever to interest them in the like privilege. When Christ enjoined the young man to go and sell whatsoever he had, and give to the poor, promising him upon this that he should have treasure in heaven; if such a conclusion as this could be drawn from hence, that therefore no person shall have treasure in heaven, but he that actually practiseth, what the young man was commanded by Christ actually to do in order thereunto, the best part of the world have far more reason to be astonished at it, than the Disciples had to be astonished at these words of Christ; How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God Mar. 10. 23, 24. And yet there is much more reason to think that obedience to a moral command, though particularly, and upon a special occasion, given, should be generally required to the justification, or salvation of men, then that a like obedience to a ceremonial command of a like particular direction, should be required thereunto. God may upon some particular occasion, under some circumstances, require such or such a thing of some men, in order to their obtaining such or such a benefit, or privilege, without subjecting all men without exception, and in all cases, to a necessity of using the same means for obtaining that same or like end; especially when he hath no where declared himself to such a purpose, yea and much more, when he hath declined all declaration of himself in such a way, even when he had an opportunity inviting him to such a declaration, in case he had been in any degree disposed to it. If his purpose had been to exclude men from salvation for want of being baptised, would he not have expressed as much, when, having said, He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved (by way of Antithesis) But he that believeth not, shall be damned? But of this passage formerly. That which Mr. A allegeth to prove, that to require Baptism as well as Repentance, for the obtaining of remission of sins, was Gods standing me had through generations, and not appropriate to the persons now spoken unto, is not much valuable. The Apostle (saith he) saith, that the promise, [To wi●, of remission of sins and guilt of the spirit] which was made on condition of repentance and Baptism, was made, not only to them then, and their children, but to those that were further remote, etc. I answer, 1. It is none of the best advised, sayings in his discourse, to say, that the promise of remission of sins, and gift of the Spirit, was made upon condition of Faith and Baptism. God is not wont to make his promises upon any condition, or conditions whatsoever, but freely, and of himself. Only he makes many of them of such a tenor or form, wherein the performance of them, or the actual exhibition of the good things promised, is suspended upon the performance of a condition, one or more. 2. Neither can Mr. A. show us, where God ever made any promise of remission of sins, and gift of the Spirit, upon condition of Repentance and Baptism [I mean, of giving remission of sins, and the spirit, upon these conditions] at least any promise with exclusion of those from these privileges, who shall not perform both these conditions. He is not able to show, where God hath either said, or intimated, that whosoever is not baptised, shall never have remission of sins. But 3. (And last for this) the promise which Peter here saith was to them, and to their children, and to all those that are afar off, even as many, etc. is a great and general promise of life and Salvation, and consequently of all things necessary hereunto, as forgiveness of sins, Sanctification by the Spirit, etc. which God hath made unto all mankind; but with this proviso, or clause of exception, that they only shall partake of the good things of this promise, not who shall be baptised, but who shall truly repent and believe in him. For evident it is that the promise asserted by the Apostle in this place to the Jews, their children, to all those afar off, etc. was delivered by God long before now, even under the old Testament, where there is frequent mention made of Faith and repentance, and of Gods requiring these of men to render them capable of blessedness from him; but there is altum silentium, profound silence all along, and not a word spoken of Baptism. To him (saith Peter, Act. 10. 43.) give all the Prophet's witnesses that thorough his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. So that the performance of the said promise could not be suspended by God, either in whole, or in part, upon Baptism. For as the Apostle Paul reasoneth for justification by faith in the promise of Grace, against justification by the Law, which was not given until a long time after the said promise, And this I say, that the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect, (Gal. 3. 17.) so may we argue the case in hand; the Law of Baptism, which was given many hundred years after the promise of life and salvation unto those that should repent and believe, cannot disannul this promise; which notwithstanding it should do, if the said terms or qualifications of Repentance and Faith could not interest men in the said promise; (I mean, in the good things promised) without Baptism. That clause in the latter end of ver. 39 even as many as the Lord our God shall call (to add this by the way) is not so much, (nor indeed, at all) restrictive, but encouraging and extensive; importing, that no person, or persons whatsoever, to whom the word of promise, or the Gospel, shall come, need be at all troubled, or afraid, that though they should repent, yet they should not partake of the good things promised, in as much as the promises, be they never so many, be they the whole world, is comprehensive of them all. But about this (I suppose) there is no difference between Mr. A. and me. 5. When two several means (as here, Repentance, and being baptised) are prescribed in order to the obtaining of such or such an end (as the said two means here are spoken of, be, in order to remission of sins) it doth not presently follow, that both these means, no nor yet that either of them, are simply, absolutely, or universally necessary to the obtaining of this end; or that this end is not attainable by any other means whatsoever, in case either of these, yea or both of them, be wanting; especially when one of them is but of an inferior import, and hath neither in the nature of it, nor by any institution from God, any essential or indispensable connexion with this end; least of all doth such a thing follow, either when a third means of a richer and fuller contribution towards the said end, shall be used in stead of this latter, or when the end is elsewhere declared by God himself, to be attainable, yea and that it shall certainly be obtained, by the former means alone; as remission of sins is oft in scripture secured unto Repentance, where there is not the least whisper of any necessity of Waterbaptism to be joined with it to render it effectual in this kind. See Act. 3. 19 2 Pet. 3. 9 Luk. 15. 7, 10. Luk. 24. 47. Act. 11. 18. (to omit other places) When the Apostle Paul saith, that his hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they might be saved, * Rom. 10. 1. he doth not suppose that it had been impossible for Israel to be saved without such his hearts desire, & prayer, for them. So when writing to the Corinthians, he saith, that they may ALL prophesy one by one, that ALL may learn, and ALL may be comforted, a 1 Cor. 14. 31. it cannot reasonably be inferred from hence, that unless they did ALL (understand we it, ALL that had the gift of prophesying amongst these) prophesy one by one, ALL [i. the whole body of the Church, and every member of it] could not possibly learn, or be comforted. For certain it is, that all might have learned, & so have been comforted, although only some few of the prophets amogst them had prophesied. So when it is said, John did baptise in the wilderness, & preach the Baptism of repentance FOR the remission of sins (Mar. 1. 4.) it cannot be concluded from hence, that therefore without John's preaching, there could be, or have been, no remission of sins. Therefore the prescribing of Baptism together with Repentance, for remission of sins, doth not necessarily suppose, that without Baptism Remission of sins cannot be attained. Sect. 96. 6. What if there be another sense, which I suppose Mr. A. never thought of, of this Clause, or Phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the remission of sins; as viz. wherein the Proposition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, shall not relate to any thing future, or which is yet to be obtained, but to something either past or present, and shall signify as much as, for the sake of, because of, or the like; and so the meaning of these words may rise thus; and be baptised every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, i. for the remission of sins sake, which the Lord Jesus, hath upon your repentance bestowed upon? you This interpretation of the place, 1. agreeth very well with the signification of the Preposition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and 2. makes a commodious and worthy sense of the passage, & this without any unkindness at all to the Context. 1. The Proposition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is by the Authors in the Greek tongue sometime used for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and they are accordingly cited by our best Greek Lexicons) which (as was lately said) signifieth because of, or for the sake of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for therefore came I forth; a Mar. 1. 38: i. for that work's sake (speaking of his preaching the Gospel) meaning, that the work of preaching the Gospel, is of such dignity, of such transcendent consequence, both for the glory of God, and good of men, that he thought it worthy his coing into the world to be a witness & preacher of it; according to what he speaketh else where in the same Phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. For this cause came I into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth. b joh. 18. 37 And thus the said Preposition might be rendered (and perhaps better than now it is) Mat. 15. 24. Col. 1. 20. c vi. Redemption redeemed. p. 44 and (I suppose) in several other places, which do not at present occur. According to this construction of the particle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the meaning of the exhortation, be baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the remission of sins, ariseth to this effect; Since upon, and by means of, your repentance, you obtain so rich a privilege, as remission of sins is, thorough the Lord jesus, be not ashamed to be baptised in his Name, i. to own him for your sovereign Lord and master in the face of the world. Now 2. That this interpretation of the clause is savoury and Evangelicall, is of ready demonstration. For what can be more reasonable than that men should publicly, and without being ashamed, acknowledge and own him for their Gracious Benefactor, for whom they have received favours of high concernment unto them; and this in consideration of these worthy favours received? And unless we shall admit of some such construction of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as this, Mat. 3. 11. we must make Baptism as well required on man's part to interest him in Repentance, (or make impenitents▪ either the only, or the best capable subjects of Baptism) as well as in remission of sins. For here john Baptist saith expressly to the people: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. I indeed baptise you with water FOR [OR UNIO] REPENTANCE. 3. (And last, for this) the sense given no ways disaccommodates the Context any whit more, than Mr. A's interpretation itself doth. Nor can there any account be given of such a dis-accommodation. Sect. 97. 7. Yet once more to the Scripture in hand; these words, for the remission of sins, may be well conceived to relate only to the word Repent, in the beginning of the ver●e; and the words coming between [and be baptised every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus] to be inserted after the manner of a parenthesis, directing the jews what to do upon their repentance, not for the procuring or obtaining the forgiveness of their sins (which as we already shown from the current of the Scriptures, is promised unto repentance, not unto Baptism) but for a sacred testimony unto the world that at present they were, and as a solemn engagement upon themselves, ever to remain and be, the true and loyal Disciples of jesus Christ. 8. Some interpret, and be baptised, figuratively, as if Peter, by the sign, understood the thing signified, or professed by it: of which Dialect there are many instances in Scripture. According to this interpretation, Repent, and be baptised, is no more then, Repent, and believe; Baptism in capable subjects (as all these were to whom Peter now speaks) signifying and importing Faith, and the profession of it. 9 This clause, for the remission of sins, may be understood in a kind of declarative sense (as many such scripture expressions likewise are) and so signify, for the securing or assuring yourselves of the remission of your sins. It is a true rule, that words and phrases, which more frequently signify such or such spiritual privileges, at present obtained by Faith, are sometimes used to signify the actual and real fruition of these privileges, and their complete manifestatiom. Thus Rom. 8. 23.— even we do sigh in ourselves, waiting for the ADOPTION, etc. i. for the full enjoyment or manifestation of our adoption, etc. So Gal. 5. 5. We thorough the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by Faith; i. for the actual and complete manifestation, and fruition of those good things, which we now expect and hope for upon the account of our justification before God by believing. Thus also Mat. 6. 12, 14. Forgiveness of sins, is put for the knowledge, comfort, or assurance of this forgiveness (to omit other instances of a like dialect.) Some such sense as this of Remission of sins, (in the scripture before us) is very proper for the place, because it so fitly agreeth with this part of Peter's exhortation, and be baptised, one special use and end of Baptism (as Mr. A. himself acknowledgeth, and this more than once, if I mistake not, in this very discourse) being to seal, ratify, or insure unto men the remission of their sins upon repentance. Besides, in emphaticallnesse of language (wherein the holy Ghost much delighteth also) Remission of sins, is not itself, is not what it may be made unto those, in whom it is vested, until it be known unto them, and so enjoyed by them. This construction of the place, maketh not remission of sins itself (which is Mr. A's sense) but the knowledge, comfort, or enjoyment of this remission, to be dependent (at least to a degree) upon Waterbaptism in conjunction with repentance. Though some of the interpretations of the passage, Act. 2. 38, 39 now insisted on, and explained, may possibly seem somewhat more hard, and scant of satisfaction, than their fellows, yet is the hardest of them all better comporting with the general notion and doctrine of the Gospel, and no less with the words and phrases themselves, than that sense which Mr. A. labours in the very fire to fasten on them. Lastly (for this) suppose we that Mr. A's conceit about the meaning of the said Scripture, should (against Scripture light) be admitted, yet would neither his Anti-paedo-baptismall conceit, nor his conceit about the necessity of water-dipping, receive any encouragement, or credit at all hereby. Not the latter, because here is only mention made of being baptised; nothing at all so much as hinted at the greatest distance, touching the necessity of any determinate manner of the performance or reception of it. Nor yet the former; because, 1. from the order of the two duties, as they are here expressed and named, first, Repentance, and then being baptised, nothing can be concluded for an universal necessity of the one to precede the other in time, there being scarce any thing of more common observation in the Scriptures, then that the order of things, as well that of time, as of nature, is here frequently interchanged, and that mentioned in the first place, which in respect of Order, as well the one, as the other, is latter. Joh▪ 3. 5. Water (which Mr. A. understands of Baptismal water) is mentioned before the Spirit, in the work of regeneration. Baptising (Mat. 3. 6.) is mentioned before confessing of sins, yea and ver. 11.) before repentance. Confession with the mouth (Rom. 10. 9) is mentioned before believing with the heart. So the Greek is mentioned before the Jew, Colos. 3. 11. as the Jew before the Greek, Gal. 3. 28. So again, joy is mentioned before peace, Gal. 5. 22. and yet peace before joy, Rom. 14. 17. Melchizedeck's act in blessing Abraham, is mentioned in the first place, and his blessing the God of Abraham, in the latter, Gen. 14. 19, 20. So likewise, the burnt-offering is named before the sin-offering, Levit. 12. 8. whereas the sin-offering was in order of time to go before it, as appears▪ Levit. 8. 14, 18. and so again, Levit. 9 7, etc. It were easy to multiply instances in this kind, I mean both where there is an interchangable expression of the same things in respect of priority and posteriority; as likewise where that which precedes in time, is mentioned after that, which in time comes behind it. Therefore from the Order in Peter's exhortation between Repentance and Baptism, nothing can be argued to prove a necessity, that Repentance always ought, in respect of time, to precede Baptism; as neither did it precede in the Baptism, of which notice was taken formerly. 2. In case it were granted, that from the Scripture yet on the stage, it could be proved (yea, or were so evident, as Mr. A. gloryingly over his adversaries, pretendeth) that remission of sins dependeth in part upon Baptism, and that neither Faith, Repentance, Love, Humility, self-denial, Mortification, with all the heavenly retinue of the Graces of the Spirit, can do any thing to the interessing men in this privilege, but only in conjunction with Baptism, yet neither from hence will it follow, that therefore Infant-baptism is unlawful, yea, or not as available in this kind, as Mr. A's after-baptism is. Evident it is that there is no rational footing for either of these inferences in either of the premises. For the lawfulness of Infant-baptism supposed, the contrary whereof (as we even now demonstrated) cannot be proved from the Scripture in hand, there can be no reason to disinteresse it in any privilege, or blessing, which is vested in any Waterbaptism whatsoever. Sect. 98. Thus at last we see as by a noonday light, how unadvisedly, and upon how slight grounds, Mr. A. hath fallen un-Christianly foul and heavy upon his Christian Brethren dissenting from him in his sense about Baptism, by adjudging the case against them, thus: It is too evident to be denied by any, but those that will not see, from Act. 2. 38, 39 That both Repentance, and the Declaration of it by Baptism, is required on man's part to interest him in remission of sins, & sanctification of the spirit. And as touching this latter, the Sanctification of the Spirit, that Baptism is not necessarily, or universally required on man's part, to interess him herein, is of much more easy demonstration, than the former. But enough upon this account hath been said formerly, considering how point-blank the Scripture lieth in many places against this conceit. Review the eighth Section of this Discourse. Although Mr. A. (for cause best known to himself) waves the impanelling of Act. 22. 16. to serve upon his Jury as hath been formerly noted) yet because Gehezi thinks himself wiser at this turn, than his Master, and will not lose the opportunity and advantage (so seeming to him) of such a Scripture, though the other letteth it pass, let us bestow a few lines in the examination of it also. The words are these: And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the Name of the Lord. Paul himself reporteth these words as spoken unto him by Ananias, upon his sight restored, of which he had been for a season deprived by means of the glory of that light, wherein the Lord Christ had appeared unto him from heaven, as he was journeying towards Damascus. Now because Ananias expresseth himself unto Paul, thus,— be baptised, and wash away thy sins, some (according to the tenor of Mr. A's Doctrine) infer, that therefore Baptism washeth away sins, i. procureth Justification, or pardon of sin, in the sight of God. But to this we answer, 1. Substantial proof hath been made, and this by many arguments, that remission of sins is the purchase, or procurement, of the blood of Jesus Christ, and is obtained, or received, by such a Faith, which is accompanied with a true Repentance: and that it is not suspended either in whole or in part, upon Waterbaptism. 2. Evident it is that Paul, when, and before, the words in hand were spoken unto him by Ananias, was in an estate of Justification before God, and had obtained a remission of all his sins. For 1. Ananias saluteth him, BROTHER Saul, (Act. 22. 13.) before he baptised him: which (doubtless) had he judged him to be in an estate of Reprobation, he would not have done. 2. He prayed, and this with acceptation in the sight of God, before he was baptised (Act. 9 11.) This also evinceth him to have been in favour with God before his said baptising, and consequently that his sins were forgiven him. 3. When Ananias replied unto the Lord Christ speaking unto him in a vision, and enjoining him to seek out Paul, that he had heard by many how much evil he had done to the Saints at Jerusalem, the Lord made him this answer; Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and Kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my Names sake, etc. These things sufficiently declare him to have been in favour with Christ, whilst he was yet unbaptised; and so not to have been in a state of condemnation, or under the guilt of his sins, and consequently, that his sins were not for given him, either by means of, or upon, his baptising. 4. The Lord Christ had in a most extraordinary and glorious manner revealed himself from heaven unto him, telling him plainly, that he was Jesus whom he persecuted; and Paul believed him accordingly. Act. 9 5, 6. Therefore (certainly) by this time he was in a state of acceptation with Christ, and so cleansed from his sins. 5. (And last) if his sins were in any such way, or sense, washed away, in, or by his Baptism, as if until now he had been in a state of wrath thorough a retainment or non-forgivenesse of his sins by God, then had Ananias admitted an unclean person, and a child of Satan, unto Baptism, when he admitted Paul: and consequently neither Faith, nor Repentance, nor yet the profession of either, shall be necessary to qualify for Baptism, unless it be said that Ananias acted contrary to Gospel rule in baptising Paul. Therefore (certainly) Ananias his meaning, in saying unto him, Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, etc. was not that by being baptised he should be justified in the sight of God, or obtain the pardon and forgiveness of his sins (These, as hath been proved, having been forgiven him before his baptising) but that either, 1. he should wash away his sins, Typically, or Sacramentally; or else (and rather) 2. that upon his being baptised, he should wash away his sins, i. (in his own expression and phrase) cleanse himself from all filthiness both of Flesh and Spirit, serving God in righteousness and true holiness all the days of his life. So that these words, and wash away thy sins, do not express, or relate unto, matter of justification, but of Sanctification. This latter Interpretation might be abetted by the enlargement and pressing of these, and such like considerations. 1. Men are not where in Scripture commanded to justify themselves, at least not in that sense, wherein some Anabaptists interpret the words in hand, and against which we now argue) but frequently to sanctify themselves. See Levit. 11. 44. Levit. 20. 7. Joel 3. 5. 2 Chron. 29. 5. (to omit other places.) 2. The work, or duty of Sanctification, is often expressed by the Metaphor of washing, Wash you, make you clean: put away the evil of your do, etc. Isa. 1. 16. O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, etc. Jer. 4. 14. But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, etc. 1 Cor. 6. 11. 3. It hath been proved, that Paul before his baptising, was in a justified condition; and consequently, could not be exhorted by Baptism to wash away his sins in any such sense, which importeth Justification, or remission of sins. 4. The sense we now plead of the words, and wash away thy sins, well accommodates both the former, and the latter part of the verse; whereas the sense opposed, falleth in kindly with neither. For the former, thus: Be baptised, and wash away thy sins,] i. be baptised, and then be careful to observe the holy engagement, which thy submission unto Baptism imposeth on thee. For the latter, thus: Wash away thy sins, calling upon the Name of the Lord] 1. Cast away from thee the evil of thy ways, depart from iniquity, so shall thou call upon the Name of God, or of Christ (as some expound the word, Lord) with acceptation; according to that 2 Tim. 2. 19 (as the Geneva Translation readeth it) Let every one that calleth on the Name of Christ, depart from iniquity. Whereas on the other hand, to make Ananias to speak unto Paul, thus: Arise, and be baptised, and so ●ust●fie thyself; &c. is to make him speak an uncouth Dialect, and unknown to the Scriptures. Although I rather incline to the interpretation of the place now asserted, yet the other, which understandeth Ananias to speak of a Typical washing away of sin by Baptism, is probable, and of good accord with Scripture notion, and Phrase. This interpretation supposeth Ananias speaking unto Paul to this effect. Arise, be baptised, and wash away thy sins, etc. q. d. The Lord Christ hath appeared from Heaven unto thee, he hath prevailed with thee to believe on him to the justification of thy person, and forgiveness of thy sins. Why then shouldest thou delay the receiving of the seal or confirmation of this thy blessedness, and not make haste to be baptised, seeing Baptism is a Type or Figure of an Heavenly institution, wherein the washing or cleansing of the conscience from the guilt and defilement of sin, is shadowed, and Typically, or Sacramentally transacted. In Scripture, things are frequently said to be done, simply, and without explication, when they are done only in their Type, or Sacramentally. Thus Ezekiel calleth his declaring the destruction of the city, the destroying of it, simply; When I came to destroy the city, Ezek. 43. 3. So likewise he is said to bear the iniquity of the house of Israel, and so to lay siege against it, &c, (Ezek. 4. 3. 5.) when as he did these but in Type and figure only. Therefore WE ARE BURIED with him by, or through Baptism, etc. Rom. 6. 4. i. we are Typically, or Sacramentally buried with him, etc. So Col. 2. 12. buried with him in Baptism. Thus 1 Pet. 3. 21. The figure of Baptism is said to save men (of which formerly, viz. Sect. 130.) In this kind of Dialect likewise the Apostle tells the Galathians, that Christ was crucified among them, [meaning, Sacramentally, or representatively only] Gal. 3. 1. (to omit many the like) I find our Protestant Expositors more generally leaning rather to this interpretation, than the other. Water (saith B●llinger) doth not wash away sins, but grace which is signified by water. a Non enim aqua abluit peccatum. sed gratia qua significatur per aquam. Calvin saith; that no such thing is intimated, as if any thing taken away, either from the Holy Ghost, or from the blood of Christ, were [put into, and] shut up in the element: but that God is willing that the Element should be a prop or support to our weakness. Therefore in as much as Baptism helpeth our Faith in the receiving the forgiveness of our sins by the blood of Christ only, it is called the Laver or washer of the soul. b Non quod quicquam vel ex Spiritu Sancto, vel ex sanguine Christi detractum in elemento includatur. Sed quia signum ipsum Deus vult infirmitatis nostrae adminiculum esse. Quatenus ergo fidem nostram adjuvat Baptismus, ut remissionem peccatorum accipiat ex solo Christi sanguine, lavacrum animae vocatur. Calvin. in locum. I forbear plurality of quotations. They who make Justification, or remission of sins, to depend upon Baptism, do (as Calvin upon the place in hand aptly expresseth it) Baptismo Christum obruere, overwhelm Christ with Baptism. Nor is there any thing pertinent to the business in hand in what Mr. A. subjoineth in the close of this discourse. And (saith he) if this be one End and Use of Baptism, as you see, for persons thereby to enter their public assent and consent unto the terms of the Gospel upon their cordial embracing it, than the Baptism of Infants is voided as to this use also, in as much as they are uncapable of exerting any act of heart, &. For 1. Every man's assent and consent unto the terms of the Gospel, is not public. With the heart (saith the Apostle) man believeth unto righteousness. Indeed no man's assent or consent hereunto, is public, but very secret and private. The Lord [and no other] knoweth [certainly] who are his. Yea, not so much as the probability of any man's assent and consent is public, until it be by one means or other made public. Now than if it must be [made] public, before it be entered by Baptism, Baptism cannot be the publication or manifestation of it, at least not the first or immediate publication of it. Nor can the declaration, or publication, of any man's Faith or Repentance, be any end worthy Baptism, in case they be declared and made public, before Baptism interposeth for this declaration. When the battle is fought and the day won, there is no need of fresh soldiers. 2. If it be one end and use of Baptism, for persons hereby to enter their public assent and consent unto the terms of the Gospel upon their cordial embracing it, then is both Mr. A's own Baptism, yea and the Baptism of a very great part of those baptised in his way, voided as to this use, as well as the Baptism of Infants. For 1. Mr. A. himself was not baptised upon his cordial embracing the terms of the Gospel, but long after. 2. If, when he was baptised, he did thereby enter his public assent and consent to the terms of the Gospel, I believe he entered that which was public, very privately, and in a book legible by very few. 3. It is too too manifest that a very great part of those, who are baptised in his way, neither cordially embrace the Gospel, nor yet well understand what the terms of it are. How then can they enter their assent and consent unto the terms of the Gospel, upon their cordial embracing it? Therefore by the verdict of Mr. A's Doctrine, their Baptism also is voided as to that end and use of it, of which he here speaks. Yea 4. (and last) no man can certainly tell when, or by whose Baptism, Baptism is not voided as to that end and use, which here he ascribes unto it; because it cannot certainly be known who amongst those that are baptised, do either assent or consent unto the terms of the Gospel, much less who they are, that cordially embrace it. So that he hath brought that end and use of Baptism, by which in this place he endeavours to void Infant Baptism, to a very bad market. 3. (And last, for this) suppose that end and use of Baptism, which here he asserteth unto it, were legitimate, and really such, yea and that the Baptism of Infants were voided as to them, yet it followeth not from hence, that therefore the Baptism of Infants is unlawful. One end of marriage is legitimate procreation; and marriage, as to this end of it is voided unto those, who marry, and never procreate; yet it followeth not that the marriage of such as these, is unlawful. a See more of this, Sect. 67. If any one end of Baptism be competent unto children, this is sufficient to justify their baptising, though others be not. Mr. A. advanceth, p. 19 Sect. 99 Another excellent effect, and use of Baptism is, thereby to justify God in the sight of the world, as touching the truth of his say in the Gospel, for so it is said, Luk. 7. 29. That all the people that heard him, justified God, being Baptised with the Baptism of john. And soon after: They are said to justify God in being Baptised, because by their voluntary submission unto that Ordinance, they did declare, that they judged the Doctrine and Precepts of the Gospel, of which Baptism is a part, most worthy belief and obedience, as coming from God. But inasmuch as Infants are only passive in Baptism, and not active or voluntary, they cannot contribute any thing towards the justification of God, etc. Nor is the cause of Infant-baptism like to suffer by any thing that is said here. For 1. The justification of God in the sight of the world, is no effect of Baptism; especially not as taken up, or practised by Mr. A. & most of his way. For how can God be justified in the sight of the world, by any such transaction of men, which is transacted by them out of the sight, view, and cognisance of the world? And we have oft had occasion to consider, that most of those baptismal transactions, which are practised in Mr. A's way of Baptising, are wont to be, little other then clandestine, and beheld only by a very few. 2. Neither can God be justified in the sight of the world, by any act, Baptismal or other, which either is in itself doubtfully and disputably good (at the best) or, 2. is in itsself irregular or unlawful, or 3. which is so apprehended by the world. Now such Baptismal actions, as Mr. A. contends for and practiseth, are 1. doubtfully good, at the best, the fare greater part of men Grave, Sober, and Judicious, judging and condemning them as unwarrantable and unlawful. And 2. by the generality of the world, they are censured not simply and singly as unlawful, but as actions hateful, and much displeasing unto God. Therefore the ●ustifying of God in the sight of world, can be no fruit, or effect, much less any excellent effect of such actions. 3. When wicked and unworthy persons are baptised (a kind of traveller too often met with in Mr. A's way) God is so far from being justified hereby, that he is rather dishonoured and reproached. But unto the wicked God saith, what hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth, Psal. 50. 16. Therefore however, the justifying of God in the sight of the world, is no effect of Baptism simply, but, at the most, of Baptism, as, and when, regularly administered unto persons judged by God himself in the Scriptures meet for part and fellowship in that Administration. 4. Neither doth the Text cited by Mr. A. necessarily prove, that the justifying of God touching the truth of his say in the Gospel, in the sight of the world, is any effect or use of Baptism. His gloss upon it is not cogent. For they are not said to justify God IN being baptised: the words give not this sound: but only that having been baptised with the Baptism of Johhn [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] they now justified God, viz. by believing that testimony, which God by the mouth of his Son Christ had now given concerning john. See ver. 24. 25, 26, etc. intimating, that their having been baptised of john, inclined them readily to embrace that honourable testimony, which the Lord Christ had now given unto him: whereas the Pharisees and Lawyers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not having been baptised of him, [i. of john] are said to have re●ected the counsel of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against themselves [or, concerning themselves] i. by not receiving Christ's testimony of john, to have made frustrate and void as to themselves, the Gracious intention of God towards them therein; which were to have reduced them to an honourable and worthy esteem of john, his Ministry and Doctrine, that so they might have believed in him, whom john in his ministry so highly magnified, and commended unto the world. Or, Sect. 100 5. Admit we Mr. A's gloss upon the said place thus fare (which, I confess, upon second thoughts, I judge not improbable) vi. that all the people that heard john, and the Publicans, justified God, IN, or BY, their being baptised with his Baptism; yet 1. it doth not follow, that hereby they justified him, as touching the truth of his say in the Gospel. For as yet, I mean, whilst the great recourse of people (here employed) unto john's Baptism, continued, the Gospel was not known, neither had been preached in the world; nor did the world understand what the say thereof were, or rather, what they would be, or were like to be. Therefore the justifying of God as touhing the truth of these, could be no such effect, or use, of Baptism, no not of the Baptism of the persons baptised by john, as Mr. A. pretendeth. They are said to have justified God in, or by submitting unto john's Baptism, in as much as by this submission they did acknowledge his ministry and Baptism to be from heaven, i. from God, and withal, that the tenor and substance of his ministry, (which was, that upon the Repentance of those who had sinned, their sins should be forgiven them) was very gracious and good. 2. Nor doth it follow, that though they justified God, in these respects, by being Baptised by John, that therefore they justified him in the sight of the world, there being little or (perhaps) nothing, of the world present, when they were baptised. They rather justified God [I mean, did that which was proper to justify God] in the sight of the world, by their public owning and professing this their Baptism afterwards, then simply by their receiving it. Therefore Sect. 101. 6. Whereas he assumes, that Infants being only passive in Baptism, and not voluntary, cannot contribute any thing to the justification of God, etc. he altars the state of the Question between him, and his adversaries; which is not, whether Infants, but whether Infant-Baptism, contributes any thing to the justification of God; although neither is this indeed the state of the Question, no nor yet of any considerable connexion with it. For many things may be lawful, which do not contribute any thing to the justification of God in the sight of the world. Yet 2. that Infant-Baptism contributes every whit as much (or rather more) to the justification of God as to the truth of his say in the Gospel, in the sight of the world, as the baptising of men and women, is evident from hence. The Parents, who offer their children unto Baptism, are (for the most part, and should be, always) experienced Christians, and of long acquaintance with the Gospel; and consequently cannot reasonably but be presumed, to have better knowledge and assurance both of the truth, and likewise of the goodness of the say of God in the Gospel, than men and women who are newly converted to the Gospel; who notwithstanding according to Gospel's rule (in case of a non-pre-baptism) yea and according to Mr. A's principles themselves (whether in such a case, or otherwise) are the only men and women that ought to be baptised (excepting the case of oversight) Now 1. it cannot be thought, that Parents, being long experienced Christians, would offer their children to be baptised, unless themselves were verily persuaded both of the truth, and goodness, of the say of God in the Gospel. And 2. the testimony of those concerning the truth and goodness of things, or say, who have best known, and had the most experience of them, amounts to a richer and fuller justification of them, and so of him who hath spoken them, than the testimony of such persons, who are (at least comparatively) strangers to them. Therefore though Infants themselves cannot contribute to the justification of God in the case before us, yet Infant-baptism may, and doth, contribute altogether as much (or rather more) as the Baptising of men and women, especially if baptised in these years, when and as soon, as by rule they ought. Sect. 102. 3. That which Mr. A's most regular actives and voluntaries in their Baptism contribute to the justifying of God in the truth of his say in the Gospel, and sight of the world, is not so much (as hath been already observed) by their being baptised, as by their public owning and professing this their Baptism afterwards in the face of the world. If so, then may Infants themselves living unto the age and years of men, by a like public owning of their baptism, with the other, contribute as much to the justifying of God in the sight of the world, as they. 4. (And last for this) The Infants of the Jews were no whit more active or voluntary in their circumcision, than the Infants of Christians are in their Baptism. Yet God judged himself as much (or more) justified in the sight of the world by the circumcision of those Infants, as he did by the circumcision of men: otherwise he would rather have enjoined the circumcision of men only, and not of children at all. 5. Whereas Mr. A. calleth Baptism, a part of the Gospel, he might more properly, and truly, if we respect either the institution, or first practice and administrations of it, (in which consideration Mr. A. discourseth of it) call it a part of the Law. For john's Doctrine was, not that the kingdom of heaven (by which all understand, the state of the Gospel itself, or else the state of the Church under the Gospel) was already come, but only that it was nigh at hand. Mat. 3. 2. Nor were the Legal or Mosaical administrations abolished, so much as to the precept, or necessity of them, in John's days: and consequently there was no opportunity for the introducing or erecting of any Evangelicall Ordinance, whilst his ministry continued. Besides, we read (Gal. 4. 4.) that Christ was made under the law; but no where, that he was made under the Gospel. And himself saith that he came to fulfil the law. Mat. 5. 17. which he had in other words expressed before (Mat. 3. 15.) saying, that it became him to fulfil all righteousness, (giving this unto john for a reason, why it was meet for him to subject himself unto Baptism, as well as he had done unto circumcision, and other legal observations) Or however, if we notion Baptism as a Gospel's Ordinance, it is very improperly, yea untruly, termed a part of the Gospel. The Gospel is the Covenant: Baptism the Seal of this Covenant (as Mr. A. and the Generality of Rebaptizers with him, do acknowledge: for in hoc, as it seems, non tenetur Magister Fisher) and therefore can be no part of it, as the seal annexed to a writing, is no part of the writing. But finis unius mali gradus est futuri; and Mr. A. proceedeth Mr. A. p. 19 20. Sect. 103. 5. Lastly, Another great end of Baptism, when taken up by persons under due qualifications, is to distinguish and difference them from the world, & to characterise them as peculiarly relating unto God; in which respect (amongst others) all those that are baptised into Christ, are said, to put on Christ▪ Gal. 3. 27. they thereby declare themselves to belong to him, as the servants of great men are known to belong to them, by their badge and livery which they put on, when they enter themselves servants to them. After a little less pertinent discourse about the distinguishing use of the Law, he assumse thus: But now this way the differencing men lasted but till such time as Faith came, as the Apostle notes; But after Faith is come (saith he) we are no longer under a Shoolmaster, v. 25. i. no longer known to be Disciples or Scholars, as formerly we were by our keeping of the Law. The Mosaical dispensation continued till faith came, i. e. until the time of the gospel dispensation: & then faith became of the same use to denominate and distinguish who were the children of God, & who not, which the law & ceremonies were of before. For so the Apostle saith, v. 26. For ye are (i. e. now ye are) all the children of God by Faith in Christ jesus. By Faith, (which is here said to have come, when the Schoolmastership of the Law ended) is meant, I conceive, the confessing or acknowledging Christ Jesus to be come in the flesh, and to be the Son of God, etc. Upon this, he labours in the very fire to prove this his conceit from the Scriptures. Sect. 104. The basis of this longsome discourse, (as the attentive Reader may easily perceive) is (as himself termeth it) his conceit, that by Faith, Gal. 3. 25, 26. is meant, the confessing or acknowledging Christ jesus to be come in the flesh, to be the Son of God, and Saviour of the world. If this conceit will burn, all the fat here is in the fire. Now that by Faith, in the said passages, cannot be meant such a confessing or acknowledging, as is conceited, at least not in both the verses (nor indeed, in either) is as evident, as evidence itself can make any thing evident. For, 1. (To speak to v. 25. the former of the two) what ear, that hath any taste of words, can find an Apostolical relish in such a saying as this: But after the confessing and acknowledging Christ jesus to be come in the flesh, came, we are no longer, etc. It must be by a Metaphor of a new and strange foundation, by which Faith shall signify, the confessing and acknowledging Christ jesus to be come in the flesh, etc. 2. No Expositor, whether Ancient, or Modern, Popish, or Protestant, that I have consulted upon the place, gives the right hand of fellowship, but the left (b) Postquam venit fides, id est, tempus fi: dei, postquam revelata est fides in Chrisstum, in quam; etc. of contradiction, to that interpretation. Calvin, by Faith here understandeth, a more clear revelation of Grace, upon the rending of the veil of the Temple, which was caused by the exhibition of Christ. a Quis sit adventus fides, jam dictum est, nempe clarior gratiae revelatio, postquam velum templi scissum est, quod factum esse scimus Christi exhibitione. Upon ver. 23. he had said, that Faith (there) signifieth the full revelation of those things, which were hid under the obscurity of (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] it est, prius quam veniret Evangelium, quòd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fides dicitur. the shadows of the Law. Musculus, by Faith here understands the time of Faith. Hugo Grotius, the Gospel (by a Metonymy) (c) Estius, the time of Faith revealed. d At posti quam advenit tempus revelatae fidei, etc. Mr. Perkins, the Gospel, or Doctrine of remission of sins, and life everlasting by Christ, exhibited in the flesh. Doubtless the sense of no Commentator upon the place holds any affinity with Mr. A's notion. Yea 3. Himself contradicteth himself in that sense of the word Faith, which now we oppose. For are not his words these? The Mosaical dispensation continued till Faith came, i. e. until the time of the Gospel's dispensation. Are, the time of the Gospel's dispensation, and, and the confessing and acknowledging Christ to become in the flesh, of an equivalent, or synonymous signification? But 2. Concerning the word Faith, ver. 26. the case is yet more clear, that it doth not signify Mr. A's signification, viz. a confessing or acknowledging Christ to be come in the flesh, etc. Because Sect. 105. 1. This Faith, is by the Apostle exegetically termed, Faith in Christ Jesus. Now since the mountains and the hills were brought forth, it was never heard that Faith in Christ jesus, signified, a confessing and acknowledging Christ to be come in the flesh, etc. 2. Neither can the hardness of such a sense, or signification of the phrase, be any ways mollified, or so much as tolerably acccommodated, by the mediation of any figure, whether in Rhetoric, or Grammar. 3. The Apostle here informs the Galathians thus: ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Now no man IS [i becomes, or, is made] ● child of God, by confessing & acknowledging Christ to be come in the flesh, etc. especially not by an outward confessing and acknowledging hereof, (of which Mr. A. will needs be understood) but every man becomes, and is made, a child of God, by Faith in Christ Jesus, properly and truly so called. 4. Neither can the necessity, no nor yet the reasonable expediency, of such a declarative sense of the verb substantive, are, as Mr. A. contendeth for, be evicted from the scope of the place, or subject matter in hand. For evident it is from ver. 24. that the Apostle here discourseth of such a Faith, by which men are justified; not, declared to be justified. Wherefore (saith he) the Law was our Schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by Faith [meaning, without the help of the Law, as appears from ver. 25.] But after that Faith is come, i. after our Faith in Christ as being now come, and having suffered in the flesh] we are no longer under a Schoolmaster [i. we are not under any necessity of legal observations] The reason hereof follows, vers. 26. For ye are all the children of God by Faith in Christ jesus, [i. by believing that Christ jesus is come, and hath suffered in the flesh, ye are all, who thus believe, actually made the children of God;] For the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (to note this by the way) should not be translated, children of God, but (according to the proper signification of the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) sons of God; the Apostle in this discourse, putting a signal difference, yea making an opposition between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a child, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ● son. Compare v. 1. and 3. with ver 5, 6, 7. of the following Chapter: in which passages we find the Apostle using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, children, to express the state and condition of the Church, and the members thereof, under the Law; and on the other hand, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sons, to signify the condition of Believers under the Gospel. Which Observation cuts a sunder the sinews of Mr. A's notion (or, conceit, as himself termeth it, p. 21.) viz. that the Apostle doth not here difference Faith under the gospel, from Faith under the Law. For evident it is that he doth difference the one Faith from the other, saying (in effect) that however Believers under the Law were justified by Faith in him who was to come, as as well as Believers under the Gofpell, by Faith in him who is come; yet the former Faith justified them only as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ch●ldre●, [or, little children] or (as the Apostle varieth the expression) as servants; i. so justified them, that they still remained under Tutors and Governors (as he speaketh) and pedagogy of the Law; whereas the latter Faith justifieth them, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sons; i. as persons who have out-grown their Pupillage, and received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (translated) the adoption of sons; the word here importeth the privilege, or accommodation, of Sons, permitted unto them by their Fathers, when they come to maturity of years, and discretion; which accommodation chief consisteth in an enlargement of their liberty, and exemption from that servile subjection, unto Tutors and Governors; under which they were whilst children. Sect. 106. 5. (And last, for this) Nor can I believe that any judicious Expositor, either Ancient or Modern, was ever tempted with Mr. A's declarative sense of the verb substantive, are, in the Text before us. Calvin (upon the place) assigns this for a reason, why the Law should not always detain Believers in bondage, viz. because they ARE the Sons of God. And further saith, that the Apostle evinceth their liberty by this, that they ARE the Sons of God. How? By faith in Christ. For whosoever believe in him, this prerogative is conferred upon them, that they ARE the sons of God. a Probat aliâ ratione iniquum esse ac minimè consentaneum, ut lex perpetua servitute astringat fideles: quia silicet SUNT filij Dei— libertatem inde probat, quod SINT filij Dei. Quomodo? per fidem these.] in Christam. Nam quicunque in eum credunt, datur illis haec prerogativa, ut SINT filij Dei. Musc●lus likewise (upon the words) is express for this substantive sense, against the declarative. b Omnes enim filij Dei estis per fidem in Christo Jesus] Sensus est, quotquot in Christo Jesu estis, filij Dei ESTIS, per fidem. Grotius, you who have believed in Christ as you ought, and continue thus believing, are the sons of God [viz. adult, or come to maturity of years] they who are such, begin to en●oy their father's goods. And thus ye have received the Spirit of your Father. c Vos qui in Christum credidist is ita ut oportet, ac sic credere perseveratis, estis filij Dei (nempe, adulti) tales qui sunt, incipiunt bonis paternis frui. Sic & vos accepistis Patris Spiritum. (d) Omnes filij Dei estis, etc. Q d. Etiamsi per Legem sitis vexati, humiliati & occisi, tamen Lex non fecit vo● justos, non fecit vos filios Dei, sed fides. Luther, (to name no more) commenteth this notion on the words, ye are all the sons of God, etc. As if he should say, Although ye are vexed, cast down, slain, by the Law, yet hath not the Law made you righteous, it hath not made you the Sons of God, but Faith [hath done these.] These things considered, how importune is Mr. A's deduction from these words ver. 27. For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ. From hence he concludeth (fidenter satis) So that the Faith, what ever it is, by which they were said to be the children of God, in ver. 26. Must be the same in effect with that, which he calls the putting on of Christ in Baptism. I cannot but marvel, and this not a little, upon what basis he should found this consequence, or collection; or what relation he can apprehend between the two verses, ver. 26. and ver. 27. which should entice a considering man to this belief, that Faith in the former should be the same thing in effect with putting on Christ in Baptism, in the latter. The aspect which the latter verse hath upon the former, is plainly this. The Apostle in the former, having delivered this for truth unto them, that they were all, [viz. who truly believed] the Sons of God by Faith in Christ jesus; (viz. without any Legal observation, as we formerly expounded) in the latter gives this for a reason, why they should the rather believe it, [I mean, that they were the Sons of God by Faith in Christ jesus, without the help of any legal ceremony] because many of them had submitted unto Baptism, had been baptised into Christ; by which act of submission they put on Christ, i. solemnly professed and engaged themselves totally to conform and adhere to the Discipline of Christ in the Gospel, where no Law-ceremonie hath place, or is allowed, much less imposed upon any man. So that the strength of the Apostles arguing in the place in hand, standeth in this principle, or ground, in reason: what many, according to the will of God, solemnly and publicly profess that they believe, and engage themselves to adhere unto, must of necessity be a truth. The Apostle here supposeth, or taketh for granted, (as well he might) that all those amongst them who had been baptised into Christ, had been thus baptised, by, or according to, the will of God. This interpretation of his argument in ver. 27. to prove what he had affirmed, ver. 26. viz. that they were all the complete or adult, Sons of God, by Faith in Christ, without the observation of Moses Law, makes him to speak and argue like himself, and with pregnancy of conviction. Whereas Mr. A's comment puts him upon that absurdity in his discourse, which Logicians call, idem per idem, which is, when the conclusion to be proved, and the medium, by which this proof should be made, are, either formally, or materially, (and to use his own term) in effect, the same. If Mr. Fisher should take any of his Adversaries arguing at such a rate, as Mr. A. makes the Apostle to argue here, he would, tell them that as the wheelbarrow goes rumble to rumble, so their conclusions follow from their premises. Sect. 107. By the way, when the Apostle saith, that as many of them as had been baptised, had put on Christ, he doth not necessarily suppose, or imply, that such of them, who had not been thus baptised, had, in no sense, or upon no account, put on Christ. For when a thing may be done after several and different manners, they that do it not after one manner, may very possibly do it after another. The same garment may be put on several ways; and the same Christ may be put on, i. publicly professed and owned in the world, by different forms of profession. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks: and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and gives God thanks. Rom. 14 6. He that came neither eating nor drinking, yet came in a way of righteousness, as he also did, who came both eating and drinking, Mat. 11. 18, 19 compared with cap. 21. 32. And (doubtless) the Apostle would not have here made those of them, who had been baptised, the same body or Church, with those who had not been baptised (which I have elsewhere proved, I suppose beyond all reasonable contradiction, that he doth) a See warer. dipping. pag. 85 86 if these latter had not made some public profession of Christ and the Gospel, as well as the former. But this discourse is a little eccentrical to our present business. From the premises it sufficiently appears how contrary to reason Mr. Alleu reasoneth, when he saith (p. 21. towards the end) Besides, their putting on of Christ in Baptism, would be no reason why they were the children of God by Faith in Christ, if we should understand their being the children of God constitutively, and not declaratively, unless we will suppose that man is the child of GOD in his account, notwithstanding his believing in Christ, until he be baptised into Christ. This latter clause, unless we will suppose, etc. I suppose is dis-sensed by his Printer, by leaving out the particle, a, before, man; and the negative particle, not, after, is. But were it thus accommodated, & supplied, it would do no feats for the accommodation of Mr. A's arguing. For how their putting on Christ in Baptism is no effectual argument, or reason, to prove, that they were the children of God constitutively, and could be no reason to prove them declaratively such, hath been already debated even to evidence. Sect. 108. Whereas he saith (p. 22. in process of the same discourse) that the Apostle supposeth them to be Christ's, upon that very account of their being baptised into him, and that this appears from ver. 27, 28, 29. compared together; the very truth is, that he rather supposeth them to have been Christ's before they were baptised into him; otherwise he must suppose them to have been infidels, yea strangers and enemies unto Christ, when they were thus baptised, or until they had been baptised; which doth not look like an Apostolical supposal. And as touching any appearance from ver. 27, 28, 29. compared, that the Apostle should suppose such a supposition as he asscribeth unto him, I know no man that seethe the apparition, but himself. When the Apostle, ver. 29. concludeth thus; If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, etc. his meaning (alas) is not, if ye be, or have been, baptised, then are ye Abraham's seed; but if ye be Christ's, i. if ye relate unto him (and so become his) by a true and unfeigned Faith. Thousands have been Baptised, who yet are none of Abraham's seed. About the middle of p. 22. he draweth us up the upshot or result of the Apostles discourse (in the verses lately argued) thus; That persons by Baptism do make such a profession of Christ, as by which they are characterised to be his. If he means, his, by profession only, a●d no further, what he saith may pass for truth; but certainly this is no part of the result of the Apostles discourse he speaks of. If his meaning be any thing more, and that by Baptism men make such a profession of Christ, by which they are characterized to be his, i true, or sound believers in him, Mr. A. must prove that such a characterizing virtue is essential unto, and inseparable from Baptism, before he can make this passable with any considering man for a truth. That which follows, is of the same impertinent resentment; If this than be [that which is not, as hath been proved, viz.) the characteristical mark to distinguish the children of God from the world, than it will follow [but as the case is, it will not follow] that no other acknowledgement of Christ without this, or with neglect of this, is to be looked upon as any other than a partial owning of Christ, and not a complete putting him on, so as to be esteemed thereby visibly the children of God. But most assuredly the putting on Christ by Baptism, without putting him on by mortification, holiness of life, etc. is scarce so much as a partial owning of him, but rather a putting him to open shame (as the Apostle speaketh) and that which may be found in wicked men and of a Pagan conversation, cannot reasonably be thought to add much unto, or to complete the visibility of a child of God. Sect. 109. But because Mr. A. doth so importunely hammer this nail, here and afterwards, over, and over, and yet over again, contending, that Baptism, and Baptism only, gives visibility to a Christian, or Child of God, and that no person whatsoever is to be esteemed visibly a child of God, by means of all other visibilities in him whatsoever, without this (although the winning of this ground would yield him little or no advantage of standing, to fight his battle of Ati-poedobapism) let us briefly consider, how friviolous and empty, how unworthy a considering man such a notion, or conceit is. For 1. Doth not himself, and men of his judgement, esteem those visible Saints, or children of God, whom they judge meet to be baptised, and whom they are now about to baptise, before, or until they have baptised them? Or do they judge none but the children of the Devil, or at least such, who for aught they know, may be such, (the children of the Devil) meet to he Baptised? Or in what capacity, or relation do they look upon those, whom they are about to Baptise, before they are baptised? Either they must look upon them, as Saints visible, or as Saints invisible, or as no Saints at all, or as persons who may, or may not, be saints for any thing they know, or can judge, in one kind or other▪ and under one or other of the●e considerations they must baptise them. If they look upon them, as Saints visible, and in this capacity baptise them, how then doth Baptism give visibility of Saintship unto them, when as they were visible Saints, before baptised? If they say, they look upon them as Saints invisible, what do they speak less than a contradiction? taking the words, visible, and invisible, in such a sense, wherein they must of necessity be understood in the case or question in hand? For how can I judge a person to be an invisible Saint, whom I have no visible, i. no sufficient or competent ground whereof I am capable, to judge him any Saint at all? Or if I have any such ground, is he not now a visible Saint unto me, or a person whom I ought to esteem such? If they look on them as no Saints at all, and in this capacity baptise them, than they baptise men, quatenus the children of the Devil, or quatenus esteemed such: and if so, they are bound to admit none to Baptism, but those who can give an account of their unbelief, and of their relation of Sonship to the Devil. Or (4. and lastly) if they look upon them, as persons who may, or may not be saints, for any thing they know of them, and in this condition baptise them, then are they bound to receive none unto Baptism, concerning whom they have any testimony or ground to believe that they are the children of God; nor indeed any but only such, who are mere strangers unto them, and of whom they never heard either good, or evil. Therefore Mr. A's conceit about the visibility of Saintship by means of Baptism, is evidently overthrown by his own Doctrine and practice of baptising. 2. How can that give visibility of Saintship unto men, which is altogether as visible in men, who are no saints, as in those, who are? Doth the greenness of the leaves, in a figtree, prove this tree to be a figtree, when as the leaves of all, or most other trees are green, as well as this? Or doth whiteness of colour in an horse, prove him to be that kind of creature, which indeed he is (I mean, an horse) when as many Cows, and Sheep, are white of colour, as well as he? These are strange kinds of reasonings from the tongues and pens of sober men. Or were there not many in the primitive times themselves, who wore the livery of Baptism, and yet were no Saints, or children of God? Or are there not multitudes amongst us at this day, who in this livery serve Satan, and consequently, are no visible Saints, unless it be of a very late edition, and unheard of until now. Sect. 110. 3. Baptism gives no visibility, or estimation of saintship, no not in the regular or due administration of it: therefore much less, simply, or universally. We all presume that John Baptist, and the Lord Christ himself with his Disciples, administered Baptism regularly and duly; yet was the Baptism administered by these no argument of Saint-ship in those who received it. For notwithstanding Jerusalem, and ALL Judea, and ALL the region round about Jordan were first baptised by John, (Mat. 3. 5, 6.) and afterwards such vast multitudes by Christ and his Disciples, that the Disciples of John repined at it, and with much regret informed him, that ALL MEN came unto him [meaning, Christ, to receive Baptism from him, Joh. 3. 26.] yet how few of these were by john himself esteemed visible Saints, or children of God, by means of their Baptism, sufficiently appeareth from that his complaint in the ears of his own disciples, and other Jews; And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth (speaking of Christ) and NO MAN receiveth his testimony, joh. 3. ●2. And john the Evangelist had not long before said; He came unto his own, and his own received him not, joh. 1. 11. Nor were there any more than an hundred and twenty that appeared at that solemn rendevouz of Saints at jerusalem (Act. 1. 15.) after the ascension of the Lord Christ, where all the Apostles now remaining were present. All which passages, with several others which might be laid to them, plainly enough show, that though the number of the Baptised ones in these times, were as the sand on the sea shore, yet was there a remnant only, and this very small, who were Saints, or children of God amongst them. How then did, or could Baptism prove them to be visible Saints, when as it did not prove them to be saints at all? 4. In respect of whom, or how many, was the Eunuch (Baptised by Philip in a desert) made a VISIBLE saint by his Baptism; Possibly his servants, if there were any number of these with him, did not know what his Baptism signified, nor upon what account he was baptised. And much more probable it is, that in his own country of Ethiopia, his baptism was vox non sign●ficativa, and so no esteem of Saint-ship unto him there; as neither doth Mr. A's baptism, nor the Baptism of any others baptised amongst us upon the same account with him, give any esteem of Saint-ship unto them, in the judgement or opinion of those who know what belongs to Saint-ship, and by what an estimate ought to be made of it. Sect. 111. 5. The Scripture teacheth us to estimate the visibility of Saintship by other manner of characters and properties, then by a being baptised; yea and not by this at all▪ as fare as I am able to understand. By this (saith Christ himself shall ALL MEN KNOW THAT YOU ARE MY DISCIPLES, IF YE HAVE LOVE ONE TOWARDS ANOTHER. Joh. 13. 35. Doubtless there can be no better character, or ground of satisfaction, whereby to judge or esteem men visible saints, or visible children of God, then that, by which the Lord jesus himself hath so plainly determined that all men many know who are his disciples. And whether for Believers to have love one towards another, be the same with their being, or having been baptised; yea or whether many believers have not love one towards another, who yet never were baptised as Mr. A. calls Baptism, I am content Mr. A. himself shall judge and determine. The Apostle john in several passages fully accordeth with his great Lord and Master touching the visibility of the children of God, and that which differrenceth them from the world. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the Devil: whosoever doth not righteousness, is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother, 1 Joh. 3. 10. Again, If ye know that he is righteous, YE KNOW that every one that doth righteousness, is born of him, 1. Joh. 2. 29. See also ch. 2, 3, 9, 10. ch. 3, 7, 14. ch. 4, 7, 24, etc. So likewise the Apostle Paul judged it meet for him to esteem the Philippians visible Saints, in as much as both in his bands, and in the defence and confirmation of the Gospel, they were all partakers of his grace [meaning, aswell of that grace, by which he was enabled to suffer, as of that by which he was called actually to suffer] Phil. 1. 7. See upon the same account, 2 Tim. 2. 11, 12. So likewise he commends Epaphroditus unto the Philippians as meet to be received in the Lord (and therefore as a Person whom they ought to esteem a visible Saint) because that for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, etc. Philip. 2. 29, 30. The Scripture in very many places speaks of mortification, self-denial, love, faith, etc. uttering, & expressing themselves by a suitable conversation; and most frequently, of ●uffering for Christ and for righteousness sake, as things rendering persons meet to be esteemed Saints, and children of God: but as concerning Waterbaptism, it never came into the heart of it to ascribe unto it any such thing. Nor do any of, nor all, those three Texts of Scriptures, which Mr. A. drags by head and shoulders, to serve him in his warfare, do him the least service herein. For 1. we have elsewhere demonstrated that his first Text, 1 Cor. 12. 13. For BY ONE SPIRIT are we all baptised into one body, etc. maketh notably against that very notion or conceit, which here he attempteth to build upon it, a See water-dipping no firm footing for Church Communion, p. 44, 45, 46, etc. And concerning his two remaining, viz. Rom. 6. 3, 5. and Gal. 3. 27. we have, partly in this discourse formerly, a Sect. 104, 105, etc. and partly elsewhere, b Water-dipping. Postscript p. 66. 67 made it plain and evident enough to those that are not loath to see, that neither of them have any right hand of fellowship to give unto him in his said notion. Sect. 112. How bottomless then are these, and some other like assertions, and inferences, wherein he so much rejoyseth, p. 23? Baptism is a wall of partition between the world & the Saints; as if all that were on the other side the river of Baptism had no communion with the world, & were neither proud, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor deceitful, nor fornicatours, nor adulterers, nor railers, nor extortioners, nor any thing, but what it excellently becometh Saints to be; and on the other hand, as if all on this side the said river, were either one or other, some, or all, of these abominations. If Mr. A. could make good his word, in saying that Baptism is a wall of partition between the world and the Saints, it should be no longer a partition wall between him and me, but I would either dig thorough it, or leap over it, to make my way unto him. So again having only pointed us to the two places last mentioned, Rom. 6. 3, 5. and Gal. 3. 27. he jollyeth it thus: For can we conclude less hence [yes, you might conclude less by the whole, if you concluded no more than you should] then that men's visible being in Christ is to be reckoned from the time of their Baptism? that being as it were, the immediate instrument or means of their visible ingression into him. For otherwise if they were to be looked upon as having a visible being in Christ, by any act, endowment, qualification, preceding Baptism, why should their ingression, their entrance into Christ, be attributed unto their Baptism? Here is a great deal of triumph without any conquest: yet were all given up, that in this flourish is pretended to be won, it would be no advance at all to the cause now in pleading. For why may not Infants be baptised, as well as men, although it be supposed, that a visible entrance into Christ ought to be attributed unto Baptism? But Sect. 113. 1. I cannot but marvel a little, why he speaks so much of men's being locked upon as having a VISIBLE being in Christ, as if men could be looked upon as having a being in Christ, and yet this being not be visible. Or doth he suppose that any man's being in Christ, is externally, or to the eye of the outer man, visible? I suppose his understanding stands in his way against such a supposal. If then no man's being in Christ is to the outward sense visible, but only such outward expressions and effects, which by the mediation of discourse, render it visible to the eyes of the inner man, it undeniably follows; 1. that there must be somewhat preceding Baptism that must render a man's being in Christ, visible; otherwise (as we argued formerly) Baptism must only be administered to those, who are looked upon as having no being in Christ at all. 2. That there are other fruits and effects of a man's being in Christ, which render it visible (yea more visible) besides Baptism; viz. all such which have a more natural and intimous connexion therewith, then Baptism, and yet are altogether as visible, yea more visible than it, such as holiness of life, unblamablenesse of conversation, fruitfulness in well-doing, suffering for righteousness sake, etc. yea doubtless in that very example of persons Baptised, which himself so lately traversed, and we after him, Act. 2. 37, 38, etc. their being in Christ was visible unto Peter and the rest, before they were baptised, otherwise (it is like) they would not have Baptised them; yea it was much more visible unto them, partly by their being pricked in their heart, manifested by their earnest and zealous enquiring of them, what they should do, ver. 37. partly and more principally by their glad resenting and receiving the words which Peter, by way of answer to that their demand, spoke unto them (ver. 41.) by these things (I say) which were found in them before they were Baptised, their being in Christ was much more visible, than it was by their being baptised afterwards. Baptism, as we have once at least taken occasion to prove, and oft met with occasion to affirm, renders no man's being in Christ, visible; visible I mean upon such terms, either as if he must needs have a true being in Christ, who is Baptised; or as if it could not be altogether as visible before, as it can be afterwards by means of it. Therefore Sect. 114. Neither can Mr. A. conclude [workmanlike, or with truth] either from one, or both the Texts he points at, that men's visible being in Christ is to be reckoned from the time of their Baptism; or, that Baptism is the immediate instrument of their ingression unto him. These as well for Notion, as Phrase, are exotique to the Scriptures he mentions, and (indeed) to all others: and enough, with a surplusage, hath been argued formerly to cut the sinews of all such deductions as these from the Scriptures, unto which they pretend. Men are said, Rom. 6. 3, 5. to be baptised into Christ, to be baptised into his death, to be buried with him by Baptism. This is all that is here said concerning Baptism, and baptising. Now which of these is the figtree, from whence this Fig should be gathered, that men's visible being in Christ is to be reckoned from the time of their Baptism? As for that which follows, ver. 5. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; it is evident from the consequent, or promise in the latter part of the verse, that he doth not speak of Baptism, especially not of Waterbaptism, in the antecedent, or former part of the verse. For than it would follow that all they, that are Water-baptized, should be saved, or be partakers of a resurrection alike in perpetuity of glory unto the resurrection of Christ himself. a Water-dipping, etc. Postscript p. 66, 67 But we have opened & argued the sense of this verse elsewhere, as we have done likewise by the other Text, Gal. 3. 27. in this very discourse. Sect. 104. 105, etc. where we found not so much as the dawning of Mr. A's day in this place. Sect. 115. His similitude and comparisons borrowed from men in their affairs (p. 23, 24.) to prove, that none are to be esteemed in Christ, but those who are baptised, etc. are defective to his purpose, and mere impertinencies. The reason why the Husband and wife receive that conjugal relation, and matrimonial being, proper to them, from some solemn act done at the time of their marriage, is, 1. because either the Law of nature, or the civil constitutions of the state where men and women live, or both, do appropriate and confine the entrance into a conjugal relation, unto sunch or such a solemn act, one or more, to be done by the parties; so that there can be no entrance into this relation, or matrimonicall being by any other act, or way. Whereas a being in Christ, or the entrance hereunto, is not tied or appropriated unto a being baptised, but unto believing: and for the visibility of this being, or esteemablenesse of it with men, neither is this, either by any Law of God, nor by any principle in reason, annexed unto, or made to depend upon Baptism, so that it should not be lawful for any person, or Church, to esteem such a man a visible member of Christ, who hath not been baptised; no, it hath been proved over and over that every such person lawfully may, yea and of duty ought to be esteemed a member, yea a visible member of Christ, who giveth a sober and sound testimony of his Faith in Christ, (which, as hath been showed, may be given several other ways besides Baptism) yea and that that testimony in this kind which is given by Baptism, is but faint, and of little or no authority with understanding and considering men; especially being compared with that testimony which is given by a godly, righteous, and sober conversation in the world. Again, 2. Another reason why a matrimonial being, is, and must needs be computed, or estimated, by such or such a solemn act done by the parties at the time of their marriage, is, because such an act as this (I mean, by which the Husband and Wife receive their matrimonial being) is not permitted unto, nor is wont to be practised by any others, but unto, and by, those only, who receive this being. Whereas persons may in some case be baptised, and this by the will, and according to the word of God, who have no being at all in Christ, much less any visible being, as the case was with Simon Magus baptised by Philip, and with multitudes of those who were baptised by John (as was formerly observed.) Upon this account no man's, either being, or visibility of being in Christ, can be reasonably Estimated by his being Baptised. But this point we argued home lately. Sect. 116. There is the same consideration of Mr. A's other comparison, p. 24. As a man (saith he) receives a relative being, as member of such a corporation, by some solemn act done at the time of his enfranchisement; even so— men and women receive that relative Being, which they have in Christ, and as visible members of that spiritual Corporation, whereof Christ is head and chief, from that solemn act of their being baptised into him. This similitude also halts rightdown on that leg, on which it should stand upright and strong, to support the weakness of Mr. A's cause. For the reason why a man must perform such or such a solemn act at the time of his enfranchisement, to receive a relative being, as a member of such a corporation, is, because it is a by-law enacted in, and by this corporation, that no person shall be, or shall be reputed to be a member hereof, but such, who shall perform this solemn act; and that whosoever shall perform it, shall be thus reputed. Whereas God hath made no such Law or Statute as this, that no man shall be reputed a member of Christ, or a visible member of his, but only they who shall be baptised; we have demonstrated the contrary formerly. Nor hath he any where determined or adjudged, that whosoever shall be baptised, how unworthy or wicked soever otherwise he shall be, shall notwithstanding upon the mere account of his Baptism, be esteemed such a member. Therefore Mr. A. feeds but upon ashes, when he nourisheth himself in his notion as well negative, as affirmative, of a Baptismal visibility of Saintship, with such similitudes and comparisons as these. But Sect. 117. Having with much ado at last satisfied himself (though no man besides, unless pre-satisfied) with spreading this his conceit upon much paper, he maketh this brief apology by the way, for the length of that discourse. I have insisted (saith he, p. 24.) the more largely upon this particular, to detect the repugnancy of that opinion against the plain current of the Scripture, which holds Baptism needless, useless, amongst those who have made long profession of the Gospel, though they as yet never were Baptised. How Mr. A. may otherwise acquit himself in detecting the repugnancy he speaks of, I shall not prejudge; But if he hath no better light whereby to make the detection, than what he hath shined from his pen in managing his last particular, I am certain the opinion he speaks of will never be detected of any repugnancy, either against the plain current of the Scripture, or any more retired vein of it. For if the main and principal end of Baptism be to make men visible members of Christ, they who already are, and who of a long time have been, as visible members of Christ, as Baptism can make them, yea and more visible, have no need of being Baptised; more than he hath of a candle, who enjoyeth the brightness of the Sun at noon day. Upon the ground which he hath bought with a great sum of discourse, although his title to it be crazy (as hath been proved) yet he builds with confidence enough, p. 24. If then (saith he) that public owning of Christ in Baptism, by which men put him on, and by, & upon which they are incorporated into Christ visibly, be another end or use of Baptism, as you see it is, (truly if Mr. A. speaks this to me, he speaks not truly) most clear and evident it is, that this end and use is not to be found in the Baptism of Infants. For further argument sake, give we back again unto him his If, or antecedent in this place, which we have taken from him, and let us weigh the reason he gives for his drawing the consequent here held forth unto us from it. And the reason (saith he, p. 24, 25.) hereof is, because Infants neither do, nor can, put on Christ in their baptism, i. make an actual declaration and profession unto the world, that they own and acknowledge Christ to be come in the flesh, to be the Son of God, and Saviour of the world, to be their Lord and Lawgiver, as they do who put him on in Baptism, etc. But Sect. 118. 1. From what quarter of the Scriptures can Mr. A. give us any steady intelligence, that to put on Christ in Baptism, is, or signifies, to make an actual declaration and profession to the world, that they own and acknowledge Christ Christ to be come in the flesh, etc. whether doth he think that all those who were baptised by John, made such a declaration and profession as he speaks of, viz. that they owned and acknowledged Christ to have been come in the flesh, etc. considering that the generality, (as it seems) or (however) a very great number of these persons were in doubt, and mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ or no, Luk 3. 15? Or doth he think that the three thousand that were Baptised in one day by Peter, or by his advice & order, made every man and woman of them a part such a formal actual declaration and profession as he speaks of? If he thus thinketh, I must profess that his thoughts are not mine. Or can he find that such a declaration and profession was ever made by any person, man or woman, at the time of their baptising? yea or can he find where ever the making of such a declaration or profession was required at any man's hand, at the time of his baptising? For though Philip said to the Eunuch, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest [be baptised] this doth not amount to an injunction laid upon him to profess it, much less actually to declare and profess it unto the world. Nor did the Eunuch, when he said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, actually declare this his belief unto the world, unless Mr. A. thinks that Philip here signifies the world. 2. In case it should be granted that such a declaration and profession as that specified by him, was made by those that were baptised in Scripture times, unto the world, I would willingly learn of him, 1. whether this Declaration was not made by them before their baptising: 2. whether this Declaration did not make them every which as much (if not more) visible Saints or members of Christ, as their Baptism did. If so, how can Mr. A's Doctrine (lately taught by him as we have heard) stand, viz. that no person is to be looked upon as having a visible being in Christ, by any Act, Endowment, or Qualification preceding Baptism? But 3. Gratify we Mr. A. with this, that a public owning of Christ in Baptism, by which men put him on, and by and upon which they are incorporated into Christ visibly, etc. be one end and use of Baptism, yea and that Infants neither do, nor can [viz. by themselves, and in their own persons] make such a declaration and profession to the world as that mentioned, yet from all this train of premises it doth not follow, that therefore the said end and use of Baptism is not to be found in the Baptism of Infants. The reason of this nonsequitur, besides that it is in itself apparent enough, hath been formerly given, Sect. 67, 68, 69, 73, etc. 4. (And last, for this) Be we yet more openhanded to Mr. A. and bestow upon him the grant, that the end and use of Baptism of which he speaks, is not found in the Baptism of Infants, yet neither would this forbid water that Infants should not be Baptised, because there being (according to Mr. A's own principls) several ends of Baptism, in case any one of these be attainable by the baptising of Infants, Infants lawfully may, yea and of duty ought to be baptised. See this further argued and proved formerly, viz. Sect. 67. and 98. Sect. 119. Whereas he saith (p. 25.) that infants cannot with any propriety of truth of speaking, be said to put on Christ in Baptism; 1. I suppose that neither can men or women, with propriety of speaking, be said to put on Christ in Baptism. To put on Christ, whether in Baptism, or otherwise, is a Metaphorical or borrowed expression, not a proper. 2. Why may not Infants with as much propriety, yea and truth of speaking, be said to put on Christ in Baptism, as Infants under the Law may be said to have put on Moses in circumcision? Or did not infants in their circumcision, as properly and truly put on Moses, as men themselves did in theirs? 3. Neither doth the Apostle say, that they who have been baptised, have put on Christ, in, or by Baptism: this is Mr. A's gloss, not the Apostles Text. His words are only these, Gal. 3. 27. For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ. It is not denied but that persons baptised may with good congruity of sense, be said to put on Christ in Baptism; only this is denied, that Mr. A. can evince or justify such an expression, or sense from the said passage of the Apostle. For they who have been baptised into Christ, may very possibly have otherwise put on Christ, and not by this their baptising into him. This proposition, They that have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ, may be (as Logicians speak) propositio consecutiva, and not, formalis; a proposition, wherein the consequent is predicated of the antecedent, not the thing signified, or typified, of the thing signifying, nor yet the effect of the cause. As when the same Apostle saith, As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God, (Rom. 8. 14.) he doth not suppose, that men are constituted or made the sons of God by being led by the Spirit of God, but only declared to be so: their constitution in this kind is by another cause, or means. In like manner a baptising into Christ may be an argument, or sign, that men have put on Christ, and yet not be that act, by which, or in which, they formally put him on. Nay the truth is, that, to put on Christ, being, or importing, an act, it cannot be transacted, or performed, in, or by, a man's being baptised, because this importeth a passion. If it be said; yea but a submission, or voluntary offering of a man's self, unto baptism, imports an action, and by this, or in this, he may be said to put on Christ, I answer, If Christ be put on by a man's offering himself unto Baptism (which for aught I see at present, may be granted) then is he not put on by Baptism, but before it; yea and they may as properly be said to put on Christ, who never are actually baptised, as they who are. For evident it is, that in the baptising of men and women, the offering of themselves unto Baptism always precedes their Baptism it-self: and as evident again it is, that men and women may offer themselves unto Baptism, and yet (possibly) never be baptised: as viz. when there is no person present that is willing to accept of their offer in this kind, or to administer baptism unto them. Sect. 120. Mr. A. having risen up early, and gone to bed late, and eaten the bread of much carefulness, to give the best complexion and colour to his second Argument against the lawfulness of Infant-baptism, which he was capable of giving, and that of receiving, and being loath that what he had so carefully planted, should be presently plucked up by the hand of an objection, he prepares and arms himself to discomfit (if it may be) that objection, which (in his apprehension) threatened him with this damage. First he takes a view of, and describes his adversary, and then considers where he may find the best advantage against him, and accordingly encounters him. Against this whole argument (saith he, p. 25.) which concludes Infant-Baptism unlawful, because the ends of Baptism, (concerning which we have heard all along the said argument that he is very doubtful what they are) are better attained in the Baptism of Believers (and consequently, are attained also, at least to a degree, and competently, in the Baptism of Infants likewise) it is objected: That this might have been an argument as well against the circumcising of Infants under the Law, as against the Baptism of Infants under the Gospel; because there is the same reason to suppose, that circumcision should have less answered the ends thereof when applied to Infants; as there is to conceive, that Baptism should less answer its ends, when it is applied to Infants; and yet we well know that this was no bar to Infant-circumcision then, and therefore why should it be any against their Baptism now? This argument, or Objection, is the great dread and abhorring of Mr. A's soul, fearing (it seems) lest his second argument against Infant-Baptism should die by the hand of it. And the truth is that were it yet alive, he had reason enough for such his fear: but we have seen it a dead corpse already, a body of words without any soul of sound reason, or truth in it. And how vain a thing is it to be solicitous about the rescue of a dead man's life from the hand of an enemy? Nor is it so proper, when a man hath lost his life by one hand, for any man to undertake to prove, that had he escaped this hand, yet he would have fallen by another. Notwithstanding since we have, in our canvasse of the said argument, now and then intersprinkled somewhat of that notion (I mean, about the proportion between Infant-circumcision, and Infant-Baptism) the disparagement whereof Mr. A. here undertaketh, let us see Mr. A's Objection, and his Answer, play a little before us. Sect. 121. His objection (as ye have heard) pleads, that there is the same reason to suppose, that circumcision should have less answered the ends thereof when applied to Infants, as there is to conceive, that Baptism should less answer its ends, when applied unto Infants, etc. This Mr. A's answer denieth: and no marvel: for what should it else do, unless it meant to be an answer by concession only? But nothing is more easy, then to deny: but in many cases to give a substanticall account of a man's denial, hic labour, hoc opus est; this will try the ingenuity and strength of a man. And at this turn Mr. A. with his Answer faileth. For of all the three Grounds or Reasons, which he commendeth unto us for that his denial, there is none competent to justify it. First be saith (p. 26.) that Circumcision, and the Covenant to which it related, remained in the flesh of him, who was circumcised, all the days of his life, as visible to him, and as capable of improvement to spiritual ends many years after it was made, as if it had been but newly acted and done before his eyes.— Whereas Baptism is a transient act, and leaves no such visible impression in the Infant, as matter of memorial, signification, or instruction unto him when he comes to be a man, as that of Circumcision did. So that w● see there is not the like reason, but an apparent difference in this respect. But for answer to this▪ 1. The remaining of Circumcision in the flesh of the circumcised, as matter of memorial, signification, etc. could be no reason why Infants were appointed by God to be circumcised. Because had men only been circumcised, their circumcision would have remained every whit as much, or rather more, in their flesh, and have been altogether as competent matter of memorial, signification, and instruction, unto them, as now it was, being received in their infancy. Nor was it any advantage unto them by way of memorial, signification, etc. during all the time of their infancy, or until they came to years of discretion. So that in this respect, the end of Baptism by way of memorial, signification, instruction, etc. is as well answered, as fully attained, by the baptising of Infants, as the same or like end of Circumcision was attained by the circumcising of Infants. Sect. 122. 2. Whereas he saith that Circumcision remained in the flesh as visible to him that was circumcised, etc. If he would be understood generally, and with reference to all persons whatsoever that were circumcised, I know not what ground he hath so to affirm. For what thinks he of the circumcision in the flesh of Isaac, after his eyes were dim, & that he could not see, Gen. 27. 1. & so of the circumcision of him that was born blind (Joh. 9) were these visible unto them? There is the same consideration of the Circumcisions of all that were blind among the Jews. Besides, if it be supposed that there were any men in this Nation as corpulent as Eglon, (Judg. 3. 17.) seems to have been, their circumcision was hardly visible unto them, unless (haply) by reflection in a looking glass. And yet (doubtless) the Circumcision of all these was as competent matter of memorial, signification, etc. unto them, as the circumcision of those to whom it was visible. Therefore Baptism, though not visible in the flesh to the Baptised, may notwithstanding be as pregnant matter of memorial, signification, etc. unto them as Circumcision was, at least unto many, notwithstanding any such visibility in it, as Mr. A. pretendeth. 3. Neither doth the Scripture any where insist upon any such visibility of Circumcision, as any such advantage unto the circumcised, as Mr A. conceiteth: nor doth God any where exhort, counsel, or command any circumcised person to look (with the eyes of his flesh) upon his circumcision, either to he put in mind of, or to be instructed in any thing signified thereby. Therefore an external visibility is no Scripture-difference between Circumcision and Baptism; nor (indeed) is it in itself any such difference, which should make the former any whit more spiritually advantageous unto the subject thereof, than the latter (Baptism) unto its subject. So that this difference is only an impertinent shift thought upon, and talked of, by the adversaries of Infant-Baptism to relieve their cause against such an argument, which grindeth it to powder. 4. Whereas Mr. A. advanceth his discourse in the point in hand, in these words, (p. 26.) Nor can it be truly said, that either the report of Parents, or neighbours, or any Parish, or other Register, is, or can be, equivalent unto the sign in the flesh before mentioned, as to the ascertaining of men and women of their being baptised in their infancy; 1. because there is not the like certainty nor satisfaction in reports and hear says, as there is in seeing and beholding, which difference notwithstanding we have in the two cases in hand: 2. Because opportunity of such satisfaction, as these reports are capable of giving, may be cut off by the death, or other removal of such from whom it is to be received, or else by the removal of such Infants themselves into places far remote, before ever they came to age, etc. he only seweth a few fig-leaves together to cover the nakedness of his cause. For Sect. 123. 1. In the beginning of this transcription, he reproacheth that Law of the living God, established by him long since under Moses, and repeated by him over and over upon several occasions in the Old Testament. a Num. 3. 30. Deut. 17. 6. 19 15. and again revived and confirmed by the Lord Christ himself, and by his Apostles, in the New Testament, In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. b Mat. 18. 6. It is also written in your Law, that the testimony of two men is true. c Joh. 8. 17. In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. d 2 Cor 13. 1. God himself having sanctified the mouth of two or three witnesses, to establish, i. to ratify and confirm, every matter of fact, even those which concern the precious lives of men, so that any thing which shall be attested by these, shall be taken for true, doth not Mr. A. presume to make that common, which God hath thus sanctified, by disparaging the testimony of Christian Parents, neighbours and others, as insufficient to ascertain the baptism of a person Baptised in their presence and sight? 2. By another Law of God, the child stands bound to honour his Parents, how much more when they are Christian, and holy? Now whether it be consistent with this Law, or with that honour which children own, by the tenor and authority of it, unto their Parents, to give them the lie, yea or to suspect them of untruth, and not to believe them, when they shall affirm unto them that they have been Baptised, let Mr. A. himself judge, especially considering that there is no colour or pretence imaginable why Parents should lie unto their children in this kind. 3. Men and women stand bound in conscience to believe some things, and these of greater moment, yea and to act according to this belief, upon fare weaker testimonies, and grounds, than the reports of Parents, and Neighbours, & the records of registers, for their baptising. The reason or ground which children of any growth, or years have to believe, that such persons, especially one of them, who are commonly called and reputed their Parents, are so indeed, is nothing so authentic or full of proof, as the foresaid testimonies and grounds of their baptising. Jealousies and suspicions about the legitimacy of many Children, are (we know) rife in the mouths of men: but (I believe) never did Mr. A. hear the Baptism of any person questioned, which either was attested by the Parents, or by any Parish Register, or Record. And yet persons stand bound by the Law of God, to honour those, as their Parents, and to perform all other duties and respects unto them, which are due from children unto Parents, who are commonly called and reputed their Parents, although they have no demonstrative proof of such a relation to them. Therefore much more, if persons be reported, both by their Parents, and others, to have been baptised, and are generally reputed so to have been, they stand as well, and as much bound to look upon themselves, as baptised, and to act and walk accordingly, as if they knew with the greatest certainty that they had been baptised. 4. The Jews themselves circumcised in their infancy, notwithstanding the sign of Circumcision in the flesh, yet could have no other knowledge or certainty, that this sign was applied to them, or received by them, according to the mind of God, or as the Ordinance of God, but only from the testimony of their Parents, or others present at their Circumcision. For how could Paul (for example) tell or say, that he was circumcised on the eight day, (Phil. 3. 5.) but by the testimony and report of his Parents, unless we shall suppose that it was supernaturally revealed to him; which (I think▪ is no supposition worthy a considering man? Or however, it is broadly ridiculous to suppose that every Jew, who according to the precept of God was circumcised on the eight day, had this supernaturally revealed unto him, or came to the knowledge of it in any other way then by the testimony of his Parents, etc. Besides, other Nations in the world using to circumcise their children, besides the Jews, with whom God made no such covenant, as he made with Abraham and his posterity by Jacob, how could any Jew know that he was not circumcised in some or other of these idolatrous Nations, (and so contrary to the will of God) but only by the affidavit of his Parents, or others brought up with him? Sect. 124. 5. Neither was Circumcision itself any such sign in the flesh, but that it might be obliterated and defaced, (and so forgotten) according to that of the Apostle Paul; Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. 1 Cor. 7. 8. 6. Nor could any circumcised person amongst the jews know, but by the report of his Parents or others, that he was so much as circumcised. For the Scripture doth nor report or affirm, that every particular person of the male Sex is born with a foreskin upon his flesh; (I mean with such a superfluity in this skin, which was wont to be cut off by Circumcision) or that every male, who wants as much, or more of this foreskin, as any other not circumcised, must needs therefore have been circumcised. Yea I believe there are males, or men, in this Nation, who though never circumcised, yet have as little of that superfluity, on which only circumcision wrought, as many of those, who have been circumcised. 7. Neither is the receiving of Baptism by men and women, when come to years of discretion, always capable of improvement to Spiritual ends, many years after it is received, as if it had been newly acted and done before their eyes. For why may not the senses of some baptised in these years, be as well sodden into Trapezuntius his temper, as the senses of one of Mr. Fisher's Antagonists (it seems) were? a See Mr. Fisher Baby-Baptism. p. 367. This Trapezuntius was a learned Grammarian, and great Scholar; but thorough the violence of a sickness, sustained the loss of memory to such a degree, that he quite forgot, not only all his learning, but even his own name. 8. (And last) In case it should be supposed that a person who is born in hand by his Parents, Neighbours, or Parish Register, that he hath been baptised, should yet be deceived by all these, and be made to believe that, which was not, what grand inconvenience, danger, or loss can reasonably be conceived that this person shall sustain, or incur, hereby? For whils● the sense of his conscience bears upon him, that he hath been really and truly baptised, especially being otherwise really and truly willing to be baptised with the first, what greater improvement can they make of the remembrance of their baptism, who have indeed been baptised, than he is capable of making by his apprehension and belief of his being baptised? Yea as the Apostle, while Circumcision was yet in some request, speaks of a way or Method, how men might make their uncircumcision turn to as good an account of benefit unto them, as Circumcision itself; Therefore if the uncircumcision shall keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumsion be counted for circumcision, [i. shall he not be equal in account with God, with him that is circumcised, though as righteous as he, Rom. 2. 26.] in like manner, if he who verily thinks he hath been baptised, shall as really, & conscientiously perform all the engagements which Baptism imposeth upon men, shall not his non-baptism be counted Baptism unto him? and for any matter of benefit which Mr. A. can pretend should accrue unto a person actually baptised, by means of this his Baptism; the same, or as much, (questionlesly) shall be conferred by God upon him, in whom he findeth a willing heart, & ready mind to be baptised, and who refraineth from being actually baptised, only out of conscience towards God, and fear of offending him. Sect. 125. Whereas Mr. A. pretendeth that opportunity of satisfaction by the means specified touching man's having been baptised, may be cut off, by the death, or other removal of such from whom it is to be received, or else by the removal of such Infants themselves into places fa●re remote, before they come to age, etc. answer (in part) hath been made already, where it was showed, that little or no inconvenience accrueth unto any man, by his not having been baptised, in case he be verily persuaded that he hath been baptised, and with all is inwardly and cordially willing and ready to be baptised, in case he deemed himself unbaptised. I here add, 1. That in case the general usage and custom of the Church, or People of God, in any place, be to baptise their children, though all ocular witnesses, as Parents, neighbours, kindred, etc. of the baptising of any person, should be cut off by death, or however, yet the known custom of the place is security in abundance to such a person that he hath been baptised. Therefore Mr. A's supposal in the case before us is impertinent and slight. And 2. The course which Mr. A. himself steers with his children, (I mean, in not causing them to come unto Christ in Baptism) the more general practice of the Churches and people of God in the Nation (which stands for baptising children) considered, is fare more likely, in case of his removal by death, or of his child's removal into places far remote, before they come to age, to deprive them of all means of satisfaction touching their baptising, than the baptising of children in a concurrence w i'th' the general practice of the Saints where they were born, is to draw them into a snare of uncertainty whether they were baptised, or no, whatsoever may befall to disadvantage them in this kind. For in case the Parents of Mr. A's children shall be both dead before they (the said children) come to age, what means is there for them to receive satisfaction, whether they were baptised, or no? 3. (And last) according to M. A's own principles it is little or nothing material, whither a person being come to years of understanding, knoweth that he was baptised in infancy, or no. For in case he were baptised, this Baptism (with Mr. A.) was but a nullity; and consequently the person remains, notwithstanding this Baptism, unbaptised: and in case he were not then Baptised, he is but in the self same condition. Sect. 126. All these particulars duly weighed and considered, it is too evident to be denied by any, but those that will not see, that Mr. A. had very small reason to affirm, that there is not as good reason for the baptising of Infants, as there was for their circumcising, only because circumcision was no transient thing but permanent in the flesh, whereas Baptism is transient, and leaves no visible impression in the flesh of the Infant: and that he might with as much reason argue thus, there was not the same reason why Matthew should be an Evangelist, which there was for Luke, because Matthew had sometimes been a Publican, whereas Luke was a Physician: or thus: there is not the same reason why Ma●y should be saved▪ which there is why Lazarus should be saved, because Lazarus is a man, whereas Mary is a woman. These are very genuine parallels of Mr. A's reasoning in the first point of difference assigned by him, between the Circumcising of Infants, and their baptising. Nor doth he quit himself any whit more like a man in his second, the tenor hereof being this, (p. 27.) 2. I answer yet further, that the end of Circumcision, though administered to infants, was better attained, than the end of Baptism can be, when it is so applied; because much of the benefit of Circumcision did accrue to the circumcised upon the work done, without respect to any inward qualification or endowment: whereas the benefit of Baptism doth not accrue merely upon the work done, but is suspended upon the knowledge, faith, etc. of him that is baptised. This somewhat also, being cast up, amounts to just nothing. For 1. The main hinge upon which this peiece of discouse turneth, is crazy, and cracked quite thorough. For it is a not orious untruth, that much of the benefit of Circumcision did accrue to the circumcised upon the work done. Against such a notion as this the Scripture riseth up like an armed man. For Circumcision (saith the Apostle) verily profiteth, if thou keep the Law: but if thou be a breaker of the Law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Rom. 2 25 If much of the benefit of Circumcision did accrue to the circumcised [merely] upon the work done, Circumcision would have profited them, and that to a considerable degree, whether they had kept the Law, [i. the rest of the Law] or no. And Circumcision would have been, not only that in the heart, but that which was outward also in the flesh; which notwithstanding the Apostle (ver. 28. 29.) denieth it to be. Yea 2. It is so far from being true that much of the benefit of Circumcision did accrue to the circumcised upon the work done, that without righteousness, and worthy walking, it rendered the Circumcised so much the more obnoxious to the displeasure and judgement of God. And shall not uncircumcision (saith the Apostle) which is by nature, if it fulfil the Law, judge thee, who by the letter and Circumcision dost transgress the Law? Rom. 2. 27. Yea Sect. 127. 2. Such observations of the Law, from whence there is much more reason and likelihood that much benefit should have accrued to the observers upon the work done, then from Circumcision upon these terms, were yet so fare from being beneficial unto them upon any such account, that they were an hatred and abomination unto God. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices?— When you come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hands to tread in my courts? Bring no more oblations: incense is an abomination unto me. The new moons, and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with, your new moons, and your appointed feasts my soul hateth, etc. Isa. 1. 11, 12, 13, 14. Yea Solomon saith, The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination unto the Lord. Pro. 15. 8. 21. 27. These places (with many more of a like import, that might readily be added unto them (do with a surplusage of evidence prove, that much benefit did NOT accrue to the doers of the things specified, upon the account of the deed done. And yet of the two, there is much more reason, why benefit should accrue unto the doers of such things of the Law, as these, upon the work done, then upon their being Circumcised. For 4. Whereas he saith, that much of the benefit of Circumcision did accrue to the circumcised upon the work done, if he speaks of those that were circumcised according to the standing Law, viz. on the eight day (who were fare the greatest part of the jewish nation) the work itself of Circumcision was not done by them, but by others to them unknown. Whereas the offering of incense, and of sacrifices, the observation of the new moons, sabbaths, and other feasts appointed by the law, were works done by persons themselves. Now (questionless) if there be any benefit accrueing unto men upon the work done, it is more like to accrue in this kind upon works done by persons themselves, then upon works done totally by others, and without their knowledge, desire, or consent. Nor doth, nor can Mr. A. give us any substantial account, either from the Scriptures, or otherwise, why the benefit of Baptism should be more suspended upon the knowledge, faith, etc. of him who is baptised, than the benefit of Circumcision was suspended upon the like qualifications of the circumcised. For Sect. 128. 5. The Texts of Scripture which he citys, prove no such difference as this between the two Ordinances, Circumcision, and Baptism; nor do they, either divisim, or con●unctim, prove (or so much as colour with a proof) that much of the benefit of Circumcision did accrue to the circumcised upon the work done. For what though the Apostle saith, and this by way of contradistinction from the voice of the Gospel, or righteousness of faith, The man that doth those things, shall live by them, yet is it no part of his meaning to imply, or teach, that by the literal performance of the Legal ceremonies, men, either were, or might have been saved? The Law of which the Apostle speaks, is not the Law of Ceremonies, which Mr. A. understandeth, but the whole system or body of precepts and commandments delivered by Moses. Nor is the Apostles doing those things, the same with Mr. A's doing them. The Apostle must needs be conceived to speak of such a doing of the things of the Law, which includes as well the spirituality, or perfection of the Law, and of the several precepts thereof (at least in will, desire, and endeavour) as the bare letter or externality of it. For God never made any such Covenant with, or promise unto any man, that by doing externals only he should be either justified, or saved; which Mr. A's doing evidently supposeth. Nor doth his second Scripture stand any whit closer to his cause, than the first. For when the Apostle saith (Gal. 3. 12.) The Law is not of Faith, but the man that doth them, shall live in them, his meaning is not, that the Law required not as well the conformity and subjection of the inward man unto it, as viz. in Love, Faith, Holiness, Humility, etc. as of the outward, consisting of a mere bodily observation of so much of it, as might thus be observed; but that the voice, purport, or tenor of the Law, did exact of all those, who expected justification by it (yea in a sense, of all men, simply) an universal and constant obedience and subjection unto it in the whole compass and extent of it, according to what he had more plainly said a verse or two before; Cursed is every one that CONTINUETH NOT IN ALL THINGS which are written in the book of the Law to do them; in which respect it is said not to be of Faith, i. not to promise justification unto any act of Faith, or believing in another. Whereas the tenor of the Gospel, although it simply requireth as perfect and thorough an obedience unto all the precepts of it, as the Law did to all the precepts thereof, yet it exacteth not this obedience upon the same inexorable terms; nor doth it threaten every person, no nor any person, with a curse, who shall not con●nue in all things which are written therein to d● them, in case they shall truly and unfeignedly believe in Jesus Christ. So that these two Scriptures rightly understood, know nothing either of reason, or truth in Mr. A's cause. Sect. 129. His other Scriptures levied upon the same account (p. 27. 28.) do scarce so much as face the design, which they are brought into the field to advance. For what though the ministration of the Law be called, the ministration of the letter, and the Ordinances thereof, carnal Ordinances, and such as did no● make perfect as pertaining to the conscience? or again, that the Apostle to show wherein the Gospel or new Covenant, exceeds the Law, or old one, saith, that according to this God puts his Laws in the minds of men, and writes them in their hearts. Heb. 8. 10? Or again, that the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth; what is there (I say) in all, or in any of these, or in twenty more of a like import, to prove that much of the benefit of Circumcision did accrue to the circumcised upon the work done; or that the benefit of baptism is any whit more suspended upon the knowledge, Faith, etc. of him, who is baptised, than the benefit of Circumcision was, & c? All that can be inferred from these and such like passages, are only these and such like notions; That God is more communicative of the clear knowledge of himself, and of the mystery of his will concerning the salvation of the world by Jesus Christ, under the Gospel, than he was under the Law; that the anointing of the generality of the Saints with the Spirit, under this dispensation (the Law) was nothing so rich or full, as it now is under the Gospel; that the instituted worship, especially the public worship, and service of God under the Law, consisted in a fare greater number and variety of external rites and observations, than now under the Gospel; that the hearts of the people, yea of the people of God themselves, were (generally) nothing so raised, or enlarged to the obedience of God under the Law, as they are, and especially will be when the time cometh, under the Gospel, etc. But none of these things prove, so much as inshew, that according to the nature of the legal ministration children void of understanding and faith were any whit more capable of holy things; or of the end● and benefits of them in part, upon a literal administration or reception of them, than children now are under the Gospel. For my better information I would willingly sit at Mr. A's feet to learn of him, how, why, in what consideration or respect, children under the Law should be more capable of holy things, or of any part of the ends or benefits of them, than children under the Gospel; or what there was in the Legal ministration, that did accommodate or comport with the natural infirmity, or condition of children, above what there is in the ministration of the Gospel. Certain I am that Baptism is an Ordinance more indulgent unto, and better comporting with, the tenderness of Infants, than circumcision was: and for matter of Spiritual signification, upon the understanding whereof all the material and principal ends and benefits of both Ordinances alike depend, children are as much, and as soon, capable of the interpretation, or signification of Baptism, as they could be of Circumcision. Therefore Mr. A's cause is no whit beholding to those Scriptures, which he hath hitherto importuned for the advocation of it. Sect. 130. Nor doth 1 Pet. 3. 21. any whit more befriend him: nor is his introductory gloss to the words here, so fare as he presenteth them, over-ingenuous, or true. But (saith he, p. 28.) the case is fare otherwise now under the Gospel, [how fare otherwise, and how fare not, we have both lately, and formerly showed] which is the ministration Mr. A p. 28 of the Spirit. It is not the work done, but the manner of doing it in knowledge, faith, and fear of the Lord, that entitles men to the benefit, and blessing of Gospel Ordinances. For so the Apostle affirms concerning BAPTISM ITSELF, 1 Pet. 3, 21. where he says, that it saves us now, as the Ark did some in the days of Noah; not (saith he) the putting away of the filth of the flesh (i. not by the external letter of the ordinance) but the answer of a good conscience towards God, i. when accompanied with such a frame of mind and conscience, as does answer God's intendments of Grace in that Ordinance. For 1. He saith that Peter (in the words cited) speaks concerning BAPTISM ITSELF, when he saith, that it saves us now, etc. whereas it is evident, that that Baptism, to which he ascribes salvation, is not Waterbaptism, or Baptism in the letter of it (which any reader will think that Mr. A. means by BAPTISM ITSELF) but Baptism in the Spirit, or the answer of a good conscience towards God, as we have the Original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, translated; which words notwithstanding were better rendered, but the demand of a good conscience Godward, or, towards God; [or, as some translate, the stipulatio, or promise, of a good conscience (a) vi. Grotium. in. 1 Pet. 2. 21. unto God.] Yea he expressly rejecteth waterbaptism as insufficient to save men, in these words, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. Now the demand of a good conscience towards God, [i. of a conscience good and pure in his sight] is said to save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (which clause is wholly omitted by Mr. A.) because such a conscience, taking the blessed advantage of the resurrection of Christ for its encouragement, (as it were) demands, claims, and expects with boldness, salvation from God, as due upon promise, and this made upon a valuable consideration, viz. the death and sufferings of Christ. This demand, or claim, may be said to save us, much in such a sense as hope is said to save us, (Rom. 8. 24. For we are saved by hope) viz. as it exhibits and yields unto men, a first fruits, and so a kind of possession, of salvation, in abundance of comfort, peace, and joy. The reason (it seems) why Peter mentioneth Waterbaptism as typically saving us, as the demand he speaks of saves us (in part, and to a degree) really, is, because having had occasion to speak of the preservation of Noah and his family from perishing in the general deluge, wherein all the world besides perished, by means of the ark, he conceived there was a kind of typical resemblance thereof in Baptism, or rather a typical overture made herein by God of such a like preservation unto Godly persons, when the whole world of unrighteous ones round about should be destroyed, and perish in their sins. So that Peter in this place, ascribes no other salvation, or salvation in no other sense, unto Baptism itself (I mean, unto Waterbaptism) than wherein it was altogether as ascribable unto the carnal Observations, as viz. to the offering of Bulls and Goats, etc. under the Law. For as these did overture, and (after a sort) promise salvation, by the true sacrifice of the Messiah, yet to be obtained and enjoyed by those only, who believe; (we always in this case speak only of persons capable by years, and discretion of believing) so doth Waterbaptism hold forth pardon and forgiveness of sins, and consequently salvation, as attainable by all those, and those only, who repent, and consequently believe. And as Baptism edifieth, profiteth, blesseth no man, but only those, who repent and believe; so neither did Circumcision (as we formerly heard) nor other external Observations under the Law. Therefore Mr. A. hath caught nothing at all by fishing in these waters, for the relief of his cause. Nor needed he at all have troubled either himself, or his reader, with quotations from the Scriptures, to prove, that a baptising with water without a baptising with the Spirit also, makes more against, then for, him, that shall be baptised: nor hath he ministered any thing to the necessity of his cause hereby. This required at his hand, that which he had not to give unto it, I mean, a substantial proof, that the nature of the ministration of the Law was such, that the literal and external performance of the Ceremonies and carnal Ordinances thereof, were, without repentance or faith, of better acceptance with God, and more available to the salvation of the Performers, than Gospel Ordinances are without the like qualifications. Sect. 131. 2. Whereas he saith (p. 28.) that Infants, as they are not capable of acting this faith, or making this answer of a good Conscience, so they are not capable of those blessings and benefits intended by God in Baptism, in as much as he hath suspended the donation thereof upon these, in conjunction with Baptism; I answer, 1. It hath been sufficiently proved, that Infants are capable (though with a mediate, or remote capacity) of acting Faith, as well as men. See Sect. 64, 65, 68, 69. (In which respect also they are capable of making the answer of a good conscience, as well as men) where it was proved likewise, that neither are believers themselves always in a present or immediate capacity of acting their Faith. 2. Full proof hath been made likewise (and the thing is evident enough in itself) that children are capable of those benefits and blessings intended by God in Baptism, as well as men; as the children of the Jews were capable of the blessings and benefits intended by God in Circumcision, as well as men. But 3. (And last, for this) whereas Mr. A: saith, saith, that He hath suspended the donation thereof upon these, in conjunction with Baptism, he only saith it, and this (indeed) is more then enough, being ill consistent with his own say elsewhere, and much more with the truth; I would gladly know of him what those benefits and blessings are (or if it were but some of them) the donation of which he conceives is suspended by God upon the acting of Faith, and making the answer of a good Conscience, in conjunction with Baptism. If he supposeth remission of sins to be any of these blessings or benefits, this, both according to his own Doctrine, p. 16. and the clear truth itself, is annexed by God covenant-wise unto Repentance; which being required antecedaneously (at least according to the pleasance of Mr. A's principle) unto Baptism, the donation of it cannot be suspended by God, upon the acting of Faith, or any thing else, in conjunction with Baptism. For the donation of that, which is promised, and given accordingly, upon the antecedent, cannot be suspended, either in whole, or in part, upon the consequent, nor upon any thing in conjunction with it. Mr. A. in the said 16. page, supposeth, that Baptism, either is, or may be, called the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins, because God thereby signifies and seals unto men the remission of their sins UPON THEIR REPENTANCE; and not long after; that it is, or may be so called, because the persons who are baptised, do thereby profess and declare unto the world, that they look for remission of sins from God UPON THIERRY REPENTANCE. The Fountain at this hole sends forth the sweet waters of the truth, asserting remission of sins unto, and upon, Repentance: but at that before us, the bitter waters of error, which suspendeth remission of sins (at least, if this be any benefit intended by God in Baptism) upon the acting of Faith, etc. in conjunction with Baptism. I confess there are blessings & benefits intended by God in baptism: but when Mr. A. shall declare unto me, what blessings and benefits he meaneth, when he saith the donation of them is suspended, etc. in conjunction with Baptism, I shall take his declaration in this kind into further thoughts. In the mean time my sense is, that such blessings and benefits may be intended by God in baptism, the donation of which is not absolutely, universally, or in all cases, suspended either upon Baptism, or upon any thing in conjunction therewith. Thus we see that Mr. A's second difference, whereby he seeks to disparallel the circumcising of Infants, and their baptising, is before the light of the truth, but as chaff before the wind. The spiritual benefit of Circumcision did no more accrue unto the Circumcised upon the work done, than the benefit of Baptism unto the baptised. Sect. 132. His third and last difference may be well bound up in Mr. A. p. 28 29. the same bundle of impertinency with the two former. The sum and substance of it as the Reader may find it p. 28. 29. of his discourse) amounts only to this; That the Ordinance of Circumcision was so much the less Spiritual, and so much the more weak, and savouring of the Legal ministration, and suited to the then childish condition of the Church, because administration thereof was made to infants. From whence he soon after infers: however such a mean, low way and method of enjoying Ordinances, as was accommodated to the capacity of Babes, was not uncomely whilst the Church was in the condition of children, as the Apostle speaks Gal. 4. 3.) no more than it is for a child, whilst he is a child, to speak and act as a child; yet to retain this poor, and low, and barren way of administering a Gospel's Ordinance to Infants, now the Church is raised both in capacity, and administration to its manly condition, is as incongruous & uncomely, as it is for one still to speak & act as a child, when he is become a man. This with the two former particulars, is (it seems) all that Mr. A. hath to say, to destroy the analogy between Infant-baptism, & Infant-circumcision. How little this analogy hath suffered from his two former considerations, hath been lately showed; and that it suffers no whit more by this third and last, is a matter of easy demonstration. For 1. The groundwork and foundation of his building here is sandy and lose. For he supposeth that Circumcision was therefore, in that consideration, a weak, or less Spiritual Ordinance, because the administration of it was made unto children; and semblably, that Baptism would be, or must appear to be, a weaker and less spiritual Ordinance than it is, in case it were to be administered unto children. Whereas the evident truth is, that the strength, richness, or spiritualness of an Ordinance, doth not so much (if at all) consist in the strength or spiritualness of the subject, to which it is administered, or is administrable, as in the intrinsical nature of it, richness of signification, or promised presence of God with it. Circumcision was the same Ordinance, equally spiritual, and no whit more weak, when it was administered unto Isaac, and afterwards unto Paul, on the eight day, than it was when administered unto Abraham himself, and afterwards unto those who were circumcised men, Josh. 5. As suppose we (that which I know Mr. A. supposeth) those members of the Church of Corinth, whom Paul could not look upon as spiritual, but as carnal, and BABES in Christ, (1 Cor. 3. 1.) to have been all baptised, was the nature of this Ordinance altered, or changed, from the greater to the lesser spiritualness, by the administration of it unto such babes, as these? Or was it an Evangelicall Ordinance when administered unto Paul himself, and Legal, when administered unto weaker christians? Sect. 133. 2. I would know of Mr. A. whether the Lord Christ, when he laid hands upon the little children that were brought unto him, Mat. 19 15. Mar. 10. 16. did not retain that poor, and low, and barren way of administering a Gospel's Ordinance unto children, (as Mr. A. is not afraid to term it) Or doth he think that that imposition of hands, which he administered unto these children, was not a Gospel, but a Law-ordinance? or doth he not think that children are capable upon the same terms, and in the same respect, of the ends and benefits of Baptism, whatsoever these may be supposed to be, as they were, or are, of the ends or benefits of imposition of hands, whatsoever these be? 3. To the shame and confusion of those rational principles (falsely so called, which notwithstanding Mr. A. dares avouch to be consonant to the Scriptures) it hath been proved and evinced, that Baptism is as much, or more, spiritual, profitable, and edifying, when applied to children, as when it is administered unto men professing the faith; even as Circumcision was as much, or more, edifying, etc. when applied unto children, as when it was administered unto men. See Sect. 56, 73. and elsewhere. 4. Whereas Mr. A. makes the weakness and unprofitableness of the Commandment [i. the Law] for which the Apostle saith it is disannulled, to stand in this (or at least to comprehend it) that it enjoined an Ordinance, one, or more, to be administered to little children; 1. herein he makes himself wise about that which is written, the Scripture no where placing any degree, or part, of the weakness or unprofitableness of the Law, in any such thing. Nay, 2. The enjoining of an Ordinance (circumcision by name) to be administered unto little Children, was so fare from being any part of the weakness and unprofitableness of the Law, that it was a material vein, or part, of that strength or profitableness, that was in it. For weakness und unprofitableness are not simply and absolutely ascribed unto the Law, but comparatively only, viz. in respect of the superabundant strength and beneficialness of the Gospel: otherwise, in simple consideration, the law was excellently beneficial, & of great power to advance the peace, & comforts, and salvation of men. The Scripture giveth large and frequent Testimony hereunto. He showeth his word (saith David) unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgements unto Israel: He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgements they have not known them. a Psal. 147 19▪ 20. The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the Testimonies of the Lord are sure, making wise the simple. The Statutes of the Lord are right, re●oycing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes— the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether, b Psal. 19 7. 8, 9 So the Apostle: what advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there of Circumcision? Much every way: chief because that unto them were committed the Oracles of God. c Ro. 3. 1, 2. Read and consider at your leisure, Deut. 4. 5, 6, 7, 8. Rom. 9 4. Psal. 119. 72, 98, 111. (to omit other places of the same purport without number.) Now than this is that which I say and affirm; viz. that the administration of the Ordinance of Circumcision unto Infants, or the injunction hereof, was a part of that wisdom, of that excellency, of that profitableness, which were found in the Law; and did contribute its proportion of efficacy together, with the rest of the branches and precepts of the Law, towards the blessed effect (mentioned by David) of converting the souls of men. And (doubtless) there would have been a greater weakness and defectiveness in the Law, in respect of this, and such like gracious effects, had the precept or commandment of circumcision been otherwise framed, then now it was, and the standing administration of it enjoined to be made unto men. Sect. 134. The Premises considered, I suppose the Reader cannot lightly but think, that Mr. A. was fare better conceited, than he, of his late discourse touching the differences between circumcision, and Baptism, inasmuch as he concludeth it thus: By this time I hope it appears, that there is not the same reason why Baptism administered unto Infants should reach Mr. A. p. 29 the ends thereof, as there was why Circumcision, though applied to Infants formerly, should attain its end. For the nature of the two Ordinances differ, the terms of their administration differ, and the respective capacities of the Church then, and the Church now, differ: and according to that rule in Logic, where the things themselves differ, there the reason of those things differ also. I answer briefly; It hath been sufficiently proved, and this lately enough, that there is the same reason altogether why Baptism administered unto Infants should reach the ends thereof, which there is or was, why circumcision being administered unto Infants also, should attain the ends of it. Neither doth any difference found, either in the nature of the two Ordinances, or in the terms of their Administration, or in the capacities of the Churches, then and now, diversify the said reason, or prove in the least, that Infant-Baptism should be less sufficient to achieve and compass all Baptismal ends, then Infant-circumcision was to attain the ends of Circumcision. Old relics, and newmade Idols, differ in their natures: they differ, or may differ, in their administrations, or communications, unto the people: Papists and Protestants may be in a different capacity to understand the evil of them: and yet all these, and ten times more, differences like unto these, notwithstanding, there may be the same reason why the one should occasion, or produce the evil which is proper for it to produce, which there is for the other to do likewise. Nor is it true that the Church, during Circumcision, was, in that part (at least) or in those members▪ of it, who by the standing law were to be circumcised, (I mean, in the children or Infants belonging to it) in a different capacity from the church now (under Baptism) in the Infants hereof. The Infants of the church, or of Believers, now are as capable of the ends of Baptism, as the Infants of the Jewish church were of the ends of circumcision. Therefore Mr. A. all the while he hath been labouring to overthrow the parallel between Infant-Baptism, and Infant-circumcision, hath dwelled at the sign of the Labour-in vain. And this is the unhappy end of his second argument magnifying itself against Infant-baptism. His third Argument waits the leisure of this preface. Sect. 135. My next argument shall be taken from the different nature of the two ministrations of the Old and New Testament, M. A. p. 30. as rendering Infant-Baptism, in that precise consideration of it as APPLIED TO INFANTS, disagreeable to the ministration of the Gospel, but withal more correspondent with the ministration of the Law. Therefore thus I further argue. I suppose we had the strength of what he is able to argue from the different ministrations of the Law, and of the Gospel, against Infant-baptism, in the prosecution of his former argument. Nor do I apprehend what purchase he hath made with this Preface, unless it be of a blot of disparagement, in supposing, that Infant-baptism Infant-Baptism is very unproperly said to be applied unto Infants. may be considered, as applied to Infants, and in this consideration, to be disagreeable to the ministration of the Gospel. If Infant-baptism, be in no other respect disagreeable to the ministration of the gospel, but only in the precise consideration of it as applied unto Infants, it will be found sufficiently corresponding with this ministration. But though the usherie of the argument approaching be but weak, yet it is possible that the argument itself may be strong. A man that stumbles at the door, may behave himself worthily in the house. Therefore let us now see whether Mr. A. doth not gather up as much, or more, in his argument, as Mr. A's third Argument, p. 30. he scattered in the Introduction. His third argument than is this. If Infant-Baptism be disagreeable to the ministration of the new Testament, than Infants ought not to be baptised, But Infant-Baptism is disagreeable to the ministration of the new Testament. Ergo, If the minor in this argument had been a meet helper, or match, for the major, they had between them established the throne of Antipoedobaptism for ever. But Now the Syllogism is like those equivocal and imperfect animals bred of the s●ime and mud of the great deluge: A●tera pars vivit, rud's est pars altera tellus; i One part's alive, the other, unformed earth. And that Proposition which is strong, and which needs no proof, Mr. A. proves very substantially: but that which is weak, he supports with straws instead of props and pillars; Dantur opes nullis nunc, nisi divitibus; Rich gifts to rich men only given are: What refuse is, falls to the poor man's share. Sect. 136. However, suffering Mr. A. to enjoy his major Proposition, with the proofs thereof, in peace, let us fairly and freely consider, whether there be the same reason, why he should enjoy his minor, with the proofs thereof, upon the same terms. 1. (Saith he) the Truth hereof (meaning, of his minor Proposition) in the first place, is conspicuous and perceptible, [i. is fully manifest, & may by a narrow inspection haply be discerned] by what hath been made good in our former argument. For there we proved, Baptism, as administered to Infants, less edifying, as to the several ends of it, then when administered unto Believers: and if less edifying, than the more suitable and comformable to the ministration of the Law, which was a ministation of less light and edification: and to the same proportion, disproportionate to the ministration of the Gospel, etc. I answer; 1. If Mr. A. hath nothing else to make good his minor Proposition in this argument, than what he made good in his former, the Proposition must stand upon its own bottom, and shift for itself. For it hath been made good, that in that argument he made nothing good at all, at lest nothing relating to his Proposition here. 2. Whereas he bears upon this Principle, that what is less edifying is more suitable and conformable to the ministration of the Law, because this was a ministration of less light and edification, doth he not lean upon a broken reed, that will pierce his hand? For suppose we (that which is little questionable, or however, possible) that the ministry, or preaching of Andrew, Bartholomew, or or any other of the Apostles, was less edifying, than the Ministry or preaching of Paul, doth this prove that their Ministry was in any degree suitable, or conformable to the ministration of the Law; or however, unsuitable unto, or unlawful under, the Gospel? But this reason we formerly weighed in the balance, and found it light▪ See Sect. 53. 118. and elsewhere. 3. (And last) it hath been sufficiently also proved against Mr. A's notion, that Baptism as administered [i. as it may, and aught to be administered] unto Infants, is not less edifying, but rather more, than when administered unto men. For this see Sect. 56. Thus we see that Mr. A's first demonstration of his minor Proposition, being truly cast up, amounteth to just nothing. Hear we therefore his second. Sect. 137. Mr. A. p. 30 31. 2. I might, in the second place, well suppose Infant-Baptism to savour strongly of the Legal Ministration, because the principal arguments, produced in defence thereof are such as do arise out of, and are deducted from the example of Infant-Circumcision, a principal part of the legal ministration, and from the analogy or proportion, which is supposed to be between them, and not only so, but likewise because such arguments and pleas tend to draw down this part of the Gospel's ministration, as applicable to Infants, unto the line and level of the Legal. For answer; 1. This proof is guilty of the capital crime of untruth, affirming, that the principal Arguments produced in the defence of Infant-baptism are deducted from the example of Infant-circumcision. a A little after (to the same purpose) he saith, that these arguments for Infant-baptism, are as the axletree upon which the controversy on the Poedobaptists side turneth, & as the we●p running all along that piece of that discourse. I believe Mr. A. himself knoweth the contrary; as viz. 1. that we do not at all plead Infant-baptism from the example of Infant-circumcision: we knowledge and profess, that Infant-circumcision, under the Law, would be no ground, or warrant of Infant-Baptism under the Gospel, did not the Gospel itself commend the Ordinance of Baptism unto us; and 2. that our principal arguments (as he calleth them) for Infant-Baptism, are founded upon New-testament passages, and Evangelicall considerations; as our writings and arguings do sufficiently testify. 3. That we do not (however) draw arguments (as he twice chargeth us, in the plural number, as if, not only our principal arguments, but the greatest part of the whole number of them, were drawn) from the example of Infant-Circumcision. He cannot prove, so much as with colour, that we draw any plurality of Arguments for Infant-Baptism from that example. 4. That we do not in our disputes about Baptism, so much mention, or insist upon the example, as the precept or institution itself, of Infant-Circumcision. Therefore the very head, groundwork, and substance of this second proof of his said Proposition, is a notorious untruth: and consequently, all that he buildeth upon, it (p. 31, 32, 33. I mean, upon this supposition, that our principal arguments for Infant Baptism, are deducted from the example of Infant-Circumcision) must needs be eccentrical to his cause. But 2. Suppose we should build our Tenent of Infant-Baptism under the Gospel, upon the example of Infant-Circumcision under the Law, (which notwithstanding we are free and fare from, as hath been showed) were we not as justifiable as Mr. A. himself in building his Tenent (and practise answerable) concerning the unlawfulness of Church-communion with persons by him called unbaptised, upon that Legal precept, by which uncircumcised persons were excluded from communion with the Jewish Church in their holy things? See pag. 109. of this his discourse: and pag. 11. of his answer to the 40. Queries. But the rudiments of the world (it seems) are substantial and firm ground for Mr. A. to build upon, but Bogs and Quicksands to his Baptismal Adversaries. Sect. 138. 3. Suppose there had been no such Ordinance as Circumcision under the Law, no precept that Infants should have been circumcised; yet upon a supposal of this Ordinance given, or to be given, there would have been the same reason, one or more, which now there was, why it should be administered, & consequently, why God should enjoin it to be administered to Infants. Now that we interest the mention, either of the example, or of the precept, of Infant Circumcision, in our disputes about Baptism, we do it not so much, if at all, for the letter of either, as for the spirit of them; i. for those reason's sake, upon which we ●udge them to have been founded by God. For though the letter of the Precept enjoining Circumcision, and so the practice of Circumcision conformable hereunto, be purely Legal; yet the reasons upon which the precept was given, and the practice stood, or aught to have stood, were Evangelicall; my meaning is, that the Precept of Infant-circumcision was calculated by God for this end, and with this intention given by him, that by such an Administration, as the precept directeth unto, and enjoineth, the Ordinance might be the more richly edifying to the Church now in being. There is the same consideration of all other ceremonial precepts and injunctions under the Law. Though the matter of every of these precepts (respectively) or the external ceremony itself enjoined, was such, that by no form whatsoever put upon it, or by no ordering or disposing it, it could be reduced to an equal serviceableness in matters of edification, with the rich and high discoveries of the Gospel; yet was it so ordered and disposed by God in the use and practic of it, that it might yield to the Church the most spiritual benefit, and best degree of edification, which it was regularly capable to do. And if any thing appertaining to the manner of any legal service or ceremony enjoined, had been altered or changed in the command, and so in the practice, from what was now directed and prescribed, it would have been prejudicial to the benefit and edification, which the Church now received, or might have received, by those ceremonial services. Otherwise we must say, that men themselves (the Jews) might possibly have bettered their spiritual condition, by altering and changing, at least in some particulars, the Law given by God himself unto them, and this for the advancement of such their condition. The clear amount or consequent of this discourse is, that in case there be any ceremony, or ceremonial service, enjoined by God under the Gospel, of like nature and consideration with any of those, which were prescribed in the Law; unless the manner and terms for the use, practice, or administration of it, shall be the same (at least in the main) with those directed for the practice of the corresponding ceremony under the Law, this Gospel's ceremony must of necessity be the less edifying by means of a variation in this kind. Now that Baptism is a ceremony, or ceremonial service under the Gospel, corresponding with Circumcision under the Law, is in itself so manifest, and so generally by sober and considering men acknowledged, that I suppose Mr. A. is too tender of forehead to deny it. If so, than it roundly followeth, that, inasmuch as the Law prescribed the ordinary administration of Circumcision unto children, the Gospel must allow, or intent, the like administration of Baptism unto children likewise; otherwise the administration of it must be less beneficial and edifying to the Christian Church. Therefore Sect. 139. 4. Whereas Mr. A. saith, that such Arguments and Pleas [he means, which are deduced from the example of Infant-Circumcision] tend to draw down this part of the Gospel's ministration [he means, the administration of Baptism] as applicable unto Infants, unto the line and level of the legal, doubtless he understandeth not what he saith. For 1. if Baptism be no part of the Gospel, but an appendix only, (which I suppose was sufficiently proved, Sect. 102.) then is not the administration of Baptism properly any part of the Gospel's ministration, but only an administration collateral hereunto. But 2. grant we the administration of Baptism to be a part of the Gospel's ministration, Mr. A. had small reason to complain, that we by applying it unto Infants, draw it down TO the line and level of the Legal, when as himself, and his, by denying it unto Infants, draw it down many degrees beneath the Legal ministration he speaks of. For this (as we lately shown) made the best improvement of the Ordinances and ceremonies then on foot, for the spiritual benefit and accommodation of the Church in edification and comfort, that well might be; and upon this account ordered the standing administration of Circumcision unto Infants. Nor is the Gospel ministration itself, in any such respect preferred before the Legal, either by Christ, Paul, or any other Apostle, viz. that the administration of the Gospel ceremonies is contrived either with more wisdom, or more goodness by God, for the accomplishing of the gracious ends intended (respectively) in them, than the Law-ceremonies and services were in reference to their respective ends: but, partly because the ceremonies of the Gospel, are more rich in signification, than those of the Law were, and consequently their respective ends are more rich and gracious; partly because Gospel discoveries of God, and of the mystery of his will concerning the salvation of men, are much more full and glorious, than the Legal were; partly also because there is a larger donation, or effusion of the Spirit, and so the hearts and consciences of men more effectually dealt with, under the Gospel, then under the Law. So that that administration of Baptism, which Mr. A. censureth, compared with that which he approveth, is rather a drawing up, than a drawing down, of the Gospel's ministration, if, and so fare as, this is concerned in it, to the line and level of the Legal. Sect. 140. Whereas in process of his second proof of his minor Proposition (which hangs heavy on his hand) speaking M. A. p. 31. of Arguments drawn down by Poedobaptists from the example of circumcision, demands, what are they else but such, which are after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, i. e. such as are according to the ministration of the Law, which was by Moses, and not according to that of the Gospel which is by Christ (p. 31.) 1. Answer hath been made, that in his sense of the clause, after the rudiments of the world, his Argument drawn down from Circumcision, to prove the unlawfulness of Church-communion with Saints by him called unbaptised, is as much, (or more) after these rudiments, as any the Arguments derived from the same fountain for Infant-baptism. I here add; 2. That by, the rudiments of the world, Col. 2. 8. according a) See Calvin, Grotius, Estius, and others upon the the place. to very able Expositors, is not meant the Mosaical ceremonies, but Philosophical Institutions and disputes: And indeed, the scope of the place well considered, this interpretation will be found the most genuine and proper. Therefore all that Mr. A. builds upon his ceremonial sense of the Phrase, to fortify his second proof of his Proposition in hand (which is, upon the matter, the whole building here) is built upon a very slippery and lose foundation, & which itself needeth establishment; if any thing can be said to need that, which it is uncapable to receive. Yet 3. Understand we by the rudiments of the world, Mr. A's understanding, I mean, Mosaical Ceremonies; yet have we no ground at all to think, that the Apostle rejecteth Philosophy, or things of humane tradition, as being after the rudiments of the world in such a sense as this, viz. because they are managed and ordered by such principles of wisdom, as those by which the Mosaical ceremonies were ordered by God, which yet must be M. A's sense, to make his citation of the words any ways pertinent to his purpose. But if we must needs, for Mr. A's sake, though contrary to reason, interpret the rudiments of the world, the ceremonies of Moses; that character of evil, or of danger, upon things, which the Apostle placeth in this, that they are after the rudiments of the world, must be conceived to stand in this, that they are of like nature and consideration (in appearance) with the old ceremonies of the Law, viz. external and carnal rites and observations, having no communion with the spiritualness or inwardness of the Gospel, which hath chief to do with the hearts & souls & consciences of men, and enjoineth such ways, and actions, and exercisings of themselves unto men, which are proper to arise and proceed from an heart sanctified thorough Faith, and filled with the love of God. Now Baptism, to whomsoever administered, cannot in any such sense as this be▪ said to be after the rudiments of the world, or the Legal ceremonies: because it is an Evangelicall Ordinance, and commanded by Christ himself: or if it be after these, it is as well, and as much after them, when administered unto men and women, as when unto children; inasmuch as the nature of it is not altered or changed by being administered unto men. So that Mr. A. is extremely out of his way, to think that the Administration of Baptism unto Infants, is any ways touched or concerned in that clause of the Apostle, wherein he censureth things as dangerous, and of threatening consequence, for being after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Sect. 141. Although it nothing concerns the cause in hand to follow him in his Answers to that objection, which he falls upon (though very unseasonably and irrelatively to the business before us, and led unto it by the false light of his understanding the clause lately mentioned, after the rudiments of the world) p. 32. yet to afford him an opportunity to reflect upon his importunity in opposing Infant-Baptism, let us endeavour to show him the Mr. A. p. 32 weakness of his answer thereunto. The Objection (as himself propounds it, p. 32.) is this, That both our Saviour, and his Apostles, vindicate and assert practices under the Gospel, from the examples and practices under the Law; as the disciples gathering ears of corn on the Sabbath, from David's eating the show bread, etc. Mat. 12. 3, 4, 5. The ministering in carnal things to Ministers of the Gospel, from the not muzling the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn under the Law, 1 Cor. 9 9, 10. To this Objection he answers, 1. that it doth not appear that men of private spirits, wanting that infallible guidance of the holy Ghost, which Christ and his Apostles had, may use like liberty in this behalf. But (for answer to this answer) 1. Are not seeing men competent guides unto those that are blind? And if it be not lawful, or safe for us to follow or imitate Christ and his Apostles in any thing they did, because we want the infallible guidance of the holy Ghost, which they had, what Christian or worthy way (almost) is left for us to walk in? 2. Whereas he seems to distinguish between the guidances of the holy Ghost, and to make some infallible, and others fallible, I can at no hand subscribe his distinction. I cannot believe any guidance whatsoever of the holy Ghost, to be fallible, i● such which may misled, or deceive, those that are guided by it. Only if by an infallible guidance, he means such a guidance, which they who are partakers of it, know certainly to be such, (I mean infallible) and by a fallible guidance, such, that they who are guided by it, may possibly doubt whether it be his guidance, and so infallible, or no, and in this respect may deceive them, his distinction (I suppose) may pass. But than ●. Of what guidance of the holy Ghost can we be more confident that it is his, and consequently, infallible, then when we are led by him to such grounds and principles of arguing, upon which he taught those to argue and conclude, in whom his guidance was infallible, and known to be such by these persons themselves, and acknowledged for such by us also? Sect. 142. And whereas Mr. A. endeavours to strengthen his Answer thus: Nay, hath not the presumption thus to do, been the sluice, thorough which many popish superstitions have first entered into the world, as supposing them to hold an analogical and equitable proportion with many the Jewish customs? I answer; That what sluice soever a PRESUMPTION of imitating Christ and his Apostles in the methods and grounds of their arguings, may be for the letting in either of Popish superstitions, or other erroneous opinions; certain it is, that a duly considerate and real imitation of them in this kind, must needs be an happy sluice to let in many necessary and important truths into the world. For how small a portion of those truths, which are importantly necessary to be known, are expressly, or (as we use to say) totidem verbis, delivered in Scripture? And if it be not lawful, or safe, to draw conclusions from Scripture-Principles, or grounds, the christian world must bear an intolerable burden of darkness and ignorance, or of hesitancy and doubtfulness at the best (which is little better than ignorance, if not the same) in things of highest concernment unto it. Yea, if it be not safe to draw conclusions upon the terms now mentioned, Mr. A. with all his Anti-poedo-baptismall train, have run a dangerous course in opposing Infant-Baptism, there being (as is notoriously known) no plain or express Scripture against it, no not yet (the truth is) of any more remote or obscure overture. But Mr. A. seems to be a little jealous that his objection would ride over the head of this answer; therefore he brings a second to encounter it. The tenor hereof, is, 1. Though Christ and his Apostles did both back and illustrate their Doctrine and Precepts from instances and examples under the Law, yet▪ they never made these examples the sole ground and foundation thereof, but these are still built upon that authority, which they had from God otherwise.— 2. The things which both Christ, and the Apostle, in the cases ob●ected, plead for examples out of the Law, were not merely and barely institutive and positive, but of a moral consideration, and so of a more ready perception and deduction from those examples. For answer: Sect. 143. 1. Are the two members of this answer of any good accord between themselves? or when the things which they (Christ and his Apostles) taught, were of a moral consideration, and so of a more ready perception & deduction from Scripture-examples, was it proper for them to insist upon that authority which they had from God otherwise, for the confirmation or avouchment of such things? Especially considering that the Jews, with whom they had, either only, or chief to do, in these reasonings, subscribed to the Authority of the Scriptures, but rejected the Authority of the persons, who argued from them, and did not own them as teachers sent from God. And however, the Apostle Peter maketh the word of Prophecy, [i. the Scriptures of the old Testament] more sure [i. of greater, and of a more rational authority for a man's satisfaction and conviction, touching the truth of what they deliver] then a voice from heaven, 2 Pet. 1. 18, 19 when things taught are of a ready perception and deduction from the Scriptures, and the Divine Authority of the Scriptures acknowledged by the persons, to whom these things are delivered, it is very unreasonable for the Teachers to bear themselves with a strong hand upon their extraordinary Commission or Authority from God to teach, especially towards such hearers, who are hard to be convinced hereof. Nor are the scripture-instances produced by Mr. A. to show the contrary, any ways pertinent to such a purpose. And that he is mistaken in that, wherein he placeth his greatest trust, Mat. 12. 8. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day, I have showed elsewhere, a Water-dipping▪ Consider. 1. pag. 6. directing the Reader where he may find a very sufficient account given, that by, the Son of man, in that saying, is not meant the Lord Christ himself, but any person of mankind, as the the phrase oft signifieth in scripture, Job 25. 6. 35. 8. Esa. 51. 12. 56. 2. Psal. 8. 4. 144. 3. 146. 3. (to omit others.) 2. If neither Christ, nor his Apostles, ever made the Scriptures, or those scripture-examples, upon which they argued and avouched their Doctrine, the sole ground and foundation hereof, by what Authority can we do it? Upon what account can we raise Doctrines from, and build conclusions upon any scripture-examples, yea though the Doctrines we raise and build in this kind, be but of a moral consideration, and of the easiest and readiest perception and deduction from these examples? Or are they, who do raise any Doctrinal conclusion from any Scripture example, worthy reproof for so doing? Or if Mr. A. teacheth this, doth he not make a rod for his own back? Sect. 144. 3. Whereas he pleads, that the things which Christ, and the apostles, in the cases objected, plead for examples out of the Law, were not merely and barely institutive, but of a moral consideration, and so of a more ready perception, etc. pretending, that Infant-baptism hath no moral equity, in, and of, itself discernible to commend it; I clearly answer; that though Baptism itself be institutive and positive, yet Baptism, with the several gracious ends intended by God in it, supposed, (which is nothing, but what Mr. A. himself, as well as his adversaries, supposeth) the baptising of Infants is of a moral consideration, and hath equity, in, and of, itself to commend it. If God intended good by Infant-circumcision, either to the Jewish Church in general, or to the children themselves who were to be circumcised, the administration of circumcision unto children, was of a moral consideration, and had a moral equity in itself to commend it: and they upon whom the duty of the said administration at any time, and in reference to any person, lay, should have sinned against the Law of charity to neglect it. Now there being the same, or as much reason to judge (as hath been formerly argued, and may be further, in due time that God by Infant baptism, intendeth spiritual good, either unto the Infants themselves, who are or should be baptised, or to the Christian Churches (respectively) as that he did intent the like good, either to the circumcised Infants, or Church of the Jews, by Infant circumcision, it roundly follows, that Infant Baptism, notwithstanding Mr. A's opinion to the contrary, is of a moral consideration, and in this respect of a ready perception and deduction from the example of Infant-circumcision; yea and that they who do deprive their children of it, walk uncharitably towards them, and deserve reproof; according to the saying of Beza; a Baptismus sine impietatis scelere contemni nequit, & gravissimam reprehensionem coram Deo & hominibus merentur, qui tantum beneficium differunt, vel sibi, vel suis liberis accipere. Beza. Opnsc. p. 334. Baptism cannot without the great sin of impiety be despised: and they deserve a most severe reproof both before God and men, who delay the reception of so great a benefit, either for themselves, or THEIR CHILDREN; So that things duly and unpartially considered, Mr. A's Objection is too hard for his Answer, the spirit of the former, is the greater spirit. And thus we see, that his minor Proposition, which he hath been all this while labouring in the fire to make strait, remains as yet crooked. His two former probations have afforded no Protection at all to it. But it may he hath kept his best wine to the last; and his third Answer will recover the credit, which his two former have lost. Let us therefore with patience, and without partiality, hear and consider what this hath to say unto us. Another thing by which it may appear that Infant-baptism is not agreeable to the Gospell-ministration, is, in that it M. A. p. 34. differs from it in this property of it, viz. as it is a ministration of the spirit; for so it is called, 2 Cor. 3. 8. It's the ministration of the spirit in two respects: 1. because, in, and by, this ministration, the spirit is given unto men. 2. Because the worship and service, which God receives from men under it, is, or aught to be, more spiritual, then that was under the Law: in both which respects Infant-Baptism will be found disagreeable to it. I answer, Sect. 145. 1. This argument, or probat, is to be commended in this before either of the former: it promiseth full, and undertakes home, in the cause of the Proposition to be secured; the Proposition (as we heard) being this: Infant-Baptism is disagreeable to the ministration of the New Testament. Now his first proof undertook for no more, but to prove Infant-Baptism, not simply disagreeable, but only less agreeable, to this ministration. His second, that Infant-Baptism, as he might well fuppose, savours strongly of the Legal ministration. But this proof, it be as good as its word, will prove Infant-Baptism, simply and rightdown, disagreeable to the said ministration. But 2. Whereas he attempts to prove this disagreeablenesse by this argument, viz. that it differs from it in one particular property, his attempt amounts to no more than the beating of the air. For what though it should differ from it in two properties, which are more than one, yet if it agree with it in others, especially in more, why should it not be judged, rather, or more, agreeable with it, then disagreeable? yea one thing may be agreeable enough with another, when there is a disagreeablenesse between them in many properties, and scarce a similitude in any. Righteousness is agreeable enough with Christ, (and so with a regenerate soul) yet in how many properties or considerations, do they differ? The meat which a man eats, if it be wholesome, though Mr. A. p. 32. 33. it be dead or without life, yet may it be agreeable enough to his body, which is alive. So that this argument, hath not so much as the face or colour of a proof in it. And 3. When he saith that the Gospel-ministration is therefore called the ministration of the spirit, because the worship and service which God receives from men under it, is, or aught to be, more spiritual, then that was under the Law; 1. I do not very well understand what he means by the Gospel-ministration; as viz. whether, the publication or manifestation of the Gospel, which was made by Christ and his Apostles, unto the world, in their days; or whether, that publishing or preaching of it, which hath been made since in generations succeeding▪ by the ordinary ministers and Preachers of it. If he means the former; I confess the ministration of the Gospel may well be termed (as it is by the Apostle) the ministration of the spirit: for the spirit was abundantly poured out, under, and by this ministration. But if the latter, I make a great question whether the Apostle intended to style this, the ministration of the spirit; considering how sparingly, (and for the most part) imperceptibly and without observation, the spirit hath been, or in these our days, is, given under it. This by the way. 2. Neither is it so demonstratively true, that the worship and service, which God (generally) receives from men under the Gospel-ministration (in the latter sense) either is, or aught to be, more spiritual, then that was (in reference to many persons at least) or ought to have been, in respect of all, under the Law. For it is no great shame for any man to believe, that the worship and service, which Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David, (with others in great numbers) exhibited unto God under the Law, was altogether as spiritual, i. had as much of their spirit, heart, and soul in it, as any worship or service which is no● (at least, ordinarily) performed unto him under the Gospel. And it is yet less questionable (of the two) that that worship and service, which Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David, did perform under the Law, were no works of Supererogation, and consequently, not more spiritual, than they ought to have been, or then the Law required. So that this third and last proof levied by Mr. A. upon the account of his said Proposition, hath less in it then either of the former. Sect. 146. Nevertheless Mr. A. maketh a long business to fill up with words an argument so empty of weight and truth, as we have heard. But he that pleadeth an evil cause, cannot do it effectually by speaking truth: and pity it is that Mr. A's understanding should be so over-mated with an unfeasible undertaking, as I find it here. 1. He saith, that Baptism is a part of the Gospel-ministration. If it be so, then is an Ordinance, a piece or part of an action. For certain it is (I suppose, to Mr. A. himself) that Baptism is an Ordinance: and suppose no less certain, that the Gospel-ministration is an action. But who ever notioned, or conceited an Ordinance, to be a part of an action? If he had said, the administration of Baptism is a part of the Gospel-ministration, it had been more regular and proper; though (haply) no whit more a truth. For as Baptism is rather an appendix unto the Gospel, than a part of it (as was formerly showed, Sect. 102.) so is the administration of Baptism rather an Appendix to the ministration of the Gospel, than any part of it. And (doubtless) if Paul had included the Administration of Baptism in the Gospel ministration, when he termed it, the ministration of the spirit, he would have been so far from thanking God that he had baptised so few, as those mentioned by him, 1 Cor. 1. 14, 16. that he would rather have been humbled, or sorrowful, before God, that he had baptised no more. yea in the very next words (ver. 17.) he makes a plain opposition between Baptising, and Preaching (i. ministering) the Gospel, For Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel. Yes, 2 Cor. 5. 18. he expressly saith, that God had given, or committed unto him (with the other Apostles) the ministry of reconciliation [what is this, but the ministration of the Gospel?] again, 1 Cor. 9 17. that the dispensation of the Gospel was committed unto him. Therefore certainly had he judged the administration of Baptism any part of the Gospel ministration, he would not have affirmed, that Christ sent him not to baptise. Sect. 147. 2. Concerning what he argues from Act. 2. 38. to prove that Baptism, when duly administered and received, contributes towards men's receiving the spirit, etc. hath been answered at large already, viz. Sect. 89, 90, 91. etc. I here add, 1. I presume Mr. A. will acknowledge, that when John baptised, Baptism was duly administered and received: yet he did not look upon his Baptism as much contributing towards the receiving of the spirit in respect of a greater presence and operation, nor did he bear his baptised one's in hand, that any such thing was to be expected by it, or from it, but represented it unto them as a matter of inferior concernment, declaring unto them from whom they might expect another Baptism, which was of a rich and high concernment indeed. I indeed have baptised you with water [meaning, that his Baptism was of mean consequence] but he, [viz. Christ, who came after him] SHALL baptise you with the holy Ghost. a Mar. 1. 8. Mat. 11. 11. Luk: 3 16. If upon, or by means of John's Baptism, they had received the Spirit, or had been baptised with the holy Ghost, he would not have said, he SHALL baptise you, or, ye SHALL be baptised with the holy Ghost, but, ye have been already herewith baptised. So likewise, Act. 19 we read of Disciples, who had been baptised by John, or by some authorized in that behalf by john, and therefore their Baptism (doubtless) had been duly administered and received; yet this notwithstanding they had been so far from receiving the Spirit by their Baptism, that they professed that they had not so much as heard whether there were an holy Ghost, or no. And Paul's question unto them, Have ye received the holy Ghost since ye BELIEVED, plainly importeth, that the receiving of the holy Ghost, either depended upon, or was a consequent of their believing, not of their being baptised, according to that of our Saviour; He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly (b) joh. 7.ae 8, 39 shall flow rivers of living waters. But this he spoke of the Spirit, which they that BELIEVE on him [not they, who should be Water-baptized in his Name] should receive. b Gal. 3. 2. So again by a like question put to the Galathians by the same Apostle, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of Faith. [c. i. of the doctrine of Faith, the Gospel] he plainly enough supposeth, that the receiving of the Spirit, was, and is, the gracious and bountiful reward of God unto men's Faith, annexed by promise hereunto, not of their being baptised. And accordingly we read, Act. 10. that all they, who heard Peter preaching the Gospel, upon their believing, received the holy Ghost, before there was any thing done, or spoken of, about their baptising. While Peter yet spoke these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them, which heard the word. a Act. 10. 44. Yea their Baptism was so far from contributing to their receiving the holy Ghost, that on the contrary, their receiving the holy Ghost contributed towards their baptism. Can any man (saith Peter) forbidden water that these should not be baptised, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we? b Verse 47 To the same purpose, and with reference (I suppose) to the same thing, the same Apostle declareth to the Council at Jerusalem, that God gave the holy Ghost unto the Gentiles, as he had done unto them, upon the purifying of their hearts by Faith, and by way of testimony of their believing. God (saith he) made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear ●he word, and bel●eve. And God who knoweth the heart, bore them witness, giving them the holy Ghost, even as he did unto us. And put no difference between us and them, having purified [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] their hearts by Faith. c Act. 15. 7, 8, 9 See ● more upon this account, To these we might add, Gal. 2. 14. Eph. 1. 13. (with others) And though we read of several persons, and sometimes of great numbers, and at several times, baptised, yea ofttimes of persons receiving the Spirit before their being baptised, yet (to my best remembrance) we never read of any receiving the spirit, either immediately upon, no nor yet by means of, their baptising. The report or mention whereof without all controversy, would not have been passed over in silence by the holy Ghost, had there been any such remarkable dispensation; especially considering that he sometimes reports the receiving of the spirit upon the laying on of hands, as Act. 8. 17. and 9 17. and 19 4. 2 Tim. 1. 6. So that Mr. A's Notion about the contribution of Baptism towards the receiving of the Spirit, is clearly, anti-evangelical. Therefore I add. Sect. 148. 2. That when Peter speaks thus to those jews, on whom his preaching had wrought so fare, as to cause them to ask, men and brethren what shall we do &c, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the Name of jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, his meaning is not, cannot be (the Scripture passages lately insisted on, duly considered) that Baptism should contribute towards their receiving of the Spirit, but Repentance; which is (as hath been formerly showed, if my memory faileth me not, or however is of ready demonstration) both of the same nature with Faith, and inseparably accompanying it, and hath the same promises made unto it. For though Baptism be joined in the same exhortation with repentance, and the promise of receiving the holy Ghost made unto those, who shall be found obedient unto it, yet since the same promise appertains unto repentance, apart a) See p. 244. from, and without Baptism, and hath been. performed accordingly (as we have both lately and formerly proved) there is no ground to think, that the promise made to those, that shall obey the said exhortation, should be made with an eye or reference unto Baptism, or as not intended to be performed without this, unto all those who shall. repent. When Christ faith, And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seethe the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life, a joh. 6. 40 he doth not imply, that a seeing of him is as necessary to the obtaining of everlasting life as a believing on him; no nor yet that everlasting life doth in any degree depend upon a seeing of him, although as well seeing, as believing, is mentioned in this promise. Thomas (saith Christ unto him) because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: Blessed are they, who have not seen and yet have believed. b joh. 20. 29 Where 1. it is observable, that blessedness (which is by the Apostle Paul interpreted by remission of sins (Rom. 4. 6, 7.) is annexed by promise unto, or suspended upon believing, without the least intimation of any necessity of a baptismal concurrence herewith for the obtaining of it. 2. That though Christ in the late cited Scripture, joh. 6. 40 mentioned, the seeing of him, together with a believing on him, in order to the obtaining everlasting life [and consequently, remission of sins] yet may everlasting life (and so remission of sins) be obtained by believing on him only without seeing him. Yea to show, that Baptism contributes, neither towards remission of sins, nor receiving the spirit, I add 3. (And last) that the promise, which Peter here declareth unto these jews, was made to them, and their children, etc. the matter of which Mr. A. himself interpreteth to be, remission of sins, and the receiving of the Spirit, was an old Testament promise, either express, or resultive; and consequently could not be made unto, or suspended (in the performance of it) upon Baptism (either in whole, or in part) c See Sect. 95. p. 244. because there was no such Ordinance in being, when the promise was made, nor mentioned as future, in this promise. Therefore it is a clear case that the promise we speak of, was made unto Repentance, or Faith (each including other) without any consideration had of Baptism. But I remember somewhat of this before. Sect. 95. Sect. 149. The irrelativenesse of his two subjoined Scriptures to his purpose (viz. joh. 3. 5. and Tit. 3. 5.) hath been evicted formerly, Sect. 78. Nor is there any whit more, but less rather, in his additional Scripture, 1 Cor. 6. 11. Nor doth the descending of the holy Ghost in a visible manner upon Christ so soon after his baptising, countenance his notion, that Baptism contributes towards the receiving of the Spirit, in respect of a greater presence or operation hereof, etc. Nor doth Mr. A. himself seem to place much in this: in which respect we shall wave the further consideration of it at the present. But whereas in the process of this argument (viz. p. 35.) he saith, The Promise of the Spirit is not made, either to repentance or Baptism singly, but to both in conjunction; those very Scriptures pointed at (a few lines before) by himself (being for the most part the same that we lately argued against him) are abundantly sufficiently to refute him. The Scriptures are, joh. 7. 39 Act. 15. 7, 8. and 19 2. Gal. 3. 14. Eph. 1. 13. See upon this account, Sect. 147. where it is made evident that the promise of the Spirit is made unto Repentance, either explicitly, or implicitly, (I mean as included in Faith) apart from, or, otherwise then in conjunction with, Baptism. The rule which he subjoins, if rightly understood, is right and strait: and thus understood, and applied accordingly, may do good service. Where things (saith he) are promised upon several conditions, or upon condition of several things in conjunction, it is not the performance of one of these conditions, that can put a man into a due and well grounded expectation of the promise. But M. A. hath lately learned, or (I am certain) might have learned, that every thing which is inserted in a promise, or in reference to the obtaining of a promise, condition-wise, [i. in the form of a condition] hath not therefore the matter or force of such a condition, without which the performance of this promise cannot be obtained. And this explication, or limitation of Mr. A's rule, always taketh place in such cases (and possibly in some others) where the blessing promised under the specification of two conditions, or more, in one place, is expressly insured upon the performance of one of these conditions only, in another. a See more of this Sect. 95. p. 244, 245 etc. and Sect. 96, 97. p. 24●. etc. An instance hereof we lately gave from joh. 6. 40. in the preceding Section. Unto which may be added, joh. 3. 5 (as being of somewhat alike consideration) Except a man be born of water, & the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Water seems here to be joined (condition-wise) with the spirit, as necessary, together with the spirit, to put a man into a capacity of seeing [i. enjoying] the kingdom of God. Yet it appears from the 3. verses immediately following, where this capacity, under the notion and name of a new▪ birth, is attributed unto the Spirit only, as likewise from the general current of the Scriptures, that the Spirit, by the word, is the sole worker of this capacity in men. See 1 Cor. 6. 11. and 2 Cor. 3. 6. 2 The. 2. 13. 1 Pe. 1. 2, 22. Sect. 150. Whereas he further adds (p. 135.) that Infants are in no present or actual capacity of believing, whilst such, and makes a solemn business of the proof of it, doth he not make himself a companion of those, who are wont to disquiet themselves in vain? For though there be some, as full of their own sense to the contrary, as he can be of his, to whom neither this his assertion, nor yet his proofs of it, are any ways satisfactory; yet were he gratified with a peaceable assent unto both, his cause would be little gratified hereby. For, Though the ministration of the Law, or rather of the Gospel under the Law, was (as the Apostle notioneth it) a ministration of the letter, (as we formerly heard) yet his sense herein was comparative only, not simple or absolute (as we largely proved, Sect. 133.) For The Spirit of God was in some measure and degree given under, & by this dispensation; though the proportion of this gift in respect of the generality of men, was very little considerable, compared with the rich effusions of this spirit, under, and by means of, the ministration of the Gospel; especially about the first entrance of this ministration into the world (as not long since, viz. Sect. 145. we distinguished.) And there is nothing more familiar or frequent in the Scriptures, then to express a comparative sense in words of a positive or absolute 1 Cor. 1. form. Christ sent me not to baptise, etc. i. not so much to baptise. So, Labour not for the meat which perisheth, joh. 6. 27. but, etc. i. labour not so much for this meat. Receive my instruction, and not silver. i. Be more ready Prov. 8. 10: and willing to receive my instruction, than silver, (besides many the like). Now if the ministration of the Law was simply & absolutely a ministration of the Spirit, though not comparatively, and God himself notwithstanding judged Infants in a sufficient, yea in the best, capacity, to partake of a principal part of this ministration (I mean, of the administration of Circumcision) evident it is that the present incapacity in children under the Gospel to receive the spirit, is no bar in their way against their admission to participate in Baptism, only because this is a part of the Gospel's ministration, and this ministration is the ministration of the spirit. For he that thus argueth, what doth he less than put God himself to rebuke, who judged Infants, such an incapacity notwithstanding, capable enough of the initiatory part of such a ministration, which was a ministration of the Spirit also? Sect. 151. Mr. A. was not (it seems) ware of this answer to his argument in hand; but he was jealous of another; which he seeks to waylay by proposing it (Objection-wise) and so to shape an answer to it. Nor can it (saith he) reasonably be supposed here, that M. A. p. 36. such a notion as this will salve this sore, viz. that Baptism may be received by Infants in order to their receiving the Spirit, when they come to believe, and so their Baptism come to be agreeable to the Gospel-ministration as it is a ministration of the Spirit, notwithstanding it be received in Infancy; Because Baptism hath no influence this way as it is a work done; in which respect only Infants are capable of it, but as it is done, submitted unto, and taken up out of Faith, and in obedience unto God, as hath been already proved in part, etc. I answer. 1. That the sinews of this Answer were lately cut insunder, where we proved, that God himself judged Infants, notwithstanding their actual incapacity of receiving the Spirit, capable of communion and fellowship in a principal part of such a ministration, which was a ministration of the Spirit, as well as the Gospel-ministration itself, though much inferior in this consideration unto it, see Sect. 133. Yet 2. Whereas he saith, that Baptism hath no influence this way [he means, to, or about, the receiving of the Spirit] as it is a work done, in which respect only Infants are capable of it, but, etc. I answer; neither had Circumcision any such influence as he speaks of, as it was a work done, in which respect only Infants were capable of it, yet did God judge them meet to partake of the administration of it. 3. Whereas he saith, that Baptism hath no such influence as he speaks of, but only as it is submitted unto, and taken up out of Faith, etc. I answer, that as there oft is a subsequent consent to things done, as well as an Antecedent, and that as valid to all ends and purposes, as this; in like manner a consequent submission in Faith unto that Baptism, which was administered unto a person without his antecedent consent in this kind, may be as available unto him for all spiritual ends, as an Antecedent submission could have been. Let me put a case to Mr. A. Suppose any one, or more of his Baptismal Proselytes should at the time of their taking up Baptism, deceive both him, and themselves, conceiting that they submit unto it, and take it up out of Faith, when as they know not what true Faith meaneth (which I have cause in abundance to fear, is a case of very frequent occurrence among the Proselytes of his newfound Baptism, and it was the case of Simon Magus, who it seems deceived both Philip, and himself, in his taking up Baptism) but should afterwards come to be convinced of their error and hypocrisy, in this kind, and thorough the Grace of God be brought to believe indeed, is it Mr. A's sense, that their Baptism, because not submitted unto, and taken up out of Faith, at the time of their literal reception of it, can now contribute nothing towards their receiving of the Spirit, or have no influence upon them this way? Or is it his opinion, that in this case they ought to take another voyage by water to invite the Spirit unto them? If it be, certain I am that there is neither precept, nor example, in the Scriptures, nor any competent ground in reason, to support it. But Sect. 152. 4. We have Examples in the Scripture of edification and spiritual benefit received by men afterwards, by such, both words and actions, which at the time of the hearing of the one, and transacting of the other, were not understood by those, who were in time thus edified by them. When Peter thought it strange that his Lord and Master should come to wash his feet, Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do, thou knowest not NOW: but thou shalt know HERE AFTER. a joh. 13. 7 Might not God have spoken in like manner to every child, which he (by his precept and order in that behalf) circumcised under the Law (the continuance of their lives until years of discretion only supposed.) What I do, thou knowest not now: but thou shalt know afterwards? Or is there not the same consideration of children in their Baptism? When Christ said to Joseph and his mother, how is it that ye sought me? witted ye not that I must be about my Father's business? it is immediately subjoined; And they understood not (viz. at the present) the saying which he spoke unto them; b Luk. 2. 49 50: but were they therefore in no capacity of understanding it, yea and of receiving spiritual benefit by it afterwards? So again, when Christ said thus to his Disciples, The Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men, the Evangelist presently adds, But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not. a Lu. 44. 45 [viz. at the time when it was spoken unto them] Was it therefore spoken unto them in vain? or did it not do worthy execution upon their judgements and consciences in due time? Several other instances there are of like consideration. See Joh. 10. 6. joh. 12. 16. Mat. 16. 6, 7, etc. we formerly shown, that the end of planting is not made void, by the non-fructification of the tree at the time of the planting of it. See Sect, 69. So that Mr. A's first Answer in this place leaves his Objection in full force, strength, and virtue. Nor doth his second answer any whit more disable it. Infant-Baptism (saith he) is disagreeable to the Gospel-ministration M. A. p. 36. as it is the ministration of the Spirit, in this respect also; viz. as it requires all worshippers, in all acts of worship, in all the Ordinances of this ministration, to worship God in Spirit, with the mind, in faith & fear of the Lord. I answer, that to this reasoning, answer hath been given over and over. For 1. it hath been opened, that the Gospel-ministration, is by the Apostle called, the ministration of the spirit, comparatively only, & not with any import or intimation, that the ministration of the Law was in no respect or degree, a ministration of the spirit also. This, Sect. 133, 150. 2. It hath been proved likewise, that the adnistration of Baptism is no part of the Gospel-ministration, but an Appendix only unto it. This Sect. 146. 3. It hath been made good, That Infant-baptism may be agreeable enough to the Gospel ministration, though it should not agree with it in some one property, or particularly in this, as it is the ministration of the Spirit. This, Sect. 145. Therefore whereas he here pretends to give a reason, why Infant-Baptism should be disagreeable to the Gospel-ministration, as it is the ministration of the Spirit, doth he not pretend to give a reason of that which is not? and withal take that for granted without proof, which is denied by his adversaries? Sect. 153. And whereas he appropriates it unto the Gospel-ministration, that it requires all worshippers in all acts of worship— to worship God in Spirit with the mind, etc. as if the Legall-ministration required not the same, this Conceit of his also hath been made to lick the dust at the feet of the Truth, Sect. 100L, 145. So that we have here nothing but braided ware, soiled and foiled notions. But whereas in the further traverse of this Argument, he professeth his ignorance, or want of understanding, how children should be uncapable of the Ordinance of the Supper, and yet capable of Baptism, especially considering Mr. A. 37 that they both represent the death of Christ, both relate to the great benefit of remission of sins, etc. I suppose that this Salve (in his own Rhetoric is proper for this sore, and will heal it without a scar. If Mr. A. can but understand, how a child may be carried ten or twenty See Mr. Rich. Baxter plain Scripture proof for Infants Church-membership, etc. Part. 2. cap. 4. 114. miles, and yet not be able to go this journey, or the like, upon his own legs, (did not that bane of understandings, prejudice, and preoccupation, here intoxicate him) he may as well understand how a child may be capable of the Ordinance of Baptism, and yet not of the supper. For Baptism is an Ordinance of such a calculation, nature, and condition, that, as to the Elementary and literal reception of it, it requireth no principle of action a● all in its subject, but passiveness only, as Circumcision also did under the Law; which among many others (to mention this briefly by the way) is an Argument to me of a very considerable intimation, that it was and is as an Ordinance principally intended by God for such subjects of mankind, which are merely passive, and know not how to act any thing, in, or about, their reception of it. The like counsel of God is observable, in his enditing of that Ordinance, which he intended should be initiatory, and primarily and ministrable unto Infants under the Law. Circumcision was an Ordinance of such a nature, so conditioned, that it required nothing but a regular passiveness in its subject (I mean, its ordinary and most appropriate subject) to the participation of it. But now the Ordinance of the Supper, is of quite another consideration: to take, and to eat, and to drink, and to do all this in remembrance of Christ, require principles and abilities for action in him that performeth them. And me thinks Mr. A's understanding might as reasonably be opposed with this question, how an Infant of the eight day, should be capable of Circumcision, and yet uncapable of eating the Passeover, as how an Infant, being uncapable of the supper of the Lord, should notwithstanding be judged a capable subject of Baptism: yea imposition of hands being an Ordinance of this nature (I mean, not requiring any thing active in its subject about the reception of it) was adjudged by the Lord Christ himself an Ordinance meet for little children, Mat. 19 15. I confess that some very judicious and worthy men, as Austin amongst the Ancient, and Musculus amongst the Modern, have judged it regular and meet that children should be admitted to the Lords Table also. And Luther in one of his Epistles affirmeth, that the Pighards (a) Bohemos, qui parvulos communicant, non probo, quanquam non in hoc haret●co● cenceo. Tom. 2 Epist Lutheri ad ad Nicolaum Haus mannum, p. 333. or Protestants in Bohemia, did in his time admit their children to the Lords Table with them, as (though he disliketh such their custom.) Sect. 154. What Mr. A. subjoineth towards the close of his third argument, he rather repeats, then adds, as himself acknowledgeth. Only when he saith, The whole ministration [he means, of the Gospel] is denominated by Faith (Gal. 3. 23, 25.) because Faith from first to last, from one end of it to the other, is to steer all affairs under it on man's part, etc. here (I confess) is a new Notion, or two. For, 1. by Faith, Gal. 3. 23, 25. I believe never Mr. A. p. 37 any Expositor understood, a ministration, or the ministration of the Gospel, but rather the subject matter of this ministration, or the fuller manifestation of those heavenly truths, which had been more darkly overtured under the Law. Yea himself (pag. 20. of his discourse, as we formerly heard) conceiveth that by Faith, is meant the confessing or acknowledging Christ Jesus to become in the flesh, and to be the Son of God and Saviour of the World. Which interpretation of the word, Faith, is as wide from his present sense of it, as both the one and the other are from the truth itself. 2. Whereas he gives this for the reason of his present sense, that Faith from first to last is to steer all affairs under it on man's part, etc. 1. The great Apostle assigns the great steerage of affairs under the Gospel dispensation, unto love: Knowledge (saith he) puffeth up: but love edifyeth. a 1 Cor. 8. 1 If love edifieth, love must steer and order all things under the Gospell-dispensation: For all things here ought to be done to edification, 1 Cor. 14. 12, 26. Rom. 14 19: and 15. 2. etc. But 2. Grant we that Faith ought to steer all affairs here on man's part, to act all services, etc. ought it not to have done the like under the Law? or did it not the like when children were Circumcised, at least when they were circumcised by those who believed? And may it not do the like now though Children be baptised? Of a truth these are very light and lose reasonings to overrule the conscience of a sober man to the disturbance of the affairs of the Gospel, and disquietment of the Christian world. The premises in the examination of this third argument from first to last, duly considered, can we think that Mr. A. had so much as any tolerable ground to wind up this his Argument in such a vapour as this: Where this qualification [Faith] therefore is known to be wanting, as it is in Infants, certainly their Baptism cannot Mr. A. p. 37 be applied without an apparent breach of the Laws and Rules of this spiritual ministration. And thus also I have made good the Premises of this third Argument. The Conclusion will follow of itself without help, etc. Sect. 155. The Conclusion he speaks of will indeed follow the premises without help. They have been detected of vanity, and are vanished into the air: and thither will the conclusion also flee: let no man stay it. The breach of which he speaks, is very probably apparent, [i. such in appearance] unto men who have prejudiced their sight, and look thorough such a medium, which is ap to cause a mistake. Water, as both reason and experience informs us, will make a strait thing seem crooked; if it be looked upon thorough it. But though Infant-baptism be an APPARENT breach of the Laws and Rules of Gospell-ministration, whilst looked upon by men, who have maimed their judicatory by an unadvised and overhasty Engagement in a by-way, yet being beheld and considered by men of chaste judgements, & free understandings, it is an APPARENT comformity thereunto. Whereas he he saith that he hath made good the premises of his argument, Solomon saith, that which is crooked cannot be made strait. Possibly he hath made them good in his own eyes: but the answer given, will, I trust, thorough the blessing of God, dissolve the enchantment, and make that, which he calleth making good, appear to him to be nothing else but a washie colour. Sect. 156. His fourth and last Argument against Infant-Baptism, Mr. A's fourth and last argument. p. 38. he bringeth upon the stage of his discourse, p. 38. where it acteth its part on this wise. If none ought to be baptised but such who appear voluntarily willing to be baptised in obedience utno God, than Infants ought not to be baptised: But none ought to be baptised but such, who appear voluntarily willing to be Baptised in obedience unto God. In this Argument we have only a new suit of apparel, but the same body of matter, which we met with in the two next preceding Arguments. So that the strength and substance of it have been answered already. Yet because many of those with whom we have chief to do in this writing, are not so well able to distinguish between words, and substance of matter, let us examine the argument in the former words, wherein it stands now last recommended to us. The whole weight and strength of the Argument, depends upon the sense, and truth of this Position, That none ought to be Baptised but such who appear voluntarily willing to be baptised in obedience to God. First, for the sense of this Position; 1. it is doubtful, whether by, voluntarily willing, he means that which the terms precisely import, viz. such, who are freely of their own accord, and without much contesting by others, as by arguments, persuasions, and the like, willing; or whether such, who are very intensely, or more than ordinarily willing, whether this intense degree of willingness in them be from themselves, or from others. For that by voluntarily willing, he should mean nothing but simply and merely willing, especially in a press and close Syllogism, or Argument, is not easy to be believed. Now taking the Phrase, voluntarily willing, in either of the two former significations, the said Proposition is apparently untrue. For not only they, who appear willing of themselves, and of their own accord, or who appear extraordinarily, and without any the least regret, or degree of unwillingness, willing, but even they who appear willing in any such degree, as to require Baptism, may be Baptised, at least, if other things required in those who are, or desire to be baptised, be not wanting. This (I suppose) will not be gainsaid by Mr. A. himself. 2. When the said Proposition saith, That none ought to be baptised, but such who appear voluntarily willing, etc. If it desires to be understood of persons capable of the appearance it speaks of, it may pass. But thus understood, it prevaricates with the Conclusion, which it undertakes, to protect and prove, and doth it no service. Therefore I make no question but the Author's meaning in it is rightout this: That none, i. no person whatsoever, of what capacity, or incapacity soever, aught to be baptised, but such [only] who appear willing to be baptised. The Proposition then in this sense understood, we absolutely deny. Sect. 157. The Reasons of this our denial, are, 1. and principally because the Scripture no where exacteth, or requireth, any such appearing, as the Proposition speaks of, in order to receiving of Baptism, but only of such persons, who are capable of making or exhibiting it. Therefore for men to make it a requisite in all persons whatsoever, and without the exception of any, to capacitate or qualify them for Baptism, is to make themselves wise above that which is written. 2. Circumcision being a Sign and Seal of the righteousness of Faith (as the Apostle affirmeth, Rom. 4. 11. and this in such a sense as we Argued, and proved formerly, Sect. 61. 62▪ etc.) it must needs be an Ordinance of a very near affinity, and comportment with Baptism (as we have formerly likewise declared and made good. a Sect. ●1. If so, God himself having judged such persons meet subjects of it, who did not, indeed could not, appear voluntarily willing to receive it in obedience unto God, who are we that we should exclude persons from Baptism, upon the mere account of such a weakness, or infirmity? Similium similis est ratio. 3. Imposition of hands, at least during the times of Christ, and his Apostles, when it was practised c●m effectu, with some visible effect, and particularly (as we lately shown) with the gift of the holy Ghost, was in this respect a greater Ordinance, than Baptism; which we never find accompanied with the like testimony from heaven in the practice thereof (which we also showed and proved, Sect. 147.) yet were children judged capable and meet subjects of this Ordinance by the Lord Christ himself, Mat. 19 15. Mar. 10. 16. Now then, as the Apostle (1 Cor. 6. 2, 3.) concludeth the Corinthian Saints capable of inferior judicatures, from their capacity of greater; in like manner from that capacity in children, testified by Christ himself, of a greater Ordinance, (viz. inposition of hands) we cannot but judge them much more capable of a lesser; I mean, Baptism: and consequently, that the Proposition contested cannot stand. Sect. 158. 4. The Lord Christ being much displeased (as the Text saith) with his Disciples for discouraging and rebuking those, who brought little children unto him (Mar. 10. 14.) upon the occasion makes this general Order, gives this in charge unto all men, that they suffer little children to come unto him, [viz. in such a sense, as those came unto him, who were now before him, who properly came not, but were brought unto him by others] and not to forbid them. Now 1. it cannot be conceived that Christ made this Order for men's suffering children to come unto him, in reference to his o●n time only, and to his corporal presence on the earth; for we do not find that any more children were at any time brought unto him during his abode in the flesh; nor could he be ignorant that there would no more come, or be brought unto him in this kind. Therefore the said Order must of necessity be supposed to respect (principally at least) the times after his death and ascension, and to enjoin and charge, that such children who should come unto him [in the sense formerly declared, i. should be brought unto him] should not be opposed in their coming at any time unto the world's end. 2. My understanding is not as yet able to comprehend, or conceive, how, or in what way, or respect, children should come, or be brought to Christ, either in these our days, or in any other, since his Ascension, but by baptism only: or consequently, how such a coming, or bringing of them unto him as this can be denied, or opposed, but with a manifest breach of the said Order of Christ made in their behalf. The Reader is desired, to reperuse, upon this account, what hath been formerly argued, Sect. 25. and especially, Sect. 40. The import of these things duly considered by us, render us very bold and strong in our denial of Mr. A's Proposition under debate. Sect. 159. 5. The Apostles Order is, that all things in the Church should be done to edification; a 1 Cor. 14. 26. Doubtless his meaning is, that all things ought to be done to the best advantage, for the best and highest promoting of this end. Now that the constant administration of Baptism unto children, makes much more for the edification of the Church, than the administration of it unto persons of years only, hath been demonstratively asserted formerly, Sect. 56. 73. Yet for the further confirmation and clearing of the business, other considerations may be added to what is delivered in those Sections. .1 There is little question to be made but that God intended the edification of his Church under the Law, and this upon the best terms, not only, or simply, or by Circumcision, or by the administration thereof, but in, and by, his Election of, and precise order about, the more appropriate and standing subject hereof. This, for for the matter and substance of it, hath likewise been already proved, Sect. 138. If the truth of it yet stick in the throat of any man's judgement, and will not down pleasantly, he may be relieved by this consideration. If God did intent the edification of the Church of the Jews by Circumcision, and the administration thereof, and did not likewise intent the edification of this Church in his choice and appointment of the ordinary & standing subject of this administration, than was he divided in, and against, himself; yea and gave such a Law unto his people, one clause whereof observed should tend to bless them, another, prejudice them, or at best do them no service at all. Now if the administration of Circumcision unto children was judged by God himself the most edifying administration of this Ordinance unto the Church of the Jews, upon what substantial account can men deny the administration of Baptism unto children to be the most edifying administration unto the Gentile Churches? The differences pretended by Mr. A. towards the close of his second argument, between the one administration and the other, upon examination of them, we found to be mere impertinences and shifts, from Sect. 120. to the end of Sect. 134. where the Reader may please to peruse their respective examinations. Sect. 160 2. The regular baptising of children inricheth the Church, totie● quoties with the solemn testimony and profession of the Faith of those, who have been (like Mnason) a Act. 21. 16 old Disciples, and have had long experience of the ways of Christ in the Gospel. For such Christi●n Parents, or Friends, who offer their children unto Baptism, do hereby avouch the goodness and truth of the Gospel, and of the Faith hereof, it being every man's sense, that no Parent is desirous to have his child baptised into such a Faith, or Profession, which he judgeth unsound, erroneous, or false. Whereas the Baptising of men and women (at least if they were baptised, as Mr. A. himself acknowledgeth they ought to be, I mean, upon their first believing) accommodateth the Church with the testimony and profession of young converts only, and such who are as yet unexperienced in the word of righteousness, and little other than strangers unto the Gospel. In which respect their testimony and profession cannot be of like authority, weight, or edification to the Church, with theirs, who have been in Christ many years before them, and still continue steadfast in him. 3. Infant-Baptism maketh more for the edification of the Church, than after-Baptism, upon this account also. When Infants are baptised, the whole Church may, and this with convenience, and without breach upon their other occasions, be present, and so partake of all the fruits, benefits, and accommodations of the administration. Whereas when men and women are baptised, very few of the Church, especially in many places, can have the opportunity of being present, the place of the administration in this case being remote, (at least where Rivers or Pools of water, convenient for the service, are not near at hand) and the time likewise of the said administration, can hardly be notified unto the generality of the Church. In which respect this Baptismal administration cannot be much edifying to the Church, nor comparable with that, which may be, and aught to be, (and in part) is, (ofttimes) made unto children. 4. Infant-Baptism affords many more occasions and opportunities for the administration of the Ordinance, and consequently, for the edification of the Church, than Believer baptism doth. For the children of Believers are many more in number, than Believers themselves: and many thousands live to a week, or month, who are prevented by death before they come to years of discretion, and so much as to a capacity of believing. In which respect many baptismal opportunities are lost, and cut off from the Church, which might have been gained and enjoyed, by the baptising of these persons in their infancy. Sect. 161. 5. Whereas the holy Ghost admonisheth the generality of mankid, to Remember their Creator in the days of their youth, a Eccle. 12. 1 they must needs be accessary to the sin of their children in case they do not thus remember him, who deprive them of so great an engagement to this See M Rogers Treatise of Sacraments. part. 1. p. 80. timely remembrance of him, as their having been early baptzied must needs be. And they on the contrary wisely and graciously consult the obedience of their children to that heavenly exhortation, who prevent them with, and lay upon them, a baptismal engagement hereunto, in their Infancy. 1. It cannot be denied but that baptism is an engagement to that duty, which Solomon expresseth by a man's remembering his Creator. 2. Neither can it be denied, but that men and women in their youth, and as soon as they are capable of the duty itself of remembering their Creator, are capable of the said engagement also; I mean, of understanding and conceiving, that their being baptised, is, and aught to be unto them a motive unto this duty. 3. Neither can it reasonably be denied, but that they who are actually capable of a motive or engagement unto a duty, or work, may, thorough want of this motive or engagement lying on them, neglect the performance of the duty, which under an engagement, they would perform, and not neglect. 4. Every man's sense may teach him, that when the two scales of a balance are equally poised, a very small weight cast into either, will cast it. 5. (And last) from these premises it roundly followeth, that any man's children, who know themselves unbaptised, and so free from the engagement of Baptism, may from hence take occasion to neglect the duty of remembering their Creator in the days of their youth, a duty which would lie with more weight and authority upon their consciences (and so weas more likely to be performed) did they look upon themselves as by Baptism engaged unto it. I am not positive in affirming, that ever the Son or Daughter of any Parent did actually miscarry upon the account we speak of: but this I say, with fullness of conviction in my judgement and conscience, 1. that it may very possibly come to pass, that a Child, Son, or Daughter, unbaptised, may be less thoughtful, and careful, to remember their Creator in the days of their youth, by understanding themselves free & lose from a baptismal tie and engagement thereunto. 2. That in case the child of any Parent shall stumble at that stone we now speak of, and fall, and be broken to pieces by it, the parents of this child, being accessary hereunto, will be able to give but a sad account of the loss of their child unto God. 3. (And last) that whatsoever the consequent or event of a non-baptizing a child in his infancy, shall, or may be, evident it is, that in this case, the Parents, or Vice-parents, upon whose hand the Christian nurture of this child shall lie, will want a very material and weighty argument, whereby to work his judgement and conscience to the remembrance of his Creator. And (doubtless) the reason why God threatened the uncircumcised manchild amongst Abraham's posterity, with a cutting off from his people▪ a Gen. 17. 14 was not to signify, that this judgement should universally befall every manchild amongst them, which possibly thorough the neglect of his Parents should be uncircumcised, but to awaken the care and conscience of every Parent of such children amongst them, to circumcise them, lest the want of this Ordinance should occasion them to perpetrate such things, which should and ought to be punished with such a judgement. However, by the consideration now last traversed, in conjunction with the four preceding, it is evident enough that Infant-baptism is a better Benefactresse unto Christian Churches in the spiritual good of edification, than the practice lately risen up in competition with it. And, supposing only the practice of baptising to be still in force, and binding upon Christian Churches (which, may, I doubt not, be sufficiently proved from the Scriptures, and however, is one of the firstborn Articles of Mr. A's faith) there needs no other precept be inquired after in the Scriptures to warrant, yea and more than to warrant (I mean, to commend) the Administration of it unto Infants, but only this (lately mentioned) Let all things be done to edification, (so understood as was briefly suggested) Sect. 162. By this time I suppose an account in full hath been given why we deny this Proposition (asserted by Mr. A. in his last Argument) None ought to be baptised, but those who appear voluntarily willing to be baptised in obedience to God; although for the confirmation of the contrary Opinion, much more hath been said by others, and much more then both, may, or might, be said yet further, if matters of much more weight did not claim pre-eminence. However, let us hear and see what artificial colour Mr. A. can put upon that which is not, to make it seem to be. The reason hereof (saith he, speaking of his said Proposition) Mr. A. p. 38 is this, because without this obediential willingness, Baptism will be unprofitable, and fruitless to them: and where we know the good of Baptism is not to be attained, there it is not to be administered. For in case we should, it would be a profanation of the Ordinance, a taking of God's Name in vain. Though the sowing of seed be never so necessary, yet it would be no man's wisdom, but folly, to sow in such a ground, or at such a season, which he knows will render his seed fruitless. I confess if Mr. A. could prove, that the good of Baptism, is not to be attained by Infant-baptism, or that the seed hereof sown in such a ground as he liketh not, must needs become fruitless, his Proposition might well laugh all opposition to scorn. But such things may be a thousand times over said, before once proved. I doubt not but that the contrary is every man's belief, who hath duly weighed the premises. Notwithstanding Mr. A. (it seems) hopes to find rocks in the air to build these castles upon. That there is no reason (he proceeds) to expect otherwise, but that Baptism should be unprofitable to all such, who do not take it up voluntarily, willingly, and in obedience Mr. A. p. 38 unto God, appears upon this account, 1. Because now under the Gospel, this is the standing Rule or Law between duties and rewards, between the using of holy Ordinances, and the benefit that comes by them, viz. that duties be done, and Ordinances performed willingly, and in obedience to God. And to make this stand, he citys this of the Apostle, (1 Cor. 9 17.) If I do this thing willingly, I have a reward. To this we Answer (as we have in effect answered formerly.) Sect. 163. 1. That standing Rule and Law between duties and rewards, of which he speaks, was a Rule and Law in as much force under the Law, as now it is under the Gospel. See Sect. 127, 130, 145. And without Faith it was altogether as impossible to please God then, as now. This notwithstanding, the counsel of the will of God was, that the Administration of the great initiatory Ordinance, Circumcision, should be made unto children. But of these things, formerly, and (I trust) to satisfaction. 2. The saying of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 9 17. is very impertinently cited for his purpose (and so are the other two, 2 Cor 8. 12. 1 Cor. 13. 3.) For there is nothing more evident, then that this scripture (with those other) speaks of persons actually capable, by reason of years, and understanding, of performing duties and services upon the terms he speaks of, viz. willingly, and in obedience unto God. And accordingly, they who do baptise children, aught to do it willingly, and in obedience unto God: and are like to receive no reward from God for this action, unless it be thus performed. But Baptism, in respect of the baptised, is no action, or service performed: nor doth the reception of it as such, require any principle of action in the receiver. See this sufficiently proved, Sect. 76. and again, Sect. 153. Notwithstanding, as Circumcision, though not received voluntarily, willingly, or in obedience unto God, yet did afterwards profit the receivers, when they did voluntarily, willingly, and in obedience unto God, accept of his counsel therein (Rom 2. 25. Rom. 3. 1, 2.) in like manner though Baptism be not voluntarily or willingly received, the receivers not being capable of commending their reception of it upon these terms, yet if it be voluntarily and willingly subscribed and owned by them, and wisely improved, afterwards, the benefit of it will in full measure accrue unto them. Yea I am of Mr. calvin's judgement in this; that Baptism received in Infancy, and so before a man hath done any good, or performed any service at all unto God, is, in a way of reason, more highly improveable to spiritual ends and purposes, than when received after believing. Sect. 164. But Mr. A. advanceth a second reason to prove Baptism unprofitable to all such, who do not take it up voluntarily, etc. 2. Promises (saith he) made unto duty, or upon condition of duty, are rewards of that obedience, which is yielded M. A. p. 39 to God in discharge of duty, when they are fulfilled thereupon. Now it is no wise proper to say, or rational to suppose, that God rewards his creature man, for that wherein he is only passive, they being such actions, which we call moral, and which proceed from the motion of the will governed by a divine Law, that are rewardable by God. And therefore unless Baptism be submitted unto willingly, and in obedience unto God, which cannot be supposed in Infants, the good things annexed thereunto by way of promissory recompense of such obedience, cannot upon any good ground be expected. I answer, 1. Neither is it proper to say, or rational to suppose, that promises made to duty, or upon condition of duty, are rewards of obedience, etc. For such promises are made or given before obedience: and rewards for service do not use to be given before work, or service. But by promises, I suppose he means, things promised: and yet is it very improper to say that things promised, are made unto duty, or upon condition of duty. But acyrologies in speaking are of easy pardon, when they have truth and worth of notion accompanying them, to mediate for them. 2. Whereas he saith, that it is not rational to suppose that God rewards his creature, man, for that wherein he is merely passive, he saith nothing either to help his own cause, or to harm the cause of his adversaries. For who ever said, on the one hand, or proved on the other, that Baptism was, or is, rewarded by God, unless the word be taken actively, or for the act of baptising, which (I know) is not Mr. A's ●nce here? Notwithstanding it may be some question amongst wiser men then either he or I, whether God in some cases, may not reward his creature, man, for that wherein he is only passive, and particularly, whether he will not reward Rachel's children (as they are called, Mat. 2. 18.) for the loss of their lives by Herod's murderous cruelty, although they were only passive herein. But concerning Baptism, there being nothing in it, simply as such, afflicting or grievous to the flesh, but, as it may be administered and received, rather pleasing to it, I know no ground why any man should look upon it as rewardable by God. Only when (as Mr. A. speaketh) it is submitted unto in obedience to God, I judge it to be rewardable by God, according to the line and measure of other acts of obedience commensurable in difficulty of performance unto it. But as I judge the obediential perseverance and continuance in the profession of baptism, in those who were baptised, when believers, as much (or more) rewardable by God, as their momentany act in their first submission unto it, and receiving it: so I judge a conscientious owning and profession of their Baptism, in those who were baptised Infants, when they come to years of understanding, and their perseverance in this profession unto the end, altogether as rewardable by God, as the voluntary taking up of the Ordinance in conjunction with the like perseverance, in the other. When Mr. A. shall offer unto me a considerable reason for the contrary, I shall demur, until this his reason, and my understanding, have conferred together about the case. In the mean time I cannot but judge a conscientious owning of a man's Baptism, whensoever received, aswell, and as much, yea and as worthy, a moral action, as the receiving or taking it up at any time: and consequently, that the good things annexed▪ unto Baptism (I mean, unto a willing and obediential submission unto Baptism) by way of a promissory recompense, may upon a very good ground be expected, though not by Infants, whilst such, yet by persons, who were baptised Infants, when they come to be men and women, and shall profess such an acceptance of, or submission unto, their Baptism. Sect. 165. The third and last reason, which Mr. A. offereth upon the account lately specified, uttereth itself in these words. 3. I have proved before in another Argument, that now under the Gospel-ministration, there is no benefit comes, either Mr. A. p. 39 40. by Baptism or any other Ordinance, but by means of his Faith, who partakes thereof Without Faith it is impossible to please God, (Heb. 11. 6.) i. e. in any service to approve one's self acceptable unto him. For whatsoever is not of Faith, is sin, Rom. 14. 23. I answer, 1. That I also have proved; that neither did there any benefit come, either by Circumcision, or any other Ordinance under the Legal-ministration, but by means of his Faith, who did partake of them: and yet God judged it meet that Infants should be circumcised. Peruse Sect. 127, 130, 145, 163. 2. It hath been lately showed likewise, that though children did not approve themselves unto God in their being circumcised, yet God did approve of their Circumcision, yea and they who Circumcised them, did, or might, approve themselves unto him in the service. What then hinders but that God may approve of children's being baptised, though children at the time of their baptism cannot approve themselves unto him? And if Circumcision profited those, who were circumcised infant's, by means of that Faith, which was found in them, when they came to be men (as we lately heard) why may not the Baptism received in Infancy, benefit the receivers of it by means of that faith, which by the Grace of God comes to be wrought in them afterwards? So that here is nothing in in this reason, but what hath been outreasoned over and over. Yea Mr. A. himself (it seems) was ware that this Reason of his was Obnoxious to the Answers, which have been given unto it: but excuseth himself thus: I shall not here again answer the case of Infant-Circumcision, Mr. A. p. 40 which possibly may again rise up in the minds of some, against what hath been now laid down in this Argument also; but shall refer the Reader, for satisfaction herein to what hath been already done about that sub●ect in answer to another Objection, as judging it sufficient at this turn also. I answer, that the Sanctuary, unto which he sends his Reader, to secure him from the force of the Objection which he feareth, hath been polluted since the building of it, and is razed to the ground. See Sect. 120. to the end of Sect. 134. Sect. 166. Before he comes to grapple with that Objection or Argument of his Adversaries, with the conquest and overthrow of which be thinks it honourable to sound a retreat, and to ungird his armour, he interlaceth this discourse. I shall not proceed further to leavy more Arguments to Mr. A. p. 40. serve in this Controversy (unless occasionally) though many more of like import with the former, might perhaps readily be form and drawn up, as judging these already insisted on abundantly sufficient to detect the vanity of Infant-baptism. For answer, remembering the Latin Proverb, Suum cuique pulchrum, every man's own is lovely in his own eyes. I look upon Mr. A's conceit of an abundant sufficiency in his Arguments for the purpose he speaks of, but as a strain of that weakness which is much incident to men. It is the wise man's observation; Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: a Pro. 21. 2. Upon the account hereof, it is no great matter of offence to me, that Mr. A. pleaseth himself with a supposal that he hath detected the vanity of Infant-baptism. By way of recompense, I trust it shall be no great offence unto him, that I am confident, that instead of detecting the vanity of Infant-baptism, he hath detected the vanity of his undertakeing against it, and hath confirmed the doctrine and practice which he opposeth, by letting the world see, how little weight, either of reason, or truth, there is in such Arguments which are leviable against them, and how there is nothing to be found in the Scriptures, rightly managed and understood, that condemneth or discountenanceth them. But hear we the process of this his by-discourse. Nor shall I apply myself to answer those many contrary Arguments, which are wont to be mustered up in defence M. A. p. 40. of Infant-Baptism; not because I count them, or any of them impregnable, or of hard or difficult attempt; but partly because in those Arguments I have produced, there is a ground or foundation laid of answering all contrary reasonings, and which is of easy application this way: and partly because some of the chiefest arguments on that side, have been produced already objection-wise, and received their answer: and partly likewise, because this hath been sufficiently done by other hands: and lastly, for brevity's sake, as perceiving copious discourses hereabouts to be burdensome. I answer. Sect. 167. 1. That copious discourses about any Subject whatsoever, when they want light and strength to make good their undertake, are for the most part burdensome. No marvel then if such discourses written against the Doctrine and practice of Infant-baptism be burdensome. Never yet did I meet with any Argument of one kind or other much considerable in that warfare, or of any pregnant import, to disable, I do not say the lawfulness, but the expediency, and consequently the necessity, of Infant-Baptism. 2. Neither do I know any one ground or foundation laid by M. A. in his discourse, in any degree competent for the answering all contrary reasonings; All his foundatians (so called) have been cast down, or else evicted of the crime of irrelativenesse to his buildings. If he be able to nominate any one of them, in which one stone hath been left upon another, or which is not guilty of the sin of impertinency, I will acknowledge his cunning to be beyond my expectation. 3. Neither have any the chiefest Arguments on the Paedobaptists side been produced by him Objection-wise: Neither hath he given the due weight to those produced by him: neither hath he given sufficient and due answers unto them, as produced by him. 4. And lastly; Neither hath the task or thing he speaks of been sufficiently done by other hands; unless he confines his meaning in the word, sufficiently, to the inconsiderate party of men and women, who have gone wondering after his own judgement, whose fancies and consciences being a little disturbed, the shadows of mountains may very possibly seem men unto them, or else unto such, who through injudiciousness and weakness of apprehension, some other occasions (haply) concurring, are prepared to take the impressions of any light pretences for a new way. To persons of this character, what (almost) is not sufficient? Mr. A. having super-sufficiently commended his preceding discourse against Infant-baptism, in those supernumerary passages lately rehearsed, prepares to encounter his last enemy, which he purporteth as such an objection, over which if his pen be but able to magnify itself, he seems to suppose the doctrine of Infant-baptism will suddenly give up the ghost. But because (saith he) there is one Argument, which Mr. A. p. 40. seems to be much taking with some, which as it is of a later invention, the● others, so perhaps hath not received such answer and refutation, as others have: therefore as to this I shall give in somewhat by way of Answer. Sect. 168. By the way, the Reader may please to take knowledge, and consider, that all that Mr. A. hath pleaded for his opinion and practice against Infant-baptism, being clearly disabled and refuted, the credit of his cause is no● recoverable by the Answer of an Objection, though he should do it never so commendably and effectually. For the goodness of a cause, practice, or opinion, is not proved by the insufficiency or weakness of an argument, one, or more, that may be brought against them, no nor yet by the weakness of all the Arguments and Reasons for the contrary which (possibly) have seen the light of the Sun hitherto, but by Reasons and Grounds positively and pregnantly demonstrative of this goodness, and such which with reason and truth cannot be gainsaid. So that though Mr. A. should slay the Argument which opposeth him, in his encounter with it, yet can he not hereby raise his dead, nor cause his Arguments again to live, which are now as so many dead Corpses. Notwithstanding, let us go forward with him, and first hear what the said Argument, or Objection is, as he hath pleased to propound it, and then weigh and consider the substance and pertinency of what he gives in by the way of answer unto it. The Argument (saith he) is this. If the love of God to persons be the first and original ground of their being capable of Baptism, than Infants are capable of Baptism. But the love of God to persons is the original or first ground of their being capable of Baptism. Mr. Ap. 41. What he is pleased to subjoin in the name of those, whom he makes thus to argue, by way of confirmation and proof of either Proposition, respectively, we shall understand, when we come to hear and consider what he answereth unto it. But before we are admitted to hear this, we are desired to observe two things by the way. 1. That this Argument contradicts another that is wont to be employed in this service, to wit, that the promise of God belongs to children of believing Parents, and therefore Mr. A. p. 41, 42. Baptism: by which Baptism is restrained to such Infants only, as are the children of believing Parents. But by this Argument, Baptism is made to appertain to all Infants whatsoever, whether they be children of believing, or unbelieving Parents: because it supposeth all Infants to be in the love of God in the forementioned respect. And therefore if this be true, the other must be false in its restrained sense, and contrarily, if the other true, this false. So that you see the witnesses do no better agree in their evidence in this behalf, than the false witnesses did, that came against Christ in their testimony. 2. This Argument, if it were good, would render not only all Infants capable of Baptism, but all men likewise, whether Christian or Pagan, because they are beloved of God in such a sense, as its said Infants are, viz. in having that sin, of which they were guilty in Adam remitted unto them, etc. Sect. 169. Before I come to speak to these two, by the ways, I must desire also that one thing be observed by the way (on the other side.) This is, that I have ground in abundance to believe, that he never heard any Paedobaptist plead the cause of Infant-baptism by that Argument, which here he undertakes to answer, in those terms, or tenor of words, wherein he exhibiteth it, and that he cunningly changed their terms, that he might gain an advantage for his two by the ways, especially the latter, and withal be supposed to answer their Argument, whilst (indeed) he only answers a mock argument of his own. The Argument, which I suppose he pretends to answer, or would be thought to answer, I acknowledge to have been sometimes urged by myself; nor do I remember that I have met with it from either the pen, or lips, of any other. In which respect I am able to speak with the more confidence what I have said. The true tenor then of the Argument which Mr. A. should have answered, had he quitted himself ingenuously, is this: If the relation of Sonship unto God, and not Faith, or repentance▪ be the original or first ground, or qualification in persons, which render them capable of Baptism, then may Infants lawfully be Baptised. But this relation, and not Faith or Repentance, is the original or first ground in persons, qualifying them for Baptism. Ergo. Haddit M. A. propounded the Argument in these terms, he had had no colour at all (or a very faint colour only) for his latter by the way. For though it be supposed, that all men, whether Christian or Pagan, have, or rather have had, that sin, of which they were guilty in Adam, remitted unto them (for it may be some doubt, whether this guilt, after remission, returneth not again with the guilt of actual sinning, though this be a point that I shall never much controvert) and in that respect sometimes were, or let it be, at present are, alike partakers in the love of God, with Infants; yet doth it not follow from hence that therefore they are equal with them in the relation or privilege of Sonship, or in that love of God which accompanieth this relation. He that committeth sin (saith John) is of the Devil. a joh. 3. ●. See also ver. 9, 10. And the reason why Infants are the Children or Sons of God, is not only or simply because they have the sin, whereof they were guilty in Adam, remitted unto them, but because, in conjunction with this, they are free from sinning against the Covenant of Grace, and so from cutting themselves off from that salvation which is by Christ. Whereas men and women, who have actually sinned, and not repent and belelieved, remain in the gall of bitterness, and bands of iniquity, and are children of Satan, not of God. This for answer to Mr. A's latter by the way, being a purchase made by him, with the one half of the wages of that disingenuity, which he practised, in concealing the true Argument of his Adversaries, and substituting in the place thereof a Changeling of his own. Concerning his former by-the-way. I answer, Sect. 170. 1. If his meaning be, that the one Argument of his Adversaries (that against which he is now buckling on his armour) contradicts that other argument of theirs, which he mentioneth, as one part of a contradiction contradicteth the other, he hath made a very bad bargain for his cause by the way. For it is a general rule without any exception, that altera pars contradictionis semper est vera; one part of every contradiction is always true. Now if either of those Arguments, which he saith contradict the one the other, be true, his Doctrine of Anti-paedobaptism must needs be false; because they are both contradictions to it. For 1. if it be true, that the children of Believers, and these only, aught to be baptised, then must it needs be false, that no children at all aught to be baptised. Or 2. if it be true, that all children are capable of Baptism, or aught to be baptised, than it is much more apparently false, that no children ought to be baptised. Therefore I do not believe, that when Mr. A. challengeth the one Argument of his Adversaries to contradict the other, he would be understood to speak of a contradiction strictly and properly so called, but only of a contradiction by way of contrariety (as Logicians speak) in which kind both parts of the contradiction may (possibly) be false, but never true. Therefore 2. I answer further, that if he judgeth it any matter of prejudice to the cause of Infant-baptism, that some of those, who maintain it, are in some things relating to it, differently-minded amongst themselves, herein also he consulteth disrepute to his own cause. For it is well known, that the Peter and the Paul, the two great Apostles of Mr. A's Re-baptismall Faith (I mean, Mr. J. Tombs, and Mr. S. Fisher) resist one the other in their respective Doctrines about the the state and condition of children God-ward. Yea the former professeth (in effect) that if he were of the judgement of the latter, about the said point, he would give hostages to his Paedobaptismall Adversaries, and baptise children with them. His words (in his exercitation about Infant-baptims, p. 24.) are these: Nor do I doubt, but that the Elect Infants dying in their infancy, are sanctified: yea if it should be made known to us that they are sanctified, I should not doubt that they are to be baptised, remembering the saying of Peter, Can any man forbidden water that these should baptised, who have received the holy Ghost as well as we? Not long before (viz. pag. 19 of the same Exercitation) he had delivered his sense to the same purpose in these words. I answer, the major Proposition is true, if it be understood of th●se whose is the kingdom of Heaven, when it appears that the kingdom of Heaven belongs to them. Now the mayor Proposition▪ which here he grants to be true upon the terms specified, was this: They may be baptised, whose is the kingdom of heaven. Now Mr. Fishers judgement, declared over and over, is, that unto children, yea unto all children, doth belong the kingdom of Heaven. I believe (saith he) all Infants, as well as some, dying Infants, and before they have deserved exemption, and damnation by actual rebellion, to have, according to the general declaration of the Scripture, right of entrance into the kingdom of Heaven. Baby-baptism p. 301. (with much more of the same notion, in that which followeth, and elsewhere.) Nor do these two Grandees only digladiate between themselves about a business of such a main import, and so nearly relating unto the Question about Infant-Baptism (as Mr. Tombs in the passages now cited, plainly enough supposeth) but the Churches themselves of the Ana-baptismall persuasion, are accordingly divided one from another, throughout the Land, one crying out, I am of Paul, another, I am of Cephas, some of them, siding with Mr. Tombs in his judgement, others, imbarqueing with Mr. Fisher in his. Nor are these Shepherds, and flocks, scattered from one another in their judgements about the point mentioned only: they are at variance amongst themselves about many others. Yea notice hath been taken somewhere in the premises, that Mr. A. himself contradicts Mr. Fisher himself in his sense about the sealing nature and property of Baptism. So that if he looks upon contradicting assertions amongst those, who are joined in the defence of the same cause, as an argument of the badness of their cause (as he seems in his first by the way to do) certainly his own cause must needs be very bad, whose Assertors have no communion in judgement about many things. But Sect. 171. 3. And lastly) what if Mr. A. be quite mistaken, in his supposal, that the one Argument he speaks of, contradicts the other? then (sure) this by-the-way will be found out of the way, aswell as the other. He that affirms on the one hand, that all children are capable of Baptism, and he who on the other hand affirms, that the children only of believers are capable hereof, do not necessarily contradict the one the other in these say, there being a sense wherein they may be, yea, and are, both true. For all children, as such, may be capable of Baptism: and yet many of them, yea all, the children of believers only excepted, in other respects, uncapable. There is a double capacity of Baptism (at least, as the word, capacity, may signify) the one, in respect of the subject, (simply considered) the other in respect of circumstance. All children, in case they should be regularly offered unto Baptism, that is, 1. freely, and by those that have the right of their education, as Parents, if living, or Guardians, or Foster-parents, in case the natural be dead, and 2. unto persons, or baptists regularly authorized to Baptise them, they might all be baptised. But because Infidel Parents cannot be free in offering their children unto Baptism, nor can they, being under no Pastor, or christian Church-officer, offer, or bring them to a person regularly authorized to baptise them (it being irregular for any Church to authorize their Pastor, or other Officer, to baptise the children of unbelievers) in this respect these children of theirs are not capable of being baptised. That poor Cripple, who waited 38 years together for healing at the pool of Bethesda, was all this while, in respect of his person, or, as he was an impotent man, as capable of healing, as any of those, who were healed; yea had he at any time found such a friend, as would, upon the Angels stirring of the water, have cast him in, before some other had prevented him, he had been actually healed. But being helpless in himself, and friendless, he was under these circumstances, in no capacity of being healed by those waters. A Virgin in respect of her years and person every ways, may be capable of marrying such or such a man; yet in respect of the charge and command of her Parents, under whose power she yet remains, to the contrary, she may be uncapable of so marrying. Yea the man himself, with whom, in the respect mentioned, and in many others, she is capable of marrying, may notwithstanding be a person so, or so, conditioned, as (for example) may be an Idolater, or son of a strange God, or the like, that she is not in a regular actual capacity of marrying with him. Many cases of a like exemplification might be proposed. It were easy to produce many say out of the Scriptures themselves, which do every whit as much contradict the one the other, as those catched at, and compared, by Mr. A. whose consistency notwithstanding is readily enough salveable by distinguishing, partly between positives, and respectives, partly, between respectives, and respectives. The three particulars now propounded, duly considered, it appears that Mr. A. hath made no bargain at all, either for his credit, or for his cause, by the way: but it may be matters will succeed better with him at his journey's end. And I confess that if he can come off with credit from his encounter with the argument now before him, he will do more for the cause of Ana-baptism, then hath been done for it (as far as I can understand) these many years; although neither is the goodness of that cause sufficiently evinced by never so sufficient Mr. A. p. 41, 42. an answer given to one argument bend against it. But let us now hear how he quitteth himself in his answer hereunto. But to come closer to the Argument: I do deny the consequence of the Major Proposition; I do deny that it therefore Mr. Ap. 42. 43. follows, that Infants are capable of Baptism, though it should be granted, that the love of God is the original ground of rendering persons capable thereof: And the reason of this denial is taken from that difference which is between the original ground of persons capability of Baptism, and the next immediate ground hereof. For howsoever the love of God be the ground of all dispensations of good to the creature, yet it is not so from the self same respect: but as it exhibits itself in one dispensation of it in one respect, so in another Dispensation thereof it exhibits itself upon other terms and respects. And thereforce we must distinguish between the love of God, as it is the ground of Baptism. The love of God than is to be considered, either 1. in the whole entire sum or body of it, generally and indefinitely considered, as comprehending and enclosing in it all particular dispensations of Grace towards the creature; or else, 2. as it excites or puts forth itself in those particular dispensations themselves. The love of God in the former sense, though it be the the ground of all particular acts of Grace, and so that also which appertains to Baptism, yet is it no sound way of reasoning, to conclude persons to be in an immediate capacity of Baptism, because they are in the love of God under this general consideration. For upon the same ground men might as well argue infants to be strong Christians, or fit to be chosen Pastors, Teachers, or Deacons, as to argue them capable of Baptism, because persons are in these capacities by virtue of the love of God to them. And yet who sees not how absurd it would be to reason thus: If the love of God to persons be the original ground which renders them capable of being chosen into the office of Pastor, Teacher, or Deacon, than Infants are capable of being chosen into these Offices, because they are in the love of God, etc. If the love of God to persons be the original ground of rendering them capable of the denomination of strong Christians, than Infants are capable of the denomination of strong Christians, Because they are in that love and favour of God. But, etc.— By the light then of these Instances, the invalidity, indeed absurdity, of concluding Infants to be capable of Baptism, because they are in that love and favour of God, may (you see) be sufficiently discerned. Sect. 172. Never did there a more impertinent piece of discourse show itself on paper, than this: and yet what joy doth Mr. A. make in the winding of it up. For 1. It runs all along upon a palpable and wide mistake of the Argument, unto which it pretends the relation of an Answer (as was lately observed.) Infant baptizers argue Infants capable of Baptism from their relation of Sonship unto God: Mr. A. answers, and labours to prove (though very unhandsomely too) that the love of God to them doth not render them capable thereof; as if the relation in men of Sonship unto God, and the love which is in God towards men, were one & the same thing. May not a man as well suppose, that the silver which is in my purse, and the gold which in his, is one and the same thing? 2. The Argument which Mr. A. should answer, buildeth a baptismal capacity in Infants, upon that which it calleth the original or first gound, or qualification for Baptism in the creature, which it affirmeth to be, the relation specified (Sonship unto God) and this in opposition to Faith and Repentance: Mr. A's answer discourseth of the original ground of the dispensation, in God: which, being interpreted, is nothing at all to the purpose. By the way, when the Argument, with the Answer, whereof Mr. A hath at present both his hands full, asserteth the relation of Sonship unto God, to be the original or first ground, or qualification for Baptism; it doth not take original, or first, in opposition to immediate or next, but in opposition to that, which is after, and subordinate. So that it avoucheth Sonship in children to be every whit as near, as immediate a ground of Baptism, as Faith, or Repentance, or a declaration of either, or a desire itself of Baptism, are in persons capable of such things. Yea and supposeth, that neither Faith, nor Repentance, nor a Declaration of either, are any grounds or qvalifications for Baptism at all, but only as they make, and declare their subjects, men and women, the children of God. But 3. Were the Argument, as he propoundeth it, owned by his adversaries, yet his answer would not reach it. For whereas he saith, upon the same ground one might as well argue Infants to be strong Christians, or fit to be chosen Pastors, Teachers, or Deacons, as to argue them capable of Baptism, because persons are in these capacities by virtue of the love of God to them; he builds upon the sand, For persons are not in the capacities he speaks of by virtue of the love of God to them; For then all persons, towards whom there is love in God, should be in the same capacities, which is manifestly untrue. Yea some may be in these capacities, towards whom there is no love in God at all (I suppose Mr. A. speaks of God's special love, or that wherewith he loves his Saints.) Judas was in the capacity of being an Apostle (which is more than of being a Pastor, Teacher, etc.) when his Lord and Master bore no such love to him. It is rather by virtue of the bounty of God considered as exerting itself in such or such a determinate manner, then of the love of God that persons are invested with such capacities. So ●●at Mr. A's Instances, besides that they hold no parallel, or Proportion, with the reasoning or arguing, which he pretendeth to oppose, proceed upon a groundless surmise, instead of truth. But let us see what work he makes in the further process of his answer. If then (saith he) we would come to argue steadily, so as to conclude persons capability of Baptism from the love of Mr. A. p. 43 44. God to them, we must consider the love of God under that particular and precise notion, by which persons are put into an immediate, not remote, capacity of Baptism. For though it is true, that the love of God, which is vouchsafed Infants in the pardon of that sin that devolved itself on them from Adam, doth put them into a remote capacity, both of Baptism, and all other consequential acts of Grace, which are vouchsafed men upon their believing, and diligent, and faithful improvement of all means and opportunities of Grace, etc. yet it doth not put them into an immediate capacity of these, until they do believe, and have improved those means and opportunities; upon condition of which such additional and progressionarie acts of Grace, are promised and suspended; no more than a child's ability to read his hornbook, or Primer, puts him into a capacity of understanding his Grammar. I answer, Sect. 173. 1. That neither have we here the Argument of his Adversaries so much as touched, but an Onion talked of instead of an Apple, (as we have more than once lately observed) 2. It is somewhat an uncouth expression, to say, that by any notion of the love of God, how particular or precise soever, persons are put into any capacity of Baptism, whether immediate, or remote: whatsoever the love of God itself may do in this kind, certain it is that the notion of this love hath no operation either way. 3. Neither is it so true, that the love of God, which is vouchsafed Infants in the pardon of the sin devolved on them from Adam, doth put them into a remote capacity of b 〈…〉 ism, etc. For they are in this capacity as they are Infants simply, or as members of the race of mankind. However, we have not yet so much as the softest air, or gentlest breathing of an answer to that argument for Infant-baptism, which bears so hard and heavy upon Mr. A's conceit of Anti-pedo-baptism. It may be somewhat will come out at the last in the shape or likeness of an Answer. Therefore let us wait upon his pen a little further. That the Dispensation of God's Grace and love (saith he) is made to Infants in one respect, and to persons of an immediate Mr. A. p. 44. capacity of Baptism, in another; and that act of Grace which is vouchsafed Infants in the pardon of that first sin, etc. doth not put them into animmediate capacity of Baptism, appears upon these grounds. 1. Because the act of Grace or dispensation of God's love, unto which Baptism doth appropriately belong, is that which is exerted and put forth in the pardon of men's actual transgressions, and this too notwithout their repenting, or believing, whereas that act of Grace, of which Infants partake, is such as is vouchsafed unto them in the pardon of original sin only, and this too without their repenting and believing, merely upon the account of the death of Christ. I answer; Sect. 174. 1. Mr. A here undertakes to prove that, which none of his Adversaries do deny; viz. that that the Dispensation of God's grace and love is made to Infants in one respect, and to persons in an immediate capacity of Baptism, in another; if by the persons he speaks of, he means, persons who have actually sinned, which (I question not) is his meaning. 2. By one and the same undertaking, he undertakes likewise to refute, that which none of his adversaries affirm, or hold, viz. that that that act of Grace, which is vouchsafed infants in the pardon of that first sin, puts them into an immediate capacity of Baptism. So that though he should prosper on both hands in this undertaking, his prosperity would be but a successful beating of the air. That which his Antagonists hold about this latter point is, that the relation of Sonship, which by the Grace of God working in that redemption which is by Christ, accrues unto Infants naturally descending from Adam, partly by, or from, the pardon of the sin he speaks of, partly also from that immunity from actual transgression, which is found in Infants, renders them actually, or immediately, capable of Baptism. Even as it is the same Sonship in persons of discretion, though otherwise, in part, accrueing (as viz. from the remission of their sins, both original, and actual, thorough believing) which being made known, or apprehended by the Ministers of Baptism, invests them with an immediate capacity of the Ordinance. But 3. Whereas he makes an opposition between Infants, and persons in an immediate capacity of Baptism, he broadly commits that error in disputing, which Logicians call, Petitio Principi●, a begging of the thing in Question. For is not the Question between him, and his Opponents, whether Infants be in an immediate capacity of Baptism, or no? And Mr. A. here takes it for granted that they are not. 4. Neither is it so broad a truth, as his measure seems to make it, that that act of Grace, of which infants partake is such as is vouchsafed them in the pardon of original sin ONLY. For the relation, or prerogative, of Sonship, and, the pardon of Original sin, are not one and the same act of Grace, nor yet one and the same benefit, or privilege. And certain it is, that God doth confer as well the former, as the latter, upon Infants. But Mr. A's discourse advanceth thus. That that act, or those acts of Grace, unto which Baptism doth appropriately belong, is the pardon of sin upon repentance, and such other acts of grace as are concomitant Mr. A. p. 44 and consequential hereunto, appears plainly by this, viz. in that Baptism is called (according to the nature of it, and the intent of God in its institution) the Baptism of repentance for the Remission of sins. That is, that Baptism which is to be received upon men's repentance for the remission of sins; or that Baptism, in and by which men profess that they expect remission of sins in the way of Repentance: or because the reception of which Baptism proceeds from a principle of Repentance [this clause is no good sense] or else because God therein doth authentically assure men of the remission of their sins upon their Repentance. Take it which way you will, it proves this, that Baptism is conversant about, and subservient unto, that act of God's grace and love, which is vouchsafed unto men in the pardon of their sins upon their repentance. And if so, then is it irrelative to the grace of God in the pardon of Infant's sin, which is vouchsafed them without, and before Repentance take place. I answer. Sect. 175. 1. The conclusion, which Mr. A. works after in the forepart of this parcel of discourse, and which he draws up in the lasts words hereof (now recited) viz. that Baptism is irrelative to the grace of God in the pardon of Infant's sin, may be granted him, with this explication; that that which Baptism, when administered unto Infants, properly and immediately relateth unto, is not the grace of God in the pardon of their sin, but the grace of God in investing them with the privilege of Sons. Which, whether in order of nature, it be antecedaneous, or subsequentiall, to the other (the pardon of their sin) may be argued to and fro: I incline to the latter. But if his meaning be, that Baptism is simply, universally, and in every respect, irrelative to the grace of God in the pardon of Infant's sin, this is a crow which remains to be pulled. But 2. How his second, and fourth, explication of these words, The Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins, in both which he suspends remission of sins upon repentance only, making Baptism, in the former, a profession only of an expectation of this remission, in the latter, an assurance of it only, will be able to reconcile themselves with his Confidentiall Doctrine formerly avouched (as we heard) in which he makes Baptism a sharer or partner with repentance itself in the procuring or obtaining this remission, I am to seek, and (I fear) he will hardly be able to find. 3. Whereas he makes Baptism appropriately to belong, not only to the pardon of sin upon repentance, but unto other acts of grace also concomitant and consequential thereunto, doth he not seem to lean either towards the clinical Baptists, who were wont not to administer Baptism, but unto persons on their sick beds, and (as the Papists their extreme unction) in the approach of death; or else towards the Hemerobaptists, who judged it necessary to be every day baptised, and practised accordingly? For if Baptism appropriatly belongs unto other acts of grace concomitant and consequential to Repentance, as well as unto Repentance itself, ought it not to be administered upon the vouchsafement or performance of these acts, if not with as much frequency, as once a day amounteth unto, yet at least in the end of a man's life, when all such acts shall have been vouchsafed? 4. If Baptism appropriatly belongs unto the pardon of sin upon repentance, can it, upon the same terms, or after the same manner (I mean, appropriately) belong unto Repentance? Or is Repentance, and pardon of sin upon Repentance, one and the same thing? But Sect. 176. 5. (And last) To give Mr. A. an account, why Baptism is thus held forth, or described in the Scripture, the Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (words, I confess which face his Anti-paedo-baptismall conceit more plausibly, than any thing besides in all the Scriptures, although they have nothing in heart for it) it is to be considered, that the Gospel, being to be preached only unto persons of years, who only are capable of understanding it, and from whom only obedience is expected unto it, is drawn up by the holy Ghost (in the general frame and carriage of it) with special reference unto these, notwithstanding many things in it relate unto Infants and children, and their benefit by the grace of it. Hence it is that many things are here required, as simply, absolutely, and universally necessary unto salvation; viz. because they are thus necessary in respect of those to whom the gospel is to be preached, and that are capable of performing them, as persons of years and understanding: but Infants, as such, and whilst such, and children, are never the more subjected to this necessity: As when the Gospel threatneth, He that believeth not [i. whosoever believeth not shall be damned, the threatening is calculated for men & women only: nor is it any part of the intent or meaning of it, that Infants not believing, shall be damned. So when the Apostle saith, without holiness [or rather, without the purchase of holiness] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, none, or no person shall see the Lord (Heb. 12. 14.) children are not hereby subjected to the condition specified, to invest them with a capacity of seeing the Lord, but men and women only. So again, when John saith, whosoever doth not righteousness, is not of God, joh. 3. 10. neither he that loveth not his Brother, it cannot be from hence concluded, that children are not of God, or are not the children of God, and upon this account, his he●rs, although they do not righteousness, nor yet love their brother. This method and strain of the Gospel might be exemplified in very many passages and instances more. In like manner, because the Doctrine of Baptism was and is, to be taught and preached unto men and women only, these only being of capacity to understand it, therefore is Baptism described and set forth in the scripture, as it relateth unto them, and their conditions; viz. as a sacred pledge from God to assure them of the high privilege and blessing of remission of sins upon their repentance. But this no more proveth that the administration of it belongeth not unto Infants, because they do not repent, than this saying, He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved, proveth that salvation belongeth not unto Infants, because they do not believe. Upon alike account, because the Doctrine of Circumcision, and of the counsel of God in it, was to be declared and preached only unto persons of understanding, therefore the scripture describeth it, and frequently speaketh of it, under that relation and concernment, wherein it related unto men, as where it is described, to have been a seal of the righteousness of Faith. [See Sect. 61, 64.] even as Baptism is termed or described, the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins, [which two descriptions we formerly scanned, and compared, Sect. 61.] so again, where God saith to the Jews, Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskin of your hearts, Jer. 4. 4. and again, it shall be a token of the Covenant between me and you, Gen. 17. 11. (to omit other places) These and several other like passages and say notwithstanding, which represent Circumcision upon no other terms, nor in any other consideration then as appropriable and appliable unto men, yet children (we know) were the more appropriate subject of the administration thereof. In like manner, though it should be granted, that Baptism be described under such a consideration, wherein it is only serviceable & appropriable unto men and women, who are capable of Repentance, and of Remission of sins hereupon, yet this no way proveth, nor so much as lightly intimateth, that therefore Infants are not the regular, yea, or not the more proper and convenient subject hereof, ordinarily. Sect. 177. And let me here add this one thing further, that men altogether as judicious and learned in the Scriptures, and (I believe) as narrowly and throughly versed, in the controversy, as Mr. A. conceive the sense and mind of the holy Ghost, in calling Baptism, The Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins, is as well to signify and hold forth, that remission of sins, shall be obtained upon Repentance future, as that it is obtained or enjoyed by means of Repentance passed▪ or at present in being. Calvin, in answer to an Objection, made of the very same notion, of which Mr. A's answer (now in examination) is made, viz. that Baptism is a Sacrament of Repentance and Faith; and therefore is not compatible to Infancy; having first said, that such darts as these are rather thrown against God, then against him, or other Infant-Baptists, in process of his answer, saith; For although Infants, in that moment of time wherein they were circumcised, did not comprehend the meaning or intent of the sign: yet were they truly circumcised, for, [or unto] the mortification of their polluted & corrupt nature, which being come to years of discretion, they were to meditate, and bethink themselves of. And to conclude; the Objection may receive a ready answer, viz. that [children] are baptised in order to their FUTURE REPENTANCE AND FAITH: which, although they be not as yet formed in them, yet by the secret work of the holy Ghost, there is a seed of both lying hid in them. a Subnectunt, Baptismum poenitentiae ac fidei sacramentum esse. Quare cum neutra in ●tenellam infantiam cadat, cavendum ne si in Baptismi communionem admittatur, inanis & evanida reddatur significatio. At enim haec tela in Deum magis quàm in nos diriguntur. Siquidem & circumcisionem fuisse poenitentiae signum, multis Scripturae testimonii● compertissimum est. Et paulò post: Nam etsi Infantes quo circumcidebantur momento, quid sibi vellet signum illud intelligentiâ non comprehendebant, verè tamen circumcidebantur in naturae suae corruptae ac contaminatae mortificationem, quam adulti posteà meditarentur. Denique nullo negotio solvi potest objectio haec: baptizari in futuram poenitentiam & fidem, etc. Calvin. Institut. l. 4. c. 16. Sect. 20. Baptism (saith Musculus) is the laver of regeneration: but not so [or, in such a sense] that only they who are already regenerate, should be sealed with it, but those also who are yet to be Regenerated. b Baptismus est lavacrum regenerationis: at non ita, ut regenerati tantùm illo debeant obfignari, sed etiam regenerandi. Mus. in Mat. 22. 41, 42. etc. The Scripture itself very much favours the judgement of these learned men now touched. I indeed (saith John to the people, who came to be baptised, and were accordingly baptised, by him) baptise you with water, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, towards, or unto, Repentance, Mat. 3. 11. And accordingly, Luk. 3. 7. he sharply reproveth them, as persons at present not engaged in any way of repentance, but exhorteth them hereunto for the future. Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptised of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath that is to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy Repentance, and think not to say, etc. Luk. 3. 7, 8. Had he judged them truly penitent at the present, it is not like he would have styled them, a generation of vipers, or admonished them as he doth. See more to this point, Sect. 35. Nor is it probable that the Apostle Peter did look upon those as having already truly repent, whom he exhorted to Repent and be baptised (Act. 2. 38.) nor yet, that because in the first place he exhorteth them to repent, and in the second, to be baptised, he therefore dissuaded them, or took them off from being baptised, until they should have first repent. For to repent being a fare greater duty, then to be baptised, it may well have the precedency of mention in the same exhortation; and yet this not necessarily imply that to be baptised was no duty to be performed by them, until they had first repent. When two duties are required in the same exhortation, the obligation unto the latter is not necessarily suspended upon a man's obedience unto the former, so that he shall be in conscience bound to forbear, or not to practise the latter, until he hath first performed the other. And though it should be granted, that so many of the persons exhorted by Peter to repent and be baptised, as were soon after baptised, did indeed truly repent before they were baptised (though neither is this sufficiently proved by their recceiving of his word gladly, ver. 41. See Mat. 13. 20. Mar. 6. 20. Joh. 5. 35. Eze. 33. 32.) yet this proveth not that therefore they should have sinned, in case they had been baptised without this qualification. However, whether this Doctrine stands, or falls, Mr. A's Doctrine, that Baptism appropriately belongs to the pardon of sin upon Repentance, etc. is a notion quite besides the Scripture-foundation to which it pretends. That Baptism is styled, the Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, doth no ways prove, that it appropriately belongs, either to pardon of sin, or to Repentance, or to pardon of sin upon Repentance. Yet this he attempts to make good by a second argument: give we him a patiented hearing of this also. Sect. 178. 2. (Saith he) The love of God is the mediate ground of Baptism, so far only as it relates to, or is effective of the Mr. A. p. 45 good of men, in Baptism. For the reception of Baptism is not otherwise to be esteemed an effect of God's love, then as the good and benefit of men is concerned therein. That which Christ speaks of the Sabbath, how that it was for man, Mar. 2. 27.▪ i. for the good of man, is true of Baptism, and every Mr. A. p. 44. other Ordinance and institution of God. In as much then as Baptism is not beneficial unto any, but by means of their Faith, and answer of a good conscience; and in as much also that Infants are not under this capacity of means, both which I have formerly evidently proved; therefore it follows undeniably, that God doth not love Infants upon any such terms, as he doth those unto whom he commends and communicates his love in, and by, Baptism: and consequently, that the love which God bears to Infants, puts them into no immediate capacity of Baptism. Neither is there any thing in this bundle of discourse, relating to Mr. A's cause, but what hath been already cast into the fire, and burnt. That every Ordinance and institution of God (and so Baptism) is for man (in the sense declared by him) is the sense of his Adversaries, as well as his, and maketh more for their cause, than his. For Circumcision was in (this sense) for man, and yet Infants in the best capacity to receive it. Neither should Baptism be as much for man [i. for the good of man] as now it is, in case infants were not in a regular capacity to receive it. Not to repeat what hath been formerly insisted on, and proved, upon this account, as viz. that Baptism received in Infancy, is a seasonable and preventive engagement upon them to remember their Creator in the days of their youth (for Infants, are the same, the same persons, in their Infancy, and in their youth) a See Sect. 161. as likewise, that infant-Baptism makes more for the edification of the church, than the contrary practice, b See Sect. 56, 57, 73, 156 160. and again, that it is more improvable to spiritual ends, than after-Baptism, (c) with some other particulars of like import) I shall here only subjoin that meditation of Calvin. How sweet a thing (saith he) is it to the minds of godly men, to be assured, not only by the word, but also by a visible spectacle [or sign] that they have found so much favour in the eyes of their Heavenly Father, as that their posterity also is regarded by him. d Quàm enim suave piis animis, non verbo tantum, sed oculari etiam spectaculo certiores fieri, tantum se gratiae apud pat●em co●lestem obtinere, ut posteritas sua illi cura sit? Calv. Institut. l. 4. c. 16. Sect. 32. Sect. 179. Whereas he saith, that Baptism is not beneficial unto any but by means of their Faith, etc. if his meaning be that it is not, or proves not, actually or eventually saving unto any adulterous person, but by means of their faith, the saying hath had a pass granted unto it before. But neither was Circumcision thus beneficial unto any, without Faith likewise (as hath been proved over and over) and yet Infants judged by God himself in a sufficient capacity to receive it. If his meaning be, that Baptism is no ways, in no respect, or degree beneficial unto any person without Faith, I must borrow his Faith, or some like unto it, to believe it. Baptism without Faith, will open the door into any of the Churches, which call themselves baptised. And is it not very beneficial for a man to have a standing here? Or is it not possible for him to be truly converted to the Faith, by means of his coming into one of these Churches, and walking there? If so, then may a man's Baptism prove very beneficial unto him without Faith, i. without Faith in the Receiver at the time of the receiving it, which (I presume) is a sense of perfect accord with Mr. A's meaning. However, Mr. A's Answer to the Argument before him, as yet comes on very heavily and slowly: it may be we shall find it in the rear. Let this then be drawn up. 3. (Saith he) The extent of God's love to Infants, so fare as is pretended in the reason of the consequence in the Major Proposition, consists only in the pardon of Original, Mr. A. p. 45 sin, and the putting them into a condition of Salvation by Christ: all which love of God they are invested with, before ever Baptism can be applied unto them. Because the love of God in this respect is not conditional, nor does depend upon the action of any creature, or application of any means, but solely upon the atonement which Christ hath made on that behalf. And therefore Baptism lies out of the verge, compass, circumference of the love of God as enjoyed by Infants, and contributes neither less nor more in that dispensation of God's love unto them. In which respect also Baptism is irrelative to the love of God in that precise consideration of it in which it is communicated unto Infants. Thus fare Mr. A. in an Aenigma in this place: and as fare as I understand the Riddle, I shall assoil it. 1. I am not able to comprehend what he drives at, nor where the thread of reason reason runs, in this discourse. Only I perceive that he works upon his former mistake, supposing that his Adversaries argue and conclude a Baptismal capacity in Children from the love which God showeth unto them in the pardon of their guilt in Adam's sin. But 2. Whereas he saith, that Infants are invested with all that love of God which consists only in the pardon of original sin, and the putting them into a condition of Salvation by CHRIST, before ever Baptism can be applied to them, I am so dull of hearing, that, I cannot conceive which way this would operate, or what it desires to produce. The best of my conjectures at this turn, is, that because the extent of the love of God to Infants, of which the Major Proposition speaks, consists in the pardon of Original sin, and is vouchsafed unto them before Baptism can be applied unto them, therefore the application of it unto them, is superfluous and vain. I shall not spend much time in detecting the vanity of this arguing, because I am not satisfied in myself, whether I hit Mr. A's Notion right, or no. But if I do, than he may please to consider, Sect. 180. 1. That that which immediately qualifies any Subject whatsoever for Baptism, is somewhat already in being in this subject, before Baptism be applied unto it, not any capacity in in to receive somewhat, by, or after, Baptism. It is true, there is no subject duly qualified for Baptism, but what is in a capacity of receiving benefit, after, and by means of, his baptising; and it hath been proved over and over, that Infants are in such a capacity as this, aswell as men. But however, it is not such a capacity as this, which qualifieth either the one, or the other, for Baptism: for then all persons whatsoever of mankind, young and old, should be qualified for it, inasmuch as they are all in some capacity this way. 2. That although it should be granted, or could be supposed, that Infants are in no capacity of any additional love of God by means of Baptism, beyond what they are possessed of before; yet supposing withal, that their Parents may receive any additional comfort concerning the Grace and Love of God towards them, by means of their Baptising, or that they judge themselves bound in Conscience to procure, or endeavour their baptising (neither of which is any unreasonable supposition) it will not follow that the application of Baptism unto them should be superfluous or vain. But I am here in the dark: only here is a sufficiency of light whereby to discern that in this paragraph here is neither little nor much to comfort the heart of Mr. A's fainting cause, under the burden of that Argument, that lies still so hard and heavy upon it. But as if hitherto he had only combated with the Major Proposition of the Argument, (whereas indeed, he hath had his say in Folio to them both) his next engagement is against the proof of the Minor. Whereas (saith he) it is alleged by way of proof of the Mr. A. p. 45 46. minor Proposition, 1. That the reason why Faith is necessary in persons, who have not been baptised in their infancy, to render them capapble of Baptism, is because it is that mean, by which those that are to admit unto baptism, come to know that they are in the love of God; and that if such a thing could be known without such a profession of Faith, as it may in the case of Infants, than such a profession would not be necessary in order to such an admission; To this I answer likewise; i. That a profession of Faith in such persons, to render them admittable to Baptism, is not necessary to inform them that admit them touching Gods love to them in any respect whatsoever, for this may be known without such a profession; but in relation to their knowing them to be in the love and favour of God in that particular respect, and determinate consideration, which renders men immediately capable of Baptism. In this respect such a profession of Faith is necessary, because without it the love of God to them upon such terms is not knowable, and consequently they not admittable to Baptism, as was before proved: by which, Infants, as touching their capability of Baptism, are clearly excluded. This is the first advance of Mr. A's Answer to the proof (as he calls it) of the Minor Proposition. For Answer unto this Answer. Sect. 181. 1. The proof he speaks of doth not hold a necessity of Faith in the persons mentioned, to render them known to those, who are to baptise them, for persons being in the love God. To be in the love of God, imports a love in God born towards them, not any thing in them towards God. Now it hath been oft said, that that which immediately and formally qualifieth for Baptism, must be somewhat in the creature or subject itself, not any thing in God. Therefore Mr. A. doth not here argue to the sense of his adversaries, nor answer any thing to their Argument. But 2. The very Tenor and substance of his Answer, as it is quite besides the Argument against which it pretends, so is it otherwise most irrational and importune. For 1. This Answer saith, that a profession of Faith in persons admittable unto Baptism, is not necessary to inform Mr. A. p. 46 those that admit them touching Gods love to them in any respect whatsoever, for this may be known without such a profession; If he speaks of any such love of God to the persons admittable unto Baptism, which is commonly called, common, and is born by him unto all his creatures, and all men (without exception) he doth not only argue quite besides the sense of his Adversaries, but (that which is very disingenuous) quite besides what himself knows to be their sense. For how should it ever enter into Mr. A's heart to imagine, that his Adversaries should affirm, or hold, that it is necessary for Baptizers to be informed, by one means or other, concerning the common love of God towards persons to be baptised? If he speaks of that love of God which is peculiar to his children, and those who believe, I desire to know of him, how this in the persons to be baptised, may be known to the persons baptising, without such a Profession as he speaks of. He should have done well at least to have named the means or way, by which this knowledge may otherwise be attained: for I confess I am wholly ignorant of it. Again 2. Whereas this Answer further saith, that a Profession of Faith is necessary in relation to the Baptizers knowing them to be in the love and favour of God in that particular respect, and determinate consideration which renders men immediately capable of Baptism, I would be a debtor unto him for his good information, if he would inform me what this particular respect and determinate consideration is, wherein the love of God renders men thus ●mmediatly capable of Baptism. For unless it be the relation of Sonship, I confess I am to seek. However, in this part of Mr. A's Answer, we have nothing distinct, nothing but what savours of a fear, or loathness, to speak plainly. But to this first member of his Answer, he subjoyves a second, in these words▪ 2. The profession of Faith is necessary in the case in hand Mr. Ap. 46. for other causes then merely to inform those that admit persons unto Baptism, of their being in the favour of God in general, whom they do admit: and that is to let them know, that they are capable of the several ends and benefits of Baptism, and so meet for Baptism itself; because unless they have reason to conceive that they have Faith, they have no reason to conceive them in a present capacity of the ends and benefits of Baptism, and so not of Baptism itself, inasmuch as these are suspended on Faith, as hath already been evinced. I answer, Sect. 182. 1. Mr. A's Adversaries never affirmed, that a profession of Faith is necessary to inform any person whasoever of the favour of God in general towards persons to be baptised. Nor did they ever deny but that such a profession might be necessary for some other causes, besides an information of men's being in the favour of God, whether general, or special. So that the former part of this latter Answer is a mere impertinency. 2. Whereas he supposeth, and (in effect) saith, that Baptizers have no reason to conceive persons to be in a present capacity of Baptism itself unless they have reason likewise to conceive them in a present capacity of the ends and benefits of Baptism; I answer; 1. if by a present capacity, he means a capacity which is at present vested, and found, in the subject, in this sense Children are in a present capacity of the ends and benefits of Baptism, as well as men. For there is at present, and whilst they are yet children, a capacity of the ends & benefits of Baptism, vested and residing in them. This hath been showed and proved formerly, Sect. 64, 65, 68, 69. 2. If by a present capacity he means (as I suppose his meaning is) such a capacity which renders its subject actually, and at present, capable of the said ends and benefits of Baptism, it hath been formerly showed, and proved once and again, that such a capacity is not necessary to render a person capable of Baptism, more than a like capacity of the ends and benefits of Circumcision was necessary to render Children capable of this Ordinance under the Law. Peruse Sect. 69, 152. with others. So that we have nothing but overthrown Notions and Conceits to make up this Answer. But it seems Mr. A. hath been troubled with a second proof of the said minor Proposition, which he lifts up his pen to disable in the next place. We shall give him somewhat more than the hearing of what he hath to say to this proof also; although (by the way) this is more than the confirmation and proof of our Argument in hand, and consequently of the entire cause of Infant-Baptism, requireth at our hand. For when an Argument is regularly form, one sufficient proof, given for the truth of either Proposition (I mean, both of the Major, and the Minor) renders the Argument as authentic and concluding, as many proofs of either could do. Now against the form of the argument in hand, no exception hath been, nor with, either reason, or truth, can be taken. However, let us see Mr A. and the second proof he speaks of, play together before us. Whereas in the second place (saith he) it is said, that it was upon this ground, viz. of Gods loving him, that Christ himself was capable of Baptism, and not his Faith, in as much as he had no such Faith as is required of men to render them capable of Baptism, to wit, a Faith in God touching the remission of sins through Christ: and that yet Christ did not receive Baptism upon any terms extraordinary, but upon the same terms as others do, in as much as it was in conformity to a standing Law of righteousness, common to others, as well as him. This proof is not drawn up, either in terms, or in substance of notion, to the sense of Mr A's Adversaries, as we shall shortly declare in particular: however, let us see whether the penny of it be not better silver, than the Answers To this I answer, That this Reason is built upon a mistaken ground, as supposing Christ to have no such faith as MIGHT render him capable of Baptism, at least such as is required of other men in order thereunto, for Christ had the same faith which Mr. A. p. 47. is required all other persons in that case. For what Faith was required of other men, to render the● capable of Baptism, save this; viz. To believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. For so when the Eunuch demanded of Philip, See here is water: what hindereth me to be Baptised? Then Philip answered and said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered Philip again, and said, I believe that jesus Christ is the Son of God. I Answer, Sect. 183. Whereas Mr A. saith, that the Reason which he is to Answer, is built upon a mistaken ground, the truth is, that this is not the building of the reason, but of the answer here made to it. For 1. The reason he speaks of, doth not speak as he makes it to speak, viz. That it was upon the ground of God's Love to Christ, that Christ himself was capable of Baptism. But what speaketh it? it speaketh this, That it was the relation of Son ship in Christ unto God that rendered him thus capable. How material the difference is between these two, hath formerly been opened. 2. Whereas this answer saith, that Christ had the sam● faith which is required of all other persons in that case, it builds upon another mistaken ground. For that the faith which was in Christ, was essentially and specifically differing from that which is req●irea of ●ther persons in the case he speaks of, is evident from hence, viz. because such properties which are essential unto and do universally accompany that faith which is required of other persons in the case specified were wanting in the faith of Christ That faith which is required of other persons in the said case, must be accompanied in its subject, with repentance for si● perpetrated and committed. This is so essential unto this Faith that without it, no Faith whatsoever gives unto the persons we speak of, a regular capacity of Baptism. * At least according to Mr. As. principles. Yea Baptism (as we have oft heard) is described by its relation unto Repentance, not unto Faith, as the more proper and signal qualifier of the two, for its reception. Therefore that Faith which is not accompanied in the same subject with repentance, is not of that kind or species of Faith, which is required in persons in order to their baptising: and consequently, that Faith which was in the Lord Christ, not being thus accompanied (for he that never sinned, could not repent of his sins) was not, could not be of the same kind of Faith, with that required in other persons. Again, that kind of Faith which is required of ordinary men and women (upon the account before us) in all and every the particular and individual actings and residings of it, obtaineth remission of sins. But the faith which was in Christ, obtained no remission of sins. Therefore it was a Faith of a differing kind from the Faith required of other persons. Sect. 184. Yet again: upon that Faith which is required in other persons, etc. this Law is imposed by God in all and every the residings of it, viz. that upon the first coming of it unto, and working of it in, the soul, a profession or declaration of it ●b ●eopenly made by Baptism. This is Mr. A's own a vouched Doctrine in the premises, and is also asserted by him in the sequel of his present Answer. So that they, who truly believe, in case they delay their Baptism (not having been already baptised) until afterwards, commit an error at least, or an oversight herein. But there was no such Law imposed by God upon that Faith which was in Christ; otherwise he must be supposed to have committed an oversight, in that he offered not himself unto Baptism until many years after this Faith had been first resident in him. Therefore his Faith, and the Faith required of other persons, are not essentially or specifically the same. Whereas Mr. A. pleads the sameness of expressions or denominations, to prove both Faiths to be specifically the same, and that to believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, is the Faith required of all other persons to render them capable of Baptism and that this Faith was in Christ, I answer; That the sameness of name, expression, or denomination, doth not always prove the identity or sameness (I mean not the specifical sameness) of the things expressed or denominated, but sometimes an agreement only between them in some generical property or consideration. Their Faith, who have power given them hereupon to become the Sons of God, is called, a believing on his name, Joh. 1. 12. and their Faith also, to whom Christ refused to commit himself, is in like manner termed, a believing on his name, Joh. 2. 23, 24. Yet these two Faiths were of very different natures and considerations (as sufficiently appears by the two passages compared) notwithstanding their consent in name. So again, their Faith, who because the Pharisees did not confess him, lest they should be cast out of the synagogue, and who loved the praise of men more than the praise of God, is termed, a believing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on him [i. e. on Christ] Joh. 12. 42, 43. and their Faith also, who believe to justification and salvation, is expressed after the same manner, a believing on him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Joh. 3. 16. and elsewhere. So again, that act, or series of actings, by which the Saints testify their approbation of the wisdom of God, whether in the Gospel, or in his providential actings, is termed, a justification (Mat. 11. 19) as well as that act of God by which he absolveth or dischargeth sinners from the guilt of their sins upon their believing in Jesus Christ (Rom. 5. 1 and in twenty places besides) yet are these two acts of very different natures, and specifically (at least) distinct the one from the other. It were easy to levy many other instances upon the same account; but these are abundantly sufficient to prove, that the Faith of Christ, believing himself to be the Son of God, and the Faith of other men believing him to be the Son of God also, are not by their agreement in name, or expression, evinced to be Faiths of the same consideration or kind. Sect. 185. Suppose it were granted, that the belief which was in Christ of his being the Son of God, and the belief of the same truth in other persons, were of the same nature and kind, yet neither will it follow from hence, that Christ was baptised upon the account of this Faith, because all other persons are: For, 1. Other persons are not baptised simply, directly, or immediately upon the account of this Faith, but by the interceding of their profession hereof before those, who are to baptise them. Whereas Christ made no profession unto Jon of that Faith, by which he believed himself to be the Son of God; neither was it proper or comely for him so to do. From whence (by the way) this saying of Mr. A. a little after, therefore may it well be said indeed, that Christ received Baptism upon the same terms as others did, is manifestly evicted of untruth, unless he think to salve the dishonour by those words, at least in several respects; of which savage notwithstanding he bereaves himself by these words following, and that in conformity to the same standing Law of righteousness (to wit, the Institution of God) common to others, as well as to him: For (doubtless) there neither was nor is any such standing Law of righteousness, nor Institution of God, according to which any other person of mankind, should be baptised upon the account of his Faith without any profession or declaration made of it unto the Baptizer. Therefore Christ being baptised upon these terms, was not baptised in conformity to the same standing Law of Righteousness, or Institution of God common to others, but by a Law (in this respect) appropriate to himself. Sect. 186. 2. If John baptised Christ upon the account of his Faith, whereby he believed himself to be the Son of God, then when at first he refused or declined the baptising of him (Mat. 3. 14.) either he was ignorant that such a Faith was in Christ, or that this Faith was a legitimate ground of baptising him, or else it must be supposed, that when ●e refused to baptise him, he did against his conscience, and contrary to what he knew his duty to be. But all these are unworthy of John, and not to be conceived of him: Therefore he did not baptise him upon the account of his Faith. 3. If he did baptise him upon the account of his Faith, then before his baptising him, he must be conceived to have reasoned thus within himself. This man, or this person, surely believes himself to be the Son of God; and since I have a compent or sufficient ground to conceive this of him, viz. that he thus believeth, therefore I will baptise him. But it is loudly dissonant from all that reason saith, to imagine, that John reasoned after any such manner as this to strengthen his hand to the Baptising of Christ. Therefore he did not baptise him upon the account of his believing himself to be the Son of God. The major in this argument shineth sufficiently with its own light. The minor is evident from hence; viz. because John knew as well before his prohibiting him his baptism, or refusing to baptise him, that he believed himself to be the Son of God, as afterwards, when he yielded to baptise him; and yet (as we see) refused to baptise him, notwithstanding the knowledge he had of such a belief in him. Therefore certainly he did not baptise him upon the account of his Faith. Nor did Christ in the interim (I mean, between John's refusing to baptise him, and his admitting him unto his Baptism) any ways inform John, that since he believed himself to be the Son of God, he lawfully might, or of duty ought, to baptise him. So that on which side soever of the business we look, there is not so much as the least lineament of a face of probability, that Christ was baptised upon the account of his believing himself to be the Son of God. Sect. 187. If it be objected, that John, when he refused to admit Christ to hi● Baptism, did as well know that he was the Son of God, as that he believed himself to be Son of God; and yet did not upon this account baptise him. Therefore according to the tenor of your late reasoning, neither did he baptise him upon the account of his being in favour with God, or of his relation of Sonship unto God. To this I answer, that although John knew Christ to be the Son of God when he declined the baptising him as well as afterwards when he baptised him, yet (it seems) he did not at present so well consider, that he being the only begotten Son of God, and so a person in dignity infinitely transcending other men, it was meet for him being a weak and sinful man to baptise him, until the Lord Christ himself admonished or informed him of the meetness of the thing, the transcendent dignity of his person notwithstanding. Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness (Mat. 3. 15.) as if he should have said: How true soever it be, which thou allegest against thy baptising me, as viz. that thou hast need to be baptised of me, and not I of thee, yet be content to do what at this time, and upon the present occasion, I desire of thee, because it becometh me, notwithstanding the peculiar dignity of my person, yet in respect of my mediatory undertaking, to condescend to every thing which is righteous, or meet for other men to submit unto. So than if it be righteous and meet for other persons, who are the sons of God, and because, or as, they stand in this relation unto him, and not merely as they are believers, to be admitted unto Baptism, than did Christ desire Baptism, and was accordingly baptised, as, or because he was the Son of God; although it be true, that he was indeed the first born amongst many brethren (as the Apostle speaks) and so his relation of Sonship of an higher nature than other men's. Sect. 188. Now that other persons are not regularly admittable unto Baptism, nor ever were in the Apostles times admitted hereunto, simply and merely, as, or because Believers, but as, or because their faith, through the profession of it, did declare them to be the Sons of God, and so i● special favour with him, is beyond all controversy evident upon these grounds. 1. If believing Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, gives a regular capacity of Baptism, as it is simply believing, and not as it declares the Believer to be the Son of God, and in special favour with him, then is the Devil himself, or at least may be in a regular capacity of being baptised. The reason of this consequence is evident; because he believes Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, or at least is a sufficient capacity to believe it. The Apostle saith that he was mightily [or with power] declared to be the Son of God, according to the spirit of holiness; by the resurrection from the dead. Now the devil is very capable of any rational demonstration. how much more of such, which are pregnant, and full of power to convince? And though he be a liar, and the Father thereof, yet being subtle and wise in his generation, he is not like to lie to his own disadvantage: which yet he must be supposed to have done, when he said unto Christ, I know thee who thou art, the holy one of God, (Mark 1. 24.) ●f he had lied in so saying. So that there is little question of the validity and truth of the consequence in the said major proposition. Now that the Devil is, or may be, in a regular capacity of being baptised is (I presume) none of Mr. A's thoughts. Therefore believing, simply as believing, doth not qualify for baptism but as itself being professed or declared, declareth the Professor of it to be a child of God. 2. If believing, simply, as believing, inrights unto baptism, than did Philip put the Eunuch upon harder and stricter terms to satisfy himself about his meetness to be baptised, when upon this account he required of him, or imposed on him, a believing with the whole heart) Act 8. 37.) than his commission in that behalf allowed him to do. And (indeed) his admonishing or presting the Eunuch to believe with all his heart, plainly intimated, that it was such a Faith, or believing, which would render him capable of Baptism to his own comfort, by which he could approve himself to be a child of God If so, then is it not the simple or absolute nature, or act of believing, but that relative or declarative nature o● property of it we speak of, by virtue or means whereof it gives a capacity of baptism unto men. If so, than it readily follows, that it is the relation of Sonship unto God, which originally, primarily, and directly investeth with this capacity, and that wheresoever, and in whomsoever this may reasonably be presumed to be there is as rich, as regular a capacity of baptism, as believing by means of the profession of it, can give unto any man. And that it is the property of Faith to give unto men the relation we speak of (I mean, of Sonship unto God) is the loud vote of the Scripture from place to place, Joh. 1. 12. Gal. 3, 26. and elsewhere. And if Faith gives the relation of Sonship, the profession or declaration of Faith, must needs give knowledge of this relation unto men. Sect. 189. If it be here replied; true it is, Faith professed declareth a person to be the Son of God; but it followeth not from hence, that therefore it qualifieth for baptism in this consideration: I answer; if this be the noblest and highest consideration in Faith, viz. that it gives the relation of Sonship unto God, makes a man or a woman to become a child of God (which I suppose is no man's question) then must it needs be the highest consideration also in the profession of it, that it declares a man or woman to be the child of God. And if these things be so, it undeniably followeth, that either it is somewhat that it is meaner and lower in Faith (and so in the profession of Faith) which instates men in a capacity of Baptism, or else that it is that relative & declarative nature in it of which we speak, which thus enstateth them. Now than if Baptism be to be looked upon as a matter of favour, or privilege vouchsafed by God unto men, or unto his children, it is unreasonable to conceive or think that he should confer it upon the account of that which is meaner, and less considerable in them, passing by that which is more excellent, more considerable and worthy. 3. If faith giveth not right unto Baptism in that declarative consideration mentioned, then giveth it in some consideration relating to it; as (for example) either as it is simply an act, or as it is such, or such a kind of act, or as it relateth to such or such an object, or the like. But there is no other consideration in Faith, by virtue whereof it can so much as tolerably be conceived that it should give a capacity of Baptism: Therefore it must needs be conceived to give this capacity in the consideration specified. Nor can it here reasonably be pretended, in opposition to what hath been said, that it gives the capacity now contended about, in consideration of the ordinance or appointment of God, that so it should do, or that by virtue of such a divine ordinance as this, it gives the said capacity. For, 1. When we affirm that it gives the capacity so oft specified by virtue of the declarative property of it (frequently likewise mentioned) we do not exclude the ordinance, or appointment of God in this behalf but suppose or include it altogether. We believe that faith doth not justify, or make a child of God, but by virtue of the will, appointment, or ordination of God in this kind: nor do we believe that it gives the capacity of Baptism, upon any other ●erms (I mean without the ordinance or appointment of God.) But, Sect. 190. 2. Whensoever God by the counsel of his will, or by his appointment, settleth any privilege or benefactory power, upon any grace, act, or service of his creature. he doth it still in consideration of, or with an eye unto, something that is considerable in, or about this Grace, act or service, which commendeth it unto him as meet and proper for an investiture with such a privilege. He doth not invest every Grace, or every service, with every privilege: but confers privileges with an exact proportion to each Grace, or service privileged by him, in respect of some thing or other considerable in them in reference to such a collation. Now then when we affirm and say, that faith gives a right unto Baptism as it is declarative of Sonship unto God, our meaning is, that this declarative property is that consideration in it, in regard whereof God judged it meet to be invested with such a privilege, as to give a capacity of, or a right unto baptism unto all those in whom it should be found, and hath invested it accordingly. Thus then, all things duly weighed and considered, it fully appeareth, that the device which Mr. A imagined against the argument or objection, lately propounded by himself, is too great for him to perform. By the light of all these late discussion it is sufficiently evident, that faith in no other considerations intrinsically appertaining to it, gives a capacity of Baptism, but only as it is declarative of Sonship and that this is the original and proper qualification for Baptism; and that being by any probable (much more by any demonstrative) argument made known unto those, who have a right to baptise, baptism ought not to be denied unto it. Whereas Mr. A. very operously, and with the quotation of many Scriptures, labours to prove the Eunuches Faith, I believe Jesus Christ to be the son of God, was none other than the Faith of the Gospel, and the common form of Believers confession: and again, that Christ had this Faith, i. e. that he believed himself to be the Son of God; he might to as much purpose, and (well nigh) with as much pertinence to his cause, have spent his pains in proving the Sun to be up at noon day. If he could have proved, First that Christ's faith was of the same nature and consideration with the Faith of believers; And secondly, that he was baptised by John upon the account of this his Faith, simply and absolutely considered, he had made the face of his cause to shine (at least to a degree) but being defective in these, his labour and cost otherwise signify nothing. Sect. 191. What he speaks afterward, concerning Christ making a dedication of himself unto the service of professing and publishing the Gospel, by the solemnity of baptism, as others did and ought to do; he speaks upon no steady, no nor probable, account in reason. For Christ (doubtless) had made a dedication of himself to the service he speaks of long before his receiving the solemnity of Baptism: yea and had professed the Gospel, and declared himself the Son of God. For being yet but twelve years old, he was found in the Temple discoursing the things of God amongst the Doctors (so called) of those times. And to his Parents his Mother saying thus unto him, Son, why hast thou dealt thus with us? behold thy Father and I have sought thee sorrowing, he returned this answer, How is it that ye sought me? witted ye not that I must be about my Father's business? (Luke 2. 46. 49.) So that now he both professed himself to be the Son of God, and declared also that he had dedicated and devoted himself to that work of his, about which he was sent, whereas he was not baptised till about the thirtieth year of his life, Luke 3. 21. 23. Or if Mr. A's. meaning be, that Christ was now coming forth into the world to profess and publish the Gospel openly when he was baptised, the express letter of the Evangelical History riseth up against him. For Christ did not thus profess or publish the Gospel, until John's casting into prison (Matth. 4. 12. 7. Mark 1. 14.) which was some considerable time after his baptising: for presently after his baptising he was led by the spirit into the wilderness, and there continued forty days and forty nights amongst the wild beasts (Mark 1. 13. Matth. 4. 1, 2.) which importeth (as Theophylact well observeth) that all this time he continued in such a part of the wilderness, where men were not wont to come. So that all this while he did not profess or publish the Gospel openly, unless it were to the wild beasts, or the Devil. Nor can it be proved that Johns casting into prison immediately followed the abode of Christ in the wilderness: indeed the contrary appeareth from the Scriptures; yet shall we not argue this at present: So that M. A. is out of the way of truth at this turn also. Why Christ deferred his baptism to that time, when he received it, may be showed in the progress of this answer very speedily. But however Paedobaptists claim countenance to their practice from the baptism of Christ, Mr. A. hath a conceit that from it he can frame an argument against their practice, and this (as he saith) without wresting it; as if it were somewhat a singular thing with him to argue against his adversaries without wresting the Scriptures, which he manageth against them. His argument is a little prolix, and encumbered with words; yet let us give it a patiented hearing, as himself layeth it down. If Je●us Christ his being baptised at that season, and upon that occasion when he began to profess and publish the Gospel, and not before, was in conformity to a Law o● righteousness in this behalf; then those that are baptised, who yet make no such profession, as Infants are, are not baptised inconformity to that Law of righteousness. But Christ his being baptised at that season, and upon that occasion, when he began to profess and publish the Gospel, and not before, was in conformity to a Law of righteousness in this behalf: Therefore those that are baptised, as Infants are, who yet make no such profession, are not baptised in conformity to that Law of righteousness. To this argument we answer, 1. That Mr. A. may be gratified with a concession of the whole Argument, conclusion and all, and yet his cause not gratified at all hereby, nor the cause of his adversaries at all impaired. Sect. 192 For what though Infants are not baptised in conformity to that Law of righteousness, according unto which Christ was baptised, it doth not presently follow from hence, that therefore they are baptised in conformity to no Law of righteousness at all. There must go two words (as the common saying is) to this bargain. Isaac, in conformity to a Law of righteousness, was Circumciszd on the eighth day, Gen. 21. 4. Abraham also was Circumcised in conformity to a Law of righteousness, yet was he not circumcised in conformity to that Law of righteousness, according unto which Isaac was circumcised; for he was not circumcised until the 99 year of his life, Gen. 17. 24. Mathias was chosen into the place and office of an Apostle, in conformity to a Law of righteousness; yet he was not thus chosen in conformity to the same Law of righteousness, according to which Peter, Andrew, and the rest were chosen; for he was chosen by the decision of the lot between Barsabas and him, Act. 1. 26. whereas the other were chosen▪ either by a call from the mouth of the Lord Christ himself, or else by his entertaining them upon their voluntary applications of themselves unto him; which seems to have been the case of Andrew and Peter, and another, Joh. 1. 3●, 38, 40, 41, 42. And as the Apostles, were all true Apostles, and all lawfully called, although the terms or forms of their callings were various; and as those who were circumcised men, and those who were circumcised infants, under the Law, were all lawfully and truly circumcised, though the times of their respective circumcisions were differing: in like manner they who are, with Christ, baptised about the thirtieth year of their lives (not having formely been baptised) and they who are baptised before the thirtieth day of their lives, may lawfully, or by a like, though not the same, law of righteousness, be baptised. So that Mr. A. doth but beat the air, not his adversaries, with this syllogism. Sect. 193. 2. That which this argument taketh for granted, and upon which the whole stress of it resteth, viz. that Christ should be baptised at that season, and upon that occasion, when he began to profess, and publish the Gospel, and not before, hath been lately cashiered upon the delinquency of error found in it. The true reason (to give knowledge of this by the way) why Christ was baptised at that season, of which he now made choice for that purpose, was (as the Evangelist Luke seems to insinuate, Luk. 3. 21.) that in the midst of that great confluence of people which came unto John to be baptised, he might receive a testimony from heaven, that he was the Son of God. This account of the time or season of his baptism, was given by Hierom long ago. The context in Luke very much favoureth it. Now when all the people were baptised, it came to pass that Jesus also being baptised, and praying, the Heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a Dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven which said, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased, Luk. 3: 21, 22. The multitude of those, who came unto John to be baptised (and were now baptised accordingly) is here mentioned, 1. As the occasion of Christ's coming to be baptised (and of his baptism accordingly) and, 2. Together with this baptism of Christ, as an occasion, both of the opening of the heaven, and of the descent of the holy Ghost in a visible shape upon him, and (as the end of these two) of that voice that came from heaven and said, Thou art my beloved Son, etc. The Evangelist Matthew also (c. 3. 13. compared with the foregoing part of the Chapter) glanceth a like intimation: For having first reported, the great numbers that had been baptised by John, as viz. Jerurusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, ver. 5, 6. subjoyning the tenor of John's Doctrine and Exhortation to those that had been baptised by him, ver. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. He taketh notice, v. 13. that Christ took this opportunity for his coming unto John to be baptised of him: THAN cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptised of him: THAN, viz. when, and whilst those who repaired unto John's baptism, were in greatest numbers about him, and attending on his Doctrine. Sect. 194. The reason or occasion now assigned of Christ's delaying his Baptism until the time when he accepted it, hath (as we have showed) a ground in the Scriptures; whereas that pretended by Mr. A. viz. His coming now forth to profess and publish the Gospel in the world, hath neither word, syllable, nor iota here for it. 3. (And last) whereas he saith in the argument before us, That Christ was baptised in conformity to a Law of righteousness (inculcating the expression of such a Law, before and after, over and over) he should have done well, and dealt clearly in his cause, had he produced the Law of which he speaks so much, and so oft, or had directed us to those Scripture quarters where such a Law is to be found. Certainly Christ was not baptised in conformity to that Law of Baptism, which either is, or was, imposed upon others: For this Law, according to Mr. A's own notion and description of it (as we have formerly seen) requireth of all men to repent, before they are baptised; and further, requireth of them to be baptised, in order to the obtaining, or receiving remission of sins: whereas nothing can be more evident than that the Lord Christ was not baptised upon either of these accounts; and therefore not in conformity to the common Law of Baptism, which respecteth every other man. * Lex Mosis de hoc Baptism● nihil praescripserat: & coeleste mandatum, quod Baptista acc●perat, ad peccat●res resipiscentes proprie pertinebat. Hugo Grot. in Mat. 3. 15. If he was baptised in conformity to any Law of righteousness it was some or other of these general Law●, which respect not Baptism more, than many things besides, nor yet other men more, than the Lord Christ himself, as man. ●et all things be done to edification. a 1 Cor. 14. 26. Let all things be done decently. b ver. 40. Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; and if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things. c Philip. 4. 8. And it is the sense of our best Expositors, that when Christ saith: For thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness, he speaketh not of obeying any Institution or positive Law, but only of doing whatsoever was in any respect meet for him to do, even in matters of the least moment otherwise. d Vox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc quidem loco latissime summitur, ita ut signifcet non modo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, said & quicquid ul●am aequi atque●onesti habet rationem. Grot. in Mat. 3. 15. This place (saith Musculus) is diligently to be noted against those, who having no regard of what is Christianly comely, think nothing is to be observed by them, which is not commanded by the express Word of God: nor any thing to be taken heed of, or avoided, which is not forbidden in the manifest words of the Scripture. And Hugo Grotius (in the words lately cited from him) saith, That the Law Inducitur, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cujus apud honesta ingenia & Deum timentia, multa perpetu● vis est, ac ratio— Locus hic probe notandus est contra eos, qui nullam habentes decoris Christiani ration●m, nihil sibi servandum putant, quod non sit expresso Dei mandato praeceptum, & tale, quod omissum damn●t: nec cavenda & vitanda, quae non sunt manifestis Scripturae locis vetitae Musculus in Mat. 3. 15. of Moses had prescribed nothing about this Baptism; and the heavenly command which the Baptist had received, properly belonged to repentant sinners. These things duly considered, it clearly appeareth that Mr. A's pen mistook error for truth, when it wrote: And therefore well may it be said indeed, that Christ received Baptism upon the same terms as others did, AT LEAST IN SEVERAL RESPECTS, and that in conformity to the same standing Law of righteousness (to wit, the Institution of God) common to others as well as to him; unless by this cautionary proviso, at Mr. A. p. 47. least in several respects, he intends to restrain the Baptism of Christ in its conformity to other men's, unto these two respects: 1. That as other men being the children of God, and not having been baptised in their infancy, are regularly baptised when they come to be men, so was Christ. 2. That as other men are baptised upon the account of their relation of Sonship unto God, being made known, so was Christ. However, those respects wherein he maketh the Baptism of Christ corresponding with the Baptism of other men, viz. 1. His being baptised upon the account of the same Faith, upon which they are baptised. 2. His being baptised at his coming forth to profess and publish the Gospel in the world, have been weighed in the balance, and sound light. Sect. 195. Whereas he saith, that Christ had an OPPORTUNITY of being baptised long before, and much soever, than he was, etc. The saying is somewhat reflexive, either upon the Lord Christ, or upon the ordinance of Baptism, or both: For if to be baptised be a worthy piece of obedience and subjection unto God, and the Lord Christ, had an opportunity to exhibit this obedience unto him by being baptised, and yet for a time (for a long time, Mr. A. seems to affirm) neglected, or delayed, to exhibit it, doth not this represent him upon terms much unworthy of him? But it may be Mr. A. at this turn did not so well weigh the import of the word, opportunity. What reason is very imaginable, yea and is suggested by the Evangelists themselves (I mean by two of them) why Christ was baptised not with the first, but with the last, of the people, besides that which Mr. A. conceiteth hath been lately declared. See §. 193. Yea the reason here pretended by him hath been detected for a nullity, §. 191. Concerning his critic inference, or observation from this Particle Now, in these words of Christ to J●hn, Suffer it to be so NOW, as if it pointed at that juncture of time in which he was to be manifested unto the world to be the Son of God; and to manifest to the world the Gospel of God. 1. In this description, or expression of it, he identifies, at least in time, two things, which are, even in this respect, as well as otherwise, much diversified, as hath been (in part) already proved: For though the juncture of time wherein Christ was baptised, was (as hath been granted) the same, or very near to it, with that wherein he was to be manifested unto the world to be the Son of God, yet was it not the same (nor near to it) with that wherein he was to manifest unto the world the Gospel of God. See this demonstratively proved, §. 191. 2. Whereas Mr. A. following our English translation, readeth the clause in hand, thus, Suffer it to be so n●w, Beza out of the Greek, and Tremellius out of the Syriaque, render it, omit nunc, i. e. omit, or pass by now; meaning, that consideration which thou pleadest why thou shouldst not baptise me, viz. that thou hast need to be baptised of me, and not I to come unto thee for Baptism. This reading of the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, maketh the sense of them as if Christ should more at large have spoken unto John thus: John, that which thou pleadest against thy baptising me, viz. that thou hast need to be baptzied of me▪ and not I to come to thee for baptism, is true, and considerable; yet wave the insisting upon it at present: For, thus [i. e. sometimes by waving our prerogative, as I do mine, in coming to thee to be baptised, and other while by doing of that which in ordinary case seems to be above our line, as thou must do by baptising me being the Son of God.] it becometh us [i. e. both thou and me also] to fulfil all righteousness [i. e. to do whatsoever the present exigency, either of the glory of God, or of the edification and salvation of men, doth require.] If this be the true sense, and import of the passage (as I know none more agreeable either to the scope of the place, or to the words themselves, or that exhibiteth a better, or more spiritual notion) Mr. A's criticism about the particle NOW, vanisheth. Musculus well expresseth the sum and substance of the said exposition. It is to be no●ed (saith he) that he doth not only say, omit [or, let pass] but addeth, now; intimating, that that which was true in i● self, just, and worthy, was notwithstanding then to be omitted, and that rather to be don●, which was at present agreeable to the dispensation undertaken by him. He doth not imperiously command, saying, Thus I will, thus I command; but gives a reason why it should at present be done, as he desireth * Deinde notandum est, quod non tantum dicit, omit, sed addit, nunc: innuens, etiam id quod verum in se, justum ac dignum erat, tum tamen esse omittendum, & id potiùs agendum, quod in praesens susceptae dispensasationi compet●bat: non imperat, dicens, sic vole, sic jubeo; sed rationem reddit, ●ur iam ita sit faciendum. Muscul. in Mat. 3. 15. . The emphasis, or force of the said particle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, NOW, implieth the speciality or extraordinariness of the present occasion, and this (probably) with more reference unto John than unto Christ, intimating, that John was never like to be put upon such a kind of action, as the Baptising of Christ, more, this being an action transcendently above his line or condition (as was lately signified) in which respect he ought, or might the more willingly suffer himself to be for once overruled to it, although it be burdensome to a truly modest and humble man, as John was, to act above, or out of his proper sphere. Whereas Christ had many acts of a like, or rather far greater condescension, than his being baptised of John, yet remaining to be performed by him. Now the reason why it was a matter of righteousness [i. e. a thing equitable, meet, and comely] for Christ to be baptitized and in this respect, for John also to baptise him) may be conceived to be, either, 1. because he was to be the head or principal member of a body of baptised one's, or of persons that were to be baptised, and a conformity between Head and Members in this kind, is comely; or, 2. That by submiting unto John's Baptism, he might countenance the same together with his Ministry, and commend the like submission unto others; or else, 3. (and last) that he might leave a gracious pattern and example in general unto others, to condescend both to the doing and suffering of such things, being for the benefit and profit of many, which they have no necessity or occasion otherwise, or in respect simply of themselves, to submit unto, according to that of the Apostle Paul: For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself a servant unto all, that I might gain the more, 1 Cor. 9 19 Sect. 196. But notwithstanding Mr. A. hath quitted himself so weakly, not only in his accenting the particle, NOW, but indeed in his whole reasoning about the Baptism of Christ, yet, as a man that had in a short time perfectly learned the common Genius and deportment of his new Generation, he concludeth masculinely: And thus we see (saith he) that the example of Christ's personal baptism, which was entreated to bless the opinion for Infant-baptism, hath contradicted it altogether. They who desire to see the sight here spoken of had need borrow Mr. A's eyes; and yet I am not without all hope, but that if his eyes were throughly anointed with the salve prepared in th● preceding discourse, he would acknowledge, a deceptio visus in reference to the said Vision, and confess it, darkness. The truth is, that the example of Christ's personal Baptism is so far from contradicting the opinion for Infant-Baptism, that were I to plead the cause of this opinion against the greatest Antipaedobaptist under heaven, I would desire no ground of more advantage to stand on, than it. And concerning the argument for Infant-baptism, which Mr. A. propoundeth (but amiss) and undertaketh to answer, p. 41. of his discourse, let the tenor and term of it be rectified according to my proposal of it, §. 169. of my discourse; if either Mr. A. or if there be any other pillar of the Anti-paedo-baptismal Faith greater than he, shall give a fair, full, and clear answer to it, I shall become their Proselyte; although I have much more strength than this to support me in my present judgement and practice, as the Reader may (in part) find in this present discourse. Having, thus to the satisfaction (I trust) of all reasonable, and considering men, who shall please to read the preceding Treatise, not only detected of insufficiency whatsoever Mr. A. hath pleaded against Infant-baptism, but above all reasonable contradiction evinced the lawfulness, yea expediency, of the practice thereof in Churches constituted, there is no need of pursuing the second part of his Discourse with an Answer: For if men may be lawfully baptised, whilst they are yet children, and shall be baptised accordingly: 1. There can be no necessity (at least in ordinary cases) of their being baptised thesecond time. Nor, 2. Can there be any irregularity in holding Church-Communion with persons thus baptised. And for this latter point, I have elsewhere at large, and by many arguments, pregnant, and full of demonstrations, evinced the regularity and lawfulness of communion with the Saints in Church-fellowship, though unbaptised (especially as Mr. A. calleth unbaptised) But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God, 1 Cor. 11. 16. Postcript, for the finishing of Sect. 25. p. 133. TO say that Christ blessed these children as symbolical or typical resemblances of the humility and docility of Christian converts, or in such a sense as he is said to have blessed the elements in the Sacrament, Mat. 26. 26. Mar. 14. 22. not as persons really capable of any true spiritual blessing, is (it seems) a late Apocryphal, and empty shift found out by some of the Masters of the Anabaptismal persuasion, to help their lame cause over this stile. For, 1. The Scripture no where so much as whispers this notion; I mean, that Christ blessed the children brought unto him no otherwise, then as types only, and as he blessed the Bread in the Sacrament. There is neither precept, nor example in the Scriptures, nor any good consequence from any part of Scripture, so much as to colour such a conceit. 2. Did Jacob bless Ephraim and Manasseh (the sons of Joseph) typically, or as Christ afterwards blessed the Sacramental Bread? or if he blessed them as persons really capable of such good things, as mankind, or reasonable creatures are capable of, and this his blessing them was not fruitless or in vain, but they really prospered upon the account of it; can we imagine that the blessing of Christ conferred upon the children brought to him, should turn to so inconsiderable an account unto them, as to benefit them not otherwise, then as inanimate and senseless things may receive benefit? The like demand might be made concerning Moses his blessing the children of Israel before his death, Deut. 33. 1. 3. Christ pleading the cause of those who brought the children unto him, against his Disciples, who rebuked them, plainly justifies the reasons and grounds of their act in bringing them, which are said to have been, that he might lay hands on them and pray, Mat. 19 13. Therefore (doubtless) he did answer the desires and intentions of these persons in that behalf, in what he did unto, and for these children. Now it must needs be a very weak man's thought, to imagine that they, who brought these children unto Christ, desired nothing from him on their behalf, better or greater then what senseless and liveless creatures might enjoy, as well as they: And if he had conferred upon them only some such thing, as this, he had (certainly) frustrated both the desires and expectations of those that brought them. 4 If Christ had blessed these children only as emblems or types of Gospel converts, in case Lambs or Doves, or Sheep had been brought unto him likewise, he might, upon such an account, as well have laid his hands upon these, and blessed them, and have said, Suffer Lambs and Doves, and Sheep to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of God. But is it meet to make any part of a sober man's faith, to believe or think, that the Lord Christ in the case specified, would either have done or spoken, according to the tenor of these things? 5. (And last) because the conceit we oppose, is in itself so uncouth and improbable, that it is not like to ride any man's judgement, unless he finds it bowed down with prejudice) the reason which Christ gives for this his order, that Children should be suffered to come unto him, and consequently of his gracious intentions towards them upon their coming, is this, viz. That of such is the Kingdom of heaven. This clearly proveth, that the blessing wherewith he now blessed those children that were brought unto him, and intended to bless those that should be brought unto him afterwards, was a blessing appropriate unto Saints, or such, who are subjects in the Kingdom of God: But the Bread in the Sacrament, is no Saint (though the Papists dream it to be the King of Saints) and therefore no capable subject of such a blessing, which the children obtained by their coming to Christ. A Table of some Texts of Scripture occasionally handled, or touched, in the preceding Discourse, and to which some light is given (besides many others cited only probation-wise.) GEn. 17. 1. The uncircumcised Manchild shall be cut off from his people, page 349 Exod. 3. 6. I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, p. 3, 12 Eccles. 7. 11. Wisdom is good with an inheritance, 230 12. 1. Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth, 347, 348, etc. Isa. 1. 11, 12. To what purpose is the multitude of your Sacrifices unto me, etc. 103 Mat. 3. 11. I indeed baptise you with water unto repentance, 246, 248, 328, 375 3. 15. Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness, 263, 390, 401 12. 3. Have ye not read what David did when he was an hungry? etc. 12 12. 8. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath-day, 323 18. 6. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones who believe in me, etc. 166, 167 19 13. Then there were brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands upon them, and pray, etc. 132, 161, 162, 344 22. 31. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read? etc. page 3 28. 19 Go and teach all Nations, baptising them, etc. 167, 168, etc. Mar. 1. 4. The Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of sins, p. 246, 372, etc. 1. 8. I indeed baptise you with water, 328 1. 38. For therefore came I forth, 247 10. 13, 14, etc. And they brought young children unto him, that he should touch them, etc. and he laid his hands on them, and blessed them, 132, 159, 160, 161, 162, 344 16. 16. He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved, 229, 230, etc. 373 Luke 3. 15. And all men mused in their hearts of John whether he were Christ, or no, 284 7. 29, 30. And all the people that heard him, and the Publicans, justified God, being baptised with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptised of John, 182, 183, 260, 261 Joh. 1. 31. But that he should be made manifest unto Israel, am I come baptising with water, 175, 176 3. 5. Except a man be born of Water, and the Spirit, etc. 216, 333 3. 23. And john also was baptising in Enon, near Salim, because much water was there, 62, 63 3. 32. No man receiveth his testimony, 152 5. 31. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true, 206 6. 40. And this is the will of him that sent me, that he that seethe the Son, and believeth on him, etc. 331 7. 39 This he spoke of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive, pag. 329 13. 7. What I do, thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter, 202 20. 29. Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have bleee, 8ed 331 Acts 2. 3. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, 234, 235, 236, etc. 330, 376 2. 39 For the promise is unto you and your children, etc. 145 2. 41. And the same day there was added about three thousand souls, 294. 3. 19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, etc. 235 5. 14. And believers were the more added unto the Lord, multitudes both of men and women, 157 7. 25. For he supposed that his brethren would have understood, how God by his hand would deliver them, but they understood it not, 4 8. 10. To whom they all gave heed, etc. 157, 158 10. 47. They were baptised both men and women, 152, 158 10. 47. Can any man forbidden water, that these should not be baptised? 25 15. 10. Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples? etc. 85 17. 31. Whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead, 4 21. 5. And they all brought us on our way, with Wives and children, 155 22. 16. And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, etc. 252, 253, etc. Rom. 2. 26. Therefore if the uncircumcision shall keep the righteousness of the Law, shall not his uncircision be counted for circumcision? 294, 295 4. 11. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the Faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of all men that believe, 187, 188, etc. 4. 18. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might be the Father of many nations, 188, 189 etc. 6. 5. For if ye have been planted together in the likeness of his death, ye shall also, etc. 280 8. 14. As many as are ●●d by the Spirit of God, these are the Sons of God, 286 8. 23. Even we do sigh in ourselves, waiting for the adoption, 249 8. 24. For we are saved by hope, 303 10. 1. My heart's desire and prayer for Israel is, that they may be saved, 246 10. 10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness etc. 249 14. 22. Hast thou Faith: Have it to thyself before God. 107 1 Cor. 1. 17. For Christ sent me not to baptise, but etc. 128, 327 3. 8. The ministration of the spirit, 326 7. 9 It is better to marry then burn, 108 9 9 Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn, 4 10. 1, 2. And were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud, etc. 37, 38 11. 28. But let a man examine himself, etc. 25, 26 14. 12. Seek to excel to the edifying of the Church, 173 14. 26. Let all things be done to edifying, 345 1 Cor. 14. 31. They may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, etc. 246 2 Cor. 2. 16. And who is sufficient for these things? 23 13. 1. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established, 133, 138 Gal. 3. 12. For the Law is not of Faith; but the man that doth them shall live in them, 299 3. 24. Wherefore the Law was our Schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by Faith, 266, 267. 3. 25, 26, 27. But after Faith is come, we are no longer under a Schoolmaster: For ye are all the children of God by Faith in Christ jesus. For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ, 265, 266, etc. 286. 3. 29. If ye be Christ' s, then are ye Abraham ' s seed, 271. 272 5. 5. We through the spirit, wait for the hope of the righteousness by Faith, 249 7. Ye are all partakers of my grace, 276 Philip. 1. 16. The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, suppossing to add affliction to my bands, 24 Col. 2. 8. After the rudiments of the world, 318, 319 2. 11, 12. In whom also ye are circumcised. Buried with him in Baptism, 145, 256 1. 5. The unfeigned Faith which is in thee, which first dwelled in thy Grand mother, etc. 190 2 Tim. 4. 3. For the time will come, when men will not endure sound Doctrine, but after their own lusts shall heap to themselves Teachers, having, etc. 2 Heb. 12. 14. Without holiness no man shall see the Lord, page 373 jam. 3. 2. For in many things we offend all, 212 1 Pet. 3. 21. The like figure whereto, even Baptism, doth also now save us; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, etc. 256, 302 2 Pet. 1. 19 We have also a more sure word of Prophecy, etc. 322 1 Joh. 3. 10. Whosoever doth not righteiusness, is not of God, etc. 373 A Table of the particulars contained in the preceding Discourse. A Administration. No administration comprehendeth or expresseth the whole mind of God, in, or abou●, the Ordinance administered 110, 111, 118 Agreeableness may stand in the community of one property only 325 Mr. Allen his Petition p. 101. His discourse how censured by some p. 102. His abuse of Baptism, the greatest 104. His question not properly about Baptism, nor the administration of Baptism 104, 111. Not stated in opposition to his adversaries 108. His prescription how to come to satisfaction in it 111. Makes the night overseer of the day 111. Takes no notice of a want of a Baptismal Institution, ibid. His late opinion about anointing with Oil 113. He turns aside from his business 123. altars the state of the question 261. Differs from his Master Fisher 34, 199. Cites Scriptures against himself 154. Rends Christian society upon had-I-wist 216. Alloweth not the holy Ghost the liberty of his own understanding to draw up his own records 152. Maketh himself wise above what is written 151. Offereth sacrifice to an unknown God 185. Contradicteth himself 228, 198, 214, 265, 305, 340, 371. Most heavily censureth the whole Christian world 218, 221, 222. Blameth in Paedobaptists what himself practiseth 314. Citeth Scriptures impertinently 306. Triumpheth without a Conquest 278. Mispropoundeth the argument of his adversaries 359. In his citations of Scripture, he sometimes putteth in w●rds that make for him, and sometimes leaveth out words that make against him 181, 182, 260, 302 Ana-baptism can sail with any wind 162. Not so termed by way of disparagement, or disgrace, 165. Not justifiable by the Scriptures 72, 73. The wrath of God hath been from time to time revealed from heaven against it, and this in several kinds 80, 81, 82, etc. An harbinger to erroneous, wild, and fond opinions 81, 82, 83, etc. Anabaptists. Some Samaritan●ze better Jews than themselves 9 No good conseque●tialists 13. Multiply bands of conscience without Scripture 14. Improvident in exchanging their Infant-baptism 18. Superstitious, and Will-worshippers 30, 41. Make the entrance into Christian Churches, more dangerous and grievous, than the entrance into the Jewish Church was 39 Act beside, and without Scripture warrant or example 42. Former and latter compared 86. Two sorts of them 88 Their Churches divided 362. They have always been injurious to the Gospel 85, 86, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what it sign fi 25 Augustin for Infant-Baptism from the Apostles 133, 134, etc. 140. Accounteth for the original of Godfathers, etc. 41 B Baptism. A seal of the righteousness of Faith, page 34, 190, 191. Not to be administered with danger 20, 21. May be performed without dipping 29. Questions about in like to be endless 104. and little advantageous to the Gospel 107. Contendings about Baptism now, and Circumcision of old, compared 102, 103. Idolized by Mr. A. ibid. Never expressed by the Verb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifieth to dip 47. Typifies Christ's applying him ●lf unto men 55. not given for bodily cures 57 Manifestation of Christ to the world no end of it 175, 176, etc. 283. Justifying God in the sight of the world, no end of it 259, 260. compared with Circumcision 187. When it is common, it is no argument of Faith 178, 179, etc. It is not unlawful, when some one end of it only is not attained 258. It is not a part of the Gospel 263. Is no Scripture test o● visible Saintship 274. 275, 276, etc. 281. No declaration or profession of Christ made by it unto the world 283, 284. etc. Administered in Rivers and in cold seasons, prejudicial unto health, yea and life itself 39 Three kind● of Baptism (besides Waterbaptism) 236. Whether Christ be put on by Baptism 285, 286. How it saveth 302, 303. Whether it be a part of the Gospel ministration 327. Whether it contributes towards the receiving of the Spirit 327, 328, etc. Requireth no active principle in the subject, in reference to the reception of it 241, 338. It is still in force 349. although the arguments to the contrary have not been well answered by any Antipadobaptist 231, 232. Why called the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins 380, 381. Whether and how rewardable 353. Why described as relating only unto persons of discretion 372, 373. How rewardable without Faith 153. What it must be that qualifieth for it 380 Adult baptism a seminary of confusion in Churches constituted 32. Amongst persons born of Christian Parents, not consistent with the Gospel rule of Baptising 70, 71, 72, etc. Baptism administered to non-beleevers 112. 113, 173. Administered by unbaptised a nullity 143. To be taken up for future repentance 186. Asign to children 191 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to wash, as well by any other kind of washing, as by dipping 47. Never used in the New Testament to signify to dip 48. However, it doth not signify to undip 50 Baptising. Never expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifieth to dip 48. To baptise, a business of Inferior consequence, compared with the preaching of the Gospel 123, 124. The baptising of many no argument of the success of the Gospel 152, 153 Basil 75 Mr. Baxter 16, 32, 39, 42, 78, 84, 86, 88, 89 Beza 77 L. Brook 138 Bulinger 78, 82, 83, 85, 256 C Calvin p. 67, 76, 77, 186, 216, 217, 241, 257, 265, 268, 352 374, 377 Children. Their righ● to Baptism 26. As capable of Baptism, as they were of Circumcision 34, 35. Baptised into Moses, 37, 38. Children of Gentile believers not inferior to the children of the Jews 37. In the same capacity of holy things under the Gospel, in which they were under the Law 196, 197, etc. 304. How in a capacity of engaging to the practice of repentance 195, 196, etc. 384. How stand in need of Baptism 204. As capable of the benefit or the ends of Baptism, as the ends of imposition of hands 307. 308. Why not capable of the Lords Table 338. How, and why, the children of God 360. Whether, and how all children are capable of Baptism 363. Jews children involved in the rejection of their parents 36, 37 Christ. His Faith not of the same kind with the Faith of other believers 386, 387. Whether baptised upon the account of his faith, and what Faith 388 389 etc. Whether consecrated himself to the service of the Gospel by Baptism Not baptised in conformity to the common Law, or rule, of baptising 388, 389. etc. May be put on several ways 270 Church-membership, a great privilege to children under the Law 35. So under the Gospel also 36. No Levitical ceremony, nor abolished by Ch●ist 42, 43 Circumcision, with all the burden of the Mosaical Law atding it, no yoke, in comparison of Baptism, as it is now obtruded 166. The end and use of it better served, by the the circumcising of children, then of men 174, 196, 199, 208, 308. A sign or seal of no man's Faith 194, 195. The use and end of it the same in substance with those of Baptism 187. Why the fierce Advocates of it so severely censured by the Apostle 102, 103. The end of it 174. Engaged to the practice of Repentance, as well as Faith 194, 195. The remaining of it in the flesh 289, 290, etc. The visibility of it not insisted upon by the Scriptures 290, etc. Not profitable without keeping the Law 297. Not a seal of righteousness of Abraham's Faith only 33, 188, 189, etc. Intended primarily for children, yet first administered unto men 112. Profited not upon the mere deed done 297, 298, etc. How it abolished from Christ 226. The Circumcision of men more spoken of in the old Testament, then of children and why 1●9 etc. The administration of i● unto in●●n●s a pa●● of the wisdom and strength of the Law 309. The●r sons of Infant Circumcision Ev●n●e●ical 315 ●●quired on●y a reg●la● passiveness in ●t● pr●p●r subject 339. More edifying in being administered unto children 345. The want of it why threatened with cutting ●ff 349. Though ●ot received voluntarily, ye profited afterwards 3●1 Circumstance. Different circumstances may justified different actions 113. may suspend lawful, yea, in some ca●es, necessary actions 123 Conscience. Reverence is due to the consciences of the Saints 172 Consent. Subsequent and Antecedent 335 Consequences from Scripture are Scripture 15 16. T●● more unable, or in expert, m●n are, to raise consequences regularly, they must needs be so much the more ignorant of the mind of God in the Scriptures 112, etc. Contra-Remonstrants magnify their opinions 10 Contraries. One contrary removed placeth not the other 184 Cyprian oft cited by Austin for Infant-baptism 134. cited 148 D Deodate 217 D●●pi●g with garments, or without, very inconvenient 56, 57, 64. Was the Devil's ceremony 58, 59 Donatists 9 E 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes used for, ad, unto 60. Sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in 65, 66. Sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because, or, for the sake of 247 Ex sometimes signifieth, f●om 60 Error is apt to propagate 89 90 Est us 265 Eugenius Pope 241 Eunomius 9 Eunuch (Act. 8.) not dipped 51, 52, 61, 62 Examples of Christ and the Apostles do not bind universally 116, 117. In what cases they bind 127 F Fact. Mere matter of fact no meet pillar to build any man's Faith upon 116, 117 Faith and Repentance dead works (according to Mr. A.) until Baptism quickeneth them 221. Faith under the Law how differs from Faith under the Gospel 266. How it qualifieth for Baptism 391, etc. It investeth men with the prerogative of Sonship 391, 392, etc. Mr. Fisher 34. ackn●wledgeth the Jews doting on the Circumcising of their children 144. His hard hap 150. His misunderstanding Christ's imposition of hands on the children 160. His daring assertions 162, 163, 166. His mistaken construction of Abraham's receiving Circumcision 188, 189. His true interpretation of the verb substantive 193. His error, that Baptism is no sign unto children 199, 200. Knoweth better how to triumph, then to conquer, 166. Resisteth Mr. Tombs 361 G Godfathers & Godmothers th●ir original recorded in Church History, not the original of Infant baptism 140 Grotius 217, 265▪ 268 Gua●ter 241 H Hands. Laying on of hands, a mean of receiving the Spirit, not Baptism 329, 330. Children why capable of laying on hands 339 Dr Holms 136, 149 Mr Th. Hooker 53 Household, and house, commonly signify children in an house, a● well as others 131 I Jailor and his house, whether dipped when baptised 69, 70, 147 Idolatrous usage prohibited by God 59 Jews their zeal for their children 45. yet never complained of their not being baptised 45 Imitating Christ and the Apostles, in their arguing, how necessary 320, 321, 322 Infant-baptism yeeldth all the real fruits of true Baptism 97, 99 May be proved from the Scriptures to have been practised in the Apostles days, though not from the History of the Scriptures 115. Proved by many arguments that it was then practised 122. to p. 150. Asserted from the Apostles by more than two or three witnesses 138, 139. If forborn by the Apostles, it was neither out of their own private spirits, n●r by any Scripture restraint 122, etc. There may be other reasons now for it 124, 125. The original of it not recorde● in any Church-history 149, 141. No reason or likelihood that it should be introduced into the Church contrary to the practice of it in the Apostles days 147. The first opposers of it, both in former and latter times, were wicked men and unsound in the Faith 142, 143. How it is a means to enlarge the Kingdom of Christ 149. Christ manifested by it, as well as by men-baptism 177. More edifying quickening, etc. then men-baptism 180, 181. 346, 347. More justifying God in the sight of the world 262, 263. More improveable and engaging 30▪ 31, 348. As proper and sufficient to compass all Baptismal ends, as Infant-circumcision, the ends of Circumcision 310. Yet is it not built upon Infant▪ circumcision 314. How of a moral consideration, 223, 224. How it may be ascertained to the Baptised afterwards 291, 292, etc. Upon what grounds it was first dissuaded 74, 75. Practised by those, who conversed with the Apostles 46. Was n●t brought into the Church by Pope Innocent, 46, 47, 74. Is no will-worship 41. May be a duty, though not so easy to come at 5 (.) Why the arguments against it are so taking with many 3. It is not disagreeable t● the Gospel ministration 325, 326, etc. Infant-church-membership not abolished by Corist, 43, 44, 45, 154 Infants See children. Pope Innocent not the first that commanded children to be baptised 74, 149 Institutions not instances, the best means to regulate the administration of Ordinance▪ 109 110. No administration fully commensurable to an Institution 110 118. They are subject to the Law of Nature and humane accommodation 110, 111 See Ordinance. John Baptist why termed Elias, 246. Whether he baptised by dipping 66, 67 Jovinian 9 L Laying on of hands. See hands Law. Weakness and unprofitableness attributed unto the Law comparatively only 308 Lorinus 241 Love, steereth all things in the Gospel 340. Love of God, what, and how, qualifieth jor Baptism 383 M Marlorat 217 Mr. Marshal 136 P. Martyr 241 Melchior Adamus 82 Means may be lawfully used, though, and where, they are less serviceable 171, 173, 177 Musculus 77, 167, 186, 265, 268, 375. N Nature. The Law of nature allowed to umpire in the administrations of Ordinances or Institutions 110 Nazianzen 75 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how distinguished by Paul 267 O Objections answered▪ no relief to weak arguments 170 Ordinance. The subject no part of it, 19, 20, 163. In what cases God himself poureth contempt upon Ordinances 103. He best understands their conducement to their ends 174 P Mr. Perkins 265 Mr. Joh. Philpot 137, 141; 150, 159 Precedency in mention is not argumentative 167, 168, 176 Primitive practices how, and in what cases not obliging, 113▪ 114, 115 R To Relieve is to honour 6 Remission of sins is the righteousness of Faith 34. 188. Not suspended upon Baptism, 187. 214, 315. 220▪ It is twofold 111. 235. Promised both unto Faith and Repentance 317, 218, etc. 246. Sometimes signifieth the assurance or fruition of this remission 249. not the same with Sonship 370 Repentance, how, and in what respect, qualifieth for Baptism 367 Rudiments of the world 318 S Sacramental, or typical expressi●ns 256 Sanctification, sanctify. Men are oft said to sanctify themselves, but not to justify themselves 255 Salvation, not suspended upon Apocryphals, or man-supposed truths 231. Some thing necessary to it, which are not necessary to justification 239. etc. Scripture, The result of Scripture, is Scripture 16 Scultetus 76 A Seal is not to proc●re, but to confirm 34 Signs, and seals, not necessarily corresponding in similitude 27, 28 Silence. Total silence of Scriptures, no proof of a negative 128, 129 Sin. Every sin is waylaid by God 1●1 S●●da●●6. Sonship unto God, ●ow 〈…〉 veth 360. 36●. ●c. Superstition, wha● 29▪ 10 Synecdoche. A figure of Speech frequent in the Scripture 33▪ T Teaching differs much from making Disciples 169 Tertullian seems to be the first that persuaded to delay Infant-Baptism 74. yet approveth it in case of necessity 75 Mr Tombs 85. 146 opposeth Mr Fisher 361 Trapezuntius 294 Trent Catechism 242 Truth why embraced with much difficulty 1, 2 V Visibility of Saintship 272, 273, etc. Saints visible before Baptised 278, 279, etc. Ursine 77, 82 W Washing performed by the application of water to the thing to be washed, not on the contrary 55 Will worship, what, 29. 41. Every usage of holy things not particularly prescribed by God, is not Will-worship 41 Women, upon what ground to be admitted to the Lords Table 26. and children comprehended under men. 156 Z Zuinglius 76 Reader the mistakes of the Prefs, are rather many, then material. Yet if in reading thou meetest with any thing that disturbeth thee in thy way, thou mayest presently be relieved by repairing to this Index corectivus: Possibly thou mayst meet with some other oversights, besides those rectified here (especially in the Epistles.) For as the saying is, that finitum additum finito non facit infinitum, so neither doth a Corrector added to a Printer, nor a Supervisor added unto both, amount to a man that cannot err or mistake. p. 2. l. 23. read, rejected, p. 4 l. 4. r. truth, p. 11. l. 24. r. there p. 12. l. ult for 23. r. 3. p. 19 l. 24. r. kind, p. 25. l. Title, r. commensurable, p. 28. l. 9 r. typical. p. 31. l. 9 r. apparent, p. 34. l. 26. r. contradictions, p. 34. l. 33. r. descriptior, p. 37. l. 25. r. as, p. 40. l. 33. r. there p. 41. l 7. r. not, p. 45. l. 32▪ r. yet p. 53. l. 1. r. appropriate, p. 44. l. 7. after not, r. as much, p. 56. l. 27. deal unto them, p. 57 l. 3. r. apoplexies, p. 60. l. 15. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ibidem, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 64. l. 35. r. a provision, p. 77. l. 10. r. Anabaptists, p. 79 l. 22. r. propagate, p. 82 l. 10. r. Christians, p. 82. l. 15. r. sent, p. 83. l. 33. r. Doctrines, p. 92. l. 19 r. YE, p. 94. l. 8 for discourse, r. consideration, p. 132. l. 23. r. Administer p. 102. l. 30. r. obtruded, p. 100 l. 29. r. externalities, p. 109. l. 1. deal a, p. 117. l. 15. r. spes, p. 118. l. 1. r. denying, p. 129. l. 35. r. did forbear, p. 123. l. 23. deal here, p. 134. l. 14. r. Ecclesiae, p. 140. l. 8. r. putrid, p. 153. l. 8. r. And, p. 157. l. 3●. r. persons, p. 170. l. 22. r. for, p. 184. l. ●it. r. placeth, p. 186. l. 8. r. (haply) himself, p. 187. l. 47. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 198. l. Tit. r. capacity, p. 206. l. 11. r. declaration, p. 216. l. 15. r. Christian, p. 226. l. 4. r. care, p. 240. l. 30. deal the, p. 243. l. 24. aft●r saved, r. only addeth, p. 243. l. 32. r. gift, p. 245. l. Tit. r. repentance, p. 247. l. 12. r. upon you? p. 248. l. 12. r. from, p. 252. l. 24. r. eightieth, p. 254. l. 2. r. forgiven, p. 256. l. 24. r. hereafter. p. 264. l. 19 r. assumes, p. 266. l. ult. r. after, p. 269. l. Tit. r. putting on, p. 273. l. 4. r. An●i-pedo baptism, p. 274. l. 4. r. consideration, p. 284. l. 7. deal Christ, p. 288. l. 17. after would r. not, l. 34. r. substantial, p. 318. l. 7. r. he, before demands, p. 339. l. 10. r. opposed, ●. 26. deal as, p. 341. l. 8. r. apt, p. 342. l. 4. r. form of, p. 345. l. 1. r. in their, p. 3▪ 6. l. 34. r. baptised, p. 348. l. 23. deal we as, p. 357. l. 2. r. foundations, p. 360. l. 32. r. believed, p. 365. l. 24. r. exerts, p. 376. l. 6. r. dissuaded, l. 23. r. therefore, p. 378. l. 11. for adulterous, r. adult. p 379. l. 18. deal reason, p. 380. l. 6. for in, r. it. p. 387. l. 'tis r. where, l. 1. r. to be, p. 391. l. 14. after is, r. in, p. 393. l. Tit. deal to, l. 6. r. it in some other, p. 394. l. 14. r. discussions, l. 15. r. consideration, p. 404. l. 1. r. terms.