Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3

TO The Christian Reader.

T Hough all personal Pleas and Narrations are suspected to be partial, and are usually judged to have something of ostentation, or dissembling, o • some such inordinate affection which may abate their credit and esteem, yet the practices of opponents in Controversies, and the great prejudice to the Truth, and person opposed they create thereby, and the difficulty for persons who are not actors in such contentions to understand the truth without them make them necessary. Doubtless if such pleas were not necessary, the Apostle Paul would not have thought his course justifiable, who hath written one Epistle, to wit, the second to the Corinthians, almost wholly Apologetical for himself, that the misunderstanding of himself and ways might not be advantage to Seducers for hindering the success of his preaching. It is true my credit and esteem is nothing comparable to the Apostles, the Church and Truth of God may stand, though I be buried in perpetual silence: yet since I am a Preacher of the Gospel as Paul was ( absit verbo invidia ) and my labors therein as I hope not altogether without fruit, and since the Lord seems to me to have set me, though in a lower Sphere, for defense of that One Baptism which Paul mentions Ephes. 4.5. as one of the chief points of Christianity, and Heb. 6.2. is counted as a foundation point. I assure myself Paul 's practice doth justify mine, and that I should be wanting not only to mine own credit, but also to that truth which is dearer then my credit, if I should pass by with silence those misrepresentations whereby both are abused, and the minds of men alienated from them. Which is the more necessary, because of the great repute which my Antagonists have in this generation, and their confident speeches, and their incessant endeavors upon all occasions in Pulpits, Presses, Disputes, Conferences, to represent the way I avouch as dangerous, myself as instrumental to an evil design of perverting and dividing the Churches of God, unto which the proneness of men to uphold an Error inveterate, and speciously pretended to be approved and blessed by God, and the contrary opinion accursed, besides the advantages it hath for their carnal ease, and for the begetting of a favorable opinion of themselves and their children (which are more to most then demonstrations out of God's word) do gain an easy assent. And though I am not out of hope that those who have opposed the truth I assert with impetuous zeal, will be (especially the most tender conscienced, who examine their ways, and review their doctrines) awakened and see and confess their error, yet I fear the obloquy, and perhaps detriment in repute and outward estate and peace, which m • n either are likely or doubt they may incur by owning the truth I hold forth, or the seeming inconsistency of the reformation I seek to promote, with the peace of the Churches of God, will divert the thoughts of many from an exact consideration, and an equal judgment of what I shall write, either of myself or the matter under debate. What was wont to be opposed against the reformation of Popish and Prelatical corruptions, shall we go against all antiquity? Be wiser then our Fathers? condemn all the Churches? make rents in the Church? and such like objections, though they be upon examination but vain, yet like Gorgons head they are apt to turn men into stones, and to make men not see what they do or might see, and to be insensible of the evil of that practice, which otherwise their Consciences would be affrighted with. And truly though it be the wise and just contrivance of Divine prov • dence, and congruous to his end, that the vanity of all things under the Sun might appear, yet is it an human irregularity, that not only for evil labor, but also for all travel and every right work a man is envied, malign • d, or disliked of his neighbor, Eccl. 4.4. chiefly when it crosseth self ends and conceits. Nor is it incident only to the profane and unbelievers, to dislike and oppose such acts as are rightly done, but also to the godly, until their mistakes are discovered to them. The building of the Altar of Ed, Josh. 22.12. was likely to have been an occasion of war beetween the rest of the Congregation of Israel and some Tribes▪ till the intention of the builders was cleared to Phinehas ; and Peter 's going in to Cornelius, Act. 11.2. occasioned contention with him, though it were from God, till his warrant was shown. Paul knew that his promoting the collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem might be distasted of the best, and therefore he prays that his service which he had for Jerusalem might be accepted of the Saints, Rom. 15.31. Even holy upright men have their weaknesses, passions, mis-prisions, prejudices, which oft times hinder a right understanding of tenets and actions of Christian Brethren, and thereby no small contentions arise. God would have us discern thereby human imperfection, and keep our spirits humble and heedful how we manage the rightest actions. Surely no action is more necessary then the discovery of truth in the things of God, nor should any endeavors be more acceptable to holy persons, then such as tend thereto, yea though there should be imperfection in actings and defect in the success. Yet too much experience hath shown that such attempts meet with much opposition, and are ill entertained even by those who are or seem friends to truth. It is unnecessary to give instances: in the Scripture Acts 15.2, &c. in the Ecclesiastical Story there are so many as verify it beyond all contradiction. If there were no other example but what hath befallen me about the point in this writing discussed, yet it were sufficient to verify what I said of the difficulty to gain entertainment of that truth against which men are prepossessed, and of the ill usage of them that in a due manner endeavor to clear it. That Infant Baptism was not according to God's will, I thought might be made manifest by the silence of it in Scripture, and the Writings of the two first Ages, and by showing how it was counted but an Ecclesiastical human tradition unwritten, induced upon such reasons by the Leaders of the Churches in after ages as are now judged erroneous; and how false and dangerous the grounds are on which it is made a Divine institution, to wit, an imagined Covenant of grace to a Believer and his seed natural, the nature of Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace, the inference of duties about positive rites of the New Testament from analogy with abrogated Ceremonies of the old, the command of Circumcision to have been in the extent of it commensurate to and derived from the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. as the adequate reason, the succession of Baptism into the room and use of Circumcision; all which or most of them, are so contrary to the Scripture and Protestant doctrine, as that I presumed they would quickly have been discerned by those who are acquainted with the controversies of Divines, and sought reformation in Discipline, and removal of human inventions in God's worship, and had entered into a solemn oath and Covenant to that end. And for my way of manifesting my doubts first to the Ministers of London, and then to the Committee of the Assembly then sitting at Westminster, and after to a prime man in it in the years 1643, 1644. and what opposition I found is so manifest in my two Treatises and Apology published 1645, 1646. as that it were but actum agere to say anymore thereof. Which I hoped would have taken off such prejudices, as my Antagonists writings had raised against my writings and person, that I might securely apply myself to review the Dispute, w • thout hearing of anymore personal objections. But when I found the like usage continued by Mr. Robert Bailey of Glasgow in Scotland, I published an Addition to the Apology 1652. though it were framed before, and sent in a letter Manuscript to him. Yet the hottest charge was behind. After my necessitated removal from the Temple in London to Bewdley in Worcestershire, anno 1646. it happened that a public Dispute was between Mr. Richard Baxter of Kidderminster near to Bewdley and myself, at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. which how it was occasioned, managed, injuriously divulged, may be perceived by the writings on both sides; his Epistle before the first Edition of the Saints Everlasting rest, his Book of Baptism, Praefestinantis Morator, and my Antidote printed 1650. and Pr • cursor, anno 1652. By Mr. Baxter's book of Baptism, myself, doctrine, answers, practice have been so unwo • thily dealt with, as that they have been painted out in deformed shapes quite besides their true feature, and thereby exposed to the unrighteous censures and contempt of so many, that Mr. Blake in his Preface to his Vind. faederis thought he might without control say, Mr. Tombes is generally looked upon low enough under hatches. It is indeed too manifest that upon the publishing of Mr. Baxter's Book of Baptism, which was often printed and very much dispersed, floods of reproaches were cast on me and those who are of my judgment in that point, triumphant boastings of that book as the Mawl of Anabaptism, a most excellent piece, a lasting monument, &c. which had laid me flat on my back, with many the like vaunts in print and colloquies. Nor did men's loose tongues and pens stay here, but many insolent speeches were vented, trampling upon me and the Cause with me as Captives subdued by that mighty hand; my actions were censured, my abilities disparaged, yea people possessed with conceits as if I and those of my judgment were accursed of God, left over to a spirit of delusion, a hardened heart; Magistrates were provoked to make Laws against us, as intolerable authors and fomentors of the errors, heresies, and divisions now in the Land; the rage and violence of common people shown itself against the practice of Baptism enjoined by Christ, people were deterred from hearing us, Scholars from reading our Writings, ancient acquaintance alienated, liberty formerly allowed to preach in public places restrained, those that by Baptism were added to Communion withdrawn from society, yea violent cours • s taken to hinder Wives, children, servants from associating with them that were baptized, and that which was in former ages the only Baptism, and highly honored by the ancient Writers with titles of dignity exceedingly debased and derided, insomuch that in many parts of this Land, I have been taken at best for a self-conceited man, affecting novelty and singularity, of a dangerous spirit, a ring leader of a sect of giddy men adversaries to unity, discipline, opening a door to all fanatique conceits, whose end would prove wicked, with many more imputations, which neither my books nor known conversation afore and since the wars, my labors and employment in places not obscure, the confessed holiness, orth • doxy, unblameableness of those Churches over which I had any inspection, or with whom I associated could so acquit us▪ but that either our wound is uncured or a skar rem • ins. Mr. Blake in his Preface to his Vind. faed. saith thus of me. And indeed I think it a special providence that he should thus appear with a show of learning, a volumn of words, a rhapsody of Authors▪ getting a name to be the strongest sword and buckler that was ever left up in this Cause, to draw the eyes of his party towards him, and then fall so flat, able to make good nothing; so that men far from censorious vanity well able to judge (upon serious perusal of his works and converse with him) do conclude, that it is not possible but he goes against the dictates of his own conscience ; so that these it seems count me for an autocri • or self-condemned heretic. What other imputations Mr. Blake casts on me, may be seen here Sect. 26. And what Mr. Firmin, Mr. Gattaker, and Mr. S • mon Ford, Sect. 53. Besides what Mr. John Goodwin, Mr. Wood, and many more have judged of mine and Mr. Baxter's writings. After Mr. Baxter Mr. John Crag would needs take up the cudgels and play his part in this matter, which how he hath done may be seen by our writings, compared chiefly here sect. 87, &c. Books after books have been published from England and Scotland, by Dr. Hammond, Mr. Carter, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Fuller, Dr. Savage in Latin, and others for Infant-baptism; besides Sermons in the Pulpit, and determinations in the Universities at most solemn times. Yea upon occasion of a mere accident at Oxford in July 1652. I have been baited in the Weekly News • books, and I have just cause to conceive that by clancular Letters, conferences, consultations, not only my doctrine hath been decried, my writings vilified, my way represented as pernicious that people might not know the truth, but also my station undermined, and my silencing endeavored; and which is of all other the most grievous to me, the fruit of my labors in the Gospel of Christ not a little hindered: so that whereas Mr. Baxter would have in his Gildas Silvianus all Ministers tied to confer with the people in private▪ by his misrepresenting of me, the people (whom I would gladly teach) are deterred from hearing me in public, and conferring with me in private. Yea notwithstanding the Quakers have been so often opposed by me, and my doctrine as contrary to theirs as light to darkness, by reason of Mr. Baxter's imputing the rise of Quakerism to Anabaptism, as he terms it (which how • ar he chargeth on me may be seen by his Questions to me set down here sect. 63.) one Blashfield a bookseller in Lempster hath openly reviled me at the close of my Sermon while I was in the Pulpit Decemb. 26. 1656. though I then refuted the Quakers, and told me, if there were no Anabaptist there would be no Quaker ; and somewhat afore Mr. Farmer a preacher in Bristol making a relation of James Naylors riding into Bristol, prints a passage in a private letter, which he with much ado signifies to me was written by Mr. Robert Breton of Pembridge in Herefordshire but four miles from me, in which I am charged to say, that in a Sermon which I disavow in my writings upon the report at table of a man of this Town, who (what ever his qualities be) being pressed twice by me, once before some of the most intelligent and indifferent men here, another time before all or the most part of the Governors of this Town, to deal plainly whether I did speak those words which Mr. Farmer hath printed doth refuse to do it, shuffles in his answers, and will neither affirm nor deny it. Such dealings as these from men reputed godly, preachers of the Gospel, some of them fellow-sufferers for the common cause of reformation, and by the same Covenant engaged to it, do make me amazed to see what strange courses the intemperate zeal of Paedobaptists carries them, discerning thereby what a malignity of spirit they have towards me, who have so far as I can remember done no such thing to them, nor have been wanting in any good office I could do for them with a good conscience, but willing to join with godly dissenters in the common Cause of Christ. Nor do I find any relenting in Mr. Baxter, but as he shows his spirit in his letters printed here sect. 53, 63. so by his preaching at Bowdley May 4▪ 1656. in which he gave ten frivolous reasons for his practice of Infant-baptism, for the confirming of his party who opposed my preaching there at that time, and since, and by the late passages in most of his writings, and in his last book of Conversion p. 109. I find him still the same he was. No doubt (saith he) but God doth pardon original sin to multitude of infants by the blood of Christ, through the Covenant of grace which is made to the faithful and their seed, and this pardon bestowed by the Covenant is sealed by baptism which more solemnly conferreth it. It is most probable that God doth also make some change on the hearts of infants, secretly giving some seed of inward grace before or in their baptism. And p. 299. he hath this fool • sh passage. Others withdraw upon pretence we are unbaptized, to which end they must coin a new baptism, or else they are at a loss. And their arguing with 〈◊〉 will be much like the Papists, in the point of Transubstantiation, which requireth that men renounce their sense and say, that they see not that which they se • , and feel not or taste not that which indeed they feel and taste, and then they may come to be in the right; and so we must believe that we see none baptized in our Churches, nor hear it, nor know of any such thing, and then we may come to be a Church: As if the arguing were that there is nothing which Paedobaptists call baptism in their Churches, not, there is nothing that may be truly called Christian baptism according to Christ's institution, and then p. 300. after his fashion when he wants arguments, he adds. Oh if it were the will of God that we could have as clear light in some other weighty points as we have in Scripture for the baptism of the children of believers, how much would it do to quiet the understandings of many that are willing to know! I dare not say it is a wonder to me to find such passages in Mr. Baxter, but having examined his book of baptism, his ten reasons for his practice of Infant baptism delivered in Bewdley Chapel May 4. 1656. His Letters to me 1655. set down here sect. 53, &c. I cannot but bemoan the sad condition, first of Ministers and people who are carried away with such shallow disputings, and confident speeches as Mr. Baxter hath used in these writings. 2. Of myself, and all who go about to clear truth, that they be necessi • ated to stir up such a nest of Wasps and Hornets▪ as these have shown themselves to be who have opposed me, if th • y do never so brotherly and fairly and regularly declare their judgments contrary to the common received tenets. Yet I must confess two things have somewhat refreshed me against the hard censures of those whom Mr. Blake mentions and the rest, the one that His Highness, and Council and the Parliament since (as I am informed) confirming the Ordinance for approbation of public Preachers seem to have better though • s of me in putting that trust on me, th • other that (to mention no other) two of the ablest acutest and well read Divines and accurate Dispu • an • s, which I have known the University of Oxford in my time to have bred, and who have been thought sit for the Divinity Chair, have had far other conceits of my writings then these have had, the one not long after the publishing of my Examen, expressing his rejoicing to see so accurate and scholastical a discussing of the point, which he found not in the Assembly, wishing he had known of it afore the publishing of it that he might have prefixed an Epistle, yet wishing it had been written in Latin, as foreseeing that the publishing it in English was likely to beget me more trouble, then it would have done if printed in Latin ; the other who since that wrote thus to me. I am a friend to your person (whom I have known (though not known to you) this 31. years) and to your opinion too (as to the main of it) for I believe and know, that there is neither precept nor practice in Scripture for Paedobaptism▪ nor any just evidence for it for about two hundred years after Christ. The first who bears witness to Infant baptism prastised in the Church is Tertullian▪ but so as he express •• d slik • s and condemns it as an unwarrantable and irrational custom • : and Naxianzen a good while after him (in his Oration 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) dislikes it too, and would not have infants brought to baptism till they were of some age and able to answer for themselves. Sure I am that in the Primitive times they were first to be Catechumini, • f then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 illuminati, or baptizati, and that not only children 〈◊〉 Pagans▪ or Pagans converted, but children of Christian parents, Na • ianzen (though a Bishops son) being not baptized till he was about 30. years of age, as appears in his life, and the like is evident of some others· The truth is, I believe P • dobaptism did (how or by whom I know not) come in in the 2d. Century and in the 3d. and 4th. began to be practiced (though not generally) and defended as lawful from that text (grossly misunderstood) Jo. 3.5. Upon the like gross mistake of Jo. 6.53. they did for many Centuries (both in the Greek and Latin Church) communicate infants and give them the Lord's Supper, and I confess they might do both as well as either: But although they baptized some infants and thought it lawful so to do, yet Augustine was the first that ever said it was necessary inde durus pater infantum. I have read what my learned and worthy friend Dr. Hammond, Mr. Baxter and others say in defense of it, and (I confess) I wonder not a little that men of such great parts should say so much to so little purpose, for I have not yet seen anything like an argument for it. Nor is it a small case to me that I find after all Mr. Baxter's shameful and vain arguings against the truth, and injurious dealings with me and the baptized Christians, with whom I hold Communion, that yet at last, though quite besides his intentions, he hath so befriended our cause as to lend us twenty good arguments against Infant baptism, in his 2d. disputation of right to Sacraments, in the close of the 16th. saying thus p. 156. I conclude that all examples of baptism in Scripture do mention only the administration of it to the professors of saving faith: and the precepts give us no other direction. And I provoke Mr. Blake (as far as is seemly for me to do) to name one precept for baptizing any other, and make it good if he can. I know what he will pretend, that he intended th • s only against Mr. Blake's opinion of baptizing upon a dogmatical faith and he means what he argues only in the case of adult persons. But that doth not avoid his own arguments against himself, though he otherwise intended; nor will his evasion serve till he prove, that there is a different precept or example for baptizing Infants from that of baptizing adult persons, or that any are to be accounted believers or disciples by their parents o • , as his term is, proparents profession, which will never be done by him. I will not say as Mr. Blake saith some have said of me, that it is not possible but he goes against the dictates of his own conscience: But this I dare boldly say, that Mr. Baxter hath strongly disputed against Inf • nt Baptism in the place forenamed, pag. 53. asserting and proving Arg. 1. We must not baptize any who profess not true repentance, pag. 62. Arg. 2. We must baptize no man that first professeth not to bel • eve in God, • . 68. Argum. 3. It's the very nature or appointed use of the external part of Baptism itself (yea essential to it) to signify and profess the saving faith and repentance of the baptized, pag. 710. arg. 4. we must baptize none that profess not their consent to enter themselves presently into the Covenant of grace with God in Christ, p. 79. arg. 5. we must not baptize any without the profession of that faith and repentance which are made the condition of remission of sins ; the rest have speeches to like purpose, in which though he puts in sometimes [ and their seed ] yet his proofs do all overthrow that his own addition, and tear off his patch which he hath printed to his argumen • , and as fully militate against his book of baptism as Mr. Blake's tenet; so that to me it seems that by Divine providence without his intention, una eademque manus vulnus opemque tulit : Nor do I think but that if conscientious Christians chiefly Scholars, would read over that second disputation, they would be satisfied that infants ought not to be baptized but themselves, and that Mr. Baxter hath cheated the world by his book of baptism, and shown himself therein an inconsiderate writer. But however this fall out, it is a great rejoicing to my soul, that God hath so long preserved my life and strength though now declining, to finish this part of the Review also, and to see that part of it printed which is in answer to Mr. Baxter's second main argument in his book of baptism, about his pretended ordinance of infants visible Church-membership and its repeal, which some have given out as unanswerable, because this answer hath been so long in publishing; not considering that besides the not knowing of his mind about it till 1655. I have been necessitated to answer many others, and together with my constant labors, some other employments extraordinary with domestic distractions, necessity of respect to my bodily strength, want of help of books in some points, of learned men to whom I might have recourse, of an amanuensis, and chiefly the difficulty of getting it printed by reason of the great charge, which this book amounts to, and yet is not so readily put off as other smaller writings, and such as suit more with the mind of Readers, of whom few seem to search after truth impartially, especially in controversies of this kind. In this which is done my witness is in heaven how faithfully and sincerely I have dealt, which makes me slight the unrighteous censures of those Mr. Blake mentions, of Mr. Baxter, Mr. Firmin Mr. Gattaker, Mr. Ford, Mr. Crag and the rest. And for Mr. John Goodwin who so much magnifies Mr. Baxter's book, I wish he and Mr. Horn his second would read this writing, which I take to be a sufficient answer, with the two fore-parts of this Review, to what is said by Mr. Baxter and themselves in the point of Infant-baptism. As for the point of Schism or Separation which Mr. Baxter, and he charge Anabaptists with, I take myself no further concerned then mine own fact, which if they can prove to have been unbrotherly or unrighteous, I hope God will so frame my heart as to testify my repentance: if not, I advise them to take heed of rash judging, and all their followers of following them in that sin. If the objection be still set on foot, That those that are, as they term us, Anabaptists, do fall into many false opinions, prove Quake • s &c. I wish them better to examine reports of us, then Mr. Farmer, Mr. Breton, and others have done of me afore they spread them, and to look into the state of the societies of their own judgment, who if they be not guilty of such fallings, I shall rejoice with them, and hope they will learn to pity and endeavor to restore those who are fallen in the spirit of meekness; if they be, that they will remember that it should be no more objected to us then to themselves. For my own part, I hope I shall not abet any such error, nor do I know of any such errors or miscarriages in the Churches to which I have associated which are not opposed and censured by us: Nor do I think it equal we should be charged with that error or miscarriage which we condemn. And I make bold to admonish Paedobaptists in the Lord, that they take heed of those practices which tend to the disquieting, defaming, hindering their brethren in the work of Christ because of the supposed error, as they term it, of Anabaptism, lest they happily fight against God, and wrong their brethren, remembering that he that doth wrong shall receive for, the wrong he hath done, and there is no respect of persons with God, Col. 3.25. And to the end they may search their own consciences, and rightly judge of themselves, I presume they may do well to lay to heart th • se following qu • stions. 1. Whether it be not a manifest perverting of the Gospel of Christ, to maintain that the Covenant of Gospel grace is made to each believer and his seed. 2. Whether it be not against the Gospel to maintain, that the command of Circumcision Gen. 17. doth any way bind Christian believers now in their practice? 3. Whether it be nor against the Gospel to entitle p • rsons to the Church visible Christian by their natural generation of believers? 4. Whether it be not a manifest will-worship to practice the positive Rite of Infant-Baptism as God's worship, which is confessed to have neither precept nor example in the New Testament? 5. Whether it be not a profanation of Baptism to use it otherwise then Christ appointed? 6. Whether by justifying Infant Baptism, the relinquish • ng of many Popish and Prelatical ceremonies which have as much of reason, tradition, authority of the Church as it, be not condemned? 7. Whether it be not an oppression, and exercising of dominion over men's consciences, to tie them to acknowledge Sacraments to be in their nature seals of the Covenant of grace which the Scripture terms not so, nor can be proved plainly from it, and to impose on them the practice of Infant baptism under pain of guilt of sin which Christ never appo • nt • d? 8. Whether it be not manifest hypocrisy to oppose the Cross, Surplice, &c. and to be zealous for Infant baptism? 9. Whether they who justify Infant baptism and oppose baptism of Believers at age confessed to be according to the institution of Christ and primitive practice, are not partial in God's Law and may expect to be made contemptible before all the people? 10. Whether they who do so, do not break the solemn Covenant of endeavoring reformation according to God's word? 11. How they that say they baptize infants into the Name of Christ, who sprinkle or pour only some water on them, without any profession of the infant can be acquitted from saying falsely? 12. By what rule those who are acknowledged visible Church-members in infancy c • n be denied the Lord's Supper? 13. Whether it be not a sign that Paedobaptism is not according to rule, when there are so many differences about the title to it between Papists and Protestants, and the ablest Protestants themselves? 14. How they can make good the regularity of Church-consti • ution, and the ordination of Elders, who have no other baptism but that in infancy? 15. How they can be free from the guilt of hardening souls in deadly presumption, who avouch the Christianity of infants by natural birth, and Infant baptism which is the great plea of ignorant and profane persons on which they rest? 16. Whether it be not a sign of injustice and want of love to truth, or adherence to a party, in them that will read and hear what one party saith for Infant baptism, and refuse to read or he • r what the oppos •• s say, though they bring the plain institution of Christ and his Apostles practice for them? 17. Whether it be not an unrighteous course to charge the miscarriages of persons either dead or strangers, on that doctrine or practice which countenanceth not them, or to persons who are no way abettors of them because of agreement in one opinion? 18. Whether division or Schism is not chiefly to be imputed to those who violently oppose & inveigh against their Brethren for holding & practicing that which they conceive themselves bound to do by the plain command of Christ which their opposites do acknowledge? 19. Whether such as impose Infan baptism on their Brethren who hold the faith and baptism confess • d to be from Christ, and deal rigorously with them for not owning i • , do not as the Papists, who impose with cruelty their own addi • ions o • those who otherwise are not denied to hold th • true faith a • d pract • s • ? 20. Whether such pretenc • s as are made for Infant baptism, and the imagined evil of Anabaptism, can be a sufficient plea for baptism, and the imagined evil of Anabaptism can be a su • f • cient plea for any truly godly person to neglect that baptism which Christ hath so strictly commanded Mat. 28.19. Mar. 16.16. & the Apostles constantly practiced? And since Mr. Baxter hath with so much earnestness ministered so many interrogatories to me, I shall take the boldness to advise him to consider his own ways. 1. In giving such a title to his book of Pl • in Scripture proof of Infants baptism, when there is not one text in all his Book which speaks plainly or obscurely for it, yea it's confessed by himself, that it is not plainly determined in Scripture, p. 3. and is so dark in Scripture that the controversy is become hard p. 301. 2. In his abusing so many texts of Scripture as he ha • h done, chiefly the institution of Bap • ism Matth. 28 19. for infant Baptism, as if they were disciples appointed there to be baptized, which is sufficiently refuted by himself in many places of Baptism, p. 299, 300. of the right to Sacraments from p. 91, to 96. 3. In coining a new title to Baptism by the profession of parents or pro parents, of which the Scripture is altogether silent. 4. In his devising • n ordinanc • of infants visible membership in the Christian Church, of which there is no foot step in all the Bible. 5. In his many years clamorous abuses, and some kind of violent persecutions of myself and others of my judgment for not acknowledging these figments of his, but promoting reformation of Baptism according to our duty. 6. In his unbrotherly printing my answers I made in the dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. without so much as acquainting me with it though living near him. 7. In blazing it abroad that he had driven me to gross absurdities, which yet he hath not in his answer to the 17. sect. of of my praecursor or elsewhere shown to be so. 8. In his light passing over my urging his own words against infant baptism, about Christ's institution Mat. 28.19. in my praecurs. p. 66. in his Praefest. morat. sect. 16. which is noted in the 2d. Part of the Review, p. 66, 67. which sure being from Christ's institution, deserved better consideration. 9. In condemning our rejection of infant Baptism, though but an human tradition, on no better grounds then Papists build many of their ceremonies which he condemns, in asserting the Covenant of grace to the faithful and their seed, which in disputes against Arminians is commonly denied by Contraremonstrants. 10▪ In his many false accusations of me as a sect master disturber of the Church, which he cannot prove, in his scornful expressions in the dispute and his books, in his injurious insinuations of me, as if I were blinded or hardened, occasioned the rise of Quakerism and other errors, thereby indirectly creating odium to me and to the truth, and which is worst of all, weakening my hands in the work of Christ, and particularly in taking off my quondam hearers at Bewdley from hearing me, or permitting me there to preach in public. None of which, nor any of the rest of his evil suggestions of me or the people baptized there or elsewhere, I pray God may be laid to his charge.

I have no more to add, but to commend the reading of this and the other parts of the Review to thy care, hoping that as the differences between the Cis-Jordan and Trans-Jordan Israelites, and Peter and the circumcised Christians were composed by right in • elligence of their actions, so it may be in this, and that God will awaken the eyes of those who have opposed the truth I assert, with devices of an anti-Evangelical Covenant of grace to Believers and their seed, a Law and Ord • nance of infants visible Church membership nowhere extant, of baptizing infants according to the Jewish pattern of baptizing Proselytes, of an additional promise of casting elect children on elect parents ordinarily, of a command in force now, Gen. 17.9. of Baptisms succession to Circumcision and fetching a rule from it, of baptisms confer • ing Grace, &c. will discern their error, and embrace that light which they have hitherto shut out, and laying aside their vain disputes about the baptizing of Infants of not Church members, profane, excommunicate parents, or proparents and such like, endeavor to restore that one Baptism which with that one faith once delivered to the Saints, may bring the Churches of God to a right constitution and holy unity and order, and without which a right reformation covenanted will not be, and that go • lie pa • ents of tender consciences will take heed of bringing infants to baptism whereby it is profaned, and discern that it is their own duty to be baptized in the name of Christ, and that the use of baptism is, as Mr. Baxter confesseth p. 68 Of right to Sacraments, yea essential to it to signify and profess the saving faith and repentance of the baptized (which sh • ws infants are not baptized, since th • y do not that which is essential to baptism and that which is essential must be in all) and not to look upon it as their children's privilege, but as it was by Christ appointed, by it engage themselves to follow the Lord JESUS; which is the prayer of

The Contents.

• Sect. 1. THe second argument against infant Baptism that it is will worship is confirmed.
• Sect. 2. Dr. Homes his arguments to prove infant Baptism from Gen 17. are examined.
• Sect. 3. Mr. Drews argument for infant Baptism from Gen. 17. is examined, and it is shown that there is not the same reason of infant Baptism as of infant Circumcision.
• Sect. 4. The Covenant Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. was a mixed covenant.
• Sect. 5. Acts 2.38, 39. proves not either the identity of covenant now with that to Abraham Gen. 17.7. as it comprehends his natural seed, nor the connection between i • and • aptizability.
• Sect. 6. The argument of Mr. Josia • Church in his Divine warrant for infant baptism, • om their being judged in the promise of propriety in God is answered.
• Sect. 7. Bare judgment of charity concerning a persons interest in the promise is not a warrant to baptize.
• Sect. 8. Acts 2.38, 39. proves that interest in the promise entitles not to baptism without repentance.
• Sect. 9. Infants are not proved by Mr. Church to be of the visible Church Christian.
• Sect. 10. Infants capacity of some respects different from discipleship entitles them not to baptism.
• Sect. 11. The agreements between circumcision and baptism do not justify infant baptism, and the validity of sealing infants with an initial seal is shown to be null.
• Sect. 12. Dr. Featley his argument for infant Baptism from the Covenant is examined.
• Sect. 13. The arguments of Mr. William Lyford from the Covenant for infant baptism are answered.
• Sect. 14. The arguments of Mr. Stalham, Mr. Brinsley, Mr. Hall, and a nameless Author from the Covenant for infant Baptism are examined.
• Sect. 15. The dispute of Mr. John Geree about the extent of the Gospel Covenant to prove thence infant Baptism is examined, and it is shown that interest in the covenant did not entitle to circumcision; nor is it proved it doth now to baptism.
• Sect. 16. That the Gospel covenant is not extended to infants of believers as such.
• Sect. 17. Mr. Cottons, the Assembly's, and London Ministers way of arguing for infant Baptism from the Covenant and Circumcision is recited, and the method of the future progress in the Review expressed.
• Sect. 18. Mr. Marshals reply to the first section of the 3d. Part of my Examen about the connection between the Covenant and seal is reviewed.
• Sect. 19. Mr. Blake's exceptions against my speeches in the point about the connection between the Covenant and initial seal are refelled.
• Sect. 20 The exceptions which in the first part of my Review or Antipaedobaptism sect. 5. are made against the proof of connection between the Covenant and initial seal, are confirmed against Mr. Blake vind. faed. ch. 42. sect. 3.
• Sect. 21. The ten exceptions of the first part of my Review • gainst Paedobaptists exposition and allegation of Acts 2.38, 39. for the connection between the Covenant and seal, are vindicated from Mr. Blake's answer vindic. f • d. ch. 37, 43.
• Sect. 22. Animadversions on ch. 2. part. 1▪ of Mr. Thomas Cobbet his Just vindication touching the explication of Acts 2.38, 39. in which his exposition is shown to be vain, and mine justified.
• Sect. 23. The arguments drawn from Acts 2.38, 39. against the connection between Covenant interest, and Baptism right, and infant Baptism are vindicated from Mr. Cobbets answers.
• Sect. 24. Mr. Sidenham's notes on Acts 2.39. in his Exercitation ch. 5. are considered.
• Sect. 25. Mr. Marshals reply to my Examen about his first connclusion is reviewed, and the Covenant Gen. 17. still maintained to be mixed, and that Gentile self-justitiaries, though reputed Christians, are not termed Abraham's seed, nor Gal. 4.29. proves it, and that the distinction of outward and inward Covenant is not right.
• Sect. 26. The mixture of the Covenant as by me asserted, is vindicated from Mr. Blake's exceptions vind. faed. ch. 26.
• Sect. 27. The four first chapters of Mr. Sidenham's Exercitation are examined, and his vanity in his conceits about consequences proving infant baptism, the purity of the Covenant Gen. 17. infants of believers being Abraham's seed and in Covenant is shown.
• Sect. 28. It is proved from Luk. 1.54, 55. & 19.9. Joh 8.39. Rom. 4.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Gal. 3.7, 1 • , 29. & 4.28. Rom 9.6, 7, 8. Matth 3.9. that the seed of Abraham to whom the pro • ise as Evangelical is made Gen. 17 7. are only true believers o • elect persons.
• Sect. 29. The allega • ion of Rom. 9 6.7, 8. Matth. 3.7, 8, 9. to prove that the seed to which the promise Gen. 17.7. as Evangelical belong • are true believers or the elect only is vindicated from Mr. Blake's answer vindic faed. ch. 36. and Mr. Sidenhams E • ercitation ch. 6.
• Sect. 30. Of the meaning of Mr. Marshals second conclusion, the ambiguity of which is shown.
• Sect. 31. Of the novelty and vanity of Mr. Marshals and others doctrine about sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace, and the several sealings of them.
• Sect. 32. The exceptions in my Examen part. 4. sect. 5. against Mr. Marshals speeches about the Covenant and conditional sealing, are made good against Mr. Marshal and M • Blake.
• Sect. 33. That it is no error, as Mr. Baxter calls it; but a truth, that the Covenant of grace is made only to the elect.
• Sect. 34. Mr. Baxter hath not proved that the absolute promise or Covenant is not it that is sealed in baptism.
• Sect. 35. My speech about God's sealing to none but believers, is cleared from Mr. Baxter's objections.
• Sect. 36. Christianity is not by birth, nor the Church as civil corporations, Mr. Marshals equivocation in the use of the term [Covenant of grace.]
• Sect. • 7. That the promise Gen. 17.7. proves not an external privilege of visible Church membership and initial seal to infants of Gentile believers, as Mr. Marshal asserts.
• Sect. 38. Animadversions on the 3d. ch. of the first part of Mr. Thomas Cobbets Just vindic. sect. 1, 2, 3. about Gen. 17. whereby his positions about Church Covenant and external privileges of the Covenant of grace are refe • led.
• Sect. 39. Animadversions on sect. 4th. of the same chapter, whereby the conceits of Mr. Cobbet about external being in the Covenant of grace, are shown to be vain.
• Sect. 40. Animadversions on sect. 5. of the same ch. showing that Mr. Cobbets supposed visible interest in God's Covenant is not the rule of baptizing.
• Sect. 41. Animadversions on the 6th. sect. of the same ch. showing that Christ is not head of any unsound members, nor parents profession unites children to Christ so as to entitle them to baptism.
• Sect. 42. Animadversions on sect. 7 • h. of the same ch. showing that the body of the Jewish Church, even the worst of them, was not under the Covenant of grace in respect of external interest therein.
• Sect. 43. That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of works and not of Evangelical grace, and that the Jewish Church and state were but one body.
• Sect. 44. Animadversions on the 9th. sect. of the same ch. in which the Covenant interest external and Ecclesiastical of infan • s of enchurched believers, is pretended not proved to be Gospel, and his allegations of Deut. 30.6, &c. Gen. 17.8. Luk. 19.9. Deut. 29.10, &c. Ezek. 16.1, &c. Gen. 9.25, 26. and other places are examined.
• Sect. 45. Mr. Cobbets answers to objections against his 7th. concl. part. 1. c. 3. sect. 9. of his Just vindic. are considered, and Mr. Blake's tener concerning the general nature of a Covenant that it i • a mutual agreement.
• Sect. 46. The 27, 28, 29. chapters of Mr. Blake's vind. faed. are examined, and it is shown that he hath not proved the Covenant of grace in Gospel times to admit or to be made to any but the elect regenerate.
• Sect. 47. Mr. Blake's vindic. faed. ch. 34. concerning the stating the question of the birth▪ privil •• ge of the issue of believers is examined, and his objections against my stating it removed.
• Sect. 48. The 35th, and 37th. chapters of Mr. Blake's vindic. faed. are examined, and his arguments concluding the natural issue of believers to be taken into covenant are answered.
• Sect. 49. The 4th. ch. of Mr. Baxter's part. 1. of plain Script. proof, &c. is examined, his conceits about infants visible Church membership and their admission considered, and sundry animadversions made on that chapter.
• Sect. 50. The 5. ch. of Mr. Brs. plain scrip &c. p. 1. is examined, and the texts Gal. 4.1, &c. Mat. 28.19. cleared so as to prove infants now no visible church members.
• Sect. 51. The arguments from altering of the Jewish Church constitution and call, the ceasing of the High Priest, &c. to prove infants now no visible Church members, are made good against Mr. Baxter's 5. ch. plain, &c. part. 1.
• Sect. 52. It is proved that infants were not reckoned to the visible Church Christian in the primitive times, nor are now.
• Sect.53. Letters between me and Mr. Baxter are set down, concerning the Law and Ordinance of infants visible Church membership unrepealed, which he as •• rt • , whereby the point is stated.
• Sect. 54. Infants were visible Church members only in the Congregation of Israel.
• Sect. 55. Infants of the Jews were not visible Church members by promise or precept, as Mr. Baxter teacheth.
• Sect. 56. That the people and thereby the infants of the Hebrews were made visible Church members by a transeunt fact, is made good against Mr. Baxter's exceptions.
• Sect. 57. Mr Baxter's Law of infants visible Church membership unrepealed is not proved from Gen. 1.26, 27, 28. or Gen. 3.15.
• Sect. 58. Infants visible Church membership is not proved by the Law of Nature.
• Sect. 59. The sayings of Adam, Eve, Noah, concerning Cain, Seth, Shem, the term [ sons of God, Gen. 6.2.] prove not Mr. Baxter's Law of infants visible Church membership unrepealed.
• Sect. 60. Mr. Baxter's Law of infants visible Church membership unrepealed, is not proved from Gen. 12. or 17. or 22.
• Sect. 61. Covenants, promises and speeches in the Old Testament of Israel, the righteous, prove not Mr Baxter's Law of infants visible Church membership unrepealed.
• Sect. 62. Mr. Baxter's 9th. and 10th. questions about the repealableness and repeal of his imagined Law of infants visible Church membership, and his 8. additionals are answered
• Sect. 63. Mr. Baxter's ten calumniatory questions and the conclusion of his Letter are answered.
• §ect. 64. My answer in the Dispute and sermon to the argument of Mr. Baxter of Baptism part. 1. ch. 6. about the nonrepeal of infants Church membership because neither in justice nor in mercy is vindicated.
• §ect. 65. Mr. Baxter's arguments from Matth. 23.37. Revel. 11.15. for infants visible Church membership ch, 12, 13. are answered.
• §ect. 66. Mr Baxter's 9th, 10th, 11th, concerning infants better condition in the N. T. in his 14th, 15, 16th, chapters part. 1. of Baptism, to prove their visible Church membership are answered.
• §ect. 67. Mr. Baxter's argument ch. 17. part. 1. of baptism, from Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. is answered, and my answers vindicated.
• §ect. 68. Neither from Rom. 4.11. nor by other teason, hath Mr. Baxter proved ch. 18.19. part. 1. of baptism, that infant Church membership was partly na • ural, partly grounded on the Law of grace and faith.
• §ect. 69. Mr. Baxter ch. 20. by his 15th. argument from infants being once members of the universal visible Church, hath not proved their visible Church membership unrepealed.
• §ect. 70. Mr. Baxter's 16th. and 17th. arguments from the promise of mercy Exod. 20.6. and of blessing Psal. 37.26. are answered.
• Sect. 71. Mr. Baxter's 18th. argument from the priori • y of infants Church membership before Circumcision, his 19th. from God's mercy, his • 0th. from blessing and cursing Deut. 28. are answered.
• Sect. 72. Mr. Baxter's 21. argument from the absurdity of my doctrine making all infants members of the Devils visible Kingdom is answered.
• Sect. 73. Mr. Baxter's 22. argument ch. • 7. that my doctrine leaves no ground of hope of salvation of infants dying is answered.
• Sect. 74. Mr. Baxter's allega • ions p. 76, 77, 78. show not a stronger ground of hope of infants salvation so dying then mine, his 23d. argument ch. 28. his 25 th. ch. 30. are answered.
• §ect. 75. My arguments to prove the engraffing Rom. 11.17. • o be into the invisible Church by giving faith, are vindicated from Mr. Blake's exceptions vindic. faed. ch. 38. and Mr. Sidenhams Exercit. ch. 8, 9.
• Sect. 76. My sense of matrimonial holiness 1 Cor. 7.14. is vindicated from Mr. Blake's exceptions vindic. faed. ch 39. and Mr. Sidenhams Exercit. ch. 7.
• Sect. 77. Mr. William Carters attempt of proving the Christian Sabbath from Heb. 4.7, 9, 10. is shown to be successeless, and so useless for proof of infant baptism.
• Sect. 78. Mr. Carters exposition of Gen. 22.16, 17, 18. as if God promised to make every believer a blessing, so as to cast ordinarily elect children on elect parents is refuted.
• Sect. 79. Neither did Circumcision seal Mr. Carters additional promise, nor was Abraham thence termed father of believers.
• §ect. 80. Mr. Carters conceit as if Gen. 17.9. were a command in force to Abraham's spiritual seed in the N. T. is shown to be vain.
• §ect. 81. The succession of Baptism to Circumcision, and their identity for substance to us is shown to be unproved by Mr. Carter, Mr. Marshal, Mr. Church, Dr. Homes, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Cobbet, from Col. 2.11, 12. or elsewhere.
• §ect. 82. Notwithstanding Mr. Carters allegations of Acts 2.38, 39. 1 Cor. 7.14. Rom. 11.16, 24. Mark 10.14. Acts 15.10. Matth. 28.19. the N. T. appears to be silent about Mr. Carters additional promise and infants baptism.
• §ect. 8 • . Interest in the Covenant gave not title to Circumcision as Mr. Marshal in his 4th. concl would have it.
• §ect. 84. The enlargement of our privileges proves not infant baptism as Mr. Marshal in his 5th. concl. would have it.
• §ect. 85. Mr. Cobbets dictates Just. vindic. part. 2. ch. 1. touching children's baptismal right are examined and refelled.
• §ect. 86 The 13th. and 14th. chapters of the first part of Mr. Rutherfords book of the Covenant are examined, and found to make nothing for infant baptism.
• §ect. 87. The disasters in Germany and our present distractions sprung not from Anabaptism as Mr. Crag saith.
• §ect. 88. Austin's saying about Apostolical traditions is not to be rested upon, nor his testimony about the antiquity of infant baptism.
• §ect. 89. The testimonies of the Ancient writers of the Greek Church concerning infant baptism are examined and my exception • made good against Mr. Crag, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Homes, Mr. Marshal.
• Sect. 90. The arguments to prove infant baptism an innovation in the Greek Churches Exam. p. 9. are made good against Mr. Marshal, and Dr. Homes.
• Sect. 91. The testimonies of Tertullian for infant baptism, and Dr. Hammonds interpretation of ch. 39. de Animâ, are examined with 1 Cor. 7.14.
• Sect. 92. Dr. Hammonds imagined evidence from [hath been sanctified] for his sense of the forepart of 1 Cor. 7.14. nullified, and my opinion of enallage of tense vindicated.
• Sect. 93. Dr. Hammonds rendering [ by 1 Cor. 7.14▪] is refelled, and my • endring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [ to ] justified.
• Sect. 94. It is shown that Dr. Hammond hath no proof from 1 Cor. 7.16. for his sense of the forepart of v. 14. nor will his sense of holy for baptized agree with the Apostles argument, though his sense of the forepart of the verse were granted.
• Sect. 95. Dr. Hammonds reasons from the terms holy and unclean for his sense of baptized or not baptized are refelled.
• Sect. 96. The Jewish custom of baptism for initiation was not the pattern of Christian baptism, as Dr. Hammond would have it.
• Sect. 97. Matth. 28.19. infants are excluded from being subjects of baptism notwithstanding Dr. Hammonds pretensions.
• Sect. 98. The testimonies of Cy • rian, Augustine, and other Latin Fathers for infant baptism, are shown to have come from their mist • kes, and the evidences why the antiquity of infant baptism should not be deemed such as is pretended, are vindicated.
• Sect. 99. Mr. Crags objections about my nine untruths, his discourse about rebaptizing are refelled.
• Sect. 100. The Arguments of Mr. Crag for infant baptism are re-examined.

ERRATA.

Pag; 2. l, 17. r, he premiseth. p, 3. l, 18. r, 44. p, 7. l, 7. r, nor is ; l, 39. r, 2. p, 4. l, 39. r, mere. p, 20. l, 3. r, motive ; l, 10. r, they are vain. p, 22. l, 12. r, not only. p, 23. l, 30. r, yea ▪ p, 25. l, 6. r, commenders ; l, 10. r, opinion ; l, 25. r, probability ; l, 28. r, disputation ; l, 35. r, external. p, 29. l, 8. r, 13. l, 9. r, 7. l, 46. r, speci. p, 39. l. 16. r. 2.17. p, 40. l, 31. r, peculiar ; l, 46. r, 7. p, 41. l, 45. r, seal. p, 55. l, 11. r, conveys. p, 62. l, 43. r, ejection. p, 67. l, 12. r, not sealed. p, 70. l, 34, 35. the lines are misplaced p, 75. l, 22. r, and not still be admitted to the like initiating Sacrament. p, 81. l, 29. r, erant. p, 86. l. • 6. r, own. p, 94. l, 36. r, persecuted ; l, 43. r, some. p, 100. l, 4. r. 43 p, 108. l, 2. r find. p, 113. l, 18. r, fiction ; l, 30. r, wont. p 114. l, 2. r, invisible : p, 115. l, 3. r swerved. p, 108. l, 3. r, then ; l, 13, 17. r, apposite. p, 120. l, 10. r, par. p, 121. l, 4. r, he tells. p, 123. l, 8. r, Baxter. p, 124. l, 31. r, app • site. p, 126. l, 21. r, remission of sins. p, 109. l, 25. r, incognitum, p, 141. l, • 3. r, number. p, 146. l, 1. r, eyed. p, 148. l, 3 r, mislike ; l, 5. r apposite. p, 150. l, 2. r, meant by ; l, 17. r, comprehended. p, 15 • . l, 22. r, dichotomie. p, 158. l, 26. r, branches, d▪ and. p, 159. l, 23. d, or the inward. p, 160. l, 15. d, not. p, 166. l, 46. r, they, l, 48. r, unbaptizable. p, 171. l, 37. r, belong. p, 172. l, 5. r, of this. p, 173. l, 16. r, seed, which ; l, 22. r, because And as. p, 177. l, 1. r, that knows. p, 178. l, 44, 45. r, doth not agree: p, 183. l, 38. r, regenerate : p, 185. l, 5. r, Rom. 3.1. p, 186. l, 9. r, now : p, 184. l, 22. r, visible: p, 197. l, 35. r, type : p, 204. l, 1 • . r, is not : p, 209. l, 44▪ r, Abrohamites antecedently : p, 213. l. 36. r, pentance neither have ours ; l, 43, r, nor is : p, 215. l, 21. r, L. C. l, 24. r, e.g. p, 221. l, 42. r, mediation : p, 222. l, 4. r, revelation ; l, 30. r, of science or : l, 33, r▪ an act ; l, 47, r, contenting : p, 223. l, 7. r, types of Christ ; l, 28. r, hath not ; l, 34. r, in this ; l, 40. r, alluded : p, 224. l. 19. r, me to : p, 226. l, 37. d▪ not : p, 228. l, 6. r, vent ; l, 33, 34. r, syncretism : p, 229. l, 4. d, not ; l, 5. r, derive ; l, 35. r, to be a seal be: p, 230. l, 20. r, term ; l, 44. r, Jews : p, 23. r. l, 20. r, he had : r, 232. l, 5. r, our ; l, 12. r, passing ; l, 30. r, if it ▪ p, 234. l, 5. r, 15. p, 237. l, 48. r, P▪ p, 238. l, 7. r, in my ; l, 14. r, reviewed : p, • 39. l, 8. r. flings : p, 240. l, 15. d, not ; l, 17. r, and seals ; l, 33. r, cerning : p, 241. l, 7. r, first grace ; l, 13. r, what sense : p, 244. l, 2 • . r, contradistinguisheth : p, • 45. l, 33. d, not ▪ l, 47. r, asserting : p, 246. l, 20. r, as. p, 249. l, 10. r, there, l, 39. r, and not : p, 250. l, 35. r, charged: p, 252. l, 20. r, & Ward. p, 254, l, 1. r, 〈◊〉 : p, 256. l, 32. r, 28. l, 41, 43. r, all at age p, 257. l, 8. r, my ; l, 14. r, instance, l, 4 • . r, stony : p, 258. l, 37. r, futility : p, 261. l, 1. r, it were ; l, 4. d, to ; l, 39. r, sealing : p, 268. l, 29. r, lie ; l, 42. r, that ▪ l, 43. d, I : p, • 72. l, 1. r, reason i • ; l, • 9. r, and the : p, 273. l, 23. r, art : p, • 75. l, 37. r, external : p, 276 l, 45. d, not : p, 277. l, 37. r, during the ; l, 44, 45. d, in the right administration of it : p, 278. l, 12. r, nowhere ; l, 47. r, elect allusive: p, 279. l, 2. r, afore. l, 15. r, contain ; l, 17. r, it proper to Israel : p, 280. l, 35. r, but that such are to be ; l, 37. r, act is a ; l, 39. r, they are : p, 281. l, 20 r, were : p, 282. l 46. r, without that ; l, 47. r, John : p, 283. l, 44. r, professor : p, 28 • . l, 36. r. or : p, 286 l. 19. d, and ; l, 26. r, yea under yet were: p, 287. l 7. r, was ; l, 13 r, that which, l, 20. r, visible interest : p, 293. l, ult. r, noting p, 294. l, 24. r, unto : p, 295. l, 38. r, winding : p, 300. l, 9. r, expected : p, 301. l, 24. r, no transgressors : p, 310. l, 12. r, know not : p, 311. l, 3. r, of grace : p, 317. l, 46. r, come : p▪ 329. l, 8. r, mere professor : p, 330. l, 16▪ r, is a seal to the Gentiles that believe of the righteousness of faith though they be never circumcised ; l, 26. r, were such ; l, 27. d, were : p, 332. l, 40. r, are : p, 334. l, 3. r, inference ; l, 37. r, exilia : p, 335. l, 7. r, assert ; l, 47. r, whence ; l, 13. r, tenet : p, 341, l, 36. r, condition.

At Yy the figures are wrong by reason of the use of two Pres • es; for after 344. sect. 46. is p, 245. ag • in: p, 245. l. 14. r, of which ▪ p, 256. l, 4. r, vasorum : p, • 61. l, 48. r, desert : p, 269. l, 31. r, ever : p, 283. l, 6. r, to: p, 284. l, 33. r, nor : p, 292. mis • printed 284. l, 38. r, unto what : p, 297. l, 6. r, indefinitely : p, 304. l, 28. r, special: p, 318. l, 25. r, desertion : p, 323. l, 8. r, mere: p, 382. l, 23. r, cause : p, 387. l, 22. r, of all: p, 398. l, 6. r, he is: p, 401. l, 37. r, many : p, 403. l, 20. r, use no : p. 407. l, 19. r, church members : p, 501. l, 43. r, on condition: p, 503. l, penult. r, righteousness : p, 509. l, 9. r, can: p, 510. l, 47. r, not : p. 557. l, 18. r, it was. p, 559. l, 18. r. who hath. p, 561. l, 28. r, is not. p, 597. l, 34. r, sarcastical. p, 608. l, 23. r, an. p, 613. l, 43. r, might well. p, 621. l, 9. r, there. p, 647. l, 12. r, import. p, 653. l, 10. r, concrete. p, 678. l, 7. r, deny. p, 684. l, 46. r, sanction. p, 702. l. 36. r, did not. p, 703. l, 11. r, were not. p, 705. l, 42. r▪ benefit. p, 721. l, 8. d, not. p, 725. l, 14. r, the time. p, 727. l, 24. r, is. p, 735. l, 11. r, there. p, 745. l, 11. r, formally. p, 752. l, 43. r, there. p, 756▪ l, 7. r, Janua. p, 783. l, 27. r, there were. p, 798. l, 7. r, ambigua. p, 799. l, 10. d, of. p, 803. l, 38. r, not. p, 816. l, 44. r, one parent was. p, 822. l, 7. d, be. p, 825. l, 7. r, which it was ; l, 23. r, na • i. p, 830. l, 18. r, and also. p, 834. l, 47. r, inference which. p, 844. l, 19. r, of the Chair. p, • 48. l, 1 • . r, 23. p, 850. l, 16. r, ca • achresis. p, 851. l, 2. d, in ; l, 10. r, form ▪ p, 852. l, 46. r, pu • . p, 853. l, 31. r, comprehend. p, 854. l, 40. r, or not. p, 877. l, 29. r, not • s. p, 883. l, 2. r, denegandam. p, 885. l, 7. r, desert. p, 889. l, 4. r, conten • .

Books published by the Author.

• CHrists Commination against Scandalizers, on Luk. 17.1, 2. Printed for Richard Royston, at the sign of the Angel in Ivy Lane, London.
• Jehovah • ireh, o • , God's Providence in delivering the Godly; in two Sermons on 2 Pet. 2.9. on occasion of preserving Bristol from a plot to deliver it to Prince Rupert, March 7. 1642. Printed for Michael Sparks at the Blew Bible in Green Arbour, London.
• Fermentum Pharis • orum, or, the Leaven of Pharisaical will-worship; in a Sermon on Matth. 15.9. Printed for Andrew Crook at the Green Dragon in Paul's Church-yard, London.
• Anthropolatria, or the sin of glorying in men; on 1 Cor. 3.21. Printed for John Bellamy, at the three Golden Lions in Cornhill, London.
• Two Treatis • s concerning Infant Baptism, to wit▪ an Exercitation, and Examen of Mr. Stephen Marshals Sermon; Printed for George Whittington, and to be sold at the Blackmore at Fleet-b • idge London by W. Larnar.
• An Apology for the two Treatises, printed for G. Calvert at the Black spread Eagle at the West end of Paul's, London.
• An Antidote against the venom of a passage of Mr. Richard Baxter, Printed for Thomas Brewster at the three Bibles at the West end of Paul's, London.
• An addition to the Apology in a Letter to Mr. Robert Baillee of Scotland : Printed by Henry Hills, next door to the sign of the Peacock in Aldersgate-street, London.
• Pracursor, or a Fore-runner to the Review : Printed for the same.
• Antipaedobaptism, or the First Part of the full Review of the Dispute concerning Infan • Baptism: Printed for Henry Crips and Lodowick Lloyd in Popes-head Alley near Lombard-street, London.
• A Plea for Antipaedobaptists, against Mr. John Craggs Dispute and Sermon at Abergavenny : Printed for Henry Hills above named.
• Antipaedobaptism, or the Second Part of the full Review of the Dispute concerning Infant Baptism: Printed for the same.
• Joannis Tombes Be • dleiensis refutatio positionis Dris. Henrici Savage Londini: typi • Henrici Hills.
• Antipaedobaptism, or the the Third Part of the full Review of the Dispute concerning Infant Baptism: London, printed for Henry Hills above named.

Anti-paedobaptism: OR, The third part of the full Review of the Dispute concerning Infant-Baptism, refuting the proof of it from Circumcision and the Covenant.

SECT. I. The second Argument against Infant-Baptism, that it is will-worship, is confirmed.

HAving proceeded so far in the Review of the dispute concerning Infant-baptism, as to vindicate the Texts, Rom. 11.17. Act. 2 38, 39. 1 Cor. 7.14. from such glosses as tend to wrest them to the maintenance of it, and to make good my first Argument against it, from the institution of Christ, Mat. 28.19. Mark. 16.16. The Apostles and primitive Evangelists practice and sayings, in two parts of the Review already printed, I go on to the finishing of the rest of the forementioned Review.

My second Argument against Infant-baptism is thus formed, That which is will-worship is not agreeable to the will of God, nor according to the rule of baptizing: But the ordinary Baptizing of Infants, though by a lawful Minister, is will-worship. Ergo.

The Major is proved, 1. From Col. 2.13. where will-worship is disallowed by the Apostle, and so generally Commentators and other Authors account will-worship a sin. Doctor Lakes defense about the Sabbath, Thes. 2. Ye know that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did never please God ; yet Doctor Hammond in his Treatise of will-worship, will have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or will-worship, to be understood in the better sense. But against it are the fra •• of the Apostles words, and the drift of them, which is to blame them for being subject to ordinances after the doctrines and commandments of men, as not agreeing with a Christians co-dying with Christ ; And he saith, Such things have a show of wisdom: and verse 18. he that promiseth that none do beguile them of thei • reward 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , willing in humility, or as our Translators, in a voluntary humility. I may not now divert from the present business to examine Doctor Hammonds Allegations, there being enough in that Text to prove, service as done to God, invented by men, and practiced after their commands, without God's appointment, not to be after God's will: and I take Doctor Hammond to be well answered by Mr. Cawdrey. 2. However the Major is plainly proved from Christ's words, Mat. 15.9. In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine men's precepts ; which proves that worship which is taught after men's precepts (which is the same with will-worship in my proposition) is in vain, and therefore not agreeable to the will of God. But I need not say anymore about it, since my Antagonists do most of them except against will-worship as a sin.

The Minor is proved thus, That which is worship not appointed by God, is will-worship: But the ordinary baptizing of Infants of Believers, Churched or unchurched, though by a lawful Minister, is worship not appointed by God. Ergo. The Major is confirmed from the very definition of will-worship, which is, A worship of God nor appointed by him, but taken up according to the command of man, out of Mat. 15.9. The Minor is proved, by demanding a Scripture wherein God appointed Infant-baptism.

In answer hereto, in conference with me, it was once denied that Infant-baptism was used as a worship of God: But if so, then it is no holy thing, no Sacrament, no profaneness to contemn it, no matter if a Midwife do it, with many more of the like absurdities.

Master Blake in his answer to my letter ch. 13. pag. 92. Vindic. foed. ch. 44. denies Infant-Communion, Bell-baptism, to be will-worship, he makes will-worship then when men devise an Ordinance, but not when it is only an abuse, profanation, misapplication of an instituted worship to a wrong subject.

And Master Marshall page 195. of his Defense, would put me to prove, that all things belonging to Christian worship, even in the circumstances of it, even the ages and sexes of the persons to whom the Ordinances are to be applied, must be expressly set down in the N. T. pag. 196. There is no absolute necessity, that every circumstance of an Ordinance, or the several sexes or ages to whom an Ordinance ought to be applied, must be set down in precept, or Apostolical example equivalent to a precept, found in the N.T. pag. 205. The point about Infant-baptism toucheth but a circumstance of age. In which speeches Mr. M. seems to make Infant-baptism but an arbitrary circumstance; and if so, then much injury was in the first use of his Sermon, in which he made the denial of Infant-baptism, odious, as if it were as bad or worse than the facts of Herod, and Hazael in slaying Infants; then much guilt of oppression lies on them that have denied place in the Ministry, scourged, imprisoned, fined, banished, put to death men for opposing, or not owning Infant-baptism; and very unrighteous have been their declamations, who in Pulpits and elsewhere have inveighed against them as Heretics, Sectaries, &c. censured their opinion as intolerable, as Maresius qu. 6. their practice as Sacrilege, as Master Blake vindic. foed. ch. 4. If Master M. do indeed think the point of Infant-baptism to touch but a circumstance of age, and that it needs no divine institution, then it is an indifferent ceremony with him, such as the power of the Church may appoint, and if so, it is no otherwise blameable to omit it, than it is to omit any other Church-constitution. But the truth is, it is false which he saith, That the matter toucheth only a circumstance of age : for indeed it toucheth the qualification of the person to be Baptized; and the very end and use of Baptism (which are the essentials of it, as it is a Sacrament) which is, that the person Baptized, do thereby testify his profession of Repentance and Faith in Christ, and covenant to be his, as appears by the very phrase used, of being Baptized into the name of the Trinity, Mat. 28.19. compared with 1 Cor. 1.13. as I have proved before, Part 2. Sect. 5. And were it a circumstance only of age, yet it being determined by Christ, who are to be baptized, to wit, Disciples and Belie ••• s, it is an arrogant presumption to alter it. Rightly saith Chamie • Panstr. tom. 4 • lib. 8. c. 4. Sect. 32. quae non sunt institutae circumstantiae habeto sane sibi Ecclesia, ut tempus locumque celebrandi, & si quae sunt similia. At quae instituta sunt ea ne moveto.

As for M. Blake's speech, that a misapplication of 〈◊〉 instituted ordinance to a wrong subject, is an abuse or profanation of it, but not will-worship, 1. It is not right. For though every misapplication to a wrong subject of an instituted ordinance be not will-worship, yet a misapplication to a wrong subject of an instituted ordinance is a will-worship, when not only the rite itself is made worship of God, but also the application of it to that subject, though it be but men's invention, yea and such a one as alters the end and use of the ordinance▪ as is in infant baptism, bell-baptism, altar-baptism, infant-Communion, Prayer, sacrifice, vows, keeping solemn feasts, offering incense, building altars, were instituted ordinances, yet Jeroboams sacrificing and keeping a feast at another time than God appointed, Ahaz his forming an altar after the pattern of that at Damascus, Nadab and Abihu their offering strange fire, prayer to Saints, for the dead, vows to Saints, monastick profession after such a rule, keeping of holy days to Saints, and many other things among Pagans, and Papists, are: condemned as will-worship. Generally Protestants, even the Assembly in their Conffession of faith, chap. 29. art. 4. make the lifting up, reserving the elements in the Eucharist, Contrary to Matth. 15.9. and chap. 21. they say, the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited to his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy • scripture ; yea the non-conformists have gone further in so censuring the three ceremonies, cross at baptism, kneeling at the Lord's Supper, the wearing the Surplice in holy ministrations, to be will-worship, as the Abridgement of the Lincolnshire Ministers petition, and other writings show, and D. Morton in his Defense, and D. Burgess in his Rejoinder to the reply, chap. 2. and elsewhere, acquit them only from will-worship, in that they placed not holiness in them, made them not necessary parts of worship, which I presume M. Blake will not say of Infant-baptism, the denial of which he counts, though vainly, to be sacrilege, Vindic. foed. chap. 40. And sure baptisms were instituted ordinances among the Jews, Heb. 9.10. yet our Lord Christ applies the Prophets censure of will-worship, Isai. 29.13. against the Pharisees placing holiness and fear of God in their washings of hands and other things so often and in the manner they used. Mark. 7.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

Secondly, were it granted, that it is not properly will-worship to misapply an instituted ordinance to a wrong subject, yet if it be an abuse or profanation, the matter is no whit mended with M. Blake, if I put in my argument instead of the term (will-worship) the term (profanation or abuse) I presume Paedobaptists will not justify a profanation or abuse, which Infant-baptism is acknowledged to be if it be not after God's appointment or Christ's institution. Wherefore M. M. and the most of the paedobaptists, not trusting to these evasions seek for an appointment of Infant-baptism in the institution of Infant-circumcision, Gen. 17. Yet M. Baxter in his p •• in Scripture proof, part. 1. chap. 4. &c. declines the command of Circumcision for proof of Infant-baptism, and imagines an ordinance of their visible Church-membership, distinct from the ordinance of Circumcision, unrepealed, out of which he endeavors to prove Infant-baptism, though he nowhere that I know show us where that ordinance is, notwithstanding in my Precursor and elsewhere he hath been often pressed to show it, which book of M. B. taking so much, that a third edition is printed, I had hoped paedobaptists would have stuck to his way, and declined the other way of analogy of the Command of Circumcision. But I see latter books, as M. Sidenham, M. Fuller, and others, still insisting on the hypothesis concerning the covenants and the seal, and Baptisms succession to Circumcision, &c. M. Gataker in his Latin treatise against D. Ward about the force and efficacy of Infant-baptism, though by his Epistle▪ it appears he had seen M. Baxter's books, yet p. 16. he speaks thus to D. Ward. I would you had specially designed the Command concerning the baptizing the infants of believers, which you mean. For although from the analogy of Circumcision, and the nature of this very sacrament, as it is destined to initiation, the comprehension of infants in the Covenant of grace &c. I deservedly believe both the Antient Church to have used, and the Church at this day justly to use Infant-baptism, yet hitherto I have found no special Command concerning this thing. I wish he had formed and confirmed his proof for Infant-baptism from the Analogy of Circumcision, &c. so ancient, learned a man, and so accurate in Controversies, me thinks should have yielded some better proof for Infant-baptism than others have don, or have forborne calling them novel sectaries who with so much endeavor oppugn Infant-baptism (which is the expression in his Epistle to the Reader) and withheld his hand from subscribing to that attestation wherein the Four positions of my Examen were censured as erroneous and pernicious. But not meeting with any other proof than this, I shall keep on in the Review of the dispute, and examine the pretended institution of Infant-baptism out of the Old Testament, taking in some texts of the New, and first Examine the way of proof by analogy of Circumcision, which seems to have been the Assemblies way, and then M. B s. more refined way, as is imagined, desiring the Reader to take notice of what was before disputed in the Second Section of the second part of this Review, to prove that consequences drawn from analogy between mere positive rites of the Old and New Testament to prove a duty in the use of them, without particular institution, are not good.

SECT. II. Dr. Homes his arguments to prove Infant-baptism from Gen. 17. are Examined.

Two ways I find Consequences framed, one in arguments formed syllogistically, the other in certain Conclusions or hypotheses from whence it is conceived they may deduce Infant-baptism. I begin with the former way. I had formed the argument from Gen. 17.7. &c. three ways, in my Exercit. Sect. 1, 2, 3. and that without disadvantage to my Antagonists, notwithstanding D. Homes his exceptions. But I am content to view the forms D. Homes sets down, as more agreeable to their mind. In his Animadversion on my Exerc. chap. 2. pag. 6. he saith, Our first form of argument from Gen. 17.7. &c. is this. Where there is a Command for a thing never remanded on contramanded, there the thing is still in force. But there is a Command for signing the infants of a believer with the sign of the Covenant of grace, Gen. 17.7, 9. never yet remanded or contramanded: therefore the signing believers children with the sign of the Covenant of grace (namely baptism now) is still in force.

To which I answer, 1. The conclusion is not of the thing in question, which is not of the children of believers, but of the Infant-children of believers, as it was in the Minor, now a person of 20. years of age is a believers child, as well as one of two days old. 2. In the Minor (the sign of the Covenant of grace Commanded) is understood, either of the sign of the Covenant of grace expressed in the Conclusion, to wit, Baptism, and if so, it is denied that there is any such Command, Gen. 17.7, 9. to sign with the sign of the Covenant of grace believers infants, theres no Command but of circumcising the manchild of eight days old, not a tittle of baptism: or else of a sign of the Covenant of grace there expressed, and if so, the Minor is denied, that the Command for signing the Infants of a believer with the sign of the Covenant of grace, Gen. 17.7, 9. was never yet remanded or contramanded. It was expressly contramanded Acts 15.28. Gal. 5.1, 2, 3. If in the Conclusion by ( the sign of the Covenant of grace ) be meant as the words ( namely baptism now ) import, the rite of Christian Baptism, and in the Minor it be meant of the Command of Circumcision, then there is a fault of the syllogism in the form, it consisting of four terms. If in the Minor i • be meant of the sign of the Covenant indefinite, which is neither Baptism nor Circumcision, I deny there is such a Command, Gen. 17.7, 9. and the syllogism hath also fourth terms.

Two other forms he hath pag. 9. 2. Form of argument from Gen. 17. is this. To whom the Covenant in force runs in the same tenor in the New Testament as in the Old, to them the application of the first sign or seal of the New Testament may be applied▪ as well as the first of the Old Testament: But this tenor of the Covenant of grace still in force, is as true, and doth as truly run to a believing Gentile, I am thy God and the God of thy seed, as it did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Ergo, the first seal of the Covenant may be applied to believers children, now in the New Testament as well as in the Old to Abraham's. The Major is plain in Gen. 17. the tenor of the Covenant, and the application of the first seal, are Knit into a dependence one upon another. I am the God of thee, and thy seed, V. 7, 8. Therefore thou shalt circumcise every male, V. 9. &c. The Minor is unquestioned of any that I know.

Answer 1. The thing to be concluded was, that Baptism may be applied, but baptism and the first seal of the Covenant I do not take to be all one. Baptism or Circumcision I do nowhere find in Scripture called the seal of the Covenant, much less the first seal, and why the blood of Christ, or the spirit of Christ, or the oath of God may not be called the first seal of the Covenant as well as these, I know not; again the Conclusion was to be ( may be applied to infant-children of believers ) where as the conclusion is ( may be applied to believers children ) And the thing to be concluded was simply ( baptism may be applied to Infants of believers ) whereas it is propounded comparatively ( now in the New Testament as well as in the Old to Abraham) now baptism was not applied to Abraham, and therefore the Conclusion may be granted ( baptism may be applied to infants of believers now as well as to Abraham) that is, just never a whit, since it was never applied to Abraham. 2. But besides, if the phrases ( to whom the Covenant in force runs &c.) in the Major, and in the Minor, (doth as truly run to a believing Gentile) (as the words carry it) be meant only of the believer, and in the Major (the application to them ) be meant only of the believing Gentile as in the Minor, then there are more than three term • in the syllogism, ( applied to believers children ) being not at all in either of the premises. But if it be put in the Major (may be applied to them and their Infants) and in the Minor (to a believing Gentile and his Infant children) I deny both Major and Minor. Nor the Major proved from Gen. 17.7, 8, 9. as in my Answer to M. Bailee, Sect. 3. in my Ample disquisition Sect 5. is made manifest, by showing the nullity of the pretended connection between the Covenant and the seal; The term ( therefore) Gen. 17.9.) may be read ( and ) and it hath not reference to the promise only, V. 7. but to the rest of the promises, V 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. or rather to the whole Covenant, and the making of it, and it imports not a right by virtue of the Covenant, but a motive enforcing a Command, and this command being of circumcising the male only of 8. days old, shows there is not a connection between the Covenant and Seal, since then it would belong to the female and male of the seventh day, they being in Covenant as well as the male of the eighth. The Minor he takes as unquestioned, But I deny it, till I find it better proved than yet I have done. I omit the uncoutheness of the Phrase ( to them the application of the first sign may be applied ) and leave the D. to make good sense of it, which I cannot do.

His 3. form of Argument from Gen. 17. is, Where there is the same reason of a precept, there may be the same practice: But the promise which is the reason of the precept runs in the New Testament (as flowing from Gen. 17.) to believers and their children, The promise is to you and your children, Acts. 2.39. Ergo.

Answer. What is the Conclusion he would prove he leaves to be gathered. It should be, Infants of believers are to be baptized. But then the predicate in the Conclusion would be found in neither of the Premises. For the precept Gen. 17.9. is only that male Infants of 8. days old of Abraham's house should be Circumcised. But a little after he puts this as the Conclusion, that the same reason on which the administration of circumcision was grounded, the administration of baptism was grounded. Which I grant true in this sense, that as the reason why Circumcision was administered to Infants was the Command of God, so the reason why Baptism is to be administered to believers, is the Command of Christ. But the D. would have it thus, that as infants were to be Circumcised by virtue of the promise, Gen. 17.7. so Infants of believers are to be Baptized by virtue of the same promise repeated Acts 1.39. concerning which, to omit the monstrosity of his syllogism, in which there are more than 4 terms, and neither the Predicate nor Subject in the Conclusion, Major or Minor, his speeches are without proof or truth. For 1. it is not true, where there is the same reason of a precept there may be the same practice. For Levite. 19.5, 9, 10, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30. are precepts concerning Mosaical ceremonies or observances, as of offering a sacrifice, of peace offerings, not reaping the corners of the field, not sowing the field with mingled seed, not wearing a garment of linen and woollen, not eating fruit of trees planted till the fourth year, not eating anything with the blood, not rounding the corners of the head, reverencing the Sanctuary, to wit, the tabernacle or Temple, and these with other moral precepts mixed among them in the same Chapter, have in sundry of those verses, and the beginning and end of the Chapter, this as the common reason, I am the Lord, and yet we are not by the same reason tied to all the practices. 2. He doth not prove that the promise, Acts 2.39. is the same with the promise, Gen. 17.7. It is more likely to be either the promise, Act. 2.17, 33, 38. or Act. 2.30. or Act. 3.25. which were eminent promises, and related to the covenant of grace. 3. He doth not prove that ( to you, Act. 2.39.) is (to you believers and to your children) that is, the Infants of believers as such: It doth not appear they were then believers when these words were spoken. 4. Nor is there a word that shows the promise was to them or their children, whether called or no. 5. Nor is it proved that the promise to Abraham and his seed, Gen. 17.7. was the only reason of the precept, verse. 9, 10. 6. If it were so proved, it is not proved, nor ever can be, that it was the formal adequate reason, why an Infant was circumcised. 7. Nor is there the least hint in the words, Act. 3.38, 39. that the reason why a person hath right to be Baptized, is barely the being of the promise to that person, or Gen. 17.7, 9, 10. any hint that the promise barely of itself, did either give right to Circumcision, or oblige to the duty, but in both places it is brought as a motive to excite to that duty, which the precept alone was the formal reason of, and in the former as well of Repentance as of being Baptized. So that when the Doctor hath formed his arguments, they are but misshapen things, having many ambiguities of speech, little or no proof for what he saith. And notwithstanding the Doctors cavils, I yet think the arguments from Gen. 17. were better formed by me in my Exercitation for Paedobaptists advantage, than by the Doctor in his Animadversions : But perhaps we may find the Arguments better formed elsewhere.

SECT. III. Master Drew 's Argument for Infant-baptism from Gen. 17. is examined, and it is shown, there is not the same reason of Infant-Baptism, as of Infant-Circumcision.

MAster John Drew is one of those to whose writings Master Baxter refers me, and is said by the Author of the lawfulness of obeying the present government, to have written with sharp reasons and mild language. Let's see how he hath disputed pag. 23. of his serious address; Where there is the same reason of a precept or command enjoining any practice continued, there may and must be the same practice continued: But the reason of the command for signing Infants of Covenanters with the first sign or seal of the Covenant under the Old Testament continues still in force for that practice under the New Testament. Therefore now that command is in force to all persons in Covenant, as it was then.

Answ. The command in force then to all persons in Covenant, is expressed by himself in the words before, pag. 22.23. the command of Circumcision, Gen. 17.11, 12. when he saith ( All the Infants of those in Covenant with God were signed with the first sign or seal of the Covenant then instituted and commanded by the Lord, which was Circumcision ) so that if he mean, as his words are, this is his meaning in his conclusion ( that command which is Gen. 17.11, 1 • . to Circumcise the flesh of the foreskin of Abraham's males of eight days old, is now in force to all persons in Covenant, as well as it was then ) which neither hath nor can have any other sense (taking words as they are used by other men) but that still all in Covenant with God, are bound by th • command, Gen. 17.11, 12. to Circumcise their male children of eight days old; which is to maintain that which the Apostles have abro •• ted, Act. 15. to entangle us with the yoke of bondage, which the Apost • e saith, would make Christ unprofitable to us, Gal. 5.1, 2, 3. But it will be said, he means not the command of Circumcision, but the command of signing with the first sign or seal of the Covenant. Ans. If he means so, he rather juggles than disputes. For the words speak of the command, which is Gen. 17.11, 12. and that is no other than of Circumcision; no such command of signing Infants of Covenanters with the first sign or seal of the Covenant in the Old Testament, besides that of Circumcision, is either there or anywhere else that I know of; if there be let it be shown. But this is the manner of Paedobaptists, in their disputes to imagine a command of sealing, as they call it, with the first seal, the Infants of Covenanters abstractively or distinctly from Circumcision in the Old Testament, Gen. 17. which is indeed a mere fiction, with which they mock their auditors and readers, who unwarily take what they say without examination. Now this were an answer sufficient to this argument; yet because this man's reasoning is so commended, let's view his proofs.

For proof of the Major thus he writes. For when God giveth the reason of any command, that reason is the ground of the command; and till that reason ceaseth, he is very bold with God, that dare exempt himself from the practice. And again, If the first proposition be denied, viz, where there is the same reason of a precept continued, there must be the same practice, then every man may set himself free from any command of God, and who can say unto him, what doest thou? For the Lord commands nothing without a reason, if there be no reason expressed, the reason of his will is implied, which is as cogent and binding as all reasons in the world, till he makes it appear that it ceaseth. This is very clear.

Answ. The reason of a Command may be understood, either of the reason why Cod commands a thing, or the reason why we are bound to observe that command. The reason why God commands is various, sometimes one thing, sometimes another, sometimes expressed, sometimes concealed. And sometimes the same reason is given of very various commands, as I said before ( I am the Lord your God ) is Levite. 19. the promiscuous reason of moral and ceremonial and judicial commands; yea that the very reason which 1 Pet. 1.14, 15, 16. is given for the command to be obedient children, not fashioning themselves according to their lusts in their ignorance, but to be holy in all manner of conversation, is cit • d from Levite. 11.44, 45. and is the very reason why he forbids the Israelites to eat certain meats, or to touch certain things unclean by the Law. And therefore by Master Drew 's reasoning (the reason of the precept not ceasing) we are bound still to the precept, Levite. 11. of abstaining from meats unclean by the Law, and from touching things legally defiling. But though there may be many motives to do it the rather, yet the only formal adequate reciprocal reason why we are bound to observe anything, is the command of our Lord revealed to us. besides which, we are to look no further, nor are we to neglect it, till by some declaration of his will, it appears we are discharged. Thus Abraham was bound to offer his son Isaac on the Altar, because of God's command, without knowing any other reason; yea though he had known the reason from the end to be fulfilled, yet he had not been discharged till God signified it by the Angel, that he should not slay him. Now then to Master Drews argument. I • he understand the reason of the precept in the first sense his major is false; the reason why God gave a precept may continue, and yet the practice is not to continue, as Levite. 11▪ 44, 45. On the other side the reason of a precept may not reach, and yet the precept reach; as though God brought not us out of Egypt, which is the reason of the command, Deut. 5.6, 7. yet the command pertains to us, and verse. 15. It is said, Remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day. Where I presume Master Drew will say the command reacheth us, though the reason of it do not. And as for his inference, That if it be denied, where there is the same reason of a precept there must be the same practice, then every man may set himself free from any command of God, it is true, if by the same reason of a precept, he understand the reason of a precept in the second sense, for the reason why we are bound to observe his precept, to wit, the declaration of God's will it should continue: but if he understand it in the first sense, for that reason which God gives, why he declared his will, and bound us to observe it, though it continue. yet the precepr may not be in force, nor on the other side doth the precept always cease to bind, though that reason cease, as is proved before.

Now that reason of the precept Gen. 17.11, 12. which is verse. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. is a reason of the first sort, and not of the latter. And indeed in more positive rites which are by institution the precept continues not in force, however rhe reason God used to enforce it, remain, except the institution be continued. Rightly Pareus comm. in Gen. 8.20. to an Objection, That sacrifices are to be continued, because the cause is perpetual, Answereth, The perpetual cause of a thing necessarily co-hering with the thing, as a Cause continued with its effect, makes the same perpetual. But the said causes or ends do not so co-here with the sacrifies of the Ancients, but only by appointment, that is divine ordination, which was that those sacrifices should be the confirmation of the faith of the fathers, and a signification of gratitude, unto the coming of the Messiah, &c. The like may be said of the ends of Circumcision, and the occasion of appointing it.

But let us view Master Drew 's proof of the Minor, The reason (saith he) of the command for signing Infants of Believers under the Law, with the first sign or seal of the Covenant, was this promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, as is evident, Gen. 17.7, 8. compared with the 9.10. and 11. verses, where this promise of God, and the application of the first seal are knit into a dependence one upon another: I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, &c. to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee; therefore thou shalt Circumcise every male, as a token of the Covenant, verse 11. But this same reason of the command continues in force under the Gospel; God doth as truly say to every Believing Gentile now, I am thy God and the God of thy seed, as he did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles, so he is called Rom. 4.11. Therefore I may conclude, that Believers under the Gospel, have the same command for signing their Infants with the first seal of the Covenant of promise (which now is baptism) as Abraham had to sign his under the Law with the first sign, &c. which then was Circumcision; and now Sirs, if the blessing of Abraham be come upon you, and if you be heirs according to the promise, you may easily find a command for Baptizing your Infant seed.

Answ. If Master Drew would prove what is to be proved, he should prove that the proper formal reason obliging to the duty of Circumcision, Gen. 17.9, 10, 11. was the promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee. But that is false. For the formal reason being put, the thing is put without any other thing, and it being not put, the thing is not put, though other things be put. But if the promise had been put, yet Abraham had not been obliged to Circumcise, unless a command were put, and the command being put, Abraham was bound to Circumcise, though God had made no promise.

Therefore, though the promise might be a motive to do it, yet as Master Mars • all truly confesseth, Defense of his Sermon pag. 182. the formal reason of the Jews being Circumcised was the command ; and therefore till Master Drew show we have the same command to Baptize Infants, as Abraham had to Circumcise Infants, he can never show we have the same or equal reason for Infant-baptism, as was for Infant-circumcision. But Master Drew thinks to prove his Minor from Gen. 17.7, 8. compared with the 9, 10, 11. verse. Where it is evident (saith he) this promise of God, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, and the application of the first seal, are knit into a dependence one upon another.

But he doth but dictate without any clear explication, or thorough consideration of what he saith. For 1. He doth not plainly tell us, that the dependence he imagines to be one upon another of the application of the first seal and the promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, is upon that promise alone, and not upon the other promises, verse. 4, 5, 6, 8. And if he do so mean, yet he brings nothing to p • ove it, and it • s unequal he should expect we should take it on his word, since if we gather anything from the placing of the words, the reason of the command, verse. 9, 10, 11, 12. may as well be from the promise of giving him and his seed the land o • Canaan, verse. 8. as the promise, verse. 7. 2. Whereas the promise verse. 7. hath diverse senses, one, so as to be meant of Abraham as a natural father, and his seed according to the flesh, another, of Abraham as a spiritual father, and his spiritual seed, he neither brings a word, nor do I think can, why the reason of the Command, verse. 9, 10, 11, 12. should be from the promise made to Abraham as a spiritual father, and to his spiritual seed (which alone is for his purpose to bring Gentile-believers children to be in the promise) rather than to Abraham as a natural Father and to his natural seed, especially those of them that were to inherit the land of Canaan : yea it is manifest, that if the dependence were, as he saith, it is to be interpreted of Abraham's seed by nature, since the command there was given to the natural seed of Abraham only, and them that joined to them. 3. Nor doth Mr. Drew show what dependence one upon another they are knit into, whether contingent or necessary, or if necessary, in what degree of necessity, Whether, de omni per se or quatenus ipsum. This last seems to be most likely, and the dependence this, To whomsoever that promise is made, that person is to have the first seal; and whosoever is to have the first seal, to that person the promise is made. But this were evidently false. For it appears from v. 19. that the promise was not made to Ishmael, and yet he was to have the first seal, & others of Abraham's house had not the promise who were to be signed with Circumcision, and the females had the promise made to them, and yet were not to be signed. If it be said they were virtually signed, it serves not Master Drew 's turn, who asserts a dependence of the promise and actual signing in the person federate. 4. Nor doth he show from what term or words his imagined dependence is evident. The only term I know, he or any other gathers the supposed dependence from, is verse. 9. ( therefore ) But in the Hebrew it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which in the most usual sense is, And thou, noting a further addition to his speech, not an illation of one thing from another. And so the Tigurines read & tu, And thou, Pareus Tu autum, But thou, Piscator, Tu vero, Thou verily. So that the evidence is very small, which is from so uncertain a light. 5. Nor doth he nor can he show from the comparing Gen. 17.7, 8. with 9, 10, 11. any dependence of application of any other first sign, than Circumcision upon the promise there. The Command of an indfinite first seal, there or elsewhere to believers Infants, is a mere figment. 6. That dependence which is implied by the term ( therefore ) is not at all such as intimates a right competent to Infants, but a duty enjoined to parents, which Infants are nor capable of. And therefore if any see a command for Baptizing of Infants in that place, it is but a parallax, or decep • io visus, a mistake of sight, as in him that thinks he sees two Suns or two Moons at once. The Minor also in his Argument is to be proved.

SECT. IV. The Covenant, Genesis 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. was a mixed Covenant.

BUt afore • e comes to prove it, he brings in an objection, God's Covenant with Abraham, was not a pure Gospel-Covenant, as appears, say they, by his promising Abraham temporal things, Gen. 17.8. therefore we may not argue from thence to the Covenant of Grace.

It is true, both in my Exercitation, and in my Examen, Part 3. Sect. 2. and else where, I deny the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. to be a pure Gospel-Covenant, and aver it to be mixed, and show how it is mixed, to wit, of promises not belonging to everyone with whom the New Covenant of the Gospel is made, but respecting peculiarly Abraham's house, and the policy of Israel, and that the promises Evangelical are delivered, Gen. 17. in words expressing proper benefits to Abraham and his natural seed, though in the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost, Evangelical promises were meant, and therefore it may be well doubted, whether that Covenant may be termed simply Evangelical: Yea the Scripture where it speaks of this Covenant, often mentions no other promise, but of the Land of Canaan, as Exod. 6.4. Psal. 105.8, 9, 10, 11. 1 Chron. 16.17, 18. Act. 7.5. Where Stephen mentions God's promise to Abraham, he mentions that of the land of Canaan ; and verse. 8. calls the promise of Canaan, the Covenant of Circumsion. Wherefore Cameron in his Thescs of the threefold Covenant of God, Thesi. 78. saith, That Circumcision did primarily separate Abraham's seed from other Nations, sealed the earthly promise, it signified sanctification secondarily. Whence I infer, that when Paedobaptists speak of Circumcision as if it were a Seal of the Covenant of Grace only, and from it gather Rules and Conclusions concerning the Ordinance of Baptism, in the New Testament, as if the Reason of Circumcising Infants were from nothing proper to the policy or Nation of Israel, but only out of the respect it had to the promise of Evangelical grace, they do but mislead the people, and speak their own conceits, and not the Language and mind of the Scripture.

To this Master Drew saith, I answer, The Scripture nowhere calls that Covenant a mixed Covenant, but on the contrary, notwithstanding any civil promises of temporal things, it is held forth as pure a Covenant of Grace as may be; the Apostle tells us plainly that this Covenant was confirmed of God in Christ, Gal. 3.17. which I think is enough to make it a pure Gospel-Covenant. Christ was never the Testator of any Covenant, but that of Grace: outward things as appurtenances altered not the Covenant, nor made it mixed at all, unless that Covenant we live under be mixed too, for outward things are promised to believers under the Gospel, Rom. 8.32. 1 Cor. 3.22, 23. 1 Tim. 4.8. Besides, this Covenant with Abraham is called a Covenant of justification, Rom. 4.2, 3. of Grace, verse. 4. of Faith, verse. 13. and I am persuaded, that Abraham had not been called the Father of the Faithful, if Believers had stood in a different Covenant towards God, with that in which he stood; as for differences in the manner of administering and dispensing that Covenant, they matter nothing, if there be no difference in those Evangelical promises, which make it a Covenant of Grace; but no man is able to make this appear; therefore this exception weakens not our proposition, nor the Argument at all.

I reply, if it be true which I allege, that the Covenant, Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, was a mixed Covenant, as I show in the places forecited, and that Circumcision enjoined, verse. 9, 10, 11, 12. had reference as a sign or token not only to that promise ( I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed ) but also to the promises which peculiarly respect the house of Abraham, and policy of Israel, which cannot be understood to belong to every believer, as verse. 7. to be the father of many Nations, to be exceeding fruitful, that God would make Nations of him, and Kings should come out of him; that he would give unto him and his seed after him the Land wherein he was a stranger, all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession ; Then it follows, that the reason of the command, verse. 9, 10, 11, 12. is not only from the promise verse. 7. but those other promises, and the application of the first seal are knit into a dependence one upon another, as well as that verse. 7. and then if the argument be good, The Infants of those to whom the promise is, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, are to have the first seal, because of the dependence there, it will follow, he to whom God gives the Land of Canaan for a possession, he out of whom God brings Nations and Kings, he is likewise to be sealed with the first seal, since there is as much dependence in the text, of Circumcision on the promises verse. 4, 5, 6, 8. as on the promise verse. 7. so that if this reasoning of Master Drew 's be good; for my part I see not but that the Turk, possessor now of Canaan, may be intitled to Baptism by the same reason he produceth for Infant-baptism of Believers children.

Now whereas he saith, That the Scripture nowhere calls that Covenant mixed, I grant it, and it is true also, that it nowhere calls it a pure Gospel-covenant, nor Circumcision a seal of the Covenant of Grace, or the first seal; yet, the thing I mean by it being proved out of those texts forenamed, there is no reason to except against the expression.

Nor can it be true, that the Covenant Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. is held forth as pure a Covenant of Grace as may be, if the promises are of sundry things not assured to Believers in the Covenant of the New Testament. Which is most evident: for no Believer hath now a promise of the possession of the Land of Canaan, but rather an assurance of persecution, no promise of such greatness, as to be the progenitor of Kings and Nations, but rather of obscurity and debasement.

A pure Gospel Covenant containing many promises, is rare in the Old Testament, except where he foretells us he would make a new Covenant. God made a Covenant with David, Psal. 89.3, &c. Nor do I deny it was a Gospel-covenant, yet therein are promises peculiar to his house, as verse. 30, 31, 32, 33. yea the promises which were Evangelical in the furthest intent and aim, were domestical in the first place, and the most open expressions. Nor is it a whit against the mixture of Abraham's Covenant which I avouch, That the Apostle tells us plainly that this Covenant was confirmed of God in Christ, Gal. 3.17. And that Christ was never the Testator of any Covenant but that of Grace. For the word is in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rendered in Christum by the Tigurines, into or unto Christ, or as Master Dickson renders it, respectu Christi, in respect of Christ, That is, as in his paraphrase, with relation to Christ, or as Diodati, whose foundation was Christ, not as the Testator, but as the party concerning whom the Testament was made, or as the executor by whom the things promised were performed. Now in either of these senses it is easy to conceive how the pro • ise might be in Christ, or unto Christ, and yet the Covenant not a pure Gospel-covenant. He might be either a Legatee, or an Executor in that Testament which contained not only Evangelical blessings of justification, &c. which were common to all true Believers, but also outward blessings, which few or no Believers had in the New Testament. I see not any inconvenience in it to say that the Testament was confirmed in Christ, in respect of the promises, so far as they were Evangelical, and yet to say there were promises in the same which were not such, nor they 〈◊〉 in Christ, though in the same Covenant.

And whereas he calls outward things appurtenances, I conceive the promises of outward things, Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 8. are as truly parts of the Covenant as the promise, verse. 7. Yea in the p •• ces foretold, the promise of Canaan hath the title of the covenant. And those promises, though they alter not the Covenant, yet they must needs make a mixture in the covenant, for by reason of them the covenant contains promises of diverse sorts.

And for that which is said, That now under the Gospel, outward things are promised to Believers: I grant it, yet it is nothing against the mixture in the covenant, Gen. 17. which I assert: For those promises are not the p • omise of Canaan, to be progenitor of Kings, which are not made to every Believer, but of a different sort. Whence I infer, that there was a mixture in the covenant, Gen. 17. which is not in the New Testament, and the reference of circumcision to that covenant, might be and was in respect of those domestic promises, as well or more then of the Gospel promises as such. Nor do I find Rom. 4.2, 3, 4. any mention of the covenant, Gen, 17. much less is it there, which Master Drew saith, That it is called the covenant of justification and of grace. It is true Abraham is there said to be justified by Grace, yet no mention of the covenant, and the text there cited, is Gen. 15.6. not Gen. 17. And though Rom. 4.13. it be said, The promise to Abraham and his seed, that he should be heir of the world, was not by the law, but by the righteousness of saith ; yet it neither calls the covenant the covenant of faith ; nor doth it assert that the covenant, Gen. 17. contained no other promise but what was Evangelical or common to all Believers of Jews and Gentiles. Neither do I, nor need I say, that Believers stood in a different covenant towards God with that in which Abraham stood. I am persuaded as Mr. Drew, that Believers now are justified by the same covenant that Abraham was justified by, to wit, that in Abraham all Nations of the earth should be blessed, Gal. 3.8. & Rom. 4.13. A father of many Nations have I made thee. I only say, that the covenant Gen. 17. contained promises which were proper to the Jews, together with the Evangelical promises. And to make those promises no parts of the covenant, but only the manner of administering and dispensing the covenant, because the Holy Ghost alludes to them as figures and types of spiritual things, is not right. For even the promise, verse. 7. was in the like manner typical, Abraham's natural seed inheriting, shadowing the Israel of God, true believers, and then by this reason the promise, I will be a God to thy seed, should be no part of the covenant, but belong to the manner of administering and dispensing the Covenant.

The like may be said of the rest of the promises, they all shadowed out spiritual benefits, and so there should be no parts of the covenant, and consequently no covenant at all, but a manner of administering and dispensing of I know not what covenant. But the speeches verse. 4, 5, 6, 8. do contain promises, as well as verse. 7. and either I am uncapable to understand the meaning of terms, or else promises are parts, yea substantial or essential, or integral parts of a covenant, the description of a covenant, being a collective of promises, and the Scripture, what Gal. 3.15. is called a covenant or testament, calls verse. 16. promises. And therefore ro make the promises Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 8. not to be parts, but appurtenances to the covenant, or the manner of administering and dispensing it, hath in my apprehension, neither truth nor congruous sense. Now if they be part of the covenant, as hath been made appear, and circumcision had its appointment by reason of them, as well as the promise, verse. 7. it matters much to weaken Master Drew 's proposition and argument, though there be no difference in those Evangelical promises which make it a covenant of grace between Abraham's covenant and ours. Master Drew proceeds.

SECT. V. Acts 2.38, 39. Proves not either the identity of Covenant now with that to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. as it comprehends his natural seed, nor the connection between it and Baptizability.

NOw to go on to the proof of our second proposition in the argument, which is, that the reason of the command for signing, &c. even this promise I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, continues in full force under the Gospel, I refer you to that Scripture Acts 2.39. to make it good. The promise is unto you and to your children. What promise? Why this must needs relate to a former engagement, yea and too made unto them to whom the Apostle Peter spake, viz. Jews, and I know not to what engagement this can have reference, if not unto God's promise made to Abraham, of being his God and the God of his seed after him. Certainly he is one of those that are blind, and yet have eyes, who sees not from this text, that this very promise is in force and appliable to Believers under the Gospel, and if this stand good, then the command for signing our Infants with the first sign of the covenant of grace, viz. Baptism, stands good too, for this promise is the reason which God gives of his precept; God will own a Believers children, therefore he will have them marked for his.

Answ. I grant the promise I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, doth still continue in force, God is still the God of Abraham's seed, that is his spiritual seed, elect persons, and true Believers; and he will be again the God of Abraham's natural seed when the natural branches or posterity of Abraham, the root, shall be grafted in again.

But I deny that which Master Drew means, and in the page before expressed, that God doth as truly say to every believing Gentile now, I am thy God, and the God of thy seed, as he did to Abraham the father of the faithful ; yea or that ever God meant by that promise to assure Spiritual or Evangelical blessings to all and every of Abraham's natural posterity, the Apostle determining and proving the contrary, Rom. 9 6 7, 8, &c. and restraining that promise in the Evangelical sense only to the children of Abraham, which were elect by God. Nor is there a word, Act. 2.39. to make it good in Master Drew 's sense. For, 1. Master Drew proves not that the promise Act. 2.39. must needs be the promise Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. His argument is, It must needs relate to a former engagement to the Jews, and therefore to that Gen. 17.7. But this is to argue a genere ad speciem affirmative, it relats to a former engagement therefore to this, which Logicians deny to be good proof.

But saith he, I know not what engagement this can have reference to, if not unto the promise Gen. 17.7.

I answer, though he know not, and so may be one of those, that are blind and yet have eyes, (which he chargeth on his opposites) yet others see other promises, namely that to David of raising up Christ to sit on his throne mentioned Acts 2.30. or the promise of the Holy Gost mentioned V. 33. or the promise of blessing mentioned Acts 3.25. Any of which may be the Promise meant Acts 2.39. more probably then that Gen. 17.7. 2. Where it is said ( The promise is to you ) if we either consider the scope of the Apostle or other parrallel texts Acts 3.26. Acts 13.32, 33. ( the promise is ) is as much as to say, the promise made to David Acts 2.30. or to Abarham Acts 3.25. is fulfilled in raising up Christ, or the Promise of the spirit is fulfilled in the shedding forth of its gifts, (of which Promise mentioned V. 17.18. Piscator and others understand it) and that for you, that is for your good blessing, and your children and all that are afar off as many as the Lord our God shall call, not as M. Drew means, there is a promise of being a God to you and everyone of your children continually to be fulfilled as soon as ever they are in being.

3. It is false which M. Drew presupposeth as if the meaning were ( the Promise is to you ) that is (the Promise of being your God is to you believers and to your children) that is to all your Infant children, as children of believers whether Jews or Gentiles. For 1. that speech is made to the Jews (as M. Drews own words seem to import (only and their children, and not to Gentiles and their children 2. It is false that when it is said ( the Promise is to you ) the meaning is to you as believers. For neither were they then believers, as I prove in my Ample disquisit: Sect 5. nor is it certain whether some of them were ever believers, the occasion and scope seems to intimate rather that they were considered there as persons who had crucified Christ 3. Neither is it true that the Promise is to their children, that is to their infant children as their children, M. Gataker discept: de bapt: Infant: vi. & 〈◊〉 . pag. 12. saith thus, To the obtaining the promise as well repentance as partaking of baptism at least in this place is exacted; so that hence the promise of remission of sins cannot be proved to be made to Infants when they are entered by baptism, unless also they repent. 4 nor do I know how it can be true, which M. Drew says, in any sense for his purpose, that God hath promised to every believing Gentile now to be the God of his seed as he did to Abraham, by which he would expound the words Acts 23.9. the promise is to your children. For in respect of spiritual blessings accompanying salvation it is not true, every believers child is not elect, in the Covenant of saving grace, a child of the resurrection, nor in respect of outward Ecclesiastical privileges. Neither did God Promise Circumcision to every child of Abraham, not to the males under 8. days old nor to the females, nor hath it any color to interpret I will be the God of thy seed, that is they shall be circumcised, much less that God promised to every Gentile believers child he should be Baptized or have right to Baptism, sure not to professed unbelievers, to abortives or still born Infants. For my part with all M. Drews light I cannot understand how according to M. Drews exposition the promise Gen. 17.7. is enforce and appliable to believers under the Gospel as he saith.

Nor do I conceive it true which he ads. If this stand good then the Command for signing our Infants with the first sign of the Covenant of grace viz. Baptism stands good to ; For were it granted that it were true, that God doth as truly say to every believing Gentile now, I am thy God and the God of thy seed as he did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles, yet there is not a word in that text or any other to prove that therefore every believers Infant child is to be baptized, it being false that the Covenant of grace doth of it self entitle to Baptism as I have proved in my Examen part. 3. S. 1. in my letter to M. Baile or Additions to my Appology Sect. 3. in the Ample disquisition Sect. 5. where also it is proved that though the promise Acts 2.39. be alleged why they should be baptized V. 38. yet not as the reason of their right to Baptism as M. Drew makes it, but as a motive encouraging them to it as their duty, and in performing of it first to move then to repent and then to be baptized. The reason, is not as M. Drew makes it. The promise is to you and and your children therefore it is their and your right to be baptized, and the minister ought to do it to you and your Infants; but this, the promise is to you and your children, therefore you and they ought and may be encouraged to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for remission of sins: nor is there a word in the text or elsewhere to prove that dictate of M. Drew, God will own believers children, therefore he will have them marked for his, even in infancy by baptism, more truly saith M. Gataker discept: Infant. de bapt▪ infant. vi. & E • f • c. pag. 9. Acts 2.38, 39. is nothing found concerning Infants to be baptized, In that they are Commanded to repent and to be baptized unto the remission of sins, it is altogether like to that saying of the Lord Christ, he that believeth and shall be baptized shall attain salvation Matth. 16.16.

But M. Drew thinks to take off the exceptions that are laid against the witness which this place brings to prove the birth privilege of believers children under the Gospel. The first exception is that the promise is of extraordinary gifts of the spirit, and he answers. This doth not suit with the promise made Gen. 17.7: which was to be performed to Abraham's children, and yet they had not those gifts.

But 1. this Answer goes upon his mistake that the promise Acts 2.39. must be that Gen. 17.7. 2. he supposeth that the promise Acts 2.39. must be understood so as to be made good to Abraham's seed afore Christ: But if so, it were false in his sense, for all Abraham's seed had not the birth privilege of the first seal not the females any of them, nor any of the males till the eight day.

2. He saith, it cannot be true of extrao • dinary gifts, since then all believing Jews must have those gifts, which they had not, and all believers might pray for them.

To which I say if the promise be so understood, you shall all have sueh gifts. I acknowledge it were not true Exam. part. 3. Sect 6. But in this sense it may be true even of those gifts, the promise of sending the spirit in extraordinary gifts is fulfilled to you and your children and all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call, that is for their and your benefit, in that by those gifts the Apostles were enabled to publish and propagate the Gospel, which is a benefit to all that are called.

The Second exception is that the words ( as many as the Lord our God shall call ) expound the Apostle meaning, which is this, their children should receive the promise if the Lord called them, To it he answers 1. that this particle (even) with that which follows (whom the Lord our God shall call) has relation to the next foregoing sentence viz. those that are afar off for the explanation of that not unto this sentence (to you and your children) so that the Apostle speaks thus, The promise is made to you and your children for the present, and when the Lord shall call those that are a far off and strangers to the Covenant of promise, they and their children shall be heirs to the promise as well as you and your children are now.

To which I reply, M. Drew gives no reason, why the limitation should be meant only of those afar off, and not also of them and their children 2. nor doth he answer the reason given to the contrary, that the speech were not true, if it be so expounded as that the sense be, that God would be a God to those Jews he then spake to, though they were not called to the knowledge and belief of Christ, and so salvation by another then Christ contrary to the same Apostles words Acts 4 12. To me saith M. Gataker discept. debapt. Inf. viz. and e • fic. pag. 253. the Covenant of grace Act· 2.39. seems only to be with them that have embraced the Gospel. Now if the words ( as many as the Lord our God shall call ) must limit the words ( to you and all that are afar off ) it is incongruous to the use of speaking not to apply it to ( your children ) in the middle. Yea without the limitation it would not be true that God hath promised to be a God to their or any others children. For God is not a God to any but those he calls either outwardly or inwardly at least. 3. His Paraphrase ( when the Lord our God shall call those that are afar off, they and their children shall be heirs to the promise as well as your children are now ) is an intolerable abuse of adding that of which there is not a word in the text, which doth not mention at all the children of them that are afar off though called.

2. saith M. Drew if the Apostle had meant to apply the promise only to those who should be called of God to believe, then it had been needless to have made any mention at all of children.

To which I reply there was great reason why he should mention their children with them, because they had wished Matth. 27.25. Christ's blood on them and their children. To take away the horror of soul, and fear of the curse on them and their children caused by the conscience of their crucifying Christ and imprecation to them and their children, and not to assure them of such a poor empty Eclesiastical outward privilege as paedobaptists imagine to belong to believers infants, was that speech of the Apostle intended in like fort as Joseph did in the like Gen. 45.3, 4. &c. Gen. 50.20. For this end was suitable to the occasion of their question Ver. 36.37. and to the Apostles answer, and it seems probable tthe Apostle saith ( to you and your children ) but not, to all that are afar off and their children, because those afar off had not wished Christ's blood on them and theirs as the other had done.

3. Saith M. Drew, it utterly overthrows the Apostles scope which is to show the Jews shall be bettered rather then worsted by believing in Christ, which they would hardly believe should he have left their children (who were always till now reckoned in Covenant with them) in as poor a condition as the most barbarous heathens in the world, which had been a bad argument to bring in the Jews, cold comfort to hear that their children should be made as much aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel by their Fathes embracing the Gospel, as the very Pagans. Surely this would stave off the Jews from Christ rather then bring them on.

To which I reply, The Apostles scope is plain to direct them what to do being oppressed with the horror of their sin in crucifying Christ and wishing his blood on them and their children, and Ver. 39. is a notice to them to repent and be baptized in the name of Christ. To imagine the Jews then either thought of a privilege for their children answerable to circumcision, or that Peters scope was to satisfy them about it, is such a toy as is fit for children rather then men of understanding. It had been alike comfort unto the Jews at that time to tell them of their Infants right to baptism as for a man to tell an arraigned malefactor, expecting to be condemned and hanged, that his little child had a new Coat given him, vain words and bug-bears fit to affright children with, of a child's being out of the Covenant for defect of tittle to baptism, of being in worse case then the Jews, in as poor a condition as the most barbarous heathens in the world, aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel, debarred a privilege the deprivation of which would have staved off the Jews from Christ. Children may be in covenant as much as the Jews, no whit worsted in their condition in a better condition, then barbarious heathen infidels, though title to baptism be not aserted to their infants. If by ( the commonwealth of Israel ) the Jewish civil or Eclesiastical estate, be understood those that Peter spake to, must expect to be alienated from it if they would be Christians. They knew Christ was cast out, and might know he had told them it would be so with his disciples. If by ( the Common-wealth of Israel ) be meant (the true Christian Church) the defect of Infant-baptism neither expressly nor by consequence made them aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel. Such conceits arise from paedobaptists mistaken suppositions. Nor can I imagine but that had the Jews understood that their children were in that condition, worsted for want of a privilege equal to their circumcision they would have been glad to accept of Christ to take away that horror that then lay on their Spirits.

The third exception is, that it is not said the promise is to the Gentiles and their children; now if this be not made good the argument falls, because we are Gentiles by nature. To which he answers 1. If believing Gentiles live under the same Covenant that Abraham and his seed did (which has been proved) then though they were none of his seed, tis safer to apply the whole promise to them, I am thy God and the God of thy seed, then to cut off and circumcise the tenor of the Covenant, and to say unto believers now, God only is your God, not the God of your children; is not this to make a main and substantial alteration in the Covenant? and to rob believers of one of the most precious comforts they have by promise, even God's owning their seed. Which they cannot be assured of as the Jews were, without the children be admitted to the first sign or seal of the Covenant, which is baptism now under the Gospel, as I shall prove by its succeeding circumcision by and by.

To which I reply, The Covenant Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. is mixed and in respect of the temporal promises believing Gentiles live not under the Covenant made to Abraham Gen. 17.7. but in respect of the spiritual part, that is, they are justified and saved now, or God is a God to them as they are Abraham's seed Gal. 3.29. But neither did God promise to be a God in respect of Gospel grace, to Abraham's natural seed as such, the contrary is delivered Rom. 9.7, 8. nor now to any believers seed as such, but the elect whether believers or unbelievers children, as is proved at large by me Exam. part. 3. Sect. 4. not by denying the Covenant of grace to be made with a believer & his natural seed do we cut off or circumcise the tenor of the Covenant, or make any alteration, much less a main and substantial alteration in the Covenant, the Apostle expressly determining, and whole Juries of the ablest Protestant writers even paedobaptists expounding Rom. 9.8. as resolving, that the Covenant Gen. 17.7. to be a God to Abraham and his seed, was not made to all Abraham's natural seed, no not to the circumcised, not to Ishmael and Esau, but to the elect only, and therefore there is no safety to apply the whole promise, I am thy God and the God of thy seed, to every sincere believer and his child, it being expressly contradictory to Rom. 9.8. which determines some only to be children of the promise. And yet we need not say as M. Drew injuriously makes us say, God only is your God, not the God of your children, but only this: you may assure yourselves that he is your God, for ye are believers and so Abraham's seed; and ye may hope by reason of general indefinite promises and frequent experiences that God will be a God to your children. But God hath not promised that he will be certainly a God to every, or any one of your children definitely, but is at liberty to show mercy to your children, or to an infidels, as it shall please him. And this you must be contented with, since God afforded no more to Abraham himself, when he had made Isaac the child of the promise and not Ishmael, nor to Isaac when he loved Jacob and hated Esau. It is fit you should remember God to be no debtor to you, that he is the potter, ye and yours are the clay, and accordingly acquiess in his will blessing him for his love to you which is the most precious comfort you have by promise, and not being anxious concerning your children. Nor is there any truth in it that either the Jews were assured that God would own their seed, that is, be their God, nor that by being admitted to circumcision they had that assurance, nor that without admission to baptism we cannot be assured of our children that GOD owns them, nor that baptism succeeds circumcision, or if it did, such assurance as Mr. Drew speaks of cannot be inferred thence. So that all this passage is but a fardel of mistakes. Lets consider the next. 2. saith M. Drew, Are not Gentiles the seed of Abraham? Then I would fain be resolved in this whether Christ took upon him only the nature of the Jews, or of the Jews and Gentiles both? If only of Jews, how must the Gentiles be saved? If of both, then how you will construe this text Heb. 2.16. He took upon him the seed of Abraham, if you will not allow the Gentiles by any means to be Abraham's seed.

Answer. I grant believing Gentiles are Abraham's spiritual seed descending from him as the Father of the faithful by imitating his faith. And as for M. Drews frivolus or captious question, which goes upon a supposition as if Christ might take on him the nature of the Jews only, & that the nature of the Jews were one and the Gentiles another, I tell him (though I think such a Dr. might have resolved himself) for his resolution that Christ took on him the nature of both, that is the same specifical essence or kind of being, that both had, to wit the being of a man common a like to Jews and Gentiles, meaning by nature his individual, and numerical Existence, which is all one with that, our Lord sprang out of Judah Heb. 7.14. not from Levi, or from Lot, and yet the Gentiles are saved by his name, he dying and arising again both for Jews and Gentiles. And for the Construction of Heb. 2.16. thought there are learned men that expound 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thus, he takes hold or helpeth the seed of Abraham, that is believers of Gentiles as well as Jews, yet I think the meaning there to be no more but this, that he took on him or received the nature of man by a natural descent from Abraham 1. because the seed of Abraham is opposed to Angels, and therefore Abraham's seed signifies the nature of man contradistinct to Angels. 2. because the author saith ver. 17. thence he ought to be like to his brethren, to be a merciful high Priest, which comes not from his helping believers, but his assumption of the human nature, with fits him to be like to men and to be a merciful high Priest. And therefore I like best the reading of our transtators in the text, not that in margin. And thus haye I answered M. Drews douty question in which he would so fain be resolved. But what is this to prove that Acts 2.39. the promise is not yet to the Gentiles, that are called but also to their children I see not, it being neither proved that Acts 2.39. the promise is the promise Gen. 17.7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed, ot that the children of Gentiles called, are in that respect Abraham's seed.

M. Drew adds, But yet further 3. It is plain in the Gospel that faith maketh a believer the child of Abraham; yea and a surer heir to the promise, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, then carnal descent from Abraham's Loins doth. Abraham had 2. seeds one descending from Ishmael and another from Isaac; all that came from Abraham were not children Rom. 9.7. But in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Isaac was his special seed, and typed out his believing seed under the Gospel, for ver. 8. they which are the children of the flesh, these are not (that is not in so peculiar a manner) the children of God as the believing seed, for the children of the promise are the seed, the seed by way of eminency, that is the prime seed. and Mark I pray you how the same Apostle explains and applies this to our purpose Gal. 4.28, 29. The Galatians were Gentiles, but being believers, we saith the Apostle, as Isaac was, are the children of promise, and so the special seed of Abraham: the Galatians were no more of Abraham's natural seed then we are, but by faith they became his prime seed, and heirs apparent to all the promises as Isaac was, who is said in the next ver. to be born after the spirit as well as Gospel believers are. And, sirs, shall we make the Covenant curtail and narrow to Abraham's prime seed and halve the promises to them when they are full and large to his worser seed? The Apostle will not suffer this Gal. 3.29. If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise, which surely must needs be according to the full extent of that promise made unto our Father Abraham; for if it be not ours so fully as it was his, then we are not heirs according to the promise; if our seed be exempted it falls much short of what was said to him, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed. And mark, friends, I beseech you, that was Gospel which was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8. In thee shall all Nations be blessed; not only his natural seed, that was but one Nation; but all that were of the faith shall be blessed, as children of what nation soever ver. 7. For faith was imputed to Abraham in uncircumcision Rom. 4.10, 11. to this end that he might be the Father of all them that believe though not circumcised. And truly I wonder since the G • spel is so clear that believers are Abraham's children that any man dare rob them of any comfort or privilege wherewithal he was invested by that promise to which they are more sure heirs then any of his natural seed, as I think is made plain to the easiest of your capacities.

Answer. the thing to be proved is that to the natural seed of Gentile believers God hath promised to be a God. To prove which divers places are brought which do manifestly refute it. That of Ro. 9.7, 8. determines that all the natural children of Abraham were not the seed to whom God had promised to be God, but that in Isaac his seed should be called. And the same is determined Gal. 4.28. that Isaac was the child of the promise and not the son of the bondwoman, and that no child of any man is a child of the promise but he that is born after the Spirit. And Gal. 3.29. is meant of those only that are the sons of God by faith in Christ ver. 26. and from the Gospel mentioned Gal. 3.8. in thee shall all nations be blessed, he infers ver. 9. only of believers, so then they that are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. And Rom. 4.10.11. Abraham is said to be the Father of believers, or as it is ver. 12. those that walk in the steps of the faith of our Father Abraham which he had yet being uncircumcised. Wherefore I may much more justly wonder that learned Protestants who so commonly say, that elect persons only are in the Covenant of grace from Rom. 9.7, 8. when they dispute against Arminians, should yet have the face to avouch that every believers yea though but by profession a believers natural child whether elect or a believer or not, is in the Covenant of grace made to Abraham Gen. 17.7. when they dispute for paedobaptism, though by such doctrine they make the word of God to fall, it being not true of Ishmael, Esau, and thousands of others of both of Abraham's and other believers seed, God hath not nor will be a God to them.

It is true believing Gentiles are heirs of the promise made to Abraham of blessing or justification by faith as he had, but it is false, every believer is heir of every privilege. Abraham had ; none besides him is Father of the faithful as Abraham, or hath God's promise to his natural seed as Abraham had to his spiritual, yea or to his natural. None hath the promise that in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed Acts 3.25. nor any that his posterity should be graffed in again as it is assured to Abraham's seed Rom. 11.28, 29.

The imagined privilege that God would be the God of his natural seed was never promised to Abraham's natural posterity, as such. Yet it is false, that a believers child is a more sure heir of the promise then any of Abraham's natural seed.

For though God hath not promised to be a God to all Abraham's posterity, yet he hath to some, which I know not that he hath done to any believing Gentiles natural child. M. D. doth but Calumniate by insinuating as if we curtaild the promise, robbed believing parents of any comfort or privilege wherewith Abraham was invested by that promise Gen. 17.7. perverting the text as if when God said he would be a God to Abraham, by Abraham were meant every believer, and when he saith he will be a God to Abraham's seed, it were meant of every belivers natural seed whether believers or not.

About which he and other paedobaptists, particularly the Assembly at Westminster in the Directory about baptism do but abuse people, and lead fond parents, who swallow down Preachers sayings without Scripture proof into a fools paradise, by telling them that the promise is made to a believer and his seed, that God will be a God to a believer, and his child, and that Infants of believers dying in their Infancy, are saved by the parents faith, and by this there is assurance of their salvation.

But Master Drew once more urgheth Rom. 11, 17. that the term grafting, shows believing Gentiles come in with their seed, or twigs that grow from them, else surely they cannot be said to be graffed in as the Jews were cut off,

But I have so fully proved the engraffing to be by giving faith according to election, and that none but elect persons are engraffed according to the Apostles meaning, and that engraffing is into the invisible Church in my Ample disquisition, being the first part of this Review in the ten first Sections, that I think it unnecessary to say anymore to what Master Drew here speaks. And for what he saith, If believers Infants were taken in under the legal administration, and left out in the Gospel-administration, the covenant dispensation under the Gospel is more uncomfortable th • n that under the Law, it is but a vain speech, as if the circumcision of Infants were such a matter of comfort, that the having of no privilege under the Gospel did recompense the loss of it without Infant-baptism, as if Infant-baptism were of so great comfort to parents, that without it other comfort concerning their children were nullified, whereas these things arise upon mistakes, as if Baptism were administered according to a persons interest in the covenant, and circumcision was so, and that the denying Infants Baptism, is putting them out of Covenant, which is but ungrounded talk, as shall be further shown in that which follows.

Yea when the Paedobaptists answer the Papists, who would have the work of outward Baptism to take away original sin from the Infant-baptized, they say only that it seals the covenant, but doth not seal the fruit of the covenant, but upon condition of Faith and Repentance; so that the Infant hath no benefit by the covenant, or the seal without Faith or Election; and so much benefit hath any unbeliever or his Infant; yea the unbeliever hath more advantage then the Infant, for the unbeliever hath the moral use of the sealing of any baptized person, which the Infant hath not. When they talk of the covenant to Infants of believers they say it is but condicionally that they do believe that God will be their God, and in the same manner the covenant belongs to all men in the world, to unbelievers and their Infants, and when they speak of the benefit of Baptism, they say it only seals the covenant, not the persons partaking the fruit of it (excepting he be an elect person dying in Infancy) which yet he may have without the seal) till he believe, yet he hath not the moral use and comfort of it till he understand and believe, at which time the Baptism in Infancy is altogether unknown to him. So that indeed the comfort which Paedobaptists give to parents, is either the same I give, without Infant-baptism, or, if parents did examine it, it would be found delusory. What Master Drew speaks about Baptisms succession to circumcision, and his imagined full proof from thence for Infant-baptism, I shall put off till I review the Dispute about Master Ms. third Concl. This is enough to satisfy that Master Drew 's reasons are blunt and not sharp as was supposed.

SECT. VI. The Arguments of Master Josiah Church in his Divine warrant for Infant-baptism, from their being judged in the promise, is answered.

THere is another writing of Master Josiah Church, entitled, The Divine warrant of Infant-baptism, of which I passed a censure in the first part of this Review Sect. 21. and I might let it pass, being as the commanders of it say, Dogmatical rather then Polemical, and leave it to those that affect such superficial writings. Yet because Master Roberts and Master Geree have commended it, and Master Baxter pag. 6. of his Plain Scripture proof, puts it among the chief books, of which he saith, If any of the men of Bewdly have taken up the union of Antipaedobaptism, and have not read and studied him with others, and been able to confute them, he hath discovered a seared conscience (which is a most unreasonable and uncharitable censure) to show the folly and vanity of Master Baxter's and others conceit, I shall give the Reader some taste of his overly handling the point.

His first Argument is thus, The Infants of Christians are righty judged in the promise of propriety in God, therefore they may be Baptized.

To it I answer, 1. The antecedent is ambiguous, not expressing what propriety in God he means, whether of justification, regeneration, and salvation, or of outward protection & prosperity among men or Ecclesiastical privilege, nor where that promise is which he calls promise of propriety in God, nor whether he means it of all Infants of Christians, or some, and if of some of which he means it, and of which not; nor of what sort of Christians, whether such as are Christians only by profession, or really such in God's account; nor with what judgment he means, whether of charity or verity, probably or certainty; nor upon what evidence they are with any of these sorts of judgment rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God. So that I find nothing but Sophistry in this dispensation, the antecedent being perhaps true in some sense, in some false: and therefore it is but wast labor to refute it, or answer his proofs, till that he distinctly set down what he asserts, and how his proofs suite with his assertion. Yet I shall cast away some animadversions on this writing, least my silence be disadvantage to the cause I maintain.

That which I conceive he means, is this, All the Infants of Christians by visible profession, are rightly judged by a judgment of charity, though not of certainty to be included in the promise of propriety in God, in regard of eternal adoption and privilege expressed in those words ▪ Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, therefore they may be Baptized. Of which Argument, I deny both the antecedent and the consequence. The antecedent he takes upon him to prove by ten Arguments.

1. The Infants of the Jews (so long as they continued visible professors) were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God, for it was sealed to them by the initial Sacrament no less then to actual professors, Gen. 17.7, 12. Ergo

Answ. Did not Master Church affect new phrasifying, which serves only to puzzle in plain words, he had said, To the Jews Infants· the promise was made of being God to them, therefore the Infants of Christians are rightly to be in that promise: Of which, neither is the antecedent true universally taken, but contradicted by Paul, Rom. 9.7, 8. where he expressly denies the promise ( I will be the God of thy seed ) to be true of Abraham's natural seed universally taken: Nor if it had been true, doth it follow that what was promised to Abraham's seed, is true of every true Believers, muchless of the seed of every mere visible professor of Christian faith, who are neithet themselves, nor their children in any Scripture sense Abraham's seed: nor is the proof of any weight, That the promise of propriety in God was sealed to the Jews Infants by the initial Sacrament, no less then to actual professors, therefore the Jews Infant were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God.

For this reason in plain terms is no more then this, the Jews Infants were to be circumcised, Ergo they were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God, that is that God would be their God, which rests upon these false suppositions, that God had promised to be God to those whom he commanded to be circumcised, and that the promise of being their God was the formal reason of their being circumcised, that when God promised to be a God of to Gentiles, he meant it of external adoption and privileges.

The consequence he would prove by four Argument. 2. The promise of propriety in God was not a specialty, therefore the Infaints of Christians being certainly no less in the promise then were the Infants of Jews aforetime, they are rightly judged to be in it as they were. Where the conclusion is altered, which was to be proved ( therefore if the Infants of the Jews were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God, then the Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in that promise ) and instead thereof, that which should have been the antecedent ( the Infants of Christians are certainly no less in the promise then were the Jews Infants aforetime ) is made the chief part of the conclusion, and instead of the right antecedent, this ambiguous antecedent is put ( that promise of proriety in God was not a specialty ) which he says he would prove by seven arguments, but sets not down which branch of the promise was not a specialty, whether that ( I will be thy God) or that ( I will be the God of thy seed ) nor in what sense it was not a specialty, nor doth his speech ( that it was not a specialty ) appear equipollent to that he should have proved ( The Infants of Christians are certainly no less in the promise then were the Jews dnfants aforetime ) but he dictates so ambiguously and indistinctly, that more labor will be necessary to understand him then to refute him. He tells us, the promise of propriety in God, was not peculiar to Abraham, and visible professors, and Abraham's natural seed ; where he supposeth, that the promise ( I will he thy God, and the God of thy seed ) was true of mere visible professors, and Abraham's natural seed; which is most false and contrary to Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. Luk. 20.36, 37, 38. He brings the words Exod. 12.48, 49 the stranger was as our home-born, and there was one law for both (which are spoken merely of allowance for them to eat the Passover with them) to prove a like propriety of the Infants of visible professors of the Gentiles in the promise of propriety in God, Gen. 17.7. He brings Gal. 4.28. which was spoken only of true Believers born after the Spirit, to prove visible professors and their Infants to be judged in the promise of propriety in God. He saith, Isaac was in the promise as an Infant of Believing parent, whereas Paul saith no, for then Ishmael and Esau had been in the promise, but by special calling or election, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, 9. He applies those texts Gal. 3.14. Rom. 11.17. Rom. 15.8, 9. Gen. 17▪ 5, 7. to prove a promise to every Gentile visible professor of faith and their Infants, which are only verified in the sense the Apostle useth them, of true Believers as Abraham was, who are justified as he was. He allegeth that which the Apostle Rom. 11.28. saith, The children are beloved for the Fathers, as it were meant of Infants of every Gentile visible professor, which is spoken only of the elect Israelites, and the ancient Patriarchs Abraham, &c. That which is said, Psal. 138. 1, 3. of children of him that fears God, sitting round about his table like Olive plants▪ to prove visible professors and their partaking in the promise of propriety in God.

He saith, The former part of that promise (I will be a God to thee, Gen. 17.7. is undeniably common to all Believers, which in truth is undeniably proper t Abraham, not simply as a Believer, but either as a natural Father, or Father o Believers according to the spiritual part of the promise.

He saith, Christians are in this dispensation as Jews were in the former, they are called as they were, an holy Nation, a peculiar people, a royal priesthood, 1 Pet. 2 9. Tit, 2.14. And every Nation receiving the faith as the Nation of the Jews did, and in which there is a national agreement in doctrine, worship, and discipline, as was in the Nation of the Jews, is to be accounted to the Lord in every age, Psal. 22.30. even Egypt and Assyria with Israel, Isa. 19.21. and many call Abraham Father (who obtained the Fatherhood of many Nations, Gen. 17.5.) and may be accounted a national Church no less hen that Nation was, whereby those speeches 1 Pet. 2.9. Tit 2.14. Gen. 17.5. as expounded, Rom. 4.17. which are meant only of the elect and true Believers of every Nation are applied to a national Church like the Jews consisting of a great part of either ignorant persons that know little or nothing of Christianity, or persecutors of godliness, profanely despising the word, and hating the godly.

He applies that Mat. 18.10. little ones, who are said verse. 6. to believe in Christ, and the offending of whom hath so great a penalty, to little one in age. He applies Jer. 30.20. which is spoken of the Jews upon their return from captivity, as appears verse. 18.21. concerning their prosperity in Canaan to the restitution of their Infants to an initial seal at the calling of them to the Christian faith whereas if it were so meant, the Prophet should foretell that the Jews children at their calling to Christ should be as a foretime, that is, should be circumcised as they were before the Prophets time, not ba • tized. More things there are liable to exception in his arguments whereof what pertains to the text, Act. 2.39. Rom. 11.17. 1. Cor. 7.14. is sufficiently discussed in • y Ample dsquisition of those texts. That which concerns the reasons that God promiseth mercy to thousands, and such like arguments, being urged more fully by Master B. I shall answer when I meet with them in his book.

His arguments pag. 18. to prove his Consequence, The Infants of Chaistians are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God, therefore they are to be baptized, are insufficient. The first is from circumcision of Infants, to which hath been often answered, That was done by virtue of the Command, not by virtue of the promise and therefore without the like Command the like promise (if it were granted) would not prove the like, practice. What is said of John Baptists, and the Apostles, not denying baptism to any whom they judged to be in the promise, seems to intimate, that they baptized men because they judged them to be in the promise: But there is not a word thereof in any of the Evangelists, but their coming to John confessing their sins, glorifying God in embracing his Counsel, professing faith, as the reason of their admission to baptism.

To his second reason, Being in the promise, is the reason rendered by the Apostles for the receiving of baptism, Acts 2.38, 39. Therefore they that are rightly judged in it may be baptized, I answer 1. He says not truly, that being in the promise is the only reason mentioned by the Apostle for baptism; for repentance is put as a prerequisite. 2. The Apostle doth not speak of the promise as Master Church means that he judged that they and their children were rightly judged as visible professors in the promise of propriety in God, for they were not then such: But that the promise of raising up Christ was fulfilled for them upon their repentance and baptism, or their calling, and this is made not the reason of right to receive, or warrant to the Minister to baptize them, but as a motive to their duty of repenting and being baptized, and encouragement to hope for remission notwithstanding their crucifying Christ and imprecation on themselves, and theirs, Matth. 27.25.

SECT. VII. Bare judgment of charity concerning a persons interest in the promise is not a warrant to baptize.

PAg. 19. Mr. Church brings in an objection thus, The judgment of charity that any are in promise is not a sufficient reason for administering baptism to them: there must be shows of grace for more certainty, To which he thus answers: shows of grace and actual profession are a reason for baptizing only as they are ground for the judgment of charity, that the parties to be baptized are in the promise; for else if the Devil should take a human shape, and make a verbal profession (though he were known to be a Devil) he must be baptized.

I reply, Mr. Church here starts a question, by what judgment a Minister is to proceed in admitting a person to baptism. Concerning which I suppose it will not be denied. 1. That a Minister being but as an officer under Christ in baptizing, is to baptize according to his Lord's will. For that is the property of a servant. 2. That the will of the Lord is most manifest in the institution or appointment of Christ; which is without question declared by the words of Christ, Matth. 28.19. Mark. 16.15, 16. explained by the Apostles and other approved Ministers thereof, command and practice mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. 3. That true believers and disciples of Christ are appointed to be baptized, and that they have true right before God. 4. That such believers and disciples as are appointed to be baptized, are Disciples of all nations, not of Angelical but human nature; and therefore we have no warrant to baptize either good Angels or Devils taking human shape and making shows of repentance or faith if known to be Devils or Angels. All the difference is, with what judgment and upon what evidence a Minister is to baptize, I conceive 1. upon extraordinary revelation from God a Minister is to baptize an Infant declared to be a Disciple, as I say in my Examen p. 4. S. 3. 2. According to ordinary rule he ought to baptize none but Disciples by profession, which profession ought to be free, sober, serious and intelligent. For discerning of which he is to use ministerial prudence, though he be not able to search the heart, and after the use of ministeral prudence therein, he is prudently to judge of the truth of his faith and discipleship. Wherein he ought to judge according to the rule of charity 1 Cor. 3.17. which believeth all things, hopeth all things, and yet heed what Solomon saith Prov. 14.15. The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. And our Lord Christ Luke 12.43. having said as it was conceived of a Minister, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season ? it is requisite that the judgment of a Minister upon which he baptizeth should have both ingredients, prudents & charity, charity alone is not sufficient. For 1. If Charity be used without prudence, there may be a mockery of the Ordinance, and it profaned. 2. If the rule be a judgment of charity alone, then supposing the Minister be defective in his charity the person is to be debarred, who is otherwise fit to be baptized. But about this I conceive there is little or no difference between me and the paedobaptists. Mr. M. in one place, to wit, in his defense pag. 78. intimates that I am conceived to incline to the looser way of baptizing any that would make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. And in another place pag. 233. he makes it all my pleading that because we cannot know that all Infants of believers have the inward grace, we may not therefore baptize them. From the former I vindicated myself in my Apology Sect. 17. and from the latter Sect. 10. But the difference is what qualification it is that may be evidence to a Minister, whereby to judge prudently a person to be capable of baptism. They that hold all Infants are to be baptized that are offered, they make no scruple, nor do they make much scruple that hold all Infants that are in a chosen nation, which I have refuted Exam. part. 3. Sect. 13. others baptize only the children of enchurched members, of which I shall speak in Examining Mr. Cobbets conclusions. There are, that from the Generality of promises and election running through the Loins of believers, will have all the children of believers to be in Covenant and elect in the parcels though not in the lump, and M • . Church his opinion comes near it, that we have ground from a judgment of charity that the parties to be baptized are in the promise to baptize them. But against this I argue.

1. That is to be the rule of judging a persons baptizability which is made the condition of a person to be baptized in the holy Scripture. But nowhere in it is this made the condition of being baptized, that he be elect and in the Covenant. 2. The Scripture doth nowhere say that the election of God runs for the most part through the Loins of believers. And though there are promise, of blessing to the righteous and their seed, yet these are indefinite both for the kind of blessing, and the person, and these promises are made only to the truly righteous, and not to them, who are only such in appearance. Wherefore there can be no certainty for a judgment of prudence to rest upon, to determine of any whether they are elect or not, in the Covenant of grace or not, spiritually considering that God hath declared Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, 18, 24. That he ties not himself to believers children. Now all judgment is to be suspended of that which is not revealed, The secret things belong to the Lord our God, Deut. 29.29.

3. For Infants of believers there is no ground for a judgment of charity, because they do nothing to show whether they are in the Covenant or no. And if it be revealed by God that they are all or some in Covenant then we know it by a judgment of faith believing God's revelation, and so it is not a probable judgment of charity, but a certain judgment of verity, which directs in this. 4. If a probable judgment of charity that a person is elect and in covenant be the rule to direct in baptizing, then suppose a salvage in new England or elsewhere seeming to be affected in the the time of preaching should be judged in charity to an elect person in covenant he ought to be baptized by the Minister so judging afore he owns Christ by profession. It is promised that the Israelites shall be graffed in again, and all Israel saved, Rom. 11.24, 25, 26, 27, 28. and we may charitably judge it will be shortly, shall we baptize any of them or their Infants upon this charitable judgment of their election and being in Covenant afore profession? 5. If a charitable judgment of election and being in covenant had been the rule to baptize, then sure John the Baptist, and the baptizers appointed, had somewhere propounded that question, or made inquiry into that thing, but it was not so, they required repentance Acts 2.38. inquired into the faith of the baptized. 6. if this had been the direction (baptize those that are elect or in Covenant) had been a blind derection unfit for men to follow, and so our Lord should have imperfectly instructed his Apostls and others, or rather have mocked them, putting them to do a business not feasiable by them. But this is not to be said of Christ, especially the rule being so plain to baptize believers and Disciples by profession.

As for Mr. Church his conceit, that shows of grace and actual profession are a reason for baptizing only as they are a ground for the judgment of charity that the paties to be baptized are in the promise ▪ I deny it. For the rule is not (baptize persons in the Covenant) but (Disciples or believers of all nations.) To that of the Devils making a verbal profession, I have answered before. That which he saith that the judgment of charity (meaning that they were in Covenant) was the rule by which John the Baptist and the Apostles walked in baptizing is not true, for they baptized upon their profession which they certainly knew. And though they had no infallable knowledge of the individuals election or being in Covenant, but baptized hypocrites not a few, yet they had an infallible knowledge of individuals confessing sins, brofessing repentancc and faith, for they heard them, and this was their rule, not the conjectural knowledge of a persons interest in the Covenant or election of grace.

SECT. VIII. Acts 2.38, 39. proves that interest in the promise entitles not to baptism without repentance.

MR. Church brings in a Second objection, which is in effect what I allege Exam. pag. 62. a right to Evangelical promises is not the adequat reason of baptism, for the Jews were in the promise Acts 2.38, 39. yet not baptized without preceeding repentance. To which he answers thus, A visible right to the promise either by shows of grace (as in those of riper years) or by the meaning a species in the promise without restriction, of which the parties to be baptized are individuals (as the Infants of visible professors are) is a sufficient reason for baptism.

To which I reply. If visible right ro the promise by shows of grace be a sufficient reason for baptism, then the rule I set down for admitting to baptism is yielded to be aright. But for the new made rule of Mr. Church it is but an human ivention without Scripture warrans. He supposeth the Infants of visible professors to be in the promise without restruction, and the promise I conceive he means is ( I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7.) But it is most false that that promise is made to any mere visible professors, but to Abraham, not to any true believers natural seed, much less to any mere visible professors natural seed, but only to A • rahams seed, who are only elect and true believers of the Gentiles according to the spiritual part of it, as is proved before. Yet were it granted that not only the Species, but also the individuals were named expressly in the Covenant, I should deny they were to be baptized according to ordinary rule till they were known Disciples and believers. The Jewish people are in covenant Rom. 11.24, 25, 26, 27, 28. and yet not to be baptized till they believe, and Peter Acts 2.38, 39. requires repentance for baptism, of whom he saith, the promise is to you. But he tells me, The learned and rational of the Anabaptists confess that if it could appear to them that an Infant is in the Covenant they would not doubt of the baptism of it, I answer, whatever others do, yet I disclaim that confession. I have granted sundry times as Examen part. Sect 15. part. 3. Sect. 3. that regenerate, justified, adopted persons born into the world who have the inward grace are not to be debarred baptism, if it be known by special revelation, for they are then known Disciples and believers. But I never said this of an Infant in Covenant. For an Infant may be in Covenant even then when he is unregenerate (being in covenant) nothing no more then having the promise made to him, which may be afore he is born, and therefore I should not yield that of being in covenant, which I would do of actual regeneration.

But Mr. Church makes some show of answering the argument from Acts 2.38, 39. He tells us those Jews rejecting and crucifying Christ and Atheistically mocking • at Gospel truths, ceased to have a visible right to the promise, until they regained it by repentance.

Answer Mr. Church pag. 18. saith being in the promise is the reason rendered by the appostle for the receiving of baptism Acts 2.38, 39. therefore they that are rightly judged in it may be baptized. pag. 20. Being in the promise is the only reason mentioned by the Apostle for baptism. Doth not thus plainly assert that the Jews then were righly judged by Peter to be in the promise, and their right thereby to batism? How then is it true which here he saith they ceased to have a visible right to the promise till they reigned repentance ? But it is not once only that this Author is off and on, saying and unsaying at a little distance. Here he requires a visible right in the promise regained by repentance, a little before he saith the species being named without restriction in the promise as a sufficient reason of baptism. However I take his confession that notwithstanding what he said pag. 5.6, 7. from Acts 2.38.39. of the promise to them and their children, and thence inferring their Infants tittle to baptism, as being the children of visible professors, to whom God had promised to be a God and to their seed, yet here he saith they ceased to have a visible right to the promise until they regained it by repentance, which the Apostle supposeth they then had not, even then when he said, The promise is to you and your children : For he exhorteth to it as a thing to be done.

But Mr. Church flutters like a bird in a net, seeking some evation from this objection, though all in vain. He tells us they were a mixed company to whom the Apostles spake Acts 2.8, 11. and not all Jews, for they were of divers languages; and that they were adulti.

But what is this to the avoiding the objection, that notwithstanding it is said the promise is to you, yet they were not intitled to baptism without repentance.

He then discourseth, that repentance was in them only in fieri before their baptism▪ and that the Apostle accepted of probabilities of it and baptized them; For in that distance from his preaching, and their baptizing, so many could not have repentance visible by its fruits and discernible, and thence would gather, if such heinous sinners were baptized upon probability of repentance, therefore Infants of Christians guilty of no actual sin may be baptized unto repentance.

To which I reply, 1. It is expressly said ver. 41. they that gladly received the word were baptized, therefore there were visible fruits of repentance and faith discerned by the Apostles and other Disciples, who were many and could confer with them in that space of time, and baptize them in that day, though their conversion was easily discernible without distinct conference with each.

2. His argument is not worth a rush, notwithstanding Cyprians words to back it, to prove Infant-baptism. For it goes upon this frivolous supposition, that Infants because they have no actual sin may be baptized, though they show no repentance, much rather then heinous and great transgressors upon probability of repentance. As if lesser sinners might be baptized upon no testimony of repentance, because greater sinners are baptized upon probability of repentance, which if true, the more civil and orderly persons, though pharisaically minded, as if they needed no repentance, have much more right to baptism, then publicans confessing their sins because but probably penitent. 3. All this is nothing to answer the objection, but to strengthen it, that notwithstanding the promise was to them, yet they were not to be baptized till their repentance, either in facto esse, or in fieri, either visible in fruits or at least probably conceived, of which neither is to be said of Infants. Yet Mr. Church is not ashamed to conclude thus.

Being in the promise is the only reason mentioned by the Apostle for baptism, (whereas repentance is undeniably prerequired) and that if any disable the reason he imputes not a little weakness to the Apostles and their converts ; whereas he that disables the inference from being rightly judged in the promise to right of baptism, doth vindicate the Apostle from weakness, which paedobaptists do by their exposition and inference thence blemish him with, and cast the blame of weakness only on Mr. Church and such inconsiderate expounders and disputers as he is. I had not thought to have said so much of so poor a piece as that book is; yet lest any say it is not answered I add.

SECT. IX. Infants are not proved by Mr. Church, to be of the visible Church Christian.

HIs second Argument is, Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the Church with Christians of riper years, therefore they may be baptized.

To which I say, His words are ambiguous, it being uncertain whether he means the Antecedent of the visible or invisible Church, of all infants of Christians, or some; but conceiving it meant of all, and of the visible Church of Christians, I deny the Antecedent. And for his ten Arguments, not one proveth it.

The Medium of the first is the Antecedent of the former Argument, to which I have answered before, denying that all the infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God, expressed Gen. 17.7. in those words, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.

But I deny the consequence also, that if it were true, that all the infants of Christians are rightly judged in the Promise of Propriety in God, therefore they are rightly judged to be of the visible Church: nor is it proved by that which he allegeth, ( For they only are aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel,