Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3

er, which he calls federal ordinances, seals of the promise of the Covenant of grace, of the righteousness of faith in their nature. There • s not a word Acts 7.2▪ 8. by which it may appear that circumcision of the child was reckoned as the Fathers privilege, nor their own circumcision as their privilege, but only of Abr • ham that God g • ve him the Covenant of Circumcision, whereby he was assured of a son by Sarah, & so he b • gate Isaac and circumcised him the 8th. day, which privilege was peculiar to Abraham, and to none other I know, excep • Zacharias John Baptists father be said • o have the same privilege, nor is Rom 3.1, 2, 3, 4. any whit to M Cs purpose, to prove that circumcision is reckoned as the Fathers privilege. For 1. it is manifest that Rom. 3.1. Circumcision is to be understood metonymically, as v. 30. for the circumcised, since it is not sold there was much profit by Circumcision but of Circumcision, as before, what advantage of the Jew? nor was the privilege v • . the committing the oracles of God to them, the privilege of Circumcision in the abstract or by circumcision as the means by which it was, but the privilege of that people who were circumcised. 2. If it were granted that the privilege were by Circumcision, yet that it was the Fathers pri • iledge by reason of the child's Circumcision rather then his own, is a vain fancy. Nor doth Acts 2.38, 39. yield anymore to his purpose, but is most g • osly abused by Mr. C. as is shown before §. 21, 23 Nor are the passages which he alledgeth p. 132. out of my Examen, dissonant to any passages before or any after, except those words of my Examen p. 10 • . which I alter in the first; part of this Review, p. 64, 93. And to his many questions from my words. I answer, that • e hath not proved the Covenant of grace, wherein God promiseth to be a God to them and theirs, to b • long to every Jew, but only to Abraham and his seed, that is, so far as it is Evangeliacl on • lie to his spiritual seed whether of Jews or Gentile, and therefore I deny it was a privilege which every Jew had, to be a God to them and theirs ; and yet grant that Deut. 29.14. with • 0 6. was a privilege, and so I yield to have been what God promised Ezek 36. from the 17 to the end, and Deut. 14.2. and that sundry infants of the Jews b • se born w • re in the Covenant of saving grace and Church-privileges, and that it was a privilege to them, and that the promises of the Covenant of grace are privileges, and the same now to believers and as large and honorable as then, and that the promises to their children mentioned Deut. 30.6. were of the substance of the Covenant of grace, in respect of the thing promised, but not in respect of the persons to whom, for God doth not promise to all his elect or t • ue believers, that which he promised then in that case to the Israelites for their seed, and I yield that even base born children may be in the Covenant of saving grace, and yet these promises are not made to Church children, (as Mr. C. speaks) • s such, but only to the elect. Nevertheless I grant the same promises now to be made to believers, which were then, to wit, rigtheousness and life eternal by faith yea that they are larger now, no intensively in respect of the thing promised, as if a greater degree of righteousness and eternal life, were promised now then was then, but extensively in respect of the people to whom the Gentiles now being cal • ed, and t • at mo • e amply th • n the Jews, nor do I or anything I say exclu • e believers children out of the Covenant. But I still say, the Covenant of grace was no made then universally to a Believer and his natural seed nor now, but only to the elect of them. Yet this is not an ex • lusion of any in particular from the Covenant of grace, nor an inclusion, but only a suspension of any determination of either, who are elect, and who not being only known to God. And therefore to Mr. Cs. question why are belie • ers children then excluded the Covenant? which injuriously insinuates and I did exclude them, I say, let him answer it that doth so. And th • ugh I grant that our privileges now are enlarged, in respect of the administration of the Covenant, in that the Gospel is preached to more nations and more clearly, and confirmed by the blood of Christ &c then before • hrists coming (which • s my meani • g in that speech) yet it neith • r follows tha • I count that administration of the Covenant initiatory seal (which is Mr Cs • erms not mine) as s • ch to their children was no privilege to there must be such a like privilege and not stra •• ned, at least not wholly excluded as that of a like, though Mr. C • say not the same, but a like administration of the initiatory Covenant-seal, to in-churched believers children now, as Mr. C. in his gibberish speaks. And though I say we have nothing in lieu of Circumcision, but Christ come in the flesh; yet I do not say, nor need I, that Baptism is no privilege to believers now: but I deny it to be a privilege in lieu of Circumcision, and say that as Mr. C. grants it a privilege to believers, that now they have not that manner of initiation by circumcision, so it is a privilege to them that they have no manner of initiation in lieu of it. What he saith he hath showed before from Ez. 37.25, 26, 27. is examined before.

Sect. 5. Mr. C. saith, Baptism is a seal of the Covenant, no bare badge of Christianity as some have said, albeit the more judicious of our opposites yield this, that the Covenant of grace is said properly to be sealed in Baptism, and that Baptism since Christ's incarnation is the appointed seal of God to such as enter into covenant with him.

Answ. It is true that I said Exam p. 149. the Covenant of grace is sealed properly in Baptism, but Mr. C. might have taken notice, that 1. I used not this phrase as mine, but as Mr. Ms. 2. That I did yield this but three lines before with this caution, Baptism seals the love of God in some sense properly. 3. That not long after I say, that in exactness of speech it seals no grace properly, taking it for propriety of speech, but improperly, because metaphorically, as sealing is taken for assuring. 4. I say as properly, notes propriety of right, or title, or possession, in opposition to another's, or that which is alien, it seals as much the second as the first grace. And indeed this is my meaning, that though in propriety of speech Baptism may not be said to be the seal of the Covenant of grace properly, since it is but a metaphor or term translated from another thing, and so shows not what the thing is, but what in some respect it is like to: yet it may be thus termed the seal of the Covenant of grace properly, that is, as the seal of a deed assutes the thing conveyed in it to him that hath propriety in it, so Baptism in that thereby we put on Christ, doth signify to the true Believer that he hath union and communion with him, and that he hath thereby a propriety of right to righteousness and life by Christ, according to the Covenant of grace. But this doth no whit contradict what I have disputed before sect. 31. against Mr. Ms. and others doctrine, about Sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace. Nor did I use the words, that Baptism since Christ's incarnation is the appointed seal of God to such as enter into Covenant with him, Exam. p. 83. as mine own expression, but as Mr. Ms. though I granted the thing meant by it. Yet had I so said of myself, it had not been for Mr. Cs. turn, who will have it a seal of God's Covenant to us, whereas those words as I yield them, rather import it to be our seal whereby we enter into Covenant with God, and engage to him, which is the most genuine use of Baptism, and in that respect rightly termed a badge of Christianity. But Mr. C. would prove it a seal of the Covenant in another sense, thus.

And it appears so, saith he, 1. in that it agrees in the essentials with circumcision as an initiatory seal, Col. 2 11, 12. which speech is ambiguous, and yet in no sense, I conceive, true. It is doubtful whether he mean that to be the initiatory seal is the essentials of Circumcision, and of Baptism, but this sense is false: For to be a seal is not essential either to the one or the other, the circumcision of the Shechemites was circumcision, though it were no seal to them of the Covenant of Abraham ; and Simon Magus his baptism was baptism, though it were no seal to him of the Covenant of grace, much less is it of the essence of either to be initiatory, for if there were or might be another initiatory seal (as doubtless there might be if God had so appointed it) yet circumcision and baptism had not been circumcision and baptism, now what may be or not be without the ceasing of the thing to be is but an accident to it, not of the essence of it. Besides, to be the initiatory seal of the Covenant of grace, doth more truly agree to the spirit of God, then to either of them. Or whether he mean, that they agree in those things which are the essentials of each, but that is more palpably false, for it is essential to Circumcision that the fore-skin be cut off, but that is not essential to Baptism, there may be Baptism without it. Nor is there a word Col. 2.12. that either expresseth this thing or yields any ground for proof of it, as is shown before by me here §. 81.

As vain is that which follows, whence baptized Gentiles are said to be of the circumcision, Phil. 3. and Jews said to be baptized, 1 Cor. 12. For neither are Gentiles, Philip. 3.3. termed the circumcision, because they were baptized, nor the Jews said to be baptized, 1 Cor. 12.13. because they were circumcised, or because of the agreement of these in the essentials. But the converted Gentiles, not all that were baptized; but only those, who were true believers are termed the Circumcision in opposition to the Judaizing Teachers termed before v. 2. the concision by a figure of speech, termed Eutelism, or slighting them in that in which they gloried; and they are termed the Circumcision, because they were truly circumcised before God in heart, and were his people. And the Jews 1 Cor. 12.13. are said to be baptized no otherwise then the Gentiles who believed, who were not circumcised in the flesh, and therefore could not be termed baptized because circumcised; but Christian believers, whether Jews or Greeks, bond or free, are all said to be baptized, and to be made to drink, because they were baptized with water, and did partake of the Lord's Supper, as 1 Cor. 10.17.

Mr. C. adds more of these toys. Hence first instituted for a seal to the circumcised Jews; to show it was in the essentials of sealing Abraham's covenant to them, but the same with circumcision in a manner; only as that sealed it to them visibly in Christ, as to come, this did it in like sort in reference to Christ as come; that was the seal of the righteousness of Abraham's faith, or that whereon his faith acted to righteousness of justification, Rom. 4.11. even the promise of grace in Christ, Rom. 10.6, 7. with Deut. 30.14. Wherein 1. he dictates, without any pretence of proof, that Baptism was first instituted to the Jews to show that which he says; nor is there the least intimation thereof in Scripture. 2. He seems to me to unsay by his limitation [ in a manner ] what he said before, it was the same in the essentials. For that which is the same in the essentials is altogether the same, and not in a manner. 3. It is false that baptism was the same in the essentials of sealing Abraham's covenant to the Jews with circumcision : For it was as much in the essentials of sealing Abraham's Covenant to the Jews (if I may use Mr. Cs. gibberish) that Circumcision sealed the promise of the land of Canaan, Gen. 17.8, 9, 10, &c. as that it sealed Christ to come; but surely Baptism never sealed the promise of the land of Canaan. 4 That which I find of the seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11. is meant of Abraham's personal Circumcision, and of no other, and therefore is inep • lie applied to prove sameness of sealing of others Circumcision and Baptism. 5. I conceive it somewhat inconsiderately said, that Circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of Abraham's faith, which would imp • y, that it assured that Abraham faith was righteous, wherea • the meaning is, that it assured that Abraham had righteousness by faith before he was circumcised, as v. 10. he had asserted. 6. The other explication is worse, for it i • timates as if the Apostle meant that the righ • eou • ness of faith ascribed to Abraham is to termed, as that whereon his faith a • ted to righteousness of justification, even the promise of g • ace in Christ, whereas the meaning is not that it sealed the righteousness he was to obtain by acting fa • th in a promise, but that it was a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had many years before he was circumcised.

Mr. C. goes on in the same v • in of dictating thus. Hence when Christ is called the minister of circumcision, it is thus explained by the end of the sign administered, • cil. to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers, Rom▪ 15.8. Act. 7.8. Gen. 17. • 1. Which speech seems to intimate, as if Christ were termed the minister of circumcision, as if he did minister Circumcision to that end, to confirm the promises : But that is too absurd for such a man to vent, since he ministr • d • ircumcision to none; and the meaning is plain, that he was the minister of circumcision, that is of the circumcised jews among who • • he preached and lived, as Peter is said Gal. 2.8. to have had the Apostlesh • of the circumcision, that is of the circum • ised Jews: And in this sense • eza, Willet, Diodati the new Annot. Dicson, Piscator, &c. expound it. Now this being promised, it is ea •• e to perc • ive how i • per • inently this • ext, w • ich mentions not at all Baptism, nor any use of Circumcision at all, but only the end of Christ's ministry among the circumcised is alleged, to prove that Baptism ag • ees in the essentials with circumcision as an initiatory seal The Texts, Act. 7.8. Gen 17.1 • . a • ease little t • the purpose, there b • ing no mention of Baptism, and they only proving what is not denied, that Circumcision was the token of Abraham's • ovenant As little is that w • ich follows, Hence the promise premised and then Baptism annexed as the seal, Act. 2.38. For neither is it proved, that the promise there is the same with Abraham's Covenant, and how pi •• ifully Mr. C. mistakes the meaning of it is shown before, sect. 22, 23. nor a word about Baptism as a seal annex • d to the p • omise but an exhortation to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins and • ssurance of the gift of the Holy Ghost, which are annexed to repentance as much as to baptism

What he adds, Hence that washing annexed to the word, Ephes. 5.25, 26. But that the word there is the word of promise, much less of Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17, or that it is mentioned as sealed by Baptism, or tha • therein it agrees with Circumcision, is not proved. The word is the Gospel preached by which men are made believers, and then baptized, and so purified, as Act. 15.9. Tit. 3.5. Act. 20.32. & 26.18. Job. 3.15. & 17.17. &c. Nor is it anymore pertinent which follows.

2. Saith he, It • s a baptizing in the name or covenant-fellowship of God the Father, Son, and Spirit: he having exalted his word above all his name, Psal. 138.2. Wherein 1. he seems to expound baptizing, Matth. 28.19. into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, thus, into the Covenant-fellowship; which is somewhat strange, there being neither there, nor elsewhere (where the like phrase is used) any mention of Covenant, or Covenant fellowship; and his arguing, God hath exalted his word above all his name, Psal. 138.2. Ergo, baptizing is in the name and Covenant-fellowship of God the Father, Son, and Spirit, is a baculo ad angulum. 2. But were his exposition allowed, yet what this is to prove that Baptism is a seal of the Covenant, Gen. 17. or any other Covenant, I am yet to divine. Is baptizing all one with sealing? is Covenant-fellowship all one with the Covenant?

3. Saith he, It's a seal of the remission of sins, and therefore of the promise tendering the same, hence joined, Act. 2.38, 39. Act. 22. But neither is the promise there joined as a thing sealed by Baptism, but as a motive to the duties of Repentance and Baptism; nor is the remission of sins mentioned as sealed by Baptism, but as a consequent obtained by Repentance and Baptism as conditions pre-required thereto; nor is a seal of remission of sins all one with a seal of the Covenant.

4. Saith he, The nature of it showeth the same, it being a Gospel Sacrament, and that is a visible seal, and the seal is to the Covenant; hence called by the name, Act. 7.8. 1 Cor. • 1 25.

Answ. 1. The term Sacrament, as it is applied to the rites of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, is no Scripture term, nor any other answerable to it in that use; it's a term, as I said rightly in my Plea for Antipaedobaptists, sect. • . invented by the Latin Fathers meaning for that use. Mr Craggs reply in his pamphlet, termed The arraignment and conviction of Anaba • tism, that it is used in the twelve tables, in Tully pro Milone, shows he had a mind to cavil rather then to answer fairly; nor is the book throughout any other then a fardle of mistakings in Logic, and meaning of Scripture, and of cavils against my words, mixed with much Poetical lightness, and scoffing, to which there's no need I should return anymore then the Archangels words, The Lord rebuke thee. 2. Nor is there any common nature of • acraments that I know of delivered or inti • ated in Scripture; either that of the Schoolmen out of Austin that they are visible signs of invisible grace ; or of the Protestants who are term Calvinists, that they are seals of the Covenant of grace : And therefore Mr. C should first prove that to be of the nature of a Gospel Sacrament, as the term is used, afore he inferred so much as he doth from it. 3 A seal it is true, is to a Covenant sometimes, and sometimes it is to a decree, writ, letter, record of a thing done, and so it is taken Rom. 4.11. where Abraham, Circumcision is not said to be a seal of the Covenant wherein something further was promised, but of the righteousness of faith which he had before attained. 4. Act. 7.8. the Covenant of grace is not called by the name of a Gospel Sacrament, but the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. is only termed the covenant of circumcision, because it was signified by it, which was no Gospel, but a Law rite. The Cup in the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 11.25. is termed the New Testament in Christ's blood, wherein there seems to be an hypallage and inversion by the words as they are in Matth. ch. 26.28. Mar. 14 24. and by considering that of the bread he spake thus, this is my body, and therefore the words of the cup seem to be most fitly thus placed and expounded, this cup, that is the wine in it, is my blood, that is signifies my blood, which is the blood of the New Testament, that is by which the New Testament is dedicated as the old was by the blood of calves and goats, Heb. 9.18, 19, 20. Now herein is the notion rather of a Testament then of a Covenant, and what is said is said of the cup only in the Lord's Supper, not of Baptism: Nor is it named the Covenant, but the blood of the New Testament, or the New Testament in Christ's blood ; nor is the term seal there used, and therefore there is not a word to prove Baptism to be in its nature a seal of the Covenant of grace, in this or any other of the Texts Mr. C. alledgeth.

I pass over that which he saith, secondly Baptism is an initiatory seal, as agreeing with him in the position, that Baptism is that which is to be first afore the Lord's Supper, though his phrases be misliked. I agree with him also, that Baptism being once administered, needs never be renewed, if done according to Christ's institution. Yet what I said, Exam. par. 2. sect. 4. seems to me to stand good, notwithstanding anything here said by Mr. C. nor do I think it fit to question whether it be the only initiatory seal.

The 6th. Section contains nothing but dictates without proof, and what is said by way of proof is answered either sect. 38. &c. in the animadversions on the 3d. ch. of the first part of Mr. Cs. book, or in answer to Mr. Carter, sect. 80. In which it is shown, that there is no reference made Gen. 17. to a Church Covenant distinct from the Covenant of grace, nor any command given Gen. 17.9, 10. to a Gentile believer and his seed, nor any general law about an initiatory seal never repealed, as Mr. C. and others fain. And for his speech he useth, that the Hebrew Church albeit quà such a political Church and national, &c. differ from congregational Churches; yet qua visibles Ecclesia politica & ordinaria▪ so it was essentially the same with ours ; it seems to intimate, that the Church of the Hebrews, though as such a political Church it was national, yet not as a visible Church political and ordinary, as if it were any otherwise a visible political ordinary Church then as such a Church: And when he saith, as a Church visible political ordinary it was essentially the same with ours, he can mean it no otherwise then of the same numerical essence; for as visible and political the essence is determined to hic & nunc, an universal generical or specifical Church is not visible and political. But that is false, since if the persons be not the same, they cannot have the same numerical essence: Nor can he mean it, that it is essentially the same with ours as visible in the same form of government, for then he must make ours Pontificial; nor in the same title to Church membership, for then he must make ours national: nor can he avoid it if he will maintain this plea, that the Jewish Church was essentially the same with ours, and as their infants were circumcised as children of Church members, in a Church visible, political, ordinary, which was national, so ours upon the same reason are to be baptized, but that he must set up a national Church by natural generation, nor can they of N. E justify their way of excluding such children from the Lord's Supper for ignorance, if they may for scandal. The old objection, which Mr. C. falsely terms cavil touching covenant females, is not yet answered, nor ever will be, it will still infringe this universal proposition, All that are in Covenant with reference to Church covenant are to have the initiatory seal for a time, and so will also that of Jobs family, which why it should not be counted a visible political ordinary Church, as well as Abraham's house in his time I see not, and if none are to be baptized but such as are in an ordinary visible political Church to abide, how can they of N. E. baptize the infants of such Church members, as whether in N. E. or old do not abide, but are quickly dissolved as we see by experience? And if None but those who are in the covenant of grace in reference to Church covenant are to be baptized, but though believers because in Rome or India they are not a formed matter of a political visible Church but they are as materia informis, they are quoad homines actually without, and not within any political visible Church, how was the Eunuch baptized Acts 8? And if the covenant of grace nakedly considered giveth a person which is actually in it, a remote right to the initiatory seal, but it doth not give an immediate right thereto▪ for so the covenant of grace as invested with Church covenant only giveth this proximate right to that seal God being the God of order, will have that his Church seal to be attained in a way of order; as of old strangers might not be circumcised, but with some submission to that Church order explicitly or implicitly, and so now, and the order be as Mr. C in the 5th. section determines, to be observed of communion in breaking bread after they were baptized, how do those of N. E. admit to brea • ing of bread, those who who only as born in a Parish were baptized in infancy, without another baptism? That either Matth. 28.19, 20. or anywhere else the orderly and ordinary dispensation of the seal is committed to the visible Church. is more then I find; nor do I know it necessary to right order that believers must be of a particular visible Church afore they be baptized. If Catechumini in covenant and visible Church estate might be hindered from Baptism for trial for a time, much more should infants of whom we have no knowledge concerning their future or present estate, be in prudence put off from Baptism till there be some trial of th • m, if their right were, as Mr. C. doth, though falsely imagine.

Sect. 7. Mr. C. speaks thus, And because in this particular some stress of the main case is put, 1. I shall endeavor yet fu • there to confi • m it, that covenan • interest carrieth a main stroke in point of application of that seal, to persons interested therein, and not uncapable thereof in any bodily respect.

Answ. This proposition being that in which some stress, or as I conceive, the whole stress of the main case is put, should have been delivered more clearly, and confirmed more fully, but as now it is, it is delivered ambiguously, and so is fitter to delude a Reader then to instruct him. That seal which was last mentioned was Baptism, but the proofs following show that he meant it of Circumcision, and as if there were the same reason of Circumcision and of Baptism (which neither he nor any Paedobaptist ever proved) what is said of Circumcision is by him meant of Baptism, and so the Reader merely mocked. The application of Baptism or Circumcision may either refer to God's appl • ing it by way of command, or man's by way of administration, and in this I think Mr. Cs. speeches are delusory, sometimes meant of God's application by way of command, and sometimes of the administrators act in circumcising or baptizing. The phrase of carrying the main stroke is likewise ambiguous, and so delusory, it being uncertain whether it carry the main stroke with God as his motive to appoint it, or with the administratour as his rule and warrant to do it. And when he terms it the main stroke, it had been requisite he should tell whether there be not some other thing which carries a stroke if not the main, yet so great, as that without it the application of the seal is not warrantable, as profession of faith by the person to whom it is to be applied. He might have understood by my Examen, which he had to answer, that I took it a great fault in Mr. M. that he did not more distinctly tell what he meant by the Covenant, being in covenant, which he speaks of infants of believers. And sure if Mr. C. had meant to deal rightly, as one that sought truth, and to show my error, he should have cleared what Covenant he meant inward or outward, the Covenant of Gospel grace purely delivered, or the mixed Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. what the Church covenant is, how the Covenant of grace is invested with it, when a Church is a political visible body, how a Church covenant is the form of it, who and what persons and how they are interested in it, whether by God's promise, their own faith or profession or another's, or by the Churches admission. All which, or at least many of them, are requisite to be distinctly declared, that a reader may clearly understand his meaning, and so examine his proof. And whether the exception of incapacity in any bodily respect, be meant only because of the females circumcision, or thereby infants are excepted from Baptism, who have not the use of their tongues to profess the faith of Christ, and are not well able to brook that dipping or plunging (which for all Mr. Cs. scriblings, is and will be found the only way of baptizing appointed by Christ) is uncertain. This were a sufficient reason for me to answer no further to this proposition, but to wait till his Bill be mended Yet I shall examine his proofs of this, which should be his meaning, if he spake to his purpose; That the interest which a person though an infant hath to the Covenant of grace, in that he is a believers child by virtue of the promise of God to a believer and his seed, when that believer is a member of a visible political Church by Church covenant explicit or implicit, is a sufficient warrant to that visible political Church to admit, and to the Elder to baptize that infant without any other revelation of God, or profession of the infant. Let's now see what Mr. C. brings for proof of this.

First, saith he, then it is the ground-work given to the general Law about an initiatory Covenant duty, scil. application of some enjoined initiatory seal, and therefore must be of like force in the particular branches and ways of such initiatory sealing, as circumcision and baptizing.

Answ. Such a general Law is a mere fiction, and what is meant by the ground-work of it is uncertain. Gen. 17.9, 10. is no other Law but about circumcision, the word rendered [therefore] may be otherwise translated, if it were the only reading yet the sense might be this, because I make this Covenant thou shalt therefore circumcise thy males to keep it in remembrance, or to assure thee and thy posterity that I will perform it. But that there is any such intimation as if the persons circumcised were circumcised as and for their interest in that Covenant is a mere dream often refuted by me, much more is it a dotage to assert, that according to a persons interest in that Covenant or a part of it, as Mr. C. conceives, so they have right to Baptism in the Christian church.

Secondly, saith Mr. C. the Covenant in such sort invested with Church covenant, now it is the form of a political visible Church body; giving therefore, both a Church-being as I may say, as natural forms do a natural being, and withal the privilege of a member of such a church-body, suitable to its memberly estate, as if this of the Church initiatory seal, even to the least member thereof, although they are not yet so perfect in all actual energy of complete members, and so neither in all actual privileges of such complete members. I suppose what ever others deny this way, yet our opposites do not deny, that Church-covenant explicit or implicit is the form of a visible political Church as such, so that till that be, they are not so incorporated as to be fit for Church dispensations, or acts of peculiar Church power over each other, more then over others, over whom they can have no power, unless they had given explicit or implicit consent thereto: as reason will evince.

Answ. This reason as I conceive goes upon these suppositions, which Mr. C. conceives will not be denied. 1. That there is a Church-covenant over and besides God's covenant of Gospel grace, and man's believing and professing of faith in him through Jesus Christ, whereby the members of a visible political Church do engage themselves to walk together in Christian communion, and to submit to their rulers, and to each other in the Lord. Now such a Church covenant, though I confess it may be according to prudence at sometimes and in some cases useful to keep persons, who otherwise would be unsettled, in a fixed estate of communion, yet I find not any example of such a Church covenant in the old or New Testament, and in some cases it may ensnare men's consciences more then should be. 2. That the Covenant of grace, whether God's promise to us or ours to God invested with Church covenant, that is, as I conceive Mr. Cs. meaning to be, together with it, is the form of a visible political Church, which gives it the being of such a Church, as such, so that till that be they are not so incorporated as to be fit for Church dispensations, or Church power. In which I conceive are many mistakes. 1. That the Sacraments are seals, or church dispensations are committed to the Church, which are not committed to the Church, which consists of men and women, but to the guides and over-seers of it. 2. That Church power, or as Mr. Cotton in his treatise of the keys of the Church, the power of the keys is committed or given to the Church; in which are mistakes that either censures Ecclesiastical, or as the Schoolmen and Canonists term it, the power of ordination and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical are meant by the keys, Matth. • 6.19. or that they were given to Peter as representing the Church: the Scripture doth nowhere commit Church dispensations or power to the Church, but to the guides, and overseers and rulers of the Church for the Church 3. That till a company of believers be a visible poli • ical Church, they are not fit for church dispensations or censures: which I conceive not true, there being examples in Scripture of their breaking bread together, Acts 2. who were not such a political visible Church of fixed members under fixed officers united by Church covenant, as Mr. C. describes. Nor were Christ and his Apostles such a Church when first they did break bread. Nor did Christ appoint Baptism Matth. 28.19. to be only in and with such a Church, nor do the exampls Acts 2. or 8. or 10 or 16 or 18. intimate any such condition, but rather the contrary. 4. That the covenant of grace with a church covenant fore mentioned, give the being of such a visible Church political. But the Covenant of grace of itself doth not give any actual being, it is a promise of something future, and therefore puts nothing in actual being extra causas, but assures it shall be by some cause in act, which in this thi • g is the calling of God, from which the Church and each member have their being as from the efficient, from faith in the heart as the form of the invisible Church and each member, from profession of faith as the form of the visible Church and each member, as Ames. Med. Th. lib. 1. cap. 32. Sect. 7. that which makes it political is the union under officers and laws, without a Church covenant it is a political visible Church, if there be but at present an union or conjunction in the same profession of Christian faith under officers and laws of a number of Christians they are a Church visible political, though they should be dissolved the next hour, and though they enter into no covenant of Church-fellowship or subjection for the future, and therefore church covenant is neither of the form of such a true Church, nor (as Mr. Weld in answer to Mr. Rathbard) of a pure Church, but it is a good means in prudence to conserve a Church so constituted, that they may not divide and scatter from each other, but may continue in communion. 5. That by this incorporating they have peculiar Church power over each other, and without tht Church covenant they can have no power. But neither do I conceive this true. For the power whi • h Christians have is to reprove, admonish, censure, shun society, choose officers, reject false teachers, &c. this power they have by the laws of Christ, without a church covenant. 6. That Church dispensations and acts of peculiar Church power are limited to those particular persons who join with us by Church covenant. But this I conceive not right nor agreeable to such Scriptures as these, 1 Cor. 3.22. & 10.17. & 12.13.

3. It is supposed by Mr. C. that the Covenant with Church covenant gives the privilege of a member of such a church body suitable to its memberly estate, as is this of the Church initiatory seal. But in this sure Mr. C. is quite out and besides their own practice, who do not give the initiatory seal after they are members by church covenant, but baptize them or suppose them baptized in infancy, and then join them us members by church covenant; now if church covenant did give the privilege of the initiatory seal, then they should first enter into church covenant, and then have the initiatory seal or be baptized.

4. It is supposed by Mr. C. that there are such little church members by such a covenant as are to have the privilege of the initiatory seal though they be not complete members, so as to have the actual privilege of the after seal, and other church power. But sure the Scripture acknowledgeth in the Christian church no members, but what partake of the Lord's Supper as well as baptism (as is manifest from 1 Cor. 10.17. 1 Cor. 12.13.) and have church power as others of their sex and rank.

Now all these suppositions though they were granted (except the last) would not prove the thing Mr. C. aims at, and that which he makes the main reason from whence he would infer the conclusion, namely, the Covenant with Church covenant gives being and privilege of the initiatory seal makes against him, infants making no such Church covenant, nor according to their own discipline doth their parents Church covenant serve instead of the child's, since afore the child can be admitted to communion of breaking of bread, and other power of a member, and be taken for a member, he must himself enter into church covenant.

Answ. That which I said in my Exercit. p. 4. Hence I gather, first, that the right to Evangelical promises, was not the adequate reason of circumcising these or those, but God's prceept as is expressed Gen. 17.23. Gen. 21.4. Secondly, that those terms are not convertible [federate and to be signed] and in my Examen, p. 38. that nothing but God's will manifest in his institution can be a warrant about Circumcision, p. 97. that the Jews received Circumcision as appointed them from God, under this formal reason, and no other, I have shown before to have been acknowledged by Mr. M. in his Defense; p. 92. when he said, The command is the cause of the existence of the duty: and p. 182. The formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God. Nor is it at all infringed by this reasoning of Mr. C. Those that were not bound without their desire to eat the Passover, and so not to be circumcised, yet if they would eat the Passover they were bound by an express command to be circumcised, Exod. 12.48, 49. whether their sojourning was constant, or for a time only, which likely was the case of the Eunuch, Act. 8 27. who it's probable was circumcised, because there is no mention of the baptizing any uncircumcised till Cornelius, though there be no certainty whether the Eunuch were a Jew by birth, or a proselyte of the Gentiles, or whether he formerly had his constant abode among the Jews, either in Palaestina, or elsewhere, or whether then he did sojourn among the Jews then in Ethiopia. But if he were a mere proselyte of the gate, yet he might come to the Temple into the Court of the Gentiles to worship, as all acknowledge. Dr. Lightfoot of the Temple service, ch. 1. Mr. Mede Diatr. on Act. 17.4. &c. And therefore there is no proof from hence, that a person was circumcised by reason of the Covenant, and not of the command: Yea, though Cornelius were in the Covenant of grace, and had external Covenant interest, in that he was known to worship the true God, yet was he not by reason thereof bound by God, or taken by the Jews as one that was bound to be circumcised, or ever blamed for want of it; which shows that neither was the Covenant interest indeed, nor taken by the Jews for the warrant or rule, or reason of circumcising, but the command of God.

Answ. Instead of proofs here is a heap of dictates, 1. That Baptism is the initiatory seal of the Covenant in its nature. 2. That it must be as large as the Covenant. 3. That Pastors and Teachers given only to the Church can alone administer the seals in ordinary dispensations, Matth. 28.19, 20. 4. That the seals are given to the Church, as from her to be dispensed by her Officers, to such as desire the same. None of which will be yielded by me, without better proof then I yet meet with. Sure Matth. 28.19, 10. yields no proof for any of them. It proves Baptism was to be administered by the Apostles, not every seal by Church Officers.

He goes on,

Answ. That God's people are known by God's promise, and by parents avouching God as theirs in Covenant, and their children's, is another dictate, which Mr. C. brings not a show of proof for out of the New Testament; nor doth that which he brings from Gen. 17.9, 10. prove it concerning the infants of the Jewish Church. For though there be a command to Abraham and his posterity to circumcise, and this is termed keeping God's Covenant, yet there is not a word of parents profession, or God's promise as making known who are God's people, no not in the Jewish Church, in which there were many to whom God made no promise, nor parents avouched for them, who were known as God's people by virtue of God's taking the whole nation for his Church, even when the Kings and people were Idolaters. But if it were true that it were as Mr. C. would, this proves nothing concerning the people of God in the Christian Church, in which none are known to be God's people, but by their own confession of saith.

But Mr. C. adds, Besides the main in the initiatory seal to be firstly and properly attended, as it is a covenant and Church seal is covenant and Church interest. Hence called by the name of covenant, when yet it is but a sacramental sign and seal of it, Gen. 17.13. Act. 7.8. that is first h • ld out and sealed, as the convoy of all other desired good, 2 Pet. 1.4. But especially in that initiatory seal the signation of the covenant, is of more considerable weight, then the external symbol, ceremony and circumstance: either of cutting or washing absolutely or relatively considered. If washing of a person in the name of the Trinity, be a clearer and easier symbol then that of cutting the flesh, yet not of such weight as is the covenant sealed both by the one and the other. And to show that the covenant is the main thing considerable therein; hence it is that the covenant is first propounded as the ground-work of the commandment itself, as of Circumcision, so of Baptism, and much more of the application of either, to any in covenant, Gen. 17.9, 10, 11. Therefore, scil. because I have said I will be your God, I command you to do thus and thus; not because I have commanded you, that I therefore promise to do this for you; or do you thus and thus at my command, and then on, therefore I will do so and so for you.

Answ, After the rest of his dictates, he here tells us, the main in the initiatory seal to be attended is the covenant, which I grant; but deny that it follows therefore, that the rule which the administrator is to observe, according to which he is to administer it, is the persons interest in the Covenant, so as that he must administer it to all and only those who are in Covenant, or to whom the prom • se is made by God. For, besides the many reasons to the contrary, even concerning Circumcision before given, Mr. Cs. own reason is against him. For if the main in the initiatory seal to be firstly and properly attended as it is a Covenant and Church seal, is Covenant and Church interest, and therefore infants in Covenant to be circumcised and baptized ; by the same reason infants in Covenant are to be admitted to the Passover, and to have the Lord's Supper, since they are seals, they are Covenant and Church seals, infants have Covenant and Church interest, in the initiatory seal these things are to be attended as it is a Covenant and Church seal, and therefore in every Covenant and Church seal as well as the initiatory. As for what he saith about Gen. 17.9, 10, 11. though I have sundry times observed that the reading [ v. 9. therefore ] is not necessary; yet omitting that exception, I grant what he saith of that Text, but withal note, 1. that the command is inferred not only from the promise to be their God, but also from the promise of the land of Canaan, v. 8. and therefore it might as well follow, They to whom God will give the land of Canaan are to have the initiatory seal, as that they to whom he promiseth to be God. 2. That which is said Gen. 17.9, 10, 11. is only of circumcision. 3. If it were granted that the covenant is the groundwork of the command itself, as of circumcision so of baptism, yet it follows not, much more of the application of either to any in covenant. For though the covenant were God's reason, why he would appoint circumcision, yet that's no rule to us, but his command only; a reason of the will of the commander is not always a direction about the command, certainly not about each point in the command, as Mat. 28.18. it follows not, All power is given to me, therefore preach and baptize all over whom power is given to me. Besides, in this very thing the covenant could be no direction whom to circumcise, ordinarily, since ordinarily the circumciser could not know to whom in particular the promises, whether Evangelical, or domestical, did belong, when they were to circumcise them. Yea, though Abraham knew Ishmael had no covenant interest▪ there being no promise made to him in it, but the contrary declared, Gen 17.19, 20, 21. yet he was to circumcise him and did so. The like may be said of Esau and others.

Mr. C. adds.

Answ. It is true that the prophesy of John Baptists coming and work, and of Christ's coming, Isa. 40.3, 4, 5. (which I acknowledge to be a Gospel promise) are set down as the warrant of Johns preaching the Baptism of repentance unto remission of sins; but this doth no • prove that this was his rule in baptizing, to baptize everyone, even infants, and those only who had this interest in the Covenant of grace, that to them and each of them God promised remission of sins. Yea, since Johns Baptism is termed the Baptism of repentance, it is clear he required repentance of the baptized as the antecedent to his Baptism, and therefore not barely such Covenant interest as Mr. C. ascribes to all infants of believers only in profession.

He goes on thus. Hence the Gospel, and so the Covenant of grace, held out as grounding Baptism, Act. 2.38, 39. And children's Covenant right, was held out as one branch of that Gospel, as we proved; and from the same principle, that they were also to be sealed by Baptism; yea, albeit the Apostles urged repentance, yet the seal is propounded as to the promise ; Peter said, be baptized, for the promise is to you: And this was no mere moral motive, but a Scriptural groundword enforcing it, as it was a Scriptural groundwork virtually enjoining and requiring them to repent, for the promise is to you.

Answ. [Hence] should, if there were any good sense in Mr. Cs. speech, refer to something precedent, from whence that which he speaks is derived, which I discern not, but a dark way of dictating, fitting such as love to puzzle, not to inform a reader. It is before largely shown, that neither children's Covenant right external from parents faith hath been held out by Mr. C. as one branch of the Gospel, sect. 44. of this part of my Review, nor that barely from this principle they were to be baptized; but that repentance in each person to be baptized is made the antecedent to Baptism, sect. 22, 23, and elsewhere. That Peter said not as Mr. C. sets down his words, is apparent from the Text Act. 2.38, 39. that the promise is urged as a motive to those to whom Peter spake to do their duty of repenting, and being baptized, is so plain, as that Dr. Thamas Goodwin upon the reading the first part of my Review, sect. 5. did acknowledge it, and it is proved so sect. 21. here and elsewhere: Nor doth Mr. C. here or elsewhere show it to be any other Scripture groundwork then as a motive to the baptized each of them first to repent, and then to be baptized, no rule by which the baptizer is to administer it, or the baptized to claim it as his right without his personal repentance, and declaration of his faith in Christ into whose name he is to be baptized.

He adds.

Ans. It is true there was no let to Cornelius his Baptism, and those other who were with him, yet not merely because of their extraordinary gifts, but because those gifts were manifested by their glorifying God, and as may be gathered from Act. 11.17, 18. their glorifying God contained expressions of faith in Christ and repentance, which whosoever should do as they did, it is without doubt they should be baptized. But Mr. Cs. Covenant interest of infants, who make no shows of faith and repentance as they did Act. 10.46. yields no warrant for their Baptism.

He goes on,

Answ. It is true, this is the inward impulsive cause why God regenerates; but God's grace, and Covenant favor is no rule to a Minister to baptize by, since it is an unknown thing, which agrees not with the property of a rule.

Answ. The terming of baptizing sealing, and the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, the Covenant name of grace, are Mr. Cs. new-minted phrases; if this be his meaning, that every person rightly baptized, whether he be elect or reprobate, is sealed by God, that is in Baptism assured of fellowship with the Trinity according to the new Covenant of Gospel grace, I deny it; if only that he professeth his communion to be with them, I grant it; but this proves not that Covenant interest of infants, who make no such profession, entitles them to Baptism.

Again, saith he,

Answ. Be it so: yet what this is to prove such fellowship to be a rule to baptize infants, I see not.

Answ. What may be said to be a consequent cause, I do not yet conceive, the rule of Logic I have learned is, that the cause is before the effect: Yet what ever it be Mr. C. means, though it might suffice for Circumcision, it doth not for Baptism; nor is that to be regulated by Analogy of Circumcision, as is shown in the second part of this Review, sect. 2, 3.

Yet again,

Answ. If Baptism be a seal, it seems to me not a seal of or to the commandment or covenant, but the profession of the baptized; and therefore this is the main and principal in the application of it.

Yet more, It is the covenant which hath the main instrumental force, in the fruit of the initiatory seal and the application of it, Ephes. 5.25.26. and why shall not the external interest in the covenant, have chief influence into the external interest, as well of the application of the initiatory seal ?

Answ. I understand not what fruit of the initiatory seal he means, nor what is the external interest in the Covenant; the word, Ephes. 5.25. 26. Is meant of the word preached, which is not instrumental to infants for any santification or cleansing their meant. The want of God's appointment is the reason of not applying Baptism to infants.

Once more, By external interest in the Covenant, persons so interested come to have external interest, at least to the final causes of Baptism, as Covenant mercy and blessing, the Spirit, Christ resurrection, &c. Tit. 3, 8. and 1. Cor, 12.12, 13. 1. Pet. 3.21. And therefore as well so far inrighted in the initiatory seal of it, whether they are adult or infants.

Answ. 1. External interest in the covenant, external interest in the final causes of Baptism, are notions I understand not. 2. Covenant mercy and blessing, the spirit, Christ's resurrection, are not final cause of Baptism, for then when the end of Baptism is attained, they should be effects of Baptism, for the end in intention, is the effect in execution; But this is too absurd. 3. An inrighting so far in the initiatory seal, which intimates a man may have an inrighting so far to such a measure and no further, is another new notion I understand not. 4. If Mr. Cs. antecedent had sense or truth, yet the consequence is to be denied, no other interest external is inrighting to Baptism, but that which is according to the institution, Matth. 28.19. discipleship, or profession of faith.

To the 8th. Sect. I answer by denying that the Covenant privilege of grace Evangelical, hath such distinction of principal and less principal counter parties, as Mr. means C. (unless he understand by Christ the principal, and the elect and true believers the less principal, as Gal. 3.16.) and that the Covenant privileges of grace Evangelical belong to any other then the elect: yet I grant the Covenant Gen. 17. and many privileges of Divine grace which were not Evangelical, did belong to many of the Israelites, who made no good use thereof. The Covenant Evangelical was never sealed personally to Ishmael. That which Mr. C. dictates without proof about the everlasting covenant, and the initial seal in its generical nature, is answered here sect. 80. and the point about the ordinance of infants visible Church membership unrepealed sect. 50, &c. and the non-inclusion of infants Matth. 28.19. under the term nation is shown there, and in the second part of this Review sect. 9. The position of Mr. Cs. sect. 9. may be granted, though Acts 2.38, 39. make nothing for it. Sect. 10. Mr. C. proves nothing but that parents were to take care that their children were circumcised; that which he saith of the children begotten on prohibited women, Ezra. 9. and Timothy begotten on a Jewish woman by a Grecian husband, that they were circumcised, Act. 16.1, 2, 3. proves this, that the children, who were not of the Congregation of Israel, and so no visible Church members were to be circumcised, nor had Covenant interest. The case controverted 1 Cor. 7.14. was only concerning the persons unequally yoked, not concerning their children. Acts 2.33, 39. Is not a word to prove parents are to take care of the infants baptism, nor Gen. 7.1. with 1 Pet. 3.21. there being not an infant in the Ark, nor typical Baptism being a rule concerning formal Baptism of Christians; if it were, Masters must take care to baptize their house, yea their married children though as profane as Cham, and their wives with them. How impertinently 1 Cor. 10.2. is alleged, is shown in the second part of this Review sect. 21. What Mr. C. observes out of Exod. 12.44, 48, 49. that a stranger was not to eat the Passover, except all his males were circumcised ; if it be right, yet it makes nothing for proof of parents duty to see their infants baptized, there being no such institution about Baptism and the Lord's Supper, as was about Circumcision and the Passover. It is granted that the words [ Exod. 12.40.] Will keep the Passover to the Lord ] are meant only of an adult person, yet it is true also, which I say in my Examen part. 4. sect. 6. That males not come to years of discretion fit to receive the Lord's Supper were to eat the Passover, and consequently (if Mr. Cs. dictates were of any of any validity) parents should see they eat Lord's Supper. I grant, That God made Abraham Gen. 17.7. a common person as well in reference to us enchurched Gentiles, as to the enchurched Jews and Proselytes in point of Evangelical covenant interest, but that he should be so made in point of engagement from covenant interest, unto the receiving of the initiatory seal by parents and children, Gen. 17.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. is but Mr. Cs. fancy sufficiently refuted by this, that if it were true, then we Gentiles are bound to circumcise our infants, (which is the only initiatory seal there meant) contrary to Acts 15.24. Gal. 5.1, 2. That which is true of Abraham and his natural seed, must be applied to Abraham's spiritual seed, true Believers of the Gentiles and their natural seed ; is but Mr. Cs. vain dream dictated without proof. My grant in my Examen part. 3. sect. 1. pag. 37. (as the words show) was not that children might be baptized virtually in their parents in exact speech, so as to receive it in their own persons, but only in that sense in which Mr. M. said women were circumcised virtually in the males, yet so as they might not be circumcised in their own persons: which being considered, my words yield Mr. C. no advantage.

To the 11th. section I grant, that Matth. 28.19. ties not the Baptizer to know the baptized to be internally and savingly interested in the covenant : But that it sufficeth, that that sort or species of infants, scil. such like infants are in deed and truth of Christ's Kingdom, I utterly deny. For then any infant in the world might be baptized, because he is of that sort or species of infants, scil. such like infants are in deed and truth of Christ's Kingdom. Dare any say of no unbelievers infants is Christ's Kingdom? However it is true of Belivers though not enchurched, and yet Mr. C. denies the right of the child, if the parent be not enchurched. Mr. Cs. reason are vain, neither is our Lord Christ's saying, Luk. 18.16. any rule to us about baptizing; nor was the rule of circumcising infants that some of that sort had the internal saving interest and efficacy of this promise, I will be the God of thy seed, but the command of God, without which it is better to exclude all infants, then upon our own heads to bring on ourselves the guilt of will-worship by taking them in. Which must of necessity fall on infant Baptizers after Mr. Cs. rule. For Christ's appointment was to baptize infants no otherwise then persons of years. There is no difference in the words Matth, 28.19. between the reason of baptizing one and the other. But persons of years were not to be baptized by Mr. Cs. rule, in that they are of that sort or species of persons, scil. such like persons are in deed and in truth of Christ's Kingdom, but only upon their own discipleship or profession of faith, as the practice throughout the Acts of the Apostles shows: Therefore neither are Believers children to be baptized after any other rule. And yet infants are no more left in the wide wilderness, or any whit less folded up in the Church by their non-baptizing, then they are by their baptism. If they of N. E. do fold them up in the Church, why do they keep them from Church-communion till they be made members by Church-covenant? If it be better 99 who happily have not so peculiar a title thereto, be folded up in the Church, then that one of such lambs be left out in the wide wilderness, are not they guilty of too much strictness in leaving out of the Church in the wide wilderness, many weak lambs who are weak in faith, because they do not satisfy the Church in the declaration of their experiences? But this is the guise of men who are strict in their own inventions, as in Church-covenant, declaration of experiences for admission to Church-communion, &c. to be loose about God's commands, as this of baptizing disciples of Christ is. Enough in answer to these cloudy dictates of Mr. C.

SECT. LXXXVI. The 13th. and 14th. Chapters of Mr. Rutherfords first part of the Covenant, are examined; and found to make nothing for Infant Baptism.

AFter the finishing the most of this part of the Review, my learned and godly brother Mr. John Skynner of Weston in Herefordshire (who hath written a solid Treatise against Infant Baptism, entitled, Corruption corrected, in answer to one Mr. Woodward ) acquainted me that Mr. Rutherford had written for infant Baptism in a Book of his of the Covenant of grace part. 1. chap. 13, 14 which having read, I found (as he foretold me no more strength then others had brought for it, and it is written rather like a Sermon then a Scholastique Dispute, and with so many unproved dictates, such a number of obscure expressions, (many of which I cannot discern good sense in, so that they have need rather of construction then resur • tion) so many incoherencies and inconsequences, as that I do not jhdge it worth while to answer him. Yet because of the name of the man, and my words sect. 1. of the 2d. part of this Review, I shall add some animadversions on those two chapters.

Ch. 13. he tells us, that 〈◊〉 are in Covenant with God externally by visible profession, which I 〈◊〉 , if meant of their own personal profession; but deny, 1. That th •• promise Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, is a tacit and implicit profession, or makes (of itself) parties in Covenant externally. 2. That infants born of covenanted parents are in covenant with God, because they are born of such parents as are in covenant with God, Gen. 17.7. What is said Deut. 4.37. Deut. 10.15. is meant only of the people of Israel, as the very words [ brought out of Egypt as it is this day ] show; nor is there a word in those verses, of their being in covenant with God because born of such parents, but of God's special choice of that people. It is false which he saith that the Apostle Acts 2.39. speaks in the very terms and words of the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. It is true rather, that he speaks in never a term or word there used. It is as false that the Apostle commanded any other to be baptized Acts 2.38. then whom he commanded to repent. Did he not presume that Anabaptists, as he terms us, were very Blockheads, he would not not presume, that we should believe his vain dictates, when the very copulative term shows the same are spoken to in one and the other command, and the words being an answer to the question v. 37. show they are directed to those who spake v. 37. And the word [ you ] used in the precept of Baptizing contains the same with those who were to receive remission of sins, and the gift of the holy Ghost, and are distinct from their children, v. 39. and therefore cannot be meant of their children, much less of their infant children, whom it had been ridiculous for Peter to have commanded to be baptized. How pertinent the answer had been as I expounded it, is often shown before; though their children crucified not the Lord Jesus, nor were concerned either in the evil of their parents, who crucified the Lord of glory, nor in the good of their repentance more then stones ; yet I know no Anabaptists whose grounds infer, that the Jews children who crucified Christ were not visibly in Covenant with their parents, not capable of actual hearing the word, mourning for and repenting of their sins, as Zach. 12.10. Matth. 3.8, 9, 10. nor concerned either in the evil of their parents, nor in the good of their repentance more then stones ; nor do I conceive it true that the opposites of infant Baptism say, that Covenant promises are no more made to children, then to stones ; but that these are vile calumnies of Mr. Rutherford, unfit for such a man as he is taken to be.

How Isa. 2.2, 3. & 19.24, 25. Psal. 22.27. Revel. 11.15. Isa. 60.1, 2, 3, 4. Mal. 1.11. Psal. 2.8, 9. & 72.7, 8, 9, 10. are to be understood of persons adult only, and yet infants not cut off from the Covenant, is shown Review part. 2. sect. 9. and elsewhere. It is not contrary to Acts 2.39. to say, that Covenant promises are not to the children of Believers, and yet it hath been fulfilled, that the Gentiles and Heathen are become the Lord's people.

What he saith out of Exod. 20.6. Psal. 37, 26. & 112.2. Deut. 28▪ is answered here sect. 64.70, 71. It is not true that Paul, Rom. 11.16. saith the same of the Jews root and branches, Fathers and children, which he saith 1 Cor. 7.14. of the unbelieving yoke fellows sanctification in the yoke fellow, and their children's holiness. Nor is it true, that the same Covenant which was made with Abraham, Gen. 17.7. was made with the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 6.16. or any of the texts he cites, there being none of them that promise, that God would be a God to them and their seed.

His allegations from Heb. 7.22. Heb. 8.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. are shown to be frivolous here, sect. 66. and elsewhere. What he talks of a Father having no warrant to offer the Covenant of grace to one Pagan more then another, if children be not in covenant, is vain, the offer of the Covenant of grace being nothing else but the preaching of the Gospel, which is to be to all, Mark 16.15. whether in Covenant or no. The allegation that the promise Gen. 17.7. is made only to the elect, Rom. 9.8. is a plain proof of this position, that the natural children of Abraham, and consequently Believers children now, except elected, have not that promise made to them, and therefore are not in covenant by God's act of promise to them, which doctrine Mr. Rutherford himself taught in his Apologetical. exercit. 2. c. 2. p. 306. when he said; The elect alone are said in Scriptures federate, sons and heirs of promise, Rom. 9.8. And to Christ alone the Prince, and leading heir, are the promises made, Gal. 3.16. Psal. 89.26, 27. in him, to his seed and children given to him of the Father, Heb. 2.13. Nor can he here deny, that the sons of the promise are the chosen of God, in whom the word takes effect. Which if true, then it is most false, that a Believers seed not chosen is in covenant with God, by virtue of that promise Gen. 17.7. and his allegation of it, and Acts 2. • 9. and other places for baptism of believers infants, whether elect or not, as having that promise made by God to them; is manifestly impertinent. Nevertheless we need not say, that there are none covenanted with God but the chosen under the New Testament, or that there is no such thing as an external visible covenanting with God under the New Testament: but say, that no infant doth visibly externally covenant with God, so as thereby to be entitled to Baptism, since no persons are to be baptized by Christ's appointment, but such as in their own persons do profess the saith.

The privileges mentioned Rom. 3.1, 2. & 9.4. Mr. Rutherford himself appropriates to the Jews, Due right of Presbyteries ch. 4. sect. 5. pag. 192. What he saith pag. 77, 78, 79, 80. is all answered before, chiefly in answer to Mr. Blake, Review par. 2. sect. 9, or here, sect. 46, 47, 48. or in answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Marshal. And if it were not, yet the Reader may discern its impertinency, since the thing he endeavors to prove, is an external visible covenanting in the New Testament (which can be only on man's part) and being in covenant thereupon, and right to Baptism, and is not denied, whereas his position he should prove is, that the Covenant choice on God's part is extended to the seed of Believers as such in the New Testament, p. 73. His words pag. 80. They cannot be baptized but as in covenant with God, are true, if meant of being in covenant by their profession externally: but so infants are excluded; if of God's covenanting or promise, are false, and so are those other words, We are the same way in covenant as the Jews were, and our visible Church now, and the visible Church then are of the same constitution ▪

I call not the Covenant Gen. 17. civil, but mixed, containing some promises civil, some spiritual, or rather the same promise • s, in one sense spiritual, in another civil. I doubt not to say the Covenant to Adam and the Jews at Mount Sinai were two Covenants of works, a third in the Gospel I know not. The Covenant with David, Psal. 89. 2 Sam. 7. so far as it was Evangelical, was the same with that to Abraham, Gen. 17. and Adam Gen. 3.15. as they were Evangelical, but so far as it was Oeconomical, it was different from both, and another Covenant then those to Adam, Abraham, or the Jews at Mount Sinai: The promise of working miracles, was not the Evangelical Covenant of grace, but that of remission of sins and eternal life to the repenting believers, under which was John Baptist as well as the Apostles, was it: yet I know no absurdity to say, the Apostles were both under the Covenant of grace with John Baptist, and another Covenant Mark 16.17, 18. different from that John Baptist and many Believers were under. I find no promise of the blessings of their land, as Gen. 17. is to Abraham's seed of Canaan, to all believers in any of those texts, Ezek. 36.25, 26, 30, 31. Jer. 31.31. compared with 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. Matth. 6.31. Luke 12.31. 1 Tim. 4.8. Heb. 13.5.6. Infants elect are in the same Covenant Evangelical with Abraham, shall have a Covenant Resurrection and Salvation, by Christ, yet not in the visible Church, but are saved without it. It is no New Testament ordinance that Ministers preach the Gospel to every creature, without limitation, or explication restrictive to the intelligent of them, or baptize all nations simply, whether disciples, or believers, or not, but the disciples or believers in Christ of all nations. That faith doth not sanctify in every subject, but in subjecto capaci, and so not an unbelieving whore, 1 Cor. 7.14. proves, that the sanctifying or holiness there, is not ascribed to the faith of the one parent, as to the formal reason, but to the conjugal relation, contrary to Paedobaptists exposition of federal holiness, 1 Cor. 7.14. which Mr. Baxter hath neither solidly nor learnedly vindicated, as might have been discerned by reading the first part of this Review sect. 22, &c. which if Mr. Rutherford read with the rest, it's likely • e would no • say so unadvisedly as he do • h, that the dispute is at an end now. If God made the Covenant Gen. 17.7. to Abraham not as a Father only but as head of a family, and covenant holiness is of society • and houses under the New Testament as in Abraham's house, then should infidels infants, yea infidels in a believers house be baptized by Paedobaptists rules; then is it no privilege to believers and their seed, then doth the Apostle after Paedobaptists exposition of 1 Cor. 7.14. say false, that the children were unclean, that is, without federal holiness▪ if neither parent were a believer. Most false is that which he saith without color of proof pag. 83. Not any are baptized in the New Testament (except the Eunuch and Saul Acts 8.39.) who were baptized firstly, but they were baptized as public men representing a seed ; The contrary appears from Luk. 7.29. Joh. 4.1. Nor is it true, that societies as such, were baptized, nor any such thing intimated in the words, Matth. 3.3. Mar. 1.5. Lu. 3.21. but only that a great number of people came to him and were baptized. Yea in those places, as also Joh. 3.22, 23, 26. it is plain none were baptized, but such as came to hear John, and by confessing their sins shown their repentance. No more needs be said to the stale frivolous allegations of baptizing households, then is said Examen part. 3. sect. 14. Review part. 2. sect. 20. nor to Rom. 11.16, 17. then in the first part of the Review sect. 1, &c. The Lord sends the Gospel arbi • rarily to a City, household, or single person, as to the Eunuch, Paul, Sergius Paulus, as he pleaseth, and we are to inquire whether the faith of the person be real, afore he is to be bap • ized, though the Gospel be come to the nation, house, or society. Nor is there any truth in it, no not according to the Apostles doctrine, as 1 Cor. 7.14. is expounded by Paedobaptists, and they dispute from Gen. 17.7. if the friend, not a father, be in the house or society and profess the Gospel, he and his servants and friends obtain right to Baptism.

Mr. Rutherford pag. 85. enquires, What is the formal reason and ground that any hath right to Baptism ? The term • of the question seem to me to intimate, as if he with other Paedobaptists, took Baptism only for a privilege d • rived from a grant or Covenant of God, which I take to be only a duty both in the baptized and baptizer, by reason of a command of Christ (though there be also a privilege consequent upon it) and so the formal reason of it is the command, and the qualification which the baptized is to have, when he is baptized, is believing with all his heart; which if he wants he sins, yet not so as that the person, if after a dogmatical faith he become a sincere believer, is to b • e baptized again, but to repent of his former sin, as Peter advised Simon Magus. The qualification, which the baptizer is to baptize upon, is a sober, intelligent, serious and free profession of faith in Christ, upon which persons are termed disciples of Christ and believers, and is the rule to the baptizer, Matth. 28.19. compared with Mar. 16.15, 16. which warrants his action, he being not able to look into the heart. Mr. Rutherfords objection from Mar. 16.16. is answered Review part. 2 sect. 7. p. 115. It is false, that none are to be baptized, but covenanted ones ; as Acts 2.39. meaning by God's promise, his promise of remission of sins and salvation to them by Christ, nor doth Acts 2.39. prove it. If all infant▪ even of Pagans, and all aged are not to be baptized ▪ how is it true, that all nations are to be baptized without any other circumscription, as Mr. Rutherford cites the command Matth. 28.19. here pag. 84? I like his words. All in Covenant are not to be baptized. For such as are only really and invisibly in Covenant, and do make no profession of Christ at all, are not warrantably by the Church to be baptized. Only these whether old or young that are tali modo visibili federati▪ such as professedly and visibly in Covenant and called, Acts 2.39. are warrantably baptized▪ Hence they must be so in covenant, as they be called by the word of the Covenant; for they cannot be baptized against their will, Luk. 7.29, 30. Which if Mr. Rutherford will stand to, the controversy may be ended; and I promise him, that if he can prove, or show that infants make any profession of Christ, are professedly and visibly in covenant, are so in covenant, as that they be called by the word of the Covenant, and that they are willing to be baptized, I shall yield to baptize them. But this is frequent with Paedobaptists (as I have oft shown in Mr. M. Mr. B. and Mr. Bl. ) to let fall such passages, especially in opening the institution, Matth. 28.19. in opposing Papists, Prelatists, Antibaptists, as overthrow their disputes for infant baptism, and therefore they will not stand to them, when they are urged against them, but by some shift elude them.

It is false which Mr. Rutherford saith, that this proposition, Those to whom the promise of the Covenant does belong, these should be baptized (if universally understood) is Peters Acts 2.38, 39. or that this assumption, The promise of the Covenant is to you and your children, is the express words of Peter. The offer of Christ in the preached Gospel, is not the call, meant Acts 2.3 • . nor are all such as to whom the offer is made exter • ally in covenant, and such to whom the Covenant is made and should be baptized ; though I grant, if they give a professed consent to the call of the Gospel, they are bap • izable. Calvin's words are no proof, against those who yield not what he saith of the Anabaptists of his time. Mr Rutherfords words are too vain for a man of his name, which say, that believing children are not children, but men of age. My exposition of Acts 2.39. neither excludes sucking children, nor is the inclusion proved by him from Matth. 2. • 8. 1 Cor. 7.14. the sense Mr. Rutherford makes the only sense of Acts 2.39. the promise and word of the Covenant is preached to you and your children in you, is false, for then it had been true, that it was preached then to all afar off, which is manifestly false, and vain; for it had been no comfort to them, since it might be preached without their benefit, nor is this to be externally in covenant (except in Mr. Rutherfords gibberish) both under the Old and New Testament. In the O • d persons were so by birth, without preaching; in the New, they only who profess faith.

The other sense Mr. Rutherford sets down is none of mine, nor is it needful I should answer the objections against it and the terms, the Lord hath internally covenanted with you ; I take to be non-sense, no covenanting with us being an immanent, but a transeunt act. My sense is fully set down here Sect. 13, &c. and proved. I grant no more Covenant favor holden forth to their children, Acts 2.39. then to the Pagans children, except in priority of tender. I make not external covenant holiness, ceremonial holiness out of da • e, nor can he clear it, or that by anything I say, the words Acts 2.39. must be in a contradictory way expounded, to wit, the promise is no more made to your children so long as they are infants, then to Devils ; which seeing he mentions Mr. Ms. words but a little before, I have reason to conceive reflect on myself; and if so, they have too great a show of Diabolism. Right to hear the preached Gospel, and a Covenant or Gospel warrant peculiar to believers children, is such talk as I understand not. I think hearing is a Duty obliging all; Pagans have not only warrant, but also command to hear it, it is not only lawful but necessary. The children of the most holy Christian Gentile believers, are not Christians till they believe, and both they and their parents when they believe are still Heathens; the term Heathens, being all one with Gentiles contradistinct to Jews, and so used here by Mr. Rutherford himself pag. 74. in words before cited, and I sometimes admire that some learned men should suggest this to Readers and hearers as a h • inous thing to term them Heathens, when they must be so, if they be not Jews, though most holy Christians. The term Pagans, if it be all one with professed infidels positively, I grant it belongs not to our children; yet they are infidels negatively, till they believe, and are so accounted of them that admit them not to the Lord's Supper, as well as of those that admit them not to Baptism, unto which actual profession of faith is as well required as to the Lord's Supper. To neither hath a man any right by Covenant, although by the Covenant he hath right to the benefits of the Gospel. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are neither of them formally benefi • s, or seals of the Covenant of grace; though by con • equent, in the right use of them, such benefit • accrue to men by them. They are hath rites appointed by Christ, the one to be the baptized his sign, whereby he professeth repentance and faith in Christ, and engageth himself solemnly to adhere to Christ as his disciple, the other whereby he • signifies his remembrance of Christ's death, both our duties, and a right to duty, sounds to me like non-sense.

I know no Anabaptist that ignorantly confounds the promise and the thing promised, the Covenant and benefits covenanted ; But this I aver, that when God promiseth and covenanteth they are connex, there is no man to whom Cod promiseth or covenanteth, but he hath or shall have the thing promised or covenanted. And this I learn from the Apostle Rom. 9.8. who makes only the chosen sons of promise, as Mr. Rutherford here pag. 77. expounds him; and that is, as Gal. 3.16. he expresseth himself, to Abraham and his seed were the promises made or said, that is Christ personal or mystical, or both, and to no other. And sure the Apostle Rom. 9.6. did think it blasphemy to say, that God had promised, and those he promised to should not have the thing promised; for then God's word should fall, and he be a liar. If God's conditional promise be a Covenant▪ yet it is made only to them that perform the condition. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, is not an universal promise to all men, whether believers or not; but only to so many as shall believe. 'It is true we can exclude none, because we cannot exempt any from believing, and therefore we are to make an indifferent offer to any, but God in his intention excludes many, and his promise is not made to them whom he excludes, nor are they under his Covenant, or in covenant with him, in respect of his act of promising; though they may be said to be in Covenant, or under the Covenant in respect of their own act of promising; I grant the command is to persons whether they believe or not, obey or not, for that is not an enunciative speech, that signifies anything true or false, but is in the imperative mood, and extendeth to all men whatsoever, so as whosoever doth not as the command bids, sins: But when Mr. Rutherford saith, the promise is to you, and so are the commands and threatenings, whether ye believe or not; whether ye transgress or transgress not : (if an Anabaptist falsely so called may have the boldness to tell a Professor in Divinity in an University in Scotland of ignorance) I should tell him, he is mistaken, in saying, the promise is to you whether you believe or no, the threatening is to you whether you transgress or no. For they being enunciations in the indicative mood, if meant so, should be false; which to impute to God, would asperse him with falsehood and injustice, which is horrendum dictu. And in my apprehension it savors of ignorance which Mr. Rutherford saith pag. 91. Nor is it true, that the promise is made to the aged upon condition of believing. The promise is made to them absolutely, whether they believe or not. But the blessing of the promise and Covenant of grace is given and bestowed only conditionally if they believe. The promise is absolutely made, it's called conditional from the thing corditionally given. For either I have lost my wits, or else a conditional promise is a conditional p • oposition, expressing something that shall be, if some other thing be put; and sure a conditional proposition is so termed from the words, not from the event. A promise is a promise absolute or conditional, as soon as the words are spoken, long before the thing promised is given, yea though it be never given. The giving or not giving upon performing or not performing the condition, may make the promise true or false determinately, but not conditional or absolute. I forbear to uncover any further Mr. Rutherfurds nakedness in this speech, and reset him to Mr. Baxter to correct him for that speech; nor is it true, that the promise is not made to the aged upon condition of believing. And as for his speeches, of the saving of infants of believing parents dying in infancy, and our giving evidence thereof, there is so much said before of it, especially against Mr. Baxter Sect. 73, 74. and elsewhere, that I need say no more here. As for what he saith, of our want of warrant to pray for them without their being in Covenant ; though it hurt not me, who grant of so many as are elect that they are in Covenant; yet I think I have a warrant to pray by a general command, 1 Tim. 2.1, 2, 3. and in faith by a general promise, Matth. 7.7, 8. the knowledge of God's goodness, and the goodness of the thing asked.

In the rest of the Chapter, Mr. Rutherford endeavors to find a way, according to which infants of believers may be said to be within Covenant, and the words Acts 2.39. meant of them, and their title to Baptism thence inferred: for which end he useth many words with distinctions, which are vain, without good sense, or good consistency, or anything to his purpose.

Four ways he conceives infants of believers may be said to be in Covenant. 1. In that God maketh the promise of a new heart to them; but this he grants is true only of the elect; and not of all commanded to be baptized, Acts 2.38, 39. And pag. 86. he granted persons invisibly in Covenant without profession, are not warrantably to be baptized. 2. In that God promiseth forgiveness of sins, and eternal life upon condition of repentance and faith. Thus infants may be in the Covenant of grace, but no otherwise then or rather not so much as professed unbelievers, to whom it is tendered, who yet are not to be baptized, and if the promise be meant so Acts 2.39. it proves not a right to Baptism thence till the condition be performed, which when infants declare they do, I shall baptize them. 3. That they are in Covenant because they are under the command, for thus he speaks pag. 94. The Covenant must be considered in abstracto, and formally in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners, so they believe, so all within the visible Church are in the Covenant of grace, and so it contains only the will of precept. In which he is mistaken, 1. in that he saith, the Covenant formerly in the letter is a simple way of saving sinners, so they believe ; for such a speech is not the Covenant in any sense, much less formally in the letter in abstracto: such a speech as this, men are saved if they believe, or the way of saving men is upon condition of believing, is not the Covenant since it is not a promise, but a Covenant is formally a promise, or an aggregate of promises. 2. In that he saith, the Covenant formally contains only the will of precept ; whereas the Covenant formally contains not at all the will of precept, the will of precept containing only the command of what should be done by another, but the Covenant is a promise of what the Covenanter will do; the one is expressed in the imperative mood, the other in the indicative; nor is the will of precept in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners, so they believe ; for such an expression is no command at all, but a declaration of event. 3. In that he saith, so all within the visible Church are in the Covenant of grace, which he seems to mean thus, they all and they only. But sure either infants are not at all this way in the Covenant of grace, who never hear the command propounded to them, or if they be, they are no more in it then the Americans out of the visible Church▪ who never heard of Christ, nor so much as professed unbelievers to whom the Gospel hath been preached; and therefore this way infants have not right to baptism▪ So that this speech of Mr. Rutherford hath, as many of his expressions, nothing but ignorance and impertinency. 4. A person may be said to be in Covenant, in that he is really covenanted and engaged by his consented profession, to fulfil the Covenant ; as Mr. Rutherford speaks pag. 92. This way I grant entitles to Baptism; but sure infants are not so in Covenant, nor is the meaning so Acts 2.39. where the promise is God's promise to us, not our promise to God; nor is this the Paedobaptists plea, when they argue infants are in Covenant, therefore to be baptized; for they mean by being in Covenant, that God hath promised to be a God to them as the seed of believers, Gen. 17.7. And therefore Mr. Rutherford hath not yet shown any way, according to which infants of believers are intitled to Baptism, by virtue of the Covenant of grace; or from Acts 2.38, 39. notwithstanding all his blooding of it, to use his own term. Let's view what is in Ch. 14.

Neither is it true, that God saith persons should be circumcised because of God's promise, Gen. 17.7. Nor, that women were circumcised in the males ; nor was Peter sent to baptize all the circumcised ; nor are infants to be Baptized by the ground of Circumcision ; nor is there anything Acts 2.38, 39. that saith, because the same promise is made to fathers and to children must infants be baptized. Neither do I know what Mr. Rutherford understands by Theological essence, or formal effects ; nor do I conceive any truth or sense in Mr. Rutherfurds talk of Circumcision and Baptism being the same in the substance, nature, and Theological essence, and in the formal effects ; much less that the Lord hath any such argument, Gen. 17.7. And though I should grant all are to be exhorted to be baptized, who are under the same Covenant ; yet not without repentance and faith foregoing their Baptism, wit • out which the promise warrants not Baptism. There is no such command Gen. 17.7, 8. that all these in Covenant should be marked with the initiatory seal ; nor is Baptism instituted in place of Circumci •• on ; and if it were, yet m • re is needful to warrant infant baptism.

There is as plain precept Acts 2.38. & 8.36, 37. Mark. 16.16. Matth. 28.19. against in • ant Baptism, as is against infant Communion 1 Cor. 11.28. We have good consequences out of the word against infant Baptism, without arguing from the Covenant of grace; which Mr. Rutherford may see in the 2d. part of this Review sect. 5 and none against the Holy Ghost, but from him. That the promises of the Covenant of grace are expressly to infants of the New Testament is more then I find Acts 2.39. or elsewhere. Dipping in rivers need not be onerous, and may be without danger, to women with child, Virgins, some sorts of diseased persons in winter, in cold countries, and it will require more strength in dispute, then either Mr. Baillee, or Mr. Baxter, have shown, or I find yet in Mr. Rutherford ; to prove dipping in rivers (though Baptism be not necessary to be done in rivers) to be against the word, the second, third, and fourth Commandments. And against sprinkling, or perfusion instead of Baptism, there is so much said in my Addition to the Apology against Mr. Baillee, Mr. Rutherfurds Colleague, and delivered to Mr. Rutherford himself, and since printed with a Letter to him, as is for ought I know, yet unanswered. All Mr. Rutherfurds talk pag. 98, 99. that now infants of believers are casten out, for no fault, of the Covenant of grace, and his aggravations thereof, are to be taken for mere calumnies, and since the printing of my Ex • men, there is reason to judge them to be thus willfully vented by Mr. Rutherford, and till he name the Anabaptists, and cite the place, I can take it for no other then a false accusation, which he saith of the Anabaptists that they teach infants to be born without sin.

Mr. Rutherford dictates without proof pag. 100. that they were covenanting parents and believers, that brought the little children Mark 10.13, 14 that they were not diseased or possessed, that he would have the whole spece of infants at all time • o come to him, and those infants might be blessed as elect ones, though no marks were given to parents or others, whereby to discern elect children ; these being no direction for them to bring children to Christ under that notion. It is false that Anabaptists rebuke persons that bring children to Christ as the disciples did, Mar. 10.13. Or that Christ instates infants of believing parents as members of the visible Church. What Mr. • obbet hath said of that act of Christ is refelled Review part. 2. sect. 19. and that the Kingdom of God is that of glory, is made good against Mr. Blake there, sect. 18 and not refused by me: I know no absurdity in it, to say, Christ might bless infants of Pagans. What design Christ might have, or had, besides Mr. Rutherfurds conceived purpose to hold forth the common interest of the whole spece of infants within the visible Church, is shown there sect. 17. against Mr. Baxter. I do gran • the blessing, Mark 10.16. to be personal, and the chiefest blessing beyond visible Church membership; and though we find not proof that Christ blessed the whole race of infants of covenanting parents, yet it is false that we make them blessed only as symbols of humility ; or that the blessing was some complemental salutation ; or that (as Mr R. saith of Anab • ptists after hi • calumniating manner) we will have them without Christ and the Covenant, and under the curse of God ; but grant that they were blessed with the blessing of the Covenant of grace, and that many other infants are so. Whether they were parents, or believers in Christ as the Messiah, who brought the children, Matth. 19.13. is uncertain; nor do I say, or need I, they had a saith grounded upon a possibility of election separated from the Covenant ; nor do I deny, that infants have their share of salvation by the Covenant ; or that a covenanted seed is prophesied to be added to the Jews, under the New Testament ; nor doth anything I say infer, that the children of believers under the New Testament must be a cursed seed ; yet there is none of the Texts Mr. Rutherford brings, which proves a prediction, that the natural seed of believers as such, shall be blessed and in the Covenant of grace, nor that their infant seed shall be visible Church members in the Christian Church: But they are all impertinently alleged, some being meant of the Jews i • crease in Jud •• after their return from Babylon, some of the effectual calling of the Gentiles; and most of them so far cleared before, that I count it needless to make answer to each of the Texts by themselves. And Mr. Rutherfurds discourse is so loose and full of impertinencies, and incoherencies, that I shall only animadvert on some passages, till the whole be brought to some distinct Scholastique form.

He tells us pag, 168.

In which speech he seem • to conceive external covenanting, to be either preaching or hearing a preacher, else his reason had been vain. But what non-sense scribbling is this, to term preaching or hearing covenanting? A person may, and we may conceive some do, preach and hear, who never externally covenant. Sure covenanting is promising, but so is not either preaching or hearing. And if Mr. Rutherfurds words be true, no infant can be internally and really in Covenant, who doth not preach or hear.

His talk is as vain, Of the Lord being a God simply to some, and no more but a God to them in regard of outward Church-privileges, but to others more then a God in truth and righteousness; not to all, as if God might be a God to some not in truth and righteousness, or the being a God to his people, contained not the greatest blessings, contrary to Lu. 20.37, 38. Heb. 11.16.

His further talk pag. 109. from Matth. 19.14. is without proof, and all shown to be vain, in the places before cited. Though the household sometimes comprehend infants, yet not so still, nor Acts 16. as is shown Review part. 2. sect. 20. Anabaptists neither do nor must grant, if infants be in Covenant, they ought to receive the seal of the Covenant.

If Rom. 11.16. be meant of holiness only intentionally, and not giving actual right to Baptism, then the holiness there proves not infants to be baptizable. That the Covenant Deut. 29.14, 15. should • e made virtually radically with us Gentiles, is a do • age with a witness: not only the express words v. 1. but also the passages all along Ch. 29, 30. show it was the legal Covenant renewed with the people of Israel and their posterity, to engage them to observe all the Law of God given by Moses: not the Covenant made to Adam, Abraham, David, the New, or better Covenant. If the Covenant may stand in one, then it is not necessary that a people, nation▪ seed, body, should be in covenant, and consequently it may stand without infants. The Apostle saith not Rom. 11.16. the Fathers were the root. But Mr. Rutherford adds.

Answ. Anabaptists, if we must be so named, do say that the holiness Rom. 11.16. is meant of real, internal and true holiness; and consequently the persons there said to be holy, are all of the invisible body predestinated to life, and no other but such there meant: yet they deny not, that the holiness of the Covenant and Church the • e meant were made visible by its working, the collective body of the Jews predestinate to life; and that it is not said without all reason, might have appeared to Mr. Rutherford, if he had read my Examen part. 3 sect. 7. my Apol. sect. 14. pag. 67. Review part. 1. sect. 1, &c. part. 3. sect. 75. yea if there were nothing else said but what Mr. Rutherford here yields, that invisible holiness cannot be excluded, except we exclude the holiness of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were withoue doubt part of the root, that which Anabaptists say, is not said without reason, and that demonstrative. For if invisible holiness cannot be excluded, then it is included, and if included together with external visible holiness, then the holiness there meant is not external holiness alone; nor they who have merely external federal holiness are there said to be holy, and consequently no reprobate, but only the predestinate to life. And if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, be part of the root, and therefore invisible holiness cannot be excluded, then the rest of the root and the branches which are made in the text alike holy, must have invisible holiness also. But Mr. Rutherford ads.

Answ. The term [holy, Rom. 11.16.] notes only real and invisible holiness in that place, though the persons said to be holy have it made visible, and it agree to the visible collective body of the Jews. And the proposition of Mr. Rutherford to the contrary, If the Fathers be holy so must the sons, is most false, not only being understood of invisible, but also of visible holiness, of Churchright to Circumcision, to Baptism, to the Passover, and the Lord's Supp • r. Though the father were holy visibly, by profession of the God of Israel, yet had not he nor his child right thereby to Circumcision, and the Passover, without being a Proselyte of righteousness, taking on him the precepts of Moses to observe, and joining to the policy of Israel, and yet even then the child of age, who did not avouch the God of Israel, had no right thereto. Nor by Paedobaptists own principles hath the child of age right to Bap • ism, or the Lord's Supper, without his own profession, though the parent • be Christians; nor the infant of a believer baptized (as they conceive) right to the Lord's Supper.

Mr. Rutherford is grossly mistaken in making every believing parent the root me • n • Rom. 1.16. and every natural child a branch: For then every believing parent should bear his child: v. 18. and every natural child shou • d derive holiness from his believing parent; Abraham's nature • l children at this day are not in the Olive, nor shall be till re-engraffed. Abraham is the root, not as a natural father, but as Father of believers, and • one are branches or holy as the Apostle there means, but through • aith according to election. Nor are hereby the distinctions of Jew inward and outward, child of the flesh and promise taken away; nor whole Israel certainly saved. Nor by the branches be meant all the visible body of the Jews old and young, which • e mi • ht have imagined would be replied to hi • argument pag. 114. Nor is it new Divinity, but old, That none are to be baptized but such as are under actual exercise of their faith, which may be discerned, by their profession, in those that are come to age. It is neither my Divinit • , nor follows (though Mr. Rutherford c • nceives it doth) on it, that predestination to life and glory, must be pro • ogated and derived from the lump to the first fruits (he meant from the first fruits to the lu • p) from the root and parents to the branches and children; But this I say, that faith, and righteousness are propagated and derived from • braham as an exemplary root to all his spiritual branches or seed by conformation to him.

I do not say, that the Apostle Rom. 11. speaks of an invisible body, but this I say, the Apostle by branches means two sorts of people, the one Jews, who were then broken off from the Olive tree, which is the invisible Church of the elect; the other Gentiles, then graffed in, yet not all the Gentiles, nor one nation wholly and entirely, but a great part of them in comparison of what were formerly in the Olive very numerous.

How these branches were an elect seed and yet fell away, were preached to, had a national election and external calling, were in the room of the Jews, • id partake of the fatness of the Olive, is so fully opened in the places before cited, that I think it unnecessary to add here anymore. Only whereas he makes it an absurdity, that the infants of baptized actual believers should be all heathen as well as the casten off the Jews ; it is to me and absurdity unfit for any learned man to vent, that knows that Heathen in English is all one with Gentiles and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to conceive otherwise, as if a Jew because cast off were become a Heathen, or any Gentile believer or his infant, were or could be by believing and baptism any other then an heathen, or a Christian of the Gentiles did not still continue a heathen notwithstanding his Christianity. I do account Mr. Rutherford and myself Christians, and yet Heathens. There's not a word in the Text, that warrants us to say of the children of the engraffed and called Gentiles that they have right to baptism ; but what if the words be expounded as Mr. Rutherford does, of the whole visible body of the nations will allow the baptizing of infidels. Abraham's children were never taken into covenant-fellowship universally. Abraham was indeed a moral not a physical root, yet not as a believing Father, nor as a believing head of children, of servants and strangers under him, but as Father of believers after him. And in this respect, neither Adam, nor any other then Abraham is the root, and none of Abraham's natural seed are branches or holy intentionally, but such as are elect, and shall be conformed to him in believing and justification. Nor doth the Apostle when he saith, the Jews are beloved by reason of the Fathers, make Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob the root ; but intimate that God remembers them, because of his Covenant made to them, his taking the title of their God, their obedience to him, their prayers, and his constancy to them as his ancient friends, when all the world were revolted.

The conceit of Mr. Rutherford concerning holiness external federal, as if it were any cause or reason of re-engraffing them or their infants, is so frivolous, that I wonder any sober man should once fancy it. For what is it but a state of outward church privileges, right to the seals, &c But to imagine so great a work as the re-engraffing, which infers salvation, should come from Abraham's, Isaac, and Jacob's, or any other natural believing Fathers visible Church membership, Circumcision, Baptism, &c. is to derive title to heaven, from at best, an amissible privilege, which may be interrupted by men. What more is to be seen in Mr. Cotton, Blake, Cobbet, Baxter, Mr. Rutherford may see examined in this Review ; by reading of which he may discern, that they have neither closed the dispute; nor managed it so, as that their learning is to be rested on.

SECT. LXXXVII. The distractions in Germany and our present distractions, sprung not from Anabaptism as Mr. Cragge saith.

THere having been a dispute a • Abergavenny between me and Mr. John Cragge, Sept. 5th. 1653. and a Sermon preached there (wh • n I was gone thence) the next Lord's day, in opposition to what I taught, instead of letting me have a copy manuscript, they were printed with much injury to the truth and my person. Where • ore having had experience in Mr. Bs. dealing, what advantage the error of infant Baptism got by such writings, I being then in London and meeting with the Book, made a reply entitled, A Plea for Antipaedobaptists ; to which Mr. John Cragge hath returned an answer, and entitled it, The Arraignment and Conviction of Anabaptism. He hath prefixed an Epistle to eight ominent Members of the Parliament which • ate anno 1654. He tells them that the Cause he defends is and ought to be dearer to them, then any private interests, as whereupon infallibly depends the peace of Church and State. He might more truly have said, that infallibly the peace of Church and State depends on the reforming of infant Baptism, which hath corrupted the Church and State by bringing into the Christian societies a world of ignorant, loose and profane persons, who being the major part in all Churches, and Commonwealths, where Christianity hath been received, have persecuted the godly, domineered over the consciences and liberties of the Saints, and upheld a proud and sensual Clergy, to the infinite disturbance of the Eastern and Western Churches for many ages. And though I hope better of the men to whom Mr. Cr. ascribes such heroic excellencies, that they have or will have more wit or more grace, then to account Mr. Crs. cause of infant Baptism dearer to them then any private interests. Yet I must confess I cannot but mourn, that not only Parliament men, but also Ministers should be so ignorant, as to be taken with such silly in •• pid clamours (I may truly say) rather then arguings, as Mr. Cr. Mr. B. and others, have mislead them by.

That which he saith, the former sad disasters of Germany and our present distractions, both took their spring and growth, in a great measure, from Anabaptism, • is most false.

The disasters in Germany which were in the years 1524, 1525. did spring from the great burdens and oppressions which were put on the Rusticks by their Princes, Bishops, Abbots. Spondanus expressly in his Auct. of his Epit. of Baron. Annals ad annum 1524. saith, That they began in Suevia, by rising of the Bores against their Lord Count Lupfius, and that the beginning thence being risen, after an infinite number of Rusticks being stirred up to seditions upon pretent of Gospel liberty (which Spanheimius himself in his Diatribe Historica §. 4. refers to Luther's Book of Christian Liberty as the occasion taken by them) committed great outrages. And ad annum 1502. tells us, That in the Diocese of Spi • e, a conspiracy of Husbandmen against the Bishops and Canons, which was called the Rustic League, began from two Rusticks: of which conspiracy the ch • ef article was that they should shake off every yo • e, and in imitation of the Helvetians should recover their liberty. And Lucas Osiander Epit. hist. Eccles. cent. 16. l. 1. c. 16. p. 34. saith, These particular seditions in Germany, were the praeludia or fo • e plays of that great sedition of Rusticks, which was in its vigor in the year 1525. And Gnodalius in his history of the rustic tumults in Germany in the year 1525. lib. 1. sai • h, That in Suevia, where they first began, they did openly signify that they were not Gospellers, nor did flow together for the Gospel sake, but because of exactions. Bp. Jewel. Def. of the Apology of the Church of England part. 4. chap. 4. Divis. 1. to Harding, saying, Were the hundred thousand Bores of Germany consumed by the sword of the Nobility there for their obecience? answers thus,

It is true Muncer was a busy man in Thuringia, and stirred up the people disposed to tumults by reason of oppressions, and at Munster in Westphalia in the years 1532, 1533. were stirs and out-rages; but even Spanheimius himself sets down the beginning of them to have been upon the Protestant reformation, by the preaching of Rotmannus and others, afore the coming of John Matthias, and John Becold of Leyden the Bishop and Canons of Munster being Papists opposing it. How in like manner the Bishop of Geneva was expelled when the Protestants grew potent there, and the like was done in other places, is manifest by records extant, which acts have been repres • n • ed as alike odious with those of Muncer, and at Munster, and would h ave been so reputed if there had been the like success, I mean the adverse party had prevailed as they did in these.

Our present distractions cannot with any show of truth be said to take their spring from Anabap • ism, by any that know things from the relation of men im • loyed in public negotiations, their being neither in the beginning nor now, either in the Council of State, or Parliaments, or Armies, or City of London, or Universities, or Countries; any such persons or parties, as could sw • y things any further then to put some stop to the violence of the Clergy against them, to which as the cause of them, though not the only, the present distractions are to be referred: to whom how much in former ages, and at this present, the great troubles of the Churches of God are to be ascribed, may be seen in part, in Mr. Baxter's Book entitled, The Reformed Pastor, ch. 4. sect. 1, 2. and in many histories.

Mr. Cr. adds; which reason with experience dictates; for by their principles whole nations are unchurched and none received into communion, but by re-baptizing, all former members esteemed as Publicans and Heathens; hence Magistracy and Ministry that dissents, are by them wholly disgusted, if not discarded.

Answ... Experience hath not proved either the disasters in Germany or our present distractions, to have sprung from Anabap • ism, but from other causes; chiefly, the oppression of Princes and Prelates. 2. Nor are Mr. Crs. reasons sufficient to evince Anabaptism▪ a cause of such troubles. For the first principle, that whole nations are unchurched, is as well the Independent as Paedobaptists principle (among whom is Mr. Cradock counted a light in their Goshen of Monmouthshire, by the relatour of the dispute in the Epistle dedicatory) and if so, the present distractions are to be ascribed with as good reason to Indepency as to Anabaptism, and perhaps with greater; it being considered that they have been and are the more potent party. As the Papists imputed all the troubles to Protestant principles of Christian • iber • y, the Prelates to non conformists, whom it hi • gift long since compared with Anabaptists, because they alleged ag • inst Prelacy Matth. 20 25, 26. so the Presbyterians charge the like on Independency, and perhaps Independents on Anabaptism; yet none of their principles are indeed the spring of the troubles, but the violence of the leading men of each party, who by their mis-reports and clamors, stir up Magistrates and people against their opposites, and will by no means allow liberty to them, nor willingly life: of which spirit Mr. Cr. seems by his writing to be, and I suppose the State will discern all such as will not tolerate others, who dissent in religion, intolerable. 2. It is false that Magistracy and Ministry that dissents, is by Anabaptists wholly disgusted, if not discarded. For though I cannot justify all so called, there being violent spirits among them (who are intolerable) as well as o • hers: yet neither do all nor any great part that I know of, appear to be such. But if they did, yet sure it comes • ot from those principles fore-named by Mr. Cr. there being no such consequ • nce included in those tenets, that they who are not Churchme • bers are not to be accounted Magistrates. As Bp. Andrew's answered▪ resp. ad Bellarm Apol. c. 1 p. 30. Bellarmine alleging the Puritans did not admit the Kings Supremacy▪ because they brought a parity into the Church. To the Kings Supremacy what is parity among Elders in the Church? Videt ergo lector ludere hîc pa • , impar, Cardinalem ; so may I say to Mr Cr. The Baptists do not count whole nations to be Churches of Christ, and with them agree Independents, as Dr. Owen of Schism, ch 7, &c The Baptists receive none into communion but the baptized, esteemed all other as not in the Church visible (though these two last are denied by many of them) what is the non-admission into the Church, to the disgusting or discarding of Magistracy in the Common-wealth? The Reader therefore sees Mr. Cr. to play here par impar, even and odd.

What Mr. Cr. hath suffered for patronage of respect to tender Consciences, I know not; nor who are for promiscuous toleration without distinction. What he adds out of the old Testam •• t of P • inces punishing idolatry and blasphemy, was done by special judicial laws of Moses, which do not bind Christian Magistrates; if they did it makes nothing for the punishing of errors of Christians about the Christian doctrine, by civil punishment. It is granted that Ministers are bound to oppose errors by preaching, and Ecclesiastical censures, both singly and in Councils; yet neither have Councils, nor the learnedst Doctors been very happy in determining of errors, and heresies. That which was heresi • in one Council was Orthodox in another; under one Emperor that was adjudged • ruth, which was blasphemy under another. What strange kinds of Heretics were the Quartodecimani, Aerians, Helvidians, and many more? Had Vigilantius or Jovinian (saith Mr. Baxter in his Reformed Pastor p. • 47.) had Jerome's name, some of their Heresies might possibly have been articles of faith. Nor was it well done (however Mr. Cr. conceives) that well-minded Emperors did rely so much on the advise of Synods and Bishops, as to banish and destroy at the instance of them, such as they judged heretics and schismatiques. The sad tragedies about the doctrines of the Trinity, Images, Easter, &c. are a sufficient document to all wise rulers to be cautelou • how they use their power for suppressing persons deemed erroneous in point of doctrine. There may be toleration of different opinions in a Commonwealth without mixture of religion, and that such toleration doth not dissolve the bond of obedience, or breed any of those evils Mr. Cr. reckons up (except by accident) the peaceable rule of the united Provinces of Belgium and elsewhere shows. It is the intemperate zeal of Preachers and others against dissenters, which is the chief cause of such evils as Mr. Cr. reckons up. I remember that I have read, that the Bores of Germany were not subdued till 100000. of them were slain, but Sleidan reports not in his Com. l. 7. or any other, that in Germany the Anabaptist grew so populous, that they could not be vanquished, till almost a hundred thousand of them were slain by the united forces of the Empire. But the Emperor objected to the Protestants that their Preachers were a great occasion of the Rustical war, wherein an hundred thousand were slain. But whether it were so or not so (what ever Mr. Crs. protestations be) the writing this Epistle, with some other passages at the time and to the persons to whom it was directed, show what we are to expect from him and such as he is, if ever they have power over us. But of these things only by the way.

SECT. LXXXVIII. Austin's saying about Apostolical traditions is not to be rested upon, nor his testimony about the antiquity of Infant Baptism.

AFter his own Epistle, and the Epistle of I. T. P. and the reprinting of the conference between me and Mr. Vaughan, and the dispute between me and himself, Mr. Cr. leaving out the former Epistle of I. T. P. begins with a descant on the title of my reply, which he vainly makes to imply a suit against the universal Church, though it be only an action against innovators, who have left the plain way of Christ and his Apostles, and (as they have done in many other things) brought in infant Baptism, to the great corruption of the Church of God: And for Mr. Halls inditement, it is such as is fit for boys only to make sport with; and were Mr. Hall or Mr. Cr. of such serious and grave spirits as they should be, they would have buried it in silence, or been humbled for handling things of God so lightly, such writings being fitter for light wits in the University, then for Preachers and Pastors over Churches of Christ. My calling Mr. Baxter's book a cheat and mock titled book, is proved here to be right; and that Mr. Ms. is no impregnable Defense, is here shown. The rest of Mr. Crs. light Poetry in sect. 1. &c. par. 1. I let pass as the scum of his wit, and only take notice, that he terms from Stow Sir John Oldcastle a traitor, who was hanged on a gibbet and burned in St. Giles field, whom Mr. Fox in his book of Martyrs in the time of Henry the 5th. hath against Alan Cope vindicated, and by sundry arguments particularly by the manner of his death mentioned by Mr. Cr. made it probable, that he died a Martyr oppressed by popish Prelates. Whose case is a good document how little credence is to be given to the censures of men, when the relations of them are made by their prevailing adversaries. What I think of laying on hands, may be seen part 2 of this Review, sect. 23. Dr. Featly was a man with whom I had sundry times conference when he was in his greatest esteem, but never found him such as I durst not look in the face when living, and sure his book of Baptism is (beside • what Denn hath done) shown here and elsewhere not to be unanswerable. With what spirit Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptists, and myself, have written on this subject, must be left to the cognizance of our Judge.

If Austin's saying, l. 4. de Bapt. contra Donat. c. 23. That what the universal Church holds▪ nor was instituted in Councils, but always retained, is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other then Apostolical authority, were meant as Mr. Cr. sect. 5. p. 67. expounds it, including the Apostles, I should yield it. But 1. I do not conceive that to be Austin's meaning; for 1. then the speech would be an inept tautology to say, that what the whole Church including the Apostles holds, is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other then Apostolical authority; it were as if he had said, what the Apostles held the Apostles held: 2. The very speech shows that Austin meant it of the universal Church of his time, the word [ tenet ] being in the present tense, and the Councils meant being such as were since the Apostles, and that he counted that to be instituted in no Councils, but to have been always held, of which he could not show any beginning or any interruption: 3. Elsewhere his speeches show this was his mind, as Epist. 118. ad Joann. Illa quae non scripta sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto terrarum orbe observantur dantur intelligi vel ab i • sis Apostolis vel plenariis Conciliis quorum est in Ecclesi • saluberrima autoritas commendata atque statuta retineri, and he instanceth in the anniversary solemnities of Good Friday, Easter day, Holy Thursday, and Whitsunday, and adds; and if any other thing hath occurred which is kept by the whole Church where ever it spreads itself. And accordingly he makes the necessity of the Communion to eternal life as of Baptism to the Kingdom to be from Apostolical tradition, tom. 7. de pecc. mer. & remis. l. 1. c. 24. Mr. Crs. conceit is not right, as if the words, And if any man seek for Divine authority in this thing, did intimate that his following rule was meant of what was held in the Apostles time: for in them he means that which he after fetcheth from Circumcision out of Scripture, besides that which the whole Church holds, not instituted in Councils, yet still held. In this sense it is urged by Cano, l. 3. loc. Theol. c. 4. as a rule to know genuine unwritten traditions Apostolical from spurious, and rejected by Chamier, paustr. cath. tom. 1. l. 8. c. 14. §. 13. as impossible, since what hath been in all ages and Churches from the Apostles cannot be known; and it is urged by Bellarm. de bonis oper. in part. l. 2. c. • 4. for Lent fast, and refuted by Chamier, paustr. cath. tom. • . l. 19 c. 7. §. 36.

2. This rule cannot stand the Epistler in any stead for proving infant Baptism without the Apostles writings, 1. because there is no way without them to know what was universally held, there being no man able to know what the Church holds in all places in his own time, much less what in former ages was held; and many things have been taken even by Austin as universally observed which were not, and many Councils held which are unknown, and many corruptions crept very early into the Church whose original cannot be s • t down determinately, of which Ushers general answer to the Jesuits challenge ▪ gives reasons. 2. Infant Baptism cannot be proved to have been universally observed, but as now it is taught and used hath been opposed by some of the Ancients, and is now rejected by Protestant Divines, as it was by the Ancients taught and used. Nor is Austin's testi • ony Se • m 10. de verb. Apostoli (not Serm. 15.) that the Church always had and held Infant Baptism, valid for Mr. Crs. purpose; 1. because the term [ hoc, this ] may be rather referred to t • e doctrine of infants being born with original sin, rather then the practice of their baptism, and to this sen • e both t • e scope, words precedent, consequen • , and the terms, had, held, perceives from the faith of Elders, keep to the end (which are most fitl • appli • d to doctrine) make more prob • ble, as I noted in my Apology §. 16. pag. 83. 2. Were the meaning of Austin about infant baptism, yet there were no cause to rest on this testimony as credible, 1. because it is but a speech in a popular Sermon, in which men speak not exactly as in other writings. 2. The words [ hoc Ecclesia usque in finem perseveranter custodit ] could be known only by guess and conjectural presage, it being of a contingent matter not by Divine revelation fore-told, and therefore the other speeches (as likewise other speeches, as that tom. 7. de pecc. mer. & remiss. l. 1. c. 24. show was his wont) are to be conceived as spoken not out of any good records, but from that which he found observed in his time, where he had been. 3 Because serm. 14. de verbis Apost. he saith, that Cyprian Epist. 59. ad Fidum quid semper Ecclesia sensit monstraverit ; though he only set down what wa • determined in that Council of Carthage, which was in the third Century. 4. There are so many speeches of the ancients false, uncertain, contradicting each other concerning Apostolical traditions, universal observations, that many Protestants have discredited them, of which some testimonies are set down by me in my P • aecursor sect. 3. Salmasius appar. ad libr. de primatu p • pae, men • ions some other, as pag. 134. All the Fathers with one accord make Paul and Peter founders of the Roman Church, and yet were deceived; Jerome saith, it was in all the world decreed, that one should be a Bishop over others : and yet the Preface of Selden before Twisdens Collection of ancient British Histories, shows it wa • otherwi • e in Scotland of old. And for Austin Epist. 118. ad Janu. c. 1, 6. he makes the anniversary solemnities of Easter, &c. of eating the Lord's Supper fasting, as always universally observed, in which he was mistaken. Mr. Cr. doth abuse me in making my argument, as if I had said Easter was always held, my words were; If Austin's rule were true, then Easter should be from the Apostles; not because I thought it true, but because Austin thought so, and so by his rule Easter must be counted to come from the Apostles, and his testimony is as good for it, as for the universal observation of in • ant Baptism. 5. Not only Protestants but Papists also do now reject things observed by the Ancients, as amply as infant Baptism. Jewel Sermon at Paul's Cross, p. 48. Usher answer to the Jesuits challenge, p. 23. It was the use of the ancient Church to minister the Communion to infants: which is yet also practiced by the Christians in Egypt and Ethiopia. The Church of Rome, upon better consideration hath thought fit to do otherwise. The putting milk and honey into the mouth of th • • aptized, the standing at prayer on Lord's days between Easter and Whitsuntide, the baptizing at Easter persons catechised in Lent, with many more are now left; though Bellarmine. l 2. de bonis operibus in particulari c. 17. tells us, Abolitam esse consuetudinem baptizandi catechumenos & absolvendi p • nitentes in pascha • e verum est apud Lutheranos: caeterùm apud Catholicos, ac praesertim in urbe Romana nullus est annus, quo non multi Catichumeni in paschate baptizentur ; which I mention to show, that there ar • some foot-steps yet remaining of the old baptizing. • p. Jewel De • ense of the Apology of the Church of England, part. 2. ch 16. div. 1. saith, there have been errors and great errors from the beginning: he mentions there and in the Sermon at Paul's cross, baptizing for and of the dead, giving the Communion to the dead body, and therefore there and in his reply to Dr. Cole, he rejects customs of the ancient Church, and condemns carrying home to the absent the Communion; mixing water with the wine, and many more things; and still requires the Lord's Supper and Baptism to be administered according to the institution of Christ; which if Mr. Cr. or any other can ever show to have been of infant Baptism, I will say as Bp. Jewel did concerning the 27. Articles propounded at Paul's Cross, I am content to yield and • o subscribe: otherwise Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptist • by accusing me as opposing the universal Church in Austin's sense (though I deny it to be true) do but con • emn themselves, who with Papists d • reject things counted by the writers of the 〈◊〉 a • es Apostolical, and of universal observation near the Apostles tim • s.

Nor is the 〈◊〉 pr • p • sition of Mr. Cr. p. 67. true, That the whole Church 〈◊〉 the • postles in all ages, collectively considered, cannot err either in do •• rine or discipl • ne. For if the wh • le Church might err so in one age, it may also in all • ges c • llectively considered, the promises being no more 〈◊〉 the Church in all ages colle •• ively considered, then in each age distri • utively considered, nor an • means given to them after the Apostles colle •• ively considered, to keep from error, then to each, distributively; yea the Churches nearer the Apostles, had more means to keep them from error then other ages, yet they erred in doctrine and discip • ine, as many writers show, about Easter, the Millenary opinion, an • many other. As for the promise Matth. 16, 18. it is not true of the whole Church visible, the gates of hell have and do prevail against them, but of the invisible, and yet the promise is not to the invisible that they shall not err, but that they shall not err finally to damnation, which if they did, then indeed the gates of hell or of death should prevail against them, that is (as Cameron rightly in his pr • lection) they should not rise to life eternal Nor is there a promise Joh 16.13. to the wh • le Church, but to the Apostles, the promise being as well to show them things to come, as to lead them into all truth: And yet the promise i • not so ma • e to the Apostles▪ but that they might err as Peter did Gal. 2. though when they taught the Church by writing or preaching, they were so guided as that they should no • err. But of this point of the militant Churches erring, I need say no more, but refer Mr. Cr. to his own Author Dr. Reynold thesi 3.

6. Were it granted that antiquity did universally p • actise infant Baptism, yet nei • her were the present doctrine or practice justified by it, but condemned; and Mr. Cr. as truly may be said to p • ea • against the universal Church as myself. For it is manifest from the places wh • re there i • mention of it in the Ancients, that they • aught it and pra •• i • ed it, only upon the opinion of the necessity of i • to save an infant from perishing, and because the very baptism did give grace, remission of original sin, made believers, heirs of the • ingdome of heaven, and accordingly they practice • it only in case of danger of death, very seldom, and this they did to unbelievers children, as well as believers, 〈◊〉 a work of charity, not of institution or right by their birth to either But these things Mr. Cr. pleads against them 〈…〉 well as myself, and both the doctrine and practice of Paedobaptists now is against the Ancients as well as mine: Yea more, in that they had a constant course of baptizing the catechized persons upon a solemn profession of faith, and did in all baptisms, except that of the Clinici, that is sick persons baptized in their beds, plunge the whole body, or dip it so as to be under water▪ which are now clean otherwise and things unknown among Paedobaptists. So that as Bp. Usher in his answer to the • esuites challenge, in the article about praying for the dead, p. 245. proves the Romanists to have rejected the ancient prayer for the dead, because they pray not for Martyrs and others in bliss for their resurrection, but for persons in Purgatory to be delivered thence; so I may truly • ay, the Paedobaptists now have rejected the ancient infant Baptism, since they deny Baptism necessary to salvation, or that it gives grace, and they do it only to believers infants, by sprinkling or perfusion, without mersion, scarce to any but infants, without any solemn course of catechizing ordinarily in order to future Baptism, and to infants ordinarily out of the case of danger of death, upon pretence of a federal holiness by birth, and ordinance of visible Church membership unrepealed, unknown to the Ancients, and therefore their doctrine and practice hath no patronage from them.

Mr. Cr. p. 98. saith, that I cunningly alter the subject of the question, when I say infant-sprinkling was not held of the whole Church; and tells me, that he and others do not say so. Which intimates that he and others desert the maintenance of sprinkling infants as ancient; which diffidence is some argument that the late Assembly have forsaken the ancient way of Baptism by dipping, having in the Directory determined sprinkling as sufficient, and in the practice of many of them taken away the old Fonts, more agree • ble to antiquity, and brought in little stone Basons near the Pulpit or Readers Pew, like Popish holy water pots▪ fit only for the novelty of sprinkling after the Scottish mod • . N • r is Mr. Crs. way of pouring water on the face, or dipping in part of the head, anymore the baptizing Christ appointed, or antiquity used, exc • pt in the case of the Clinici. 'It is true God's ordinances are not destructive to nature, who requires mercy and not sacrifice ; But this proves 〈…〉 Baptism should be omitted altogether, and not the ordinance 〈◊〉 , and people mocked as they are by the preacher, that saith falsely, he baptizeth the person, when he doth only sprinkle or pour water on the face, or dip in part of the head.

SECT. LXXXIX. The testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Greek Church concerning Infant Baptism are examined, and my exceptions made good against Mr Cragge, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Homes, Mr. Marshal.

THe alleging of pseudo. Dionisius the Areopagite, and Clements Apostolical Constitutions, is but to abuse the world with counterfeit names, discovered by many learned Pa • ists and Pro • estants to be such, and the like is to be said of Justin Martyrs forged testimony qu. 36. ad orthodoxos : which are not rejected because questioned, as Mr. Cr. seems to intimate, but because they are by many strong evidences proved not to have been the Authors, whose names they bear. As for the evidence to matter of fa • t they give, that infants were baptized in that age • n which they were written, I do readily grant i • ▪ a • d before too; yet think it no advantage • or the present pre • ended infant Baptism, which is clean otherwise, and upon other reasons: a • particularly, that the baptized infants obtained good things at the resurrection by Baptism, but the unbaptized obtain not good things. Nor is there a word in that to confirm the novel doctrine of the children's right to Baptism, as being in Covenant with the parents. For neither are the parents there said to be believer • , but the bringers ; nor by the parents faith are they said to have right to Baptism, but by the faith of the bringers to obtain good things at the resurrection : and therefore in vain doth Mr. Cr. thus endeavor to hide the deformity of that Authors doctrine, which is no better then that which commonly Protestant Divines condemn as Popish. More honestly in this then Mr. Cr. doth Bellarmine tom. 3. l. 2. de effectu Sacram▪ c. 6. say, Ju •• in. in his Apology to Antoninus, saith, We obtain remiss ••• of afore committed •• ns in water, &c. And before he had said, that no man was brought to Ba • tism, unless he before believed. Like things he hath in his dialogue with Triphon. And ch. 8. always in the Church the custom wa • , that those who would be Christians should first be made catechized persons▪ and long enough instructed, and not baptized unless instru • ted, and firm, and stable in faith, citing to thi • end Justin in his Apology to Antoninus, as showing the manners of the Church.

As for Irenaeus his testimony, lib. 2. adv. bar. c. 39. it proves not infant Baptism. For though it be true that Mr. Mede in his Diatribe on Tit. 3.5. say, None, I trow will deny that when the Apostle speaks of saving us by washing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghost, he speaks of Baptism yet it follows not that that the Apostle meant by regeneration, Baptism; nor is it likely, since the word [ regeneration ] is no • to be read [by the washing which is regeneration] as if it were by apposition, but [ of regeneration ] as the Genitive possessive, and the meaning is by the washing which signifies regeneration, which is before the washing; yet if it were so, it proves not Irenaeus meant by [ renascuntur are born again ] are baptized, since he saith not are by washing born again, as the Apostles phrase is. Nor though it be granted that in Justin Martyr and others of the ancients [ to be regenerated ] is [ to be baptized ] doth it appear that Irenaeus meant it so in that place, unless it were proved it is so only meant by him and the ancients. Nor doth Irenaeus l. 1. c. 18. term Baptism regeneration as Dr. Homes p. 118. suggests, but saith thus to the denying of Baptism of that generation which is into God. But that indeed the word [ renascuntur are born again ] is not meant of Baptism, is proved from the words and the scope of them. For 1. the words are [ per eum renascun • ur, by him, that is Christ, are born again ] and it is clear from the scope of the speech about the fullness of his age as a perfect master, that [ by him ] notes his person according to his human nature. Now if then [ by him are born again ] be as much as [by him are baptized] this should be Irenoeus his assertion, that by Christ himself in his human body infants and little ones, and boys and young men, and elder men, are baptized unto God. But this speech is most manifestly false, for neither did Christ baptize any at all in his own person, the Evangelist John 4.1, 2. expressly affirming, that though the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples then John, yet Jesus himself did not baptize, but his Disciples did baptize, nor did the Disciples baptize any infant at all as may be gathered from the whole N. T. 2. The word which Irenaeus expresseth, whereby persons were born again to God by Christ, is applied to the example of his age, as the words and sc • pe show. Omnem▪ tatem sanctificans • or illam quae ad i • fum erat similitudinem. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem & infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes, in parvulis parvulus sanctificans hanc i • sam habentes aetatem, simul & exemplum illis pictatis effectus & justiti & subjectionis. Juvenibu • juvenis exemplum ju • enibus siens & sanctificans domino. Sic & senior in senioribus, ut sit perfe • tus Magist •• in omnibu • non solum secundum expositionem veritatis, sed secundum aet • tem sanctific • ns simul & seniores, exem • lum •• sis quoque fiens. But he was not in his age an example of every age by his • aptism, as if he did by it sanctify every age, for then he should have been baptized in every age but in respect of the holiness o • his human nature which did rem • in in each age, and so exemplarily san •• ifie each age to God, so as that no age but was capable of holiness by conformity to his example. 3 Irenaeus his words are omne • enim venit per semetipsum salvare, omnes inquam qui • er eum renasc • ntu • in Deum, infantes & parvulo • , & pueras & • uvenes & seniores, 〈◊〉 if the meaning were that Christ came • o 〈◊〉 all that w • re baptized by him, or by his appointment, then he came to save Simon Magus, and whoever are or have been baptized righ • lie, even Judas Iscari • t, if he were bap • ized. But in that sense the proposi • ion of Irenaeus were most p • lp • bly false, and therefore that sense i • no • to be attri • u • ed to his words. 4. Christ is by Irenaeus said to san •• ifie as a perfect Master▪ not only according to the exposition of truth, but also as an example to them of piety, justice, and subjection ; but this is to be • understood not in respect of his Baptism only, but his whole life, in which he was an example even an infant, for then he did willingly empty himself, took upon him the form of a servant▪ was made in the likeness of men, and being in fashion a man humbled himself to death, Phillip. 2.7, 8. By all which reasons I presume the Readers, who is willing to see truth, will perceive this passage of Irenaeus to be wrested by Paedobaptists against its meaning, to prove an use of Paedobaptism in his time. Which I have the more largely insisted on, because indeed it is the only testimony of credit which Paedobaptists have any color from for infant baptism in • he 2d. ce • tury: In the 3d. century it is not denied, but that infant baptism and many more corruptions were; yet even then it was very rare, in case only of danger of death, • ut of that case dissuaded, in that case allowed upon the conceit of giving grace by it, and saving the infant from perishing. But I shall allow Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptists, to say the most they can for this corruption.

Origen is alleged next by Mr. Cr. in Rom. 6. l. 5. homil. 8th. on Levitic. and 18.th. on Luke.

Answ. 1. There is no certainty, nor probability that Matthew did write in Hebrew, sai • h the Annotator on Matth▪ in his argument of that Gospel the new Annotations called by some the Assemblies at Westminster. Pareus in his Proem to his Commentary on Matthew, with the leave of antiquity, Eras ••• and other learned interpreters doubt not a little of that opinion that he wrote in Hebrew, and the reasons of doubting seem not to be light, which may be seen there, with answer to the objections produced out of antiquity. 2. Whether there were such a translation by LXX. Jews, as Josephus relates of Aristeas, l. 12. antiq. Judaic. c. 2. I do not so much question, as the particularities of the relation, but the authority of it is much qu • stioned, of which much may be seen in Chamier. paustr. cath. tom. 1. l. 13. and it is much doubted whether that we have be it, of which I am told learned Usher hath written, which I have not seen. But sure our Savior who spake in Hebrew or Syriac followed it not, nor do I think it safe or right to say that the Evang • lists or other holy writers followed it more exactly then the Hebrew Original. But sure the translation of Ruffinus of Origen's Homiles is nothing like to either of these, in which he confesseth he did not exactly follow the Original▪ and it is likely for this reason Voss. thes. Theol. de Paedobap. part 2. thesi. 8. said, But we shall the less care for Origen, because the things we cited are not extant in Greek. But Mr. Cr. adds.

Answ. This exception is good notwithstanding this answer. For 1. Perkins doth not only censure Ruffinus his translation, as in something contracting, adding, or altering ; but also puts Origen's commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans not faithfully translated by Ruffinus, among his count • feit works. And Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus, saith, That a man cannot be certain whether he reads Ruffinus, or Origen. And because Dr. Homes saith I make no exception against the translation of the Homilie on Luke, he may take notice that Erasmus in his Annota • ions on Luke • .1. speaks much against the Paraphrase of Origen on Luke and in • is Annot. on Luke 1.3. Sic enim visus est sentir • quisqui • i • suit cujus extant i • Lucam commentarii Adamantii titulo, which sh • ws that Erasmus took not those Commentaries for Origen's, or at least d • ubted thereof. And I shall add the words of Scul • etus, in his medulla Patrum, l. 6. c 2. Jam Ruffinu • plurium librorum Origenis interpre • a • t • m •• surpavit lic • ntiam: ut ademerit, adjecerit, mut • rit, quae sibi viderentur adim • nda, adjicienda, mutanda: ut s • p • incertus sit lector, utrum Origenem legat an Ruffinum: cum Graeca Origenis opera non extent ho •• e, • quibus Latina versio • orrigi possit & emend • ri. And I find cited Erasmus his preface on Hillary, a • charging Ruffinus with this practice of adding and ch • nging be • nd an interpreter in all his translations, as of Eusebius hi • History▪ but chiefly of Origen's writings. Grot. annot. in Matth. 25.46. • uid O • igenes senserit ex ipsius scriptis difficile est dictu, adeo omnia a Ruffi • o sun • interpolata. Hieronymus Apol. adv. Ruff. l. 2. speaks thus to Ruffi ••• concerning some of his translations of Origen, Novit conscientia • ua 〈◊〉 addiderris, quae subtra • eris, qu • in utranque partem, ut • ibi v • sum suerit immut • ris. Whereas therefore Mr. Ms. fr • en • , Defense part 1 p 15. tells me. You call the Author of them supposed O • igen: It had been your part before you had so branded them, fi • st to ha •• made it manifest by some undeniable ev • dence or other that they were not O •• gens: I tell him, that being but a respondent, it was enough that I sh • wed suc • evidences a • • did to prove the passages doubtful, an uncertain witness being no g • od proof. And to Dr Homes his saying in his Animadv • on my Exerci • p 129. Truly a man can hardly with patience enoug • look upon Mr. 〈◊〉 • is dealing in this: When we urge Origen, he is not Origen wi • h him; but if he do it, then Origen must be received ▪ I answer, if the Dr. had had 〈…〉 e • ough to have considered my words, he might have observed, that I only named Origen H • m on Rom. 6. but did neither assig • the 〈…〉 for the time in which thos • words were written, no • did 〈…〉 that they were to be received 〈◊〉 his, but added two reasons to 〈◊〉 this imagination, • s i • by alleging thos • words under the 〈…〉 homil. on Rom. 6. (by which only it is known) I did 〈…〉 his, whereof the one was th • cen • ur • of Erasmus, the 〈…〉 Austin, nor Jerome men • i •• Origen as • vouching 〈…〉 which is enough to sh • w it to be likely, that the passag •• 〈…〉 by Ruffinus, though Jerome and others mention not these in particular, since neither doth he mention all the particulars of his dealings in this kind, but chargeth them upon his conscience. Nor is it true, that what is added is ingeniously confessed by Ruffinus the translator himself : For though the words cited by Mr. Ms. friend, Defense, p. 16. show that Ruffinus acknowledged of what sort his addi • ions were to his translation of his Homilies on Leviticus, yet they show not what in particular they were; nor is anything produced to show the words cited for infant Baptism were not one. Nor is there any good answer made to my allegation to prove that passage likely to be one, 1. from the bringing of them in (as it seemed to me when I read them) in a patched manner, not as if they were woven at first with the whole cloth, that is the rest of the writing before and after, but as sewed to it by a botcher, without any handsome coherence; which neither Mr. Ms. friend, p. 16. nor Dr. Homes p. 130. deny, and therefore I count worth the observing by the judicious Reader, when he shall examine the places, as being of some moment to discern whether they were Origen's words at first, or Ruffinus his assument. 2. Because they are the very words which are frequently used by the refuters of Pelagians in the 5th. century, who denied Original sin, whereas Origen is taxed as the very Father of Pelagianism, by Hieron. praesat. ad lib. 4. in Hierem. and elsewhere, as teaching 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 perfection or freedom from sin, contrary to the express words of those cited passages; and when August. tom. 7. l 1. adv. Julian. c. 1, 2. alledgeth ancients avouching Original sin, he never mentions Origen ; and therefore these passages, being so express against Pelagians, and in the very words used by the refuters of them in Augustine's time, are to be judged to be added either by Ruffinus, whose words to the same purpose on the 50th. Psalm are cited by Chamier, pa • str. cath. tom. 3. l. 1. c. 6. §. 9. and of whom the same Author, tom. 4. l. 7. c. 9. §. 30. saith, Sciunt omnes docti exiguam fuisse Ruffini in vertendis authoribus religionem, or by some other. Nor are these passages in Origen only hints against some piece of Pelagianism, which might be conceived by some few in his time, as Dr. Homes minceth the matter, p. • 30. but express arguing against the main point of Pelagianism, denying original corruption, and that in the chief arguments used by Augustine and others. Nor did Origen Pelagianize a little only, but is supposed to have first brought in Pelagianism into the Church, Hieron. adv. Ruffin. saith Dr. Owen▪ display of Arminianism, ch. 12. And though it's not • enied that Origen did deliver contraries, yet I think it's hard to find him so often, and so directly arguing against his own tenet. Nor do I conceive, however Dr. Homes, Mr. Blake, Mr. M. and others imagine contradictions in my words which are not so, that ever Dr. Homes hath found in my writings such clashings against myself. Nor do I make such an argument as M. Ms friend Defense, • .17. answers, • hat the passages make against the Pelagians, and therefore necessarily they were written after the Pelagian heresy was broached (which is a mere shifting fashion in that Author whoever he were, used before in answering my argument from Irenaeus words and scope, which he answers as if I made it from the scope and not the words) but thus, these passages are plainly and directly against the Pelagians chief point of impeccability, which Origen is charged to be the Author of; therefore according to Rivets rule tractat. de patrum autoritate c. 14. it's not likely they were Origen's, to which he answers not. I will add only the words of Vossius Hist. Pelag. l. 2. part. 1. th. 6. p. 153. Idem Origines T. 2. p. 471. nisi is potius Rufinus interpres (quis enim, quae vel Origenis, vel paraphrastae adeo liberi suerint, hodii discern • t) in cap. IX. ( rectiùs VI.) ad Rom. ubi ait, ab sorde p • ccati m • ndus non est quisquam, etiamsi unius diei fuêrit vita ejus super terram. Sed fuse clareque imprimis • oc de peccato scribit lib. VIII. & XII. in Levite. nisi isti in Leviticum commentarii Cyrilli potiùs sint, quando etiam in hujus operibus inveniun • u • , ac, ut in Origenianis libri sexdecim, ita inter Cyrilliana sexdecim homiliae appellantur, which shows, that that learned writer for Paedobaptism, did distrust those very passages cited for infant Baptism to have been none of Origen's.

Mr. C. a • ds.

Answ. It was granted in my Examen that the greatest points of faith though written, were by the Ancients called Apostolical traditions, but in this point that the words ascribed to Origen meant an unwritten tradition, I alleged 1. that the phraie • pro hoc & ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit, and secundum Ecclesiae observantiam, are sufficient proof to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times. To this is nothing replied by Mr. Ms. friend ▪ Dr. Homes, or M. Cr. to show that these phrases are applied to any other then unwritten traditions, when they are used of ri • es, for the use or institution of which they allege no text of Scripture. 2. That there is no text of Scripture cited for the use or insti ••• ion of infant Baptism. To this it is replied, that Origen lays the ground on the Scriptures. But those Scriptures are brought for the proof of origi • all sin, and the necessit • of infant Baptism, which were reasons of the Churches observance, not proofs of the use and institution of it. And that the Scriptures do not give any proof of the use or • nstitution of infant Baptism, but only grounds of the reasonableness, and why the Church took it up, is shown to have been the judgment of many learned Papist • and Protestants of later and elder time, in my Precursor sect 20 which may be easily observed, because they allege nothing out of Scripture about • nsti • u • ion or practice of it, but of nece ••• ty to save th • infant; which being a mistake, it appears • he tradition wa • not from the Apostles. Besides, as Augustine alleged Joh. 3.5. for inf • nt Baptism, so he also alleged Joh 6▪ 53 for infant Communio • which he and the Ancients observed a • an Apostolic tradition, 〈◊〉 many Churches observe even to this day; yet we conclude it is but an unwritten tradition, and so judged by the Ancients: All the places of the Fathers which cite Scripture for infant Baptism, infant Communion, Easter, Lent •• ast, and many other things which the Ancients observed, showing rather the reason of their observation, then the institution, as Mr. Cawdrey speaks in another case, Sabb. rediv. part. 4. chap. 1. §. 24.

To the 20th. section of my Precursor, Mr. Baxter in his Praefestinantis morator saith, The Ancients took infant Baptism, as you say, for an Apostolical tradition, but not unwritten. The warrant they supposed written: but not the history de facto.

Answ. The ancients must needs take infant Baptism for an unwritten tradition when they supposed the History neither de facto no • of the institution to be written, though they • ook the custom of the Church (as Austin tom. 3. l. 10. de Genes. ad litteram c 23 terms i • , having su • h reason from the necessity of it to save them perishing upon the mistake of Joh. 3.5. for their warrant. But how poor a mat •• r was taken by the Church for a reason to co • tinue a custom, may • ppear even by those words of Austin in that place, which show also it was taken only for a custom of the Church taken up by them, and not app • inted by th • Apostles. For having spoken as doubtful and uncertain what to say about the question before agitated by him, concerning the creation of the souls of the children from the parents bec • us • of th • objection fro • 〈◊〉 Baptism of little ones, he • hen adds; Yet the custom of ou • mother the Church in Baptising little one • , is not to be d • sp • sed nor by any mean • to be accounted superfluous, nor a • all to be believed unless it were an Apostolical tradition For that little age hath great weight of testimony, which first me • ited to shed blood for Christ. Whereby it may appear, 1. That Austin • ook i • for a custom of the Church, without example or institution written. 2. That he took such a frivolou • p ••• ence as the death of the children of Bethlehem slain b • Herod, Matth. 2. to have great weight of testimony for the believing of infant bap • ism to have been an Apostolical tradition. It would be counted arrogance in me to censure the Fathers, yet when I find such silly reasons as Austin here and elsewhere, and Cyprian Epist. 59 ad Fid • m, g • ve a • warrant for infant Bap • ism, so slightly passed over by Mr. B. and ot • ers, a • d thei • testimonies still urged for the credit of infant Bap • ism▪ which do wi • h any that is willing to see the we • kness of them discredit it, I cannot but for the truths sake say, that as in many other things so in this of infa • t Baptism the Fathers speeches are so vain, as th • t there is more need to bewail the error they have led pe • ple into, then to the continuance of th • deceiving of people by them, to allege them for proofs, or to magnify, justify or excuse them.

Mr. B. adds.

Answ. I could not well have spared any part of that page. Not only later Papists engaged in the modern controversies, but also elder and disengaged Papists and others, were alleged by me, of whom it is not meet to suspect that they did acknowledge that infant Baptism is an unwritten tradition, out of a de • re to set tradition above Scrip • u • e, but out of clear evidence of the t • u • h of what they say. Nor do I think Mr. B. can show one Author until Luther's day, who made infant Baptism any other then an unwritten tradition, although they produce many of them Scriptures for the necessity, reasonableness, and lawfulness of the Church to use it, to whose authority they ascribed too much in the appointing such rites, and interpreting • criptures to that end. I do not find that the engaged Papists cited by me, did set tradition above Scripture, b • t that they make it equal I grant. I know Bellarmine tom. 3. l. 1. de sacram. bapt. c. 8. brings three arguments from Scrip • ure for infant Baptism, and c. 9. saith, deducitur evidenter ex Scriptures, u • di • imus, but how he means it he 〈◊〉 us thus in the same chapter; that though the argument of the Anabaptists from defect of Command or example have g • eat force against Lutherans, for as much as they use that principle everywhere, that the • ite which is not in Scripture having no command nor example there, is to be rejected, yet it is of no force against Catholics. For alt • ough we find no command expressly, that we should baptize infants, yet that also is openly enough gathered out of Scriptures, as we have shown above: and besides the tradition of the Apostles is of no less authority with us, then Scripture, for the Apostles spake with the same spirit with which they did write. But that this is an Apostolic tradition, we thence know whence we know the Apostolic Scripture to be the Apostolic Scripture; to wit, from the testimonies of the ancient Church. The words of Becanus were cited rightly by me out of his manual of Controversies l. 1. c. 2. §. 24. (not §. 12. as Mr. B. corrects me without cause) and they plainly show the meaning of those men to be, that the Scripture only proves infant Baptism by that sense of it, which is not manifest but by the tradition, and practice of the Church I have perused Chamier paustr. Cath. (not tom. 7. as Mr. B. directs, I know none such) but tom. 1. l. 9. c. 10. §. 40, &c. and tom. 4. l 5. c. 9. §. 32. But I am not thereby satisfied, that either the Ancients took infant Baptism for any other then an unwritten tradition or that it ought to be taken.

Mr. B. proceds.

Answ. I have made known in my Apology sect. 13. how Mr. Rogers shifts but answers not the allegation I made of his words. And if M. Bedford have corrected his words, I wish it have not been f • r the cause sake, against his conscience. If he and Mr. Rogers can so easily say and unsay, who can give credit to men that can thus blow hot and cold wi • h the same breath? I know no wrong to myself done, by alleging Dr. Field. Though things be written in Scripture which are not so expressly, yet is not that Scripture proof, nor plain proof for infant Baptism, anymore then infant Communion, which shows plainly from Scripture, Paul's conclusion of original sin, Rom 5.12. and Christ's Joh. 3.5. which Ancients took falsely for grou • ds, reasons and causes of the necessity o • infant Baptism, as they did Joh. 6.53. of infant Communion, yet took the use to be a custom • f the Church, countenanced from Scripture without institution of Christ, or practice of the Apostles And that this was Dr. Fields meaning, is plain from his words; and this seems to have been the common opinion of the Prelates of the Church of England, by th • words by way of Preface used at the solemnity of Ba • tism, and in sundry places of the Common Prayer book, Catechism, art. 27. of the Church of England. And after this manner thought Dr. Prideaux infant Baptism and Episcopacy proveable by Scripture. I have not read all Dr. Tailors works, nor do I know but that he is to be reckoned among Protestants. Dr. Youngs words are much for me, 1. In that he produceth no precept but that of Circumcision for infant Baptism. 2. Th • t he confesseth the practice Apostolical to be somewhat obscurer, and therefore adds the cust me of the Church from the times of the first ages, which is in effect all one as to resolve the proof of infant Baptism finally into the custom of the whole Church, especially when he saith; we cannot smite the Anabaptists with plain testimonies. Nor can Mr. Bs. distinction of more or less open testimonies help him, since Dr. Young denies, that Paedobaptists can smite with open or plain • estimonies, the Anabaptists barking against infant Baptism. If Mr. Bs. audaciousness in asserting plain Scripture proof for infant Baptism be not yet repressed, nor men of reason and conscience satisfied, I must leave them to the Lord. Enough I think is said about Origen's words. I go on.

Dr. Hammond in his Defense of infants Baptism, pag. 98. saith thus;

Answ. 1. It is to be noted by the Reader, that Dr. Hammond doth not so much as pretend the antiqui • y of that Author to be afore the 3d. century, and consequently not that Dionysius the Ar • opagite mentioned Act 17 34. as some Papists would have it, but are by learned men both Papists and Protestants refuted, whereof may be seen Magdeb. centur. 1. l. 2. c. 10. Scultet. med. Patrum, l. 11. c▪ 9. Perkins prepar. to the demonstr of the problem. 2. Though Dr. Hammond conceive, that that Author is to be placed in the 3 d age by reason of some words of Photios, (which for want of books I cannot examine) yet Salmasius ad Col • ium saith p▪ 1 • 9.