Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3

10, 14. show the term little ones to be meant of those Christians who were apt to be despised, and liable to going astray.

But if infants were meant Matth. 18.6. yet it is false which the Dr. saith,

for it follows in the Drs. own words ; So that the Dr. yielding that Mark 16.16. is meant of grown persons peculiarly, he could not safely avouch (unless an untruth might be safely avouched) that infants may be comprehended under the style 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , they that believe and are baptized, which is only Mark 16.16. and then it follows hence that none are to be counted disciples but believers, nor any to be baptized but such. The benefit of Bap • ism to infants I think is none, sure not salvation without faith in act or seed, or something equivalent.

It follows in the Dr.

Answ. I did ever conceive and so do others, and me thinks the Dr. should conceive so too, that the commission Mark 16.15, 16. is the same▪ though with some variation of words, but not of matter, with that Matth. 28.19. and if so, the Dr. hath granted and proved enough here to show that believers Mark 16.16. are only adulti capable of understanding, and so none other disciples to be baptized Matth. 28.19. which is that I was to prove; and need therefore add no more to refute his stale crambe of his Jewish p • ttern, but shall consider what he saith for his position of making disciples without precedent instruction.

Dr. Hammond Defense of infants baptism ch. • ▪ sect. 2. p. 41. writes thus;

Answ. That the Dr. saith not true in this, is manifest from his words, which were, not 〈◊〉 here, that all particular Christian instruction besides the proposing Christ as a master, and calling all to come to him as disciples is subsequent, but this letter of resol. q. 4. §. 25. having said that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not duly expressed by our English, teach, but make disciples, or receive into discipleship all nations, baptizing them in the name, &c. making this form of Baptism their ceremony of receiving them ; He adds, where the baptizing being immediately annexed to the making or receiving disciples, and the receiving d • sciples not supposing any precedent instruction, but looking wholly on it as subsequent, all that are thus brought and received ad discipulatum, to be for the future instructed and instituted in the Christian faith, may surely be received by baptism, the ceremo • y which is there prescribed by Christ, with which to receive disci • les. From which words it is evident he made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without teaching to import the receiving of disciples, even infants brought by others, and not only all particular Christian instruction subse • uent to baptism, but even instruction and institution in the Christian faith, and the receiving disciples supposing not any precedent instruction, but looking wholly on it as subsequent; which if he now retract and acknowledge that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : imports more then bare admission of disciples, and includes preaching of the Gospel that Jesus is the Christ, i. e. proposing him as a master, and calling all to come to him as disciples, and this precedent to baptism, then is some instruction in the faith necessarily precedent, and teaching by thus preaching the Gospel included in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , make disciples, and none appointed to be baptized but they that are thus made disciples, and so no infants, and thus it will avail me something which I noted.

As for what he saith, that in reason we must understand Mark 16.15. the whole Gospel, and that then is that directly all one with teaching them to observe whatsoever he hath commanded. Neither is it true, that in reason we must understand the whole Gospel, but so much at least as th • Apostles were wont to preach to persons afore they baptized them (for they best understood Christ's Commission Mark 16.15.) which may be seen in these and such like places, Acts 2.36, &c. & 8.12, 35, 37. & 10.36, &c. & 16.31, 32. & 17.18, &c & 18.5. 1 Cor. 15.3, 4, &c.

Nor if it were true doth it follow, that then that is directly all one with teaching them to observe whatsoever he hath commanded. For 1. I nowhere find agenda things to be observed by us, termed the Gospel, but credenda things to be believed Rom. 1.16, 17. & 2.16. 1 Cor. 15.3, 4. Gal, 3.8. 2 Tim. 2.8 and accordingly nowhere is the Go • pel propounded in the imperative, as a thing to be done by us, but in the indicative mood, as a thing to be believed; and accordingly we are commanded Mark 1.15. to believe the Gospel, and thus it is meant Mark 16.15. For after it is appointed to the Apostles to preach the Gospel, it is presently add • v. 16. He that believeth, to wit the Gospel preached, and is baptized, shall be saved. 2. If it were so that the • ospel did contain agenda, commands to be observed by us, yet to preach the Gospel could not be directly all one with teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded, for Baptism is a command of Christ, yet is not any part of the subsequent instruction after baptism, which is meant by Christ in those words, and yet if any, is to be accounted part of the Gospel. So that it is evident, that the distinction I made between teaching the Gospel and other commands was right, and that the Dr. by making all the • eaching Matth. 28, 19▪ subsequent to Baptism, hath perverted the order of Christ, and abused the text for the countenance of his error of infant Baptism's consistency with Christ's appointment, Matth. 28.19. Mark 16.15, 16.

The Dr. adds, p. 41. And to this sense I there made it manifest, that the definition of Baptism, 1 Pet. 3.21. did refer that Baptism is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seeking to God, as to the Oracle to inquire for the whole future life no way pre requiring actual instruction, but coming to Christ and the Church, to receive it and obey it for the future (and that done in some sort by those that • re brought when they are not able to come, and by the charity of the • hurch received there.)

Answ. There is neither a definite • on of Baptism 1 Pet. 3.21. nor anything like it, nor doth the drift of the speech lead to such a concei • . That it is not a definition of Baptism may appear by the properties of a definiti • n, for a definition sets down what a thing is, and is reciprocal with the thing defined, but the genus of Baptism cannot be answer, or interrogation, or stipulation Baptism actively taken being an act of hands, passively of the whole body, answer, interrogation or stipulation, if by words of the tongue, if of the conscience of the mind, nor any difference f • om prayer, or vow, or such like act. Nor is there any thi • g like it, there being no expression of the nature o • baptism in the Church, but the use before God, nor is the intent to show what Baptism is in itself, but when it sa • es, and the speech is a comparative expression, like that in the same Chapter v. 3, 4. Matth. 12.7. and other the like; in which the meaning is, that baptism saves not when there is only a putting away of the filthiness of the flesh, but wh • n there is with it also the answer, interrogation, or stipulation of a good conscience towards God, so that the predication is not formal but connex • ve, not showing what i • is, but what it is accompanied with when it saves. Nor is the Drs. sense true. For such seeking to God as he speaks of by baptism, when a child is brought by others to learn, and by the Churches charity received, doth not save as the answer of a good conscience towards God is said to do, nor is the answer, interrogation, or stipulation of a good conscience towards God without actual instruction, there is no man that makes an answer, or promises or makes an interrogation without some pre • edent instruction▪ whose act soever it be there must be some knowledge of God and Christ, afore there is seeking or enquiry and address to him; nor is there any intimation of any ones bringing and the Church receiving, nor any propounding any q • estion to l • arn, but if the allusion be to the use of the old questions and answers, abrenuncias? abrenuncio. Credis? credo▪ Spondes? spondeo ; as Beza annot. in locum and others conceive: Or the term note an answer or stipulation as Beza, or interrogation as the Vulgar • ati • , or confession as the Syriac, or examination and proving (which as Heinsius Exercit. in locum conceives, is intimated as pre-requisite to baptism as well as the Lord's Supper) it is evidently another thing, then Dr. Hammonds tendering a child, or a man's own offer of himself to be entered into a school that he might learn. It is in my apprehension an act of plerophory of faith, through the resurrection of Christ from the dead, the same or near that demand of the Apostle. Rom. 8.33, 34. Not such a low act which comes so many degrees • h • r • of saving • aith, as the Drs. enquiry or address as to an Oracle for future instruction▪ by a man's own presenting himself or his child to the Church for Baptism is, which is so childish a conceit, as I should think should har • lie have come into the head of such a man, did it not h • ppen to him, as to men that talk with chil • ren, to talk as a child. But he adds more of the 〈…〉 when he saith.

And this farther illustrated as by the manner of children brought by parents to school, without either knowledge of letters, o • choice, or so much as w • sh • f instruction, so by the manner of Christ's disciples being received of him, particularly of Philip Joh. 1.44. who was called and received into discipleship as soon as ever Christ met with him, i. e. before he was at all instructed by him; and so also by the story of the Jews, Exod. 19.8. who undertook to obey all the commandments of God, which he should give, which yet were not then, but after given them, v. 20. which are clear evidenc • s, that those may be received into discipleship, which have not yet had precedent instruction. Against this all that he hath to pretend is set down by him in these words. Let putting to school be as early as the Dr. will imagine, yet none is put to school till he doth know his teacher, and so none is Christ's disciple in Scripture language till he know Jesus to be Ch • ist, and take him for his Lord, which infants being not capable of, they are not disciples, not to be baptized according to Christ's appointment. To this I answer, 1. That the example which I had used of children being brought to school by the care of their parents, was designed to show no more then this, that they may be delivered up to be scholars, who as yet know nothing of what they are to learn, nor have actual willingness to acquire knowledge, and consequently that entrance into discipleship refers only to subsequent, supposes not any precedent instruction. And this is competently evidenced by that example, though it were supposed of the child that goes to school, that he knows his teacher, this bare knowledge of the person of his teacher, being none of the documents which he comes to learn, but the good letters that are professed and taught in the school, nor indeed is it imaginable why a blind child which is brought to school, or put to an instructer, and so cannot be deemed to know the master before assuetude hath acquainted him with him, should not yet be said, with as full propriety of speech, to come to school, as he that useth his own eyes as well as feet to direct him thither.

Answ. No child is ever entered a scholar without some such document as this, you must hearken to your master, which is some precedent instruction, and though he be a blind or a lame child, or both, he that puts him to school gives him some item who is his master, and to what end he is brought to him (whereof none is done to an infant) and though these be not the documents which he comes to school to learn, yet they are documents which he is taught afore he comes to school.

The Dr. adds.

Answ. It doth indeed evidence the vanity of this Drs. answer, who being to show how the words of Christ Matth. 28.19. do not exclude infants from baptism, since they are first to be made disciples, afore they are to be baptized whom he appoints to be baptized, having first turned the pr • cept of making disci • les, in • o receiving of persons to be discipled, and making them disciples by preaching the Gospel to them, into preaching it to others who may bring them to school, and being urged with this that none are brought to school till he know his teacher, hath no better shift then here he useth to avoid it. For he it that some are brought to school that have not a superficial knowledge of their master, as having never seen him, yet they are not brough • till they be told they are to go to a mast • r, nor entered into the school (which was the Drs. notion of making Disciples, Matth. 28.19.) till he have some knowledge who is to be his teacher. As for his other shift by changing the similitude, it is worse, for thereby he quits the cause, the precept being not Matth. 28.19. set to nurse, but make disciples, and therefore though it be true, that a father, guardian or nurse, are to receive a child that knows none of them, and are to feed, nou • ish and instruct it as it is c • pable, and it is a good office to bring an infant to such persons to such ends, yet is it neither agreeable to use nor reason, but rather the part of a frantique man out of his wi • s, to bring an infant to be admitted into a school to be taught or matriculated in the University, nor doth Christ appoint such to be admitted as disciples to him; nor is it true which this Dr. saith, that Christ doth in a spiritual sense feed, nourish and instruct whosoever is entrusted (by being brought) to him in baptism ; nor do I think but that the infant knows more the nur • e, and the bringing of it to that end, then the infant doth at the font conceive what is done to it there. So that hitherto the Dr. hath not avoided this objection, that though i • were granted him (which yet is not true) that making disciples, Matth. 28. • 0. is no more then receive to discipleship or to school, yet infants are excluded, who are by none received to d • scipleship, or entered into schools. But the Dr. hath one more li • t at this block which thus lies in his way.

Answ. This is very Doctor-like arguing, to put a question and then make the answer absurd if it be affirmative, but show no absurdity in it, if it be made negatively, as indeed it is. Which I should • not have mentioned, but that he twits me (though unjustly) in the beginning of the next Section, with setting down a first reason without a second. I answer then to his question negatively, and yet such imperfect superficial knowledge of a teacher, is worth considering in this matter, to show that no infant who hath not so much knowledge of Christ as such a school boy of his master, is to be termed Chr • sts disciple or admitted to discipleship. And yet if I had answered affirmatively, I think none of my hypotheses had been destroyed; For such imperfect knowledge of the ma •• er might be with faith in him, as able to teach him and willing to do him good, and so a Christian who hath b • t such imperfect knowledge of Christ as a school • boy of his master the first hour he comes to school, may be a believer, and know him to be the Messiah afore he be baptized, and not, as his Kinsmen, Country men, or Pharisees, an unbeliever.

Yet the Dr. tells us, As for that which he here interposes [the knowing Jesus to be Christ, and taking him for his Lord] this bears no • roportion with the child's bare knowing of his master, but is far above it, equal to his making it his own choice to have this master, rather then any other, and promising exact obedience to him, which is much more then is to he found in most young scholars▪ or indeed in any that are brought by their parents or guardians, who alone are the persons who bear proportion with the infants brought by others to baptism.

Answ. • his might have been omitted, but that the Dr. was willing to write something though it be i • pertinent, since it opposeth not me; who said not that the knowing Jesus to be Christ and taking him for his Lord, bears any even proportion with the child's bare knowing his master, but only said as none is put to school till he doth know his teacher, so none in Scripture language is Christ's disciple till he know Christ, not just so imperfectly as a school-boy. And yet I think there are some young scholars brought by parents or guardians, who make choice themselves of their master, and promise exact obedience to him.

The Dr. concludes this Section thus.

Answ. When the Dr. hath proved out of Scripture, that there is any such sort of Disciples of Christ as he here describes, who come not but are brought to school by others, I shall acknowledge he hath sa • ved my reasoning; till then I take this for vain babbling, and conceive it little better then to speak of a disciple who hath no will of his own, nor knowledge to move it then to speak of a man that is irrational, and to say they may very reasonably be acted by the will of others, who are not so by their own, is in my apprehension all one as to say, they may very reasonably be acted, who are acted as bruits. The instance of Philip, Joh. 1.44. servs not the Drs. turn, for though he were called and received into discipleship as soon as ever Christ met with him, yet not afore Christ spake to him, and • id him follow him, which implies some instruction by him, and therefore it is false that the Dr. saith, he was received into discipleship before he was at all instructed by Christ, nor doth that of the Jews Exod. 19.8. who did then answer as disciples, but as servants, or persons that covenanted.

But the Dr. hath yet one more string to his bow, though the rest be cracked. Lastly, saith he, I concluded that the making or receiving disciples, supposeth not any precedent instruction by the nature of Proselytism, which as it is all one with entering into God's Covenant, and (in the Christian sense) with coming to Christ and being received into discipleship, so 'tis that which children are known to be capable of, not only by that text Deut. 29. • 0. but by the custom of baptizing infant Proselytes among the Jews, and by Christ's command to suffer them to come unto him, whensoever they were thus brought.

Hereto I said, that it is not true, that a Disciple and a Proselyte are perfectly all one. For a Proselyte notes one that is by birth an alien from the Commonwealth of Israel, and comes to Israel to own their God, and be part of their policy, not to be taught, but to enjoy privileges with other Jews, whether civil or ecclesiastical. But a disciple of Christ is one that owns Christ for his teacher and Lord, only for spiritual benefits.

But certainly, saith the Dr. this is no reason of difference, for besides that I in that §. 27. acknowledged this accidental difference, that a Proselyte denotes a coming from some other nation (as a disciple doth not) adding, that this diffe • ence had no place in this matter, where the disciples are specified to be received from all nations; besides this, I say, it cannot be unknown to Mr. T. that I speak of Proselytes in such a notion as is equally competible to all of what nation soever they are, that enter into Covenant with God.

Answ. Who but he that writes at random, would assert that a Disciple and Proselyte are perfectly all one, and yet acknowledge this accidental difference, that this is no reason of difference, and yet say, that a Proselyte denotes a coming from some other nation (as a disciple doth not) that this is but an accidental difference, and yet in his own description make this very difference, and when he expresseth the Hebrew word for Proselyte, still terms him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a stranger, that this difference had no place in this matter, when his inference is from Proselytes who were strangers to the Jews, to prove Disciples and Proselytes the same, and to tell me I must know his use of a word, which he neither shows that he or any else have so used. But the Dr. adds.

Answ. If the notion of a Proselyte were according to Heb. 11.6. I should agree that a disciple of Christ and a Proselyte were the same; For such a Proselyte is one that is a believer, as the words show; But without faith it is impossible to please God; For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. All such Proselytes of Christ I doubt not are admitted into Covenant, to be b • ptized, to partake of privileges in the Christian Church whether they be Jews or Gentiles, according to that 1 Cor. 12.13. and when infants are proved to be such, there will be no question about their Baptism, though not by reason of the Jewish custom, yet by virtue of Christ's institution to baptize disciples and believers on him. But that infants of Christians are thus received into Covenant by Christ after the same manner as Jewish and Gentile infants were among the ancient people of God, i. e. by Baptism, or that afore they believe they should be called Proselytes of Christ, or, that everyone whether Jew or Gentile that cometh to Christ, is as a Gentile when he undertook the whole Law of the Jews, and was therefore a proselyte of their Covenant and a proselyte of their righteousness, or that a Christian believer is either termed in Scripture a Proselyte, or any Jew is to be so termed properly is not to be imagined, all these things being the mere dreams of the Dr. suitable to his fancy of infant Baptism instituted among Christians a • ter the Jewish pattern.

The Dr. proceeds thus;

Answ. The infant had no end but such as the parent, who was indeed the Proselyte, had, and the parents end was not to be taught, for he was taught the Jewish religion before, and at his Baptism, the precepts of Moses being recited to him while he stood in the water, by the Elders at whose command he was baptized, and admitted into the Jewish policy, afore which admission he was to undertake the observance of them, the proper and immediate end of his proselytism, was his enjoying those privileges which native Jews had as one of that body, which shows that the admission of a Proselyte was not into a school to learn, and therefore the notion of Proselytism not like the notion of receiving to discipleship, which the Dr. fancies to be meant Matth. 28.19. and to be the same with admission to Proselytism; to show the mistake of which was the motive why I set this difference between a Proselyte and a Disciple of Christ, as the Dr. might easily have di • ined, if he had been minded to do so.

The Dr. saith of me,

Answ. I know no reason why he should not, nor do I know any reason why he should be baptized, nor how by it an infant may be hastened to the participation of spiritual or other benefits, but know reason why an infant should not be baptized, because Baptism is thereby profaned, and the infant afterwards usually hardened through pernicione presumption, as if he were thereby made a Christian. The Dr. saith also.

Answ. That by Baptism infants are brought in as Disciples or Proselytes to Christ, or attain any advantages spiritual or secular I know not, sure I am none are lawfully respected in the use of infant Baptism, being wholly besides Christ's mind, and if the end of Proselytism was (as manifestly it was) for far different purposes from that of a Disciple of Christ, the Proselyte and Disciple of Christ are not perfectly one, which I was to demonstrate.

Yet again, saith the Dr.

Answ. How sage the Drs. observations of making Disciples as all one with receiving to discipleship, of baptizing after the Jewish pattern, &c. are is seen before. This observation is not denied by the Dr. nor anything said by him to evacuate the use I intended to make of it, to show that to be a disciple, doth not no • e the coming to God to enjoy benefits, as the Dr. made the notion of a Proselyte to import, for then persons should be termed disciples of the Priests, which is not so, but to learn, and so the disciples of Pharisees were those who learned their opinions. That which the Dr. saith is not true, that by Baptism persons were admitted to discipleship, nor that disciples of the Pharisees and Sadducees were but a subdivision under Disciples of God or Christ, for their disciples were no disciples of God or Christ, nor pertinent to the avoiding the use of my observation. 'It is true there are different denominations of Christians (the more the pity) which divide unity, and of them I know none so great as that of the Prelatists, who will neither hear the Preacher who preacheth the faith of Christ, nor join in prayer unless the Common Prayer Book be used, nor own them as Presbyters who were not ordained by a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter, nor join with that society as a Church lawfully constituted where there is not Episcopal government, which I take to be a manifestly unjust schism and recusancy. I know none that use new Baptism, but Paedobaptists, who therein contradict Christ's institution and the Apostles practice. Pistobaptists or baptizers of Believers of age, upon their profession of faith, use the old Baptism which Christ appointed and the Apostles practiced, not to discriminate them from others, but to do their duty, and to supply a defect in infant sprinkling.

The Dr. saith, His second observation is, that the Holy Ghost doth not at any time call Christians Christ's Proselytes, but his Disciples, that, saith he, we might not confound the notions of these terms. But I answer, 1. That those Texts that express the Christians entering into discipleship, by coming unto him (of which there are good store) do in effect call them Proselytes, for a Proselyte is a Greek noun, derived immediately from the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to come unto.

Answ. 1. I think this not true, since the texts which express the coming to Christ, do mean by it believing in him, as Joh. 6.35. shows, but that is not in effect to call them Proselytes in the Drs. sense, nor is the notion of a commer unto and a disciple all one, since a person may come to a person, yea to learn, and never yet be his disciple.

And secondly, saith the Dr. that if this word whether in itself, or in the Verb from whence it • omes, had never been used in the N. T. yet would it not thence follow, that we might not confound the notions of Proselytes and Disciples.

Ans. Nor do I make it any demonstrative argument but probable, as it is probable, that the Holy Ghost calls not the Christian society the Synagogue, nor the preachers of the Gospel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Priests, that we may not confound them. I have often given a firm reason, why infants capable of coming to Christ, blessed by him, and affirmed to be qualified for the Kingdom of heaven, should be denied water to be baptized, even this, that neither Christ appointed it, nor the Apostles baptized them, though he did the other to them. The Christian Church or Minister might not deny baptism to infants, if they were qualified as Cornelius and the Gentiles that came with him were Acts 10.46, 47. & 11.18. What I said of infants being unqualified for Baptism, till by hearing they own Christ as their Master, is fully proved in the • d. part of this Review, sect. 5, &c. and it is therefore too too boldly said by the Dr. that it is a begging of the question without the least tender of proof. Whether or in what manner the little ones mentioned Deut. 29.10. did enter into Covenant, is so fully discussed before Sect. 44, 45, 61, 66, 67. chiefly this last, that I need here add no more. Either in one of those Sections or some where before in this part of the Review, I have proved from the Text and Commentators, that those that were not with them that day, v. 15. were unborn, chiefly in that v. 2. Moses called unto all Israel, and they are said v. 10. all to stand there that day, and therefore I might more justly wonder (though it be no wonder that the Dr. thus abuseth me) that he should have the face to say, I impose on the Reader.

He tells me, there is no mention of any act of the Fathers engaging them under a curse or oath, but only of God's oath which he maketh to them, v. 12. But he might have seen v. 14. these words, Neither do I make with you only this Covenant and this Oath, but with him also that is not here with us th •• day, which I know not how it should be meant of any other then the unborn, for none but they of Israel were then absent, and entering into an oath and curse as they did Nehem. 10.29.

And for what he adds,

But sure there is a great difference between the solemn adjuration of Moses and all Israel binding their posterity and recorded in the book of the Law, and the obscure charge of an ignorant officiating Priest to three Gossips, whereof some are so ignorant, that they know not what the Christian faith is at a Font, which he terms the oath of Baptism, which is seldom either heeded or remembered by any present.

And whereas he saith, my rejecting his inference, that by parity of reason infants may be entered into discipleship and baptized, to be a denying the conclusion when the premises cannot be denied ; It is not true, for the consequence is plainly denied, and the reason is given of that denial, and each branch proved in the Book before sect. 5, &c. And therefore I shall say no more to this section, it being pity (to use the Drs. words) to lose time on such trifling conceits empty of all proof, as this Dr. hath dictated for infant Baptism. He said better Pract. cat. l. 5. §. 1. The Apostles powers were to preach and baptize those that received their doctrine.

SECT. XCVIII. The testimonies of Cyprian, Augustine, and other Latin Fathers for Infant Baptism, are shown to have come from their mistakes; and the evidences why the antiquity of Infant Baptism should not be deemed such as is pretended, are vindicated.

I Now return to the examination of the Testimonies brought out of the rest of the Latin Fathers besides Tertullian for infant Baptism, whereof Cyprian was the chief, and his testimony is thus urged by Dr. Hammond Defense of infant Baptism, chap. 4. sect. 2. p. 99.

Answ. I have been willing to set down these words at large since none urgeth this authority more fully, though Mr. M. Dr. H. Mr. B, &c. do all allege it, and it is the chiefest of all the testimonies Augustine produced for infant Baptism, and therefore was translated by me into English, and printed at the end of my praecursor. Concerning which act, Mr. B. praefest. mor. p. 401. saith thus, It seems to me God ordered Mr. T. to translate Cyprians Epistle to the disgrace of his cause with the vulgar themselves. For none can be so blind as not to see in it the antiquity of infant Baptism, which is all that we urge it for. But if the cause I maintain be disgraced by translating that Epistle, I shall take it as a sign that a spirit of dotage is fallen on men, so as to be enamouted on the blemishes of the ancient: Sure me thinks none of the vulgar, much less the learned, should be so blind as not to discern, that infant Baptism was an error, which was maintained by the prime assertors, upon such vain reasons as are in that Epistle, which are not excused by what Mr. B. saith, That the arguments are only for confutation of the objection concerning infants uncleanness before the eighth day, and not to give the grounds that warranted infant Baptism ; For the truth is, both are done together, and the best grounds they had for it are set down by them, which will appear to be so frivolous by examination of them, that notwithstanding all the credit Dr. Hammond endeavors to gain to it, yet men of mean understandings, I doubt not, will by reading of it discern how ill that Council did in that determination. Nor doth it any whit be • ter the matter to say, that it was not Cyprian alone, but also a whole Council of 66 Bishops which did thus agree with him. For in like manner did the same Cyprian, with a more famous Council [See Epist. to Jubaia. ponep. Quir. Janu. Steph. ] at the same place, determine the rebaptizing of the baptized by Heretics, with better show of Scripture and reason then in his Epistle to Fidus, and alleged Apostolical authority as much as in this, and yet he is deserted therein not only by the Bishops of Rome that were then, but also by Augustine, and the African, and other Churches. Besides his maintaining the perfusion of the Clinici, in his Epistle to Magnus l. 4. Epist. 7. his maintaining the necessity of water with the wine in the Lord's Supper, as the Lord's tradition, l. 2. Epist. 3. ad Caecilium, with other things, do sufficiently discover the weakness of Cyprian, and the Bishops of those times in their determinations, and the slightiness of their reasons, which no intelligent Divine should now urge, and therefore me thinks should not adhere to their practice or tenets, grounded on such frivolous reasons. Nor in this matter is Augustine's or Jerome's authority such, as that we should rely upon their approbations and speeches, their corruptions in this point, and in other points showing their mistakes both in matters of doctrine, and fact, some whereof are before noted section 88. and more will be in that which follows.

As for what Mr. B. saith, That the antiquity of infant Baptism is all that he with others urge Cyprian for, I reply, he and others need not to have done that, since I acknowledge it to have been as ancient as Cyprian, not as it is now; but 1. in the practice, used only in case of imagined necessity, to save an infant in apparent danger of imminent death from perishing, as the words of Tertullian de bapt. c. 18. and Greg. Nazianz. orat. 40. de sanct. bapt. and sundry relations show to have been the practice. Now in this if Pro • estant divines have rejected antiquity, and deny such infant Baptism as they practiced, determining that there is not such a necessity of baptizing infants for that reason, nor that they are to be baptized with private Baptism upon such a fear, and accordingly declining it as superstitious, they thereby justify us from their crimination of innovation in deserting the Fathers, when they themselves do it in the same thing as well as we. And if Mr. Baxter (as he doth plain Script. proof. l. 2. c. 15. p. 153.) except against Tertullian's reasons as poor, and therefore reject his advice, why should not we reject Cyprians and his Collegues determination, which was built on as poor, if not poorer reasons then Tertullian's.

2. In the Doctrines taught: For they taught, that by Baptism the grace and mercy of God was given, that without Baptism infants must perish, that everyone that is born of mankind is to be baptized, in which Mr. Baxter and other Protestants do dissert them: Now if they disclaim their Doctrine in that which led them to their infant Baptism, we have no reason to be bound to their authority. Nor is the Doctrine the least matter to be considered, or the reasons of their determination impertinent to a right judgment of their practice. For as in other controversies between us and Papists, as about Menkish profession, Lent fast, Prayer for the dead, &c. the main thing considered, is, how far the Ancients practiced these, and upon what grounds, as may be seen in ushers answer to the Jesuits challenge, and other learned Protestants writings, so it is in this: By whieh we may discern, that the Fathers practice of infant Baptism was upon the same grounds with those of the Papists, which we reject; and therefore the Fathers testimonies do indeed disgrace the cause of infant Baptism, and plainly show upon what erroneous opinions it came in; and if prejudice did not dazzle their eyes, learned and godly Protestants would rather suspect and judge infant Baptism a corruption, then allege their determination for their justification. And for what is alleged, that August. Ep. 28. ad Hierony. said, that Cyprian did not make any new decree, but kept the faith of the Church most firm, it is manifest, that the faith Augustine means was that infants had original sin, and without Baptism must perish, which in like manner he taught about the Lord's Supper (which was given to infants in Cyprians time, as his Sermon de lapsis shows) l. 1. de pecc. merit. & remis. c. 24. l. 1. adv. Julian. c. 2. contra 2 Epist. Pelag. l. 4. c▪ 4. Now as we and the Romanists have rejected infant Communion, though as ancient as infant Baptism, or very near as ancient, so should infant Baptism be rejected as upon the like mistake brought into the Church. The like might be said of the exorcising, or exuffiation, that is, blowing away or puffing out the Devil, of which Augustine speaks so much as used with Baptism to infants, the anointing with oil, giving milk and honey, clothing with white garments mentioned by Tertullian as common in his time before Cyprian, which yet are left by us notwithstanding he make them in his l. 1. against Marcion, lib. de Corona militis, Apostolical traditions. Out of which and many more instances this may be collected, that the Fathers testimony of the use of their time, or of Apostolical traditions, is not to be received without examining their reasons, to which in this thing how little credit or heed is to be given, will appear by the exceptions I have made in my Examen, and shall now vindicate from what Mr. Ms. friend, and Dr. Homes say to them.

The first was, that in Tertullian's time infant Baptism was not defined, since he dissuades it, De Bapt. c. 18. Scult. med. patr. part 1. l. 7. c. 42. Tertullianus l▪ de Bapt. • os duntaxat baptizandos censet, qui Christum nosse potuerunt. The answers are, 1. that he was for infant Baptism, as appears by his book De anima, c. 39. But this is refelled before. 2. That he mentions it as then in use. Ref. It is true, but not allowed. 3. That he allowed it in case of necessity. Ref. This is against those that deny the use of it for that reason in that case. 4. That he dissuaded only the Baptism of infants of infidels, since they only were in need of sureties, and likely to sail in answering the engagement for them. Ref. This is not likely. 1. It • s not likely such were brought in the times of persecution, nor that there were any Christians who would become sureties for them. 2. It was usual then, as the custom hath been since, to have sureties at Baptism of infan • s of believers, and also at the Baptism of the aged, as is gathered out of Tertul. de corona militis, Inde suscepti, which is spoken of the • ged. 3. The words of Tertullian show he argued a • ainst the Baptism of any little ones in respect of their age. 4. His reasons (be they what they will) • re agai • st the Baptism of any little ones, wi • h express direction for them to come not till they were of age to understand▪ Venient ergo dum adol • scunt, veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniant docentur, fi • nt Christiani, cum Christum nosse pot • erint. That is, Let them come t • erefore when they be grown up, let them come when they learn, when they are taught wherefore they come, let them he made Christians when they shall be able to know Christ. Which makes it certain he meant this even of believers infants, whom he presumed would be taught to know Christ, and that An • i • adobaptist doctrine had then looked into the Church, though Dr. Hammond say otherwise.

• he • d. Exception was, • ugustines and Jerome's relying on this Council, shown their darkness.

Answ. Mr. M. p. 38. of his Defense▪ Though Augustine approved Cyprians judgment, yet he relied not u • on his reasons to make good infant Baptism; this to him is no new doctrine, he had another eye upon the constant and sure faith of the Church, which in that point be followed faithfully.

Ref. It appears by the words of Augustine, ep. 28. ad Hieron • m. where he alledgeth this very thing for infant Baptism [ that Cyprian said not that the flesh▪ but the soul unbaptized should be lost ] that he relied on his rea • ons; and the like is apparent, where he and Jerome set down his words, and argue from them▪ tom. 7. l. 3. de pecc. mer. & remis. c 6 contra Julian. l. 1. c. where Augustine hath these words, Sed Cyprianus dicit peri • e parvulum nisi fuerit baptiza • us, quam vis ei non propria demittantur, sed • liena pec • ata. But Cyprian saith, a little one perisheth unless he be baptized, although not his own but another's sins are forgiven him.

My 3d. Excep • ion was, That Fidus started the question out of a Judaizing conceit, that the law of Circumcision which was not to be till the • th day, was to be considered, and that the footstep of an infant being in the first days of his birth is not clean ; which show a relique of Judaism in him.

To this it is said, 1. That Cyprian did not concur with him, nor the Council.

Refut. 1. However it appears that the Baptism of infants was then practiced upon the superstitious conceit as if we were to do in Baptism as the Jews did in Circumcision. 2. Nor doth Cyprian appear by hi • Ep. 7. l. 4. and elsewhere to be free from thinking the ceremonial Law to direct us about Baptism.

2. That other learned men, as Athanasius, Nazianz. August. Chrysostom, reasoned from Circumcision to Baptism.

Refut. No doubt of it, for as in the controversy about Easter, so in other things they appeared too much to imitate the Jewish ceremonies, by which the simplicity of the Christian service was altered.

My 4th. Exception was, That the resolution of this Counc • l was the spring-head of infant Baptism.

Answ. Before that time Baptism of infants was in use.

Refut. Yet it was not determined before, but dissuaded, nor was any authority of any Council which was as a spring head to it, whence it continued a stream afore that, nor doth Augustine in his allegati • ns for it, find any higher spring of it then Cyprian and his Council▪

My 5th▪ and chief Exception was, T • at the Council determined the baptizing of infants upon these errors, which are now rejected by Protestants as Popish; 1. That they thought baptizing giving God's grace, and the denying it denying God's grace ; 2. They thought the souls to be lost, which were not baptized ; 3. That therefore not only infants of believers, but all infants were to be baptized.

Mr. M. acknowledgeth the two first to be rightly gathered from the words of the Epistle, but that he also urged that Baptism comes instead of Circumcision, and if some arguments were used by the Ancients which were not good, the truth is not to be rejected, when some o • her are.

Ref. 1. The Council determined infant Baptism on no other argument. 2. If infant Baptism could be proved by other arguments, I should yield to it; however the credit and authority of this Council is taken away by reason of the falsehood of the grounds of their determination.

2 lie. For the 3 d. inference, though he lays it down in general terms, that none are to be hindered from coming to Christ: Yet what he saith ought to be understood of the Church, because he speaks of such as God hath cleansed or purified who were common.

Ref. 1. The words are as express as may be, We all judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied, (by not baptizing them) nulli hominum nato, to none born of men, as much as in us lies, if it may be, nulla anima pe • denda est, no soul is to be lost for want of Baptism. 2. The very words Mr. M alledgeth for a restriction to the Church are against it, they are thus. Sed putamus omnem omnino hominem admittendum ad gratiam Christi, cum & Petrus in Actibus Apostolorum loquatur & dicat: Dominus mihi dixit neminem communem dicendum & immundum. But we think every man altogether should be admitted to the grace of Christ, when Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks and saith, The Lord hath said to me that no man should be termed common and unclean : Which is meant of all men, not only of the Church. And this enough to answer Dr. Homes, who in his animadversions, p. 138. finds not that passage in Cyprian, which I allege, and p. 139. saith, Cyprian doth not say, infants perish if they be not baptized, though Augustine expressly saith the contrary, and p. 13 • . takes on him to defend the sayings of that Council, as having no error or hurt to say that Baptism gives grace instrumentally, and that without warrant wittingly to deny Baptism is to deny God's grace. But Protestant write • s generally (as Austin before) judge the words to have a further sense, and the words of the Epistle plainly show that they held by the very Baptism infants had remission of sin and were saved, and without it were lost, and to deny them Baptism was to deny them God's grace. That which he saith of me, • , 139. That I would not have it, that Cyprian doth at all put in original sin among his arguments for baptizing of infants, is not true; I only denied that he put it in, in the manner Mr. M. conceived.

What I said of the absurdity and nakedness of that Epistle, hath no more immodesty then is common to Writers Protestant and Papists, who charge Fathers and ancient Councils with errors, blemishes, and of • times with harder censures; if I had given that Epistle a • arter censu • e I had done right, that I spake was soft enough, considering the great hurt which hath come to the Church of God by that Epistle, which determined children's baptism by childish reasons.

Next to Cyprian of the Latin Fathers, are recited Ambrose and Jerome ▪ and Paulinus by Dr. Hammond, whose words with Augustine's, and such Councils as were in their times in the 4th. and 5th. Century, I shall forbear to reci • e, it being acknowledged that in those ages it was practiced, and by reason of Augustine's esteem Baptism of infants was practiced in following Ages almost without control; and in process of time, that which was before Augustine's days a rarity, became so frequent, as that it almost swallowed up the right Bap • ism, which appears from the words of Walafridus Strabo, placed by Usher at the year 840. in his Book de rebus Ecclesiasticis, c. 26. who is termed by Mr. George Gillespie in his Aaron's rod blossoming, p. 567. a diligent searcher of the ancients which were before him, and of the old Ecclesiastical rites, which with other observations tending to reduce the testimony of Augustine to its just weight, are set down in my Examen, par. 1. sect. 8. and are now to be vindicated by me from what Mr. Marshal and others reply.

Dr. Homes, p. • 58. excepts against what I said, that it was Augustine's authority that carried infants Baptism in the following Ages almost without control; and 1. he asks,

But this is not true, n • r ever proved by Dr. Homes. Chamier, paustr. cath. tom. 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19. saith truly, Who seeth not that the custom of the scrutiny of the baptized was in that time, when scarce the thousandth person was baptized afore he came to age, and was diligently exercised in Catechism. Dr. Hammond in his pract. Catech. l. • . §. 3. p. 23. All men were instructed in the fundamentals of faith anciently before they were permitted to be baptized.

Which I grant; but those Scriptures and reasons had never carried infant Baptism, if the name of the man had not been more prevalent then his reasons.

But by his leave it might be so said, and that truly, • ith in the bickerings against the Pelagians, Augustine's authority grew; yea, Jerome in the end of his 3 d. Dialogue against Pelagians, in the words cited by Dr. Home • . p. 149. doth himself refer the Reader to Augustine's works about baptizing infants, as the chief prop of that custom. However, that which I said is manifestly true, that after his time, in the following Ages, Augustine's authority carried the baptism of infants almost without control.

Dr. Homes further excepts against my alleging Walafridus Strabo, and saith, 1. Strabo is against me, 1. in saying in the first times, Baptism was wont to be confirmed by imposition of hands. But the Dr. wrongs me i • saying I deny it Exercit. sect. 14. who only say it was a part or appendix of Baptism, as Chamier said paustr. cath. tom. 4. l. 4. c. 11. sect 14 &c. not as among the Papists or Prelatists used many years after baptism. But of this enough is said Review part. 2. sect. 23.

2. About Athanasius, that in Athanasius his time, to his knowledge there was baptism of little children. But how is this against me, who doubted not concerning Athanasius his fact of imitating baptizing when he was a Boy, and of Alexander his approb • tion of it, but said I marveled I found nothing produced out o • Athanasius works for infant Baptism, if it were so manifest as Mr. M. said. Now this was not in Athanasius his works, and the story doth not at all prove infant Baptism either in use or approved then, but rather the contrary. For that fact was done by Athanasius at play, among boys at play, and it was approved as baptism, because the baptizer and the baptized used the ordinary actions done at baptism of the aged: which shows that Baptism was then used to and by persons of age, though imitated by boys at play.

3. About infant Baptism, for which Strabo quotes many▪ authorities and antiquities, as of the Concilium Gerundense ; But this is not against me, who deny not, but acknowledge many Councils for it, after and in Augustine's time, but know of none but that of Carthage in Cyprians Epistle to Fidus afore, and do judge those Councils weigh no more then one Augustine, whose authority they relied on, and some of them used his very words in their Canons.

2. That

Answ. It appears not that Strabo faultered in either of these. He calls the times unto Augustine, not only Augustine's times, prima t • mpora, the first times ; and though he knew that Cyprian was alleged by Augustine for proof of infant Baptism, yet Strabo might rightly say (not as Dr. Homes makes him, men were not baptized (but) the grace of Baptism was wont to be given to them only who might know well and make profession. And for this having set down the ancient custom, he alledgeth the instance of Augustine, not because there were no more, but at that time the thing being well known, and Augustine's authority being the chief means of making infant Baptism so frequent as it was after his time, it was enough for his purpose to instance in Augustine's own example, as sufficient to show how the state of things was before. Nor is it likely that Walafridus Strabo faultered in the third thing the Dr. objects, but that (not he, but) some of the writers of his Book mistook, and put XXV. for XXXV. And for the 4th. thing that he confesseth, that religious wise men did baptize infants more frequently after Augustine's time, upon the apprehension of danger if they neglected it, it confirms my observation, that infant Baptism grew to be so frequent as it was by Augustine's authority, but doth not at all prejudice my allegation of Strabo, For though he being corrupted with the superstition of the age in which he lived, did judge well of the practice of infant Baptism, yet his relation of the ancient use is useful for me to show, that it was but an innovation Nor did my mention of his relation of the use of Gossips, and the imagined spiritual kindred contracted by it, either blemish Walafridus or break my shins, but served my turn to show what superstition crept in by infant Baptism, as arising from the want of the primitive use of the baptized persons own engagement at Baptism, which being not done by infants, was supplied by this vain invention of men, and did (as generally such inventions do) occasion that evil opinion of the spiritual kindred contracted, which superstition turned to a conceit of inc • st between Gossips. This opinion, though it did not necessarily follow on that us • (For there might be Gossips without such opinion, as there might be transubstantiation without adoration) yet as the nature of superstition is to add one human invention to another, and the la • ter worse then the former, and the just judgment of God leaves men to err, when their fear of him is taught by the precepts of men, Isa. 20.13, 14. (as I have shown in my Sermon entitled, The leaven of Pharisaical will • worship ) so it happened both in Baptism and the Eucharist, infant Baptism brought in Gossips, they were taken for parents, thence conceived to be of such affinity, that their copulation would be incestuous, and so in the Eucharist the opinion of the Lord's Supper, as if Christ's body were in the bread, begat Transubstan • iation, that kneeling and adoration, which have more connection then a rope of sand or pebbles in a Wyth, notwithstanding Dr. Homes his conceit, and Stra • o 's words need better answer then he gives.

All that Dr. Homes p. 161, 162, 163, 164, 165. saith against my allegation of Cluniacensis, doth not either prove, that Peter de Bruis did not deny infant Baptism, or that Cluniacensis did not allege Augustine for it, and de Bruis rejected it, and appealed to the Scriptures (though I have acknowledged in my Apology sect. 8. my mistake about the words of the ignorance of Greek, and the mention of the Greek Church and the Council of Arles. ) For why should Cluniacensis say, Ecce non de Augustino sed de Evangelio protuli cui cum maxim vos credere dicatis, &c. but that Augustine was wont to be urged against them, but they rejected him and appealed to the Gospel. As for Peter de Bruis and Henricus, their opinions I set them down as I found them reckoned in the argument of Cluniacensis Epistle, not thinking fit to set down all that Cluniacensis chargeth them wi • h, having by Mr. Gatakers Defense of Mr. Wotto • against Mr. Walker concerning Abailardus, learnt how uncertain Bernard's charge was against him; and the like perhaps against Peter de • ruis and Henricus by Cluniacensis in some things: yet I have given reasons concerning their denying infant Baptism, in my praecursor sect. 9. to which Mr. Baxter hath no made reply in his praefestin. mor. to avoid them, though he had most unchristianly accused me of impudence and unconscionableness, for alleging them as adve • saries to infant Baptism.

What I said of the Councils that condemned Palagiani • m, and the Drs. who refuted it, that they followed Augustine, I did in some mistake, as in putting Arles for Orange a City near, and perhaps in something else, being at that time without all my ptinted books, which I had read before the year 1642. in which I was plundered of them, and wrote my Examen in London anno 1644. and my Exorcitation anno 1643. But I had some remembrance of my reading to that purpose, which I imagine was by rea • ing the words of Dr. • rideaux in his 3d. Lecture de Gratia universali, which are thus to the same effect. Augustinus (qui praecipue sudabit in hoc argumento, quomq • e Prosper, Fulgentius, & Scholastici saniores sequuntur, imo ex ejus scriptis decreta Concilii Aransicani 2 contra Pelagianos & Semipelagianos (ut ipse agnoscit Binius) cont • xuntur) sit vice omnium.

And for Augustine's being counted one of the four Doctors of the Church, esteemed like the four Evangelists, the speech (as I remember of Gregory the Great ) is so rife, that I presume it unknown to few Students in Divinity Nevertheless I said, I for my part value Augustine's judgment just at so much as his proofs and reasons weigh; of which Dr. Homes saith, that's well ; but Mr. Marshal saith, I slight him, which is an unjust crimination of me, neither Augustine nor any other writer, being not immediately inspired, requiring or deserving any higher regard; and Protestant writers frequently in their determinations ascribe authentic authority only to the holy Scripture, Ames Bellarm. enerv. tom. 2 l. 1. c. 3. asser • tur • nobis Episcoporum in concilio sententiam taunt • m inquisitionem quandam esse, & dictionem sententiae ministratoriam & limitatam ita ut taunt • m valeat decretum concilii, quantùm valeat ejus ratio ; which if right, my speech is unblameable. Nor am I to be blamed for not canvassing every particular testimony alleged out of Augustine, it being not denied he held infant Baptism at that time, and in such a manner as Protestants reject, and how much credit is to be given to his speeches of Apostolical tradition, is considered before section 88. Protestant writers do often charge Augustine with doting, in this point of infant baptisms necessity (whereof some speeches may be seen in Mr. Gataker de bapt. infant. vi & eff • c. sect. 6. num. 27. sect. • . num. 35.) and for my part I must say, that I judge his reasons so light and his proofs so vain, that the testimonies out of Augustine do very much confirm me, that infant Baptism is an error, and a very pernicious abuse needful to be taken away out of the Church of God, the reason of which may in some measure appear by my vindication of my exceptions against Augustine's judgment.

1. If infant Baptism had been such an universal and Apostolical tradition as Augustine would have it, then the Church would have thought it necessary, that all children of Christians by profession should be baptized in their infancy, and the custom would have been so used; But that it was not so, appears first from the baptism of Augustine, Adeodatus, Alipius ; second, from other observations set down in my Examen. p. 14.

The testimonies Mr. M. brings for universal practice, have been considered before.

He adds p. 45. of his Defense, That

But there is more reason to conceive that either he knew no infant Baptism, or that he took it to be an aberration from the Gospel tradition and authority of the Apostles, not only in that he mentions not infant Baptism, but also in Ancorato where he sets down the use of Baptism he saith, Whence the Magdeburgenses cent. 4. c. 6. de ritibus circa Baptismum, say; It is conjectured from these words, that in the Churches of Cyprus, the rite of Confession was usual afore Baptism ; where he also saith, that Basil. exhort. ad bapt. writes, that no other then catechized persons were baptized, who were called together at Easter ; Although I deny not that there was sometimes infant Baptism, yet by all the instances of the rite of Baptism gathered by those Historians in that place, it appears to have been very rare, and only in the case of apparent peril of immanent death. And this is very probable to have been the reason why Socrates hist. l. 5.22. relating diversities of several Churches about persons that had power to baptize, and the time in which Baptism was commonly administered, and Sozom. 7▪ 19. several customs of several Churches neither exclude nor mention infant • aptism, because it was so rare a thing to baptize an infant, and done so obscurely that no instance is apparent of it in any history, in that or the fore • going • ges. And Dr. Homes p. 171. wrongs me in saying, Mr. T. himself chargeth Augustine and Cyprian, that they thought too many infants were to be baptized, namely all that had Christian parents or undertakers, for these latter words are not mine, though I yield the former to be true.

To my instance of Augustine's lat • Baptism, it is said by Mr. M. defense p. 46. One swallow makes not a spring peradventure some (though born of Christian parents) were not in that age baptized in infancy; yet that is no way prejudicial to the universal practice of the Church in which Paedobaptism was received. But by his leave it is a great evidence, and seemed so to Strabo nearer to those times then we are, that infant Baptism was not so univer • all as Mr. M. makes it, when so • minent a person of so eminently go • lie a mother, did not take care to have him baptized in infancy. But besides, we have the words of Optatus M • l • vitanus about the same ti • e, in his 4th. b • ok against • armenian the Donatist, thu • ; No man is ignorant that every man, who is born though he be born of Christian parents, can be without the spirit of the world; which it is necessary should be excluded and separated from the man before the saving Baptism. This Exorsim does, by which the unclean •• irit is driven out, and made to fly into desert • laces. The • ouse is made empty in the breast of the believer; the house is made clean: God enters and dwells as the • postle saith, ye are the Temple of God, and God dwell • in you. Whence it is apparent, that even those who were born of Christian parents were believers afore they were baptized, though I deny not that it was not the common doctrine, that infants should be baptized; nor do I make that inference which Mr M. intima • es I do, from that example of Augustine, that children of Christians by profession in that age were not baptized in their infancy, but that they were seldom so, nor except in case of appa • ent danger of imminent dea • h: Which is manifest by the instance of Augustine.

Mr. M. and Dr. Homes impute the delay of Augustine's Ba •• ism, either to his Fathers hindering, who was not then a Christian, or to friends permission of him to have his own will, or to persecution. But all these are but mere shifts, his own words con • es. l 1. c. 11. declaring the true state of the thing, whic • are thus:

Whence it may be easily perceived, 1. That the child of a godly affectionate Christian, who devoted him to Christ, and educated him for Christ, yet was not baptized then in infancy, nor by the Church re • uired to be bap • ized. 2. That when he was sick and like to die when he was but a boy, he earnestly required from his mother and the Church baptism. 3. That it was not to have been done without his confession of Christ. 4. That his recovery afore it could be done put it off, and no other reason was thereof, but that living he was likely to be more guilty of sin if baptized so young. 5. That baptism was counted cleansing, and a greater and more dangerous guilt apprehended if he did sin after baptism. 6. That even then he did believe▪ and his mother and all the house excep • his Father, and yet it hindered not his Christianity, not is it l • kely could or would hinder his bap • ism in infancy, if his mother and the Church had thought it meet, or it had been the use out of the case of apparent danger of imminent death. As for Adeod • tus, it is apparent his Father believed before he begat him, and he was br • d up by him in God's discipline, as he saith, l. 9. confess. c. 6. and though the Father was not baptized, yet the Grandmother was, and yet Adeodatus was not baptized till 15 years old; and for Alipius it is somewhat p • obable he was born of Christian parentage and bred up so, but not baptized till of age. However that were, the case of Augustine is full to prove what I conc • ived.

For a further declaration of the practice of infant Baptism, I alleged Grotius his words, who conceived the baptism of infants more frequent in Africa then in Asia or other parts of the world, and he gave his reason of it, because of the mention of it in the African Council at Carthage, not in like manner in other Councils, to which Mr. M. saith, the Councils might not mention it, because none did scruple it ; But it is more likely none did scruple i • , because there was no occasion to do so, there being little or no practice of it; which is made very probable from the 6th. Canon of the Council of Neocaesarea anno 315. and the words of Nazianzen before mentioned. As for the constitutions of Clement, in one whereof they are bid baptize their little ones, Mr. M. doth well to confess they are not Clements, and if the compiler of them did relate the ancient customs of the Greek Church, he did relate later customs also, among which that of baptizing infants is to be conceived one for the reasons given. Grotius annot. in Matth. 19.14. saith, And many of the Greeks from every age unto this day, keep the use of deferring the baptism of little ones, till they could make confession of their own faith. But of this before, sect. 89.90. I said that I did not find in Africa infants baptized but in case of danger of death or for health of body. Dr. Homes saith he hath shown the contrary out of several antiquities, and particularly out of Cyprian. But neither in Cyprian nor anywhere else do I find it but the the contrary in Tertullian. And as for Augustine it was not as he • aith, that Augustine's sickness whiles young was some occasion of deferring his baptism for that time, but his sickness occasioned the hastening and his recovery ere it was done put it off for that time. Nor doth m • saying that they baptized infants for health of body (which is manifest from Augustine's 23d. Epist. to Boniface) clash with that which I said of Augustine's asserting the necessity of infant baptism to take away original sin, and ascribing salvation to it, for he both might and did conceive it to be done for both ends. My mention of the continued use of catechizing in Augustine's time▪ and long after, and the mention of baptizing whole Countries upon the baptizing of their Kings was very pertinent, though not to show no infants were baptized then, yet to show how and by what means the ancient custom of baptizing ordinary believers upon profession of faith after catechizing was so strangely changed, that whereas the preface in the common prayer book before the administration of baptism saith, it appeareth by ancient writers that the sacrament of baptism in the old time was not commonly administered but at two times in the year, at Easter and Whitsuntide: At which times it was openly ministered in the pre • ence of all the congregation, the persons to be baptized having been before catechized, now it is quite otherwise, so that in most Protestant and popish▪ Countries baptism is ordinary even of inf • nts, at all times in obscure manner, and except of late in these nations, in which God hath begun to restore the right use of baptism, and what Bellarmine in his 2d. book de bonis operibus in particular • . C. 17. saith, that in the City of Rome there is no year in which there are not many baptized at Easter, who were catechised, the baptizing of believers is almost unheard of and counted a heinous thing, and punished in some parts as a crime deserving death or banishment. So great is the enormity of Paedobaptism, and so great the wickedness of Paedobaptists.

The 2d. and main exception I took against Augustine's judgment which might move us to examine his reasons, was the ground upon which Augustine, Ambrose, and generally the Popish paedobaptists held and urged infant baptism, to wit the damning of the infant if dying unbaptized, which made Augustine to be termed the hard Father of infants, and affrighted so people in after ages, and doth to this day, that they will have their children by all means, as they count it, baptized, it's no matter by whom it be done nor how, so somewhat be done; else they count them lost.

To this which is of so great moment to show the abuse of Paedobaptism it is said, that Augustine pressed it upon other grounds, but that doth not appear, he urged it, it is true, from circumcision, but upon the same ground that the uncircumcised male should be cut off from God's people; nor did • e so retract his error, but that he still held infants should be damned although with the mildest damnation of all. How the schoolmen and others do follow Augustine, Mr. Perkins shows in his problem, and many elsewhere, and the Common Prayer, both in allowing at first Baptism by Midwives, and in their Preface in the administration of Public Baptism do plainly show it was the mind of the composers of that book at first; no • is there anything therein, or any of the Ancients, o • Baptism as belonging to infant • of believers as federally holy. Which is a strong evidence that Augustine's judgment was very corrupt in this point, and that the Baptism of infants was introduced, and grew to such an excess upon that error, and for that reason both Augustine's judgment and it are to be suspected as evil, and to be rejected.

A 3d. Exception against Augustine's judgment, to show that he and Cyprian were in these points of Sacraments not to be rest • d on, was▪ That Augustine Epist. 23. relates the story in Cyprian de lapsis about the giving the Wine to a girl with credit to it, and some use of it without dislike of the custom; yea, l. 1. de p • cc. mer▪ & remis. c 20 he makes giving infants the Eucharist necessary to salvation, alleging Jo • . 6.53. for it; and ch. 2. he makes it an ancient and Apostolic tradition to give the Communion to infants, besides what he saith Epis. 106. • 07. to the like p • rpose, and he ascribes to John Chrysostom, l. 1. adv. Ju • c. 2, the like; and E • is. 93. Innocentius Bishop of Rome held the like; and this not only Maldonado on Joh. 6. acknowledged to continue 600. years in the Church, from Cyprians time to Charles the Greats time (as • remember the account is) but also Erasmus Resp ad Arch • ep Hisp. Chamier, paus. cath. tom. 4. l. 1. c. 13. §. 5. Gataker de Bapt. infant. vi. p. 269. say the use of infant Communion was ancient; and to the objection, that this was not defined, Dr. John Reynold, Apolog, thes. §. 10. answers; nor doth Mr. M. or Dr. Homes deny it, but Mr. M. asks What is your argument hence? I answer, There is no reason to rely on Augu • tines judgment concerning the antiquity and necessity of infant Baptism, or to press it on others, who did so foully mistake about the antiqui • y and necessity of giving the Communion to infants, nor to adhere to the Ancients determinations and use about infant Baptism, who did err so much about infant Communion. For as Mr. Gataker de Bapt. ins vi. p. 200. saith about Augustine's authority conce • ning infant Baptism, it will not seem equal to press the adverse party concerning the other authority of those whose judgment in the other thyself declinest : But how Augustine doted about infant Communion is manifest, therefore it is not reason to urge his testimony about infant Baptism as to be rested on, but we may say as Vorstius adv. Bellarm. tom. 3. contr. 2. thes. 2. rat. 3. The doting of Augustine and some other is ill brought for the consent of the whole Church ; and we may make that use of this instance of Augustine's, Innocentius, and others error about infant Communion, which Cameron doth c. • 7. of his Examin. of Rom. prejudices, to take away the unjust fore-judging of the refusal of infant Baptism a • unreasonable, by showing how little the Fathers, particularly Augustine, are to be trusted, and what just reason there is to forsake him in the one as they have done in the other.

My 4th. Exception was, That Augustine 1. ascribes a certainty of regeneration to children baptize • d, though they were not brought for spiritual grace, but temporal health. 2. That he justifies this fact, Epist. 23. ad Bonif.

Mr. M confesseth

To which I reply. It is true, and so did generally the Fathers, as may be seen abundantly in Mr. Gatakers strictures against Bishop Davenants Epist p 52, &c. And this caused great abuses, 1. the allowing of infant Baptism, yea, and much advancing it; 2. the allowing of the Baptism of men that kept their beds by reason of sickness on their beds; 3. the Baptism by wom • n; 4. the Baptism by Athanasius on his play • fellows, which he did in pl • y with them, when but a boy, as sufficicently done for Baptism; 5. the bringing of infants to be baptized for cure of their bodies. But saith Dr. Homes, To which I reply, yet he justifies their bad action, saying, by them the necessary service or ministry is celebrated.

My 5th. Exception was, • hat Augustine Ep. 23. ad Bonif. was so tenacious of customs then in use, that he doth defend or excuse from lying the answer of sureties, as if the child to be baptized did believe. In this Mr. M. saith, I scorn Augustine's judgment ; And I reply, I do not so much as Chamier, paustr. cath. tom. 4. l 5. c. 15. §. 22. where he ter • s it mimical▪ as if it were a play on a stage, rather then the celebrating a Sacrament in the Church, which Augustine defended. But saith D • . Homes, This is impertinent to the question. I reply, it is very pertinent, 1. to show how vain Augustine's judgment was in these things about Baptism and the Lord's Supper: 2. To show what was the primi • ive use of propounding the question of his faith to every baptized person, which Vives, come. in August. de Civit. Dei, l. 1. c • 7. thought a good evidence that of old none were baptized but persons grown up and able to answer the questions.

• o this saith Dr. Homes, 1.

I reply, 1. I wonder Dr. Homes will so untruly say I do so assert▪ 2. If sureties were so late an invention, surely infant Baptism was at new, it being never without such sureties.

2. Saith he,

I reply. Upon my consideration it was not so, because Tertull. de 〈◊〉 . c. 18. mentions them as undertakers for the child, and Boniface and Augustine that they professed in the child's stead.

My last Exception against Augustine's judgment was, That they baptized any infants even of unbelievers, whoever brought them, and what ever were their intention, they counted it a work of charity, and the defect of the faith of the baptized they counted supplied by the faith of the whole Church.

To this saith Mr. M.

I reply, it overthrows the imitableness of their practice. I reply, if so, more infidels children should be baptized then Christian converts, which is a monstrous fiction refuted by all the remaining monuments of antiquity.

Mr. M.

I reply, the former appears not, the later was of others as well as believers children, as is shown before. This is enough to show the invalidity of Augustine and the Latin Fathers testimonies • or infant Baptism as Protestants assert it.

To the recollection of the passages about the Ancients testimonies, Mr. M. answers. 1. To what I said, that that they practiced infant Baptism on erroneous grounds, the necessity of it to salvation, the certainty of the remission of original sin by it, denying God's grace to none, and therefore more likely to be an error; Mr. M. saith, p. 54. Do not Tertullian, Cyprian, &c. argue from Circumcision unto Baptism 〈◊〉 we now do, and others of them from Covenant holiness? I answer, No not one that I know of.

2. To what I said, that it is not proved to have been practiced but in case of supposed necessity, he saith, It is otherwise, and an Arminian book termed Censura censu • ae, of which I have made great use in this controversy (which is not true) saith, Augustine first grounded infant Baptism upon necessity. But I answer, this is not true, that which is said before out of Tertullian, Nazianzen, Cyprian, proves it otherwi • e; Yea, long after Augustine, Concilium Ge • undense in the 6th. Century, appointed in the 4th. and 5th. Canon, That ordinarily persons catechized not infirm should be baptized at Easter and Whitsuntide, the infirm at other times, and infants if infirm, and desire not the mothers milk if they be offered, the day of their birth ; which expresseth it to be a permission in that case, and shows it to be an exception from the ordinary course: Yea, Magdeb. cent. 1 • . c. 6. of the rites of Baptism, show infants then to have been baptized only out of fear of death.

3. To what I said, that there was a constant course of baptizing believers children at age, he saith I have been been mistaken, and this practice was disavowed by their inveighing against deferring • aptism. I answer, 1. That I have not been mistaken, appears by that which goes before. 2. They speak not against deferring infants Baptism, but for it, though they speak against the deferring it by the aged.

4. To what I said of their opinion of the necessity of, and practice of infant Communion, he saith, All did not so, though some of the Africans did. I answer, The chiefest of them, and some of them Europaeans held it. Dr. Field, 3d. book of the Church, ch. 1. saith, According to the old custom used in the primitive Church, the Greeks minister the Sacrament of the Eucharist to children when they baptize them. And Ortelius in his Theat. where he describes the Abissins in Africa, saith, To all the baptized the same moment they minister the holy Eucharist.

5. • o what • said of their baptizing: infidels children, he saith, It was not their constant and general practice : But it app • ars not but that it was practi • ed and all • owed of as well as the other.

6. To my words, that the ancientest testimony for pr • ctise according to any rule determined is Cyprian, near 300 years after Christ, he saith, he must needs take notice of my overlashing ; and I reply, • must needs take notice of his overlashing in again mentioning Justin Mar • yr as a witness, though the book be but suppositio • s; and Irenaeus, when • e saith nothing of it; and Origen ▪ who is d • ubtfull; and Tertullian who is against it; and excepting against my words as overlashing, w • en the first determination of it in any Council was that of Cyprian with hi • 66. Bishops, which, as Dr. Hammond saith, was anno 257. near 3 • 0. years after Christ.

7. To my words, that infant Baptism was not from the beginning, Austin's semper habuit semper tenu • t is opposed, to which how little credit is to be given, is shown Apol. § 16. he • e, sect. 8 • . and in thi • before.

8. • o my alleging the proposal of the questions of repentance and faith to infants as a sign that none but those who answered the • u • stio • s were formerly baptized, it is said,

But I think the question of faith pl • inly proved Act▪ 8. • 7. to be an • ecedent to Baptism; and the words of Beza, annot. on 1 Pet. 3 21. are thus▪ Yet to me more nearly now considering the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it doth se • m better to agree that we interpret it stipulation, and that we say the Apostle had respect to the interrogations of Catechists, in which the ca • echised even then did testify their more inward Baptism to be confirmed by the outward, as Act. 8.37. to which the whole Apostolic Creed looks, and that from the Baptism of adult persons by a great error, if we look to infants themselves, translated to the Baptism of infants, Doest thou believe? I do believe. Doest thou renounce? I do renounce. Whence that of Tertullian, which is as if it were instead of a Commentary on this place in his Book of the Resurrection of the flesh, the soul is not confirmed or sanctified by washing, but by answering. Tertullian de corona militis, Aquam adituri ibidem, sed & aliquanto prius in Ecclesia sub antis • it is manu contestamur nos renunciare Dia • olo & pompae & angelis ejus▪ Dehinc ter inergitamur, amplius aliquid respondentes, quam Dominus in Evangelio determinavit. Grot. in Mat. 28.19. proves the profession of faith out of Justin Martyr, who saith expressly, Apol. 2. That the baptized did promise to •• ve according to the Christian Doctrine ; and out of • gnatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, &c. what they answered who we • e baptize • . In the Council of Basil in the Oration of the Cardinal of Rag sium it is said, In principio hujus sacramenti baptizabantur solum illi qui per se sciebant fidem interroganti respondere ▪ The testimonies of this kind are so • any that I think it superfluous to allege them. The very form of Common Prayer in propounding th • se questions as they were in Augustine's time to infants, is evidence enough of the antiquity of that custom of propounding questions to the baptized.

9. To what I said of the examples of Greg Nazian Chrysos. Augus. Const▪ the Great to whom I might have added Jerome, of whom Erasmus in his life testifies of his birth of Christian parents, yet not baptized till of age; Mr. M. answers by referring to what is said before : And I entreat the Reader to look back to what I say before, sect. 89, 90. and this.

10. In like manner the evidences against infant Baptism from Tertullian's and Gregory Nazianzen, disuasion, the testimony of the Council of Neocaesaria, the silence of Eusebius, Epiphanius, Athanasius, the constant terming it an Apostolical tradition, are referred to what is before said by Mr. M. and by me to my answers to him and others, in those Sections, and sect. 88.

For Grotius, what reason I had to allege him, may be easily discerned by those that know his a • ilities Censura censurae was unknown to me as yielding me any advantage, 〈◊〉 Mr. M. here minded me of that book. What Vives speaks he had good evidence for, as in part may be seen in what is said before. Strabo 's testimony is such as Vossius his exception doth not weaken, but is sundry ways confirmed here. That I could have brought more testimonies, it hath appea • ed in part by this writing, and in part by my Praecusor, sect. 20 and my answer to Dr. Savage in Latin, sect. 13.

The more I search i • to the point of antiquity, the more I am confirmed in my position, that infant Baptism is not so ancient as is pretended, as now taught is a late innovation. Nor am I alte • ed from the opinion I had, that none before Zwingli taught infant Baptism as a privilege of believers children from federal holiness. Tertullian's and Athanasius his words serve not turn to prove it, nor Epiphanius, Cyprian, Nazianzen, Augustine, or Chrysostom so taught it from Circumcision as due to them by virtue of the Covenant to a believer and his seed, but in other manner, as is before shown. Nor do • h the Pelagians acknowledgement serve Mr. Ms. • urn therein. The more testimonies Mr. M. might have added, had added no more weight to the cause then those he alleged have done. I did not charge the Ancients that they held that all who died unbaptised were damned ; but that in the case of infants born they taught, that if they died unbaptized they should not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but perish, or be damned, though with the mildest damnation: And this is manifest enough from Cyprians Epistle to Fidus, and very many places of Augustine, Tertullian l. de Bapt. c. 12. C • m vero prascribitur nemini sine Baptismo compe • ere salutem ex illa maxim pronuntiatione Domini qui ait: nisi natus ex aqua quis erit, non habet vitam, &c. However Ambrose and Augustine determine of the salvation of grown persons without Baptism, if they believe, desire to be baptized, be Martyrs, yet both they and many more held both Baptism and the Lord's Supper to be necessary for infants unto salvation by an Apostolic tradition, as M. Perkins Demonst. of the problem in the point of Baptism proves, though perhaps they could not reasonably grant the one and deny the other. That Calvin was a m • n well versed in Antiquity for his time it's not denied, nor that he was a man well acquainted in the Scriptures; yet that in neither he was in this point in the right, is so fully demonstrated before, that I may safely say Calvin was not therein Calvin as he is in his opposition of the Papists. And if Mr. M. or his friend think it not meet to be tied to Calvin's judge • meant in the point of the Sabbath and Lord's day and Usury notwithstanding his skill in Antiquity and Scripture, the same in equity is to be allowed to us about the point of Baptism. I like Mr. Ms. acknowledgement with Rive • , that tradition is in most points uncertain, and therefore he that will build sure must build on the Scripture, and therefore we must necessarily come to arguments from the Scriptures, which if they evince not the thing we shall in vain call to Tradition. If Mr. M. had not fi • st in his Sermon forestal • ed his hearers and readers with the pretence o • the Churches possession for 1500. years and upwards, and Dr. Hammond resolved all his proof of infant Baptism into his exposition of 1 • or. 7.14. which he had no way to make good but by Tertullian and some of the Ancien • s, I had spared this labor of showing t • eir and and the Ancien • s mistakes. Tha • Doctrine and practice of Baptism of Infants • hich Austin saith to be according to the sentence of the Gospel, is reject • d by Pro • estants; who i • they would in this, as in other things they have done 〈◊〉 , according to Scripture and all their own principles, must baptize no infants till they be made believers; till then they do but prevaricate, and profane the holy Ordinance of Baptism.

SECT. XCIX. Mr. Crs. objections about my 9 untruths, his discourse about re-baptizing are refelled.

I Return now to Mr. Cragg. Part 1. sect. 6. he chargeth me with 9 untruths, outvying the number of the lines ; in which he is a false accuser. In the first he mis • recites my words, which were not, that the Epistle affirms, that the baptising of believers had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork; but thus, As false it is th • t the baptizing of believers (called by these Anabaptism) had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and others there named, which were true. For though it was not in those words said by me, that the Epistle did so affirm, yet it is true, 1. That Paedobaptists call the baptizing believers which Nicholas Stork and others practiced Anabaptism; me thinks he should not be so impudent as to deny that those whom they baptized were believers, or that they baptized them, or that that Baptism is called Anabaptism by them. 2. The very words of the Epistle are, the spring and rise of Anabaptism had its beginning after truth, and saith the first Author thereof was Nicholas Stork, then Phipher, &c. there you have the spring and rise of it, and therefore in my words there is no untruth, but Mr. Cr. doth falsely insinuate as if there were folshood and inconsequence in my speech, and sl • nderously make me one of the great disturbers of the late reformation, and the first • uthor of the disturbance or Anabaptism, and cunningly altering the subject of the Question from Anabaptists to baptizers of believers.

The 2d. thing he chargeth on me as untruth, was not expressed as Mr. Cr. in • inuates, that Paedobaptists call the baptizers of belivers Anabaptists, but thus [the baptizing of believers called by these Anabaptism] which cannot be denied to be true, unless he deny that the baptizing used was not baptizing, or the baptized no believers, or that they call it not Anabaptism. It is also false that he saith of me, that my judgment and practice is, that all that will be saved must be baptized again, when they become actual believers▪ and this I put in execution by making as many Proselytes by rebaptising as I can.

The 3d. untruth (as he calls it) is, that baptising of believers without infants, or excluding infants, had not its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork; and he notes, that the Epistle affirmed Anabaptism (which is another thing) had its spring thence. But he neither shows what other thing Anabaptism is, nor doth he prove it to be an untruth, but by rendering my own instances against it inv • lid. But therein he d • t • bu • abu • e me, who alleged not the instances he brings to prove that proposition he terms an untruth; nor is there anything said by him, but what he hath from Mr. Ms. Defense, and is a • swered before here, sect •• 98.

The 4th▪ untruth he ch • rgeth me with, is, that infants Baptism was not commanded by Christ, and he th •• ks to • vince the contrary from Mat. 28.19. But he saith • othing but wh • t is ••• ully refuted before, Review, part 2. sect. 5, &c. part 3. sect. 97. and elsewhere, so that I nee • say no more here to it.

The 5th. untruth he imagines▪ is▪ that infant Baptism was not practiced by the Apostles, which being denied by the An • ipaedobaptists, the proof lies upon them. But by his •• ave the proof lies upon the Paedobaptists, to prove they did baptize infants, since they claim a right to it, which mu •• be proved by precep • o • example of the doing it. A negative argument in matter of fact of this nature is of sufficient validity • o sh • w infant Baptism not to be according to God's will, since in mere positive instituted worship, wherein • od hath set down what he will have done, he will have it so done, and no otherwise. It is pro • ed b • fore, Review, part 2. sect. 5. &c. part 3. sect. 52 that the Apostles baptized not infants. Mr. Crs. imagined reasons why they might baptize none but of ripe age, de facto, are vain, there being no intimation of any such reason • in the History of the Apostles Acts: Yea, the story is against his surmises, for the converted and baptized did not travel far to hear the Apostles, but the Apostles travelled far to preach to them in their own Cities, and in them they went from house to house, Acts 16.15, 34. & 20.20. Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan are said to go out to John the Baptist to be baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins, which cannot be meant of infants. Though infants be a par • of a Nation, yet Mat. • 8.19. Is. 2.2. by nations no infant is meant, nor Luk▪ 19.19. is in • ant Baptism intimated. The Baptism of infants is not proved from Act. 16.15. v. 32, 33. show that by the house are meant persons of age: and by so expounding we diminish not God's word, nor make exception that God hath not made, nor imply a contradiction, nor incur a curse, as Mr Cr. after his vein of prattling, writes.

All that Mr. Cr. saith in opposition to what I said of baptizing believers in the first ages continued without any infant Baptism, proves not my words an untruth, nor a frontless assertion, and is answered before, sect. 88, 89, 9 • • n which, and sect. 90, 91. all that he brings to evince my 7th. and 8th. untruth (as he terms my words) is examined.

I justly account infant Baptism a Popish abuse, it being derived from these principles, unwritten tradition, and necessi • y of it to save an infant dying, which are judged Popish errors. And for answer to what Mr. Cr. saith of my 9th. untruth, as he terms it, I refer the Reader to the 9th. Section of my Precursor, not refelled by Mr. Baxter in his Praefestinantis morator.

Sect. 7. Mr. Cr. excepts against me for saying, 1. That the Epistlers assignation of the causes of Anabaptism are vain. 2. That Anabaptism is true Baptism. 3. That the true cause is the light shining from Scriptures and other Authors. 4. That this light was not discovered formerly as now. What he saith against the first, is but a repeating of the reasons, without any confirmation, but some light Poetical peda • ti • ue expression • , which deserve only neglect. Against the • d. he gives his reasons against reiteration of Baptism, which are nothing • o me, who asserted not th •• baptizing twice was true Baptism, but baptizing • f persons of age professing • aith though in infancy imagined to have been baptized is true Baptism. Yet do I see no force in the reasons he gives. For 1. in the institution of Baptism, Mat. 28.19. the precept is to the baptizer, and I presume he doth not think the baptizer is not to reiterate his act of baptizing, yea doubtless he is to baptize as oft as there are Disciples made by him. And as for the act of the baptized, which is implied it is true, neither is it determined to be once or twice, and may therefore seem to be left to liberty. That he allegeth, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, is clean mistaken by him, the meaning • eing only, what a man doth with a doub • ing conscience is sin to him, & so by this reason rebaptization is a sin only to him that doubts of it. And when • e saith, Whatsoever is not grounded on the Scripture is will worship, I presume he means it of that which is used as worship, and determined to be but once. But then the question is only beg'd, not proved, that Christ hath determined Baptism to be but once. In that which he saith of Act. 19.3. (which is an instance of being twice baptized) I find nothing brought by Mr. Cr. to avoid the force of it. For to be baptized into Johns Baptism can be no other then to be baptized with water according to the pro • ession of Johns Disciples, and this was true Baptism from Heaven, not differing in the nature of it from Christ's, as say Protestant Divines; and it is certain, that to be baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, i • to be baptized with water into the profession of him, as Act 2. • 8, 41. & 10.48. the giving the Holy Ghost is distinctly expressed v. 6. to have been by laying on of hands, and this was on the same persons v. 6. who were • aid to hear and to be baptized v. 5. and these were not all the people mentioned v 4. bu • twelve only v. 7. and therefore it is far more probable, and in mine apprehension certain, as the Ancients did conceive, that those twelve were baptized with water twice, once according to the proof ••• on Johns Disciples made at Baptism, and the other according to the Christian. Nor am I moved by the observation of Marnixius, • p • roved by Beza in hi • annot. in locum, and followed by many others, That the particles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must necessarily answer each other, and therefore • he words v 4, 5. be Paul's. For 1. the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put oft, and the matter requires it should be so conceived here, either as an expletive that is without force, to which in the vulgar transla • ion nothing answers, as it is Act 3.21, 22, &c. o • an adverb of affirmation, or if it be a conjunction di • cretive, that which answers to it is not that v. 5. there being no good sense, to say, John verily baptized with the Baptism of repent • nce, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after, that is, on Christ Jesus; but they hearing this, &c. there being no apt discretion made in such speech, if the particles be discretive, the other part is concealed, and should be to thi • purpose, But the Baptism we use is into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or into the name of the Lord Jesus already come. And for this reas • n the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be expounded as our interpreters, when, or as a mere expletive as in the vulgar. 2. The words Act. 19.5. do give an obvious plain sense on the other side as the words of Luke, thus, When the twelve, mentioned v. 7. heard this of Paul, that it was Christ • esus to come after John, on whom John would have his Disciples to believe when he baptized them with the Baptism of repentance, then they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus with express profession of him. Nor is it true that there is express Scripture, Ephes. 4 5. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, against the iteration of the same Baptism. For as one Faith notes n • t one act of believing, but one kind of faith from the unity of the object b • lieved, which may be and is one faith though an hundred times iterated; so one Baptism notes not one act of baptizing, but one kind of Baptism distinct from Pharisaical Baptism into the observance of the Law f • r righteousness, termed one by the profession of the same Doctrine or Lord, though it be an hundred times iterated. The same man baptized an hundred times, and an hundred men once only baptized, each of them have one Baptism in the • postles sense, if they be baptized with the same profession; and the same person though but once baptized, yet if with another profession, hath not that one Baptism there meant: One Baptism is not as much as once baptized and no more, but Baptism into one profession and no other.

The 2d. argument is of no force,

Answ. The Scripture nowhere terms Baptism the Sacrament of regeneration; nor, if the expression be allowed, will it follow Baptism is to be but once. Fo • 1. it doth not follow, natural birth is but once, therefore supernatural new birth, which is only so metaphorically, is but once; as it follows not, we die naturally but once, therefore we die to sin, or through sin but once. Natural birth hath not degrees, therefore neither regeneration. 2. Baptism is not regeneration though it were yielded to be the sacrament of regeneration, and therefore though regeneration could be but once, yet Baptism might be often. 3. • hose that hold intercision of regeneration and faith (which I do not) will say that regeneration may be often, and faith begin of • en. 4. Baptism may be termed the sacrament of regeneration either as the cause or sign of it. If as the cause of it so it should rather follow it should be often administered, as the word is often p • eached to beget us again. If as the sign, so it may often be used to signify it, though it be but once done; as the breaking of bread is oft used to signify Christ's death, though he died but once.

The 3d. argument, from once Circumcision, is of less force. For neither is it true, that our Baptism succeeds Jewish Circumcision, nor is it proved that in no case a person might be twice circumcised▪ nor if both these were granted will it follow, that the rule of circumcising but once must be a rule to us of baptizing but once, anymore then the Jews Circumcision was tied to the 8th. day, therefore so must our Baptism. Yet this reason of Mr. Cr. may be thus urged against infant Baptism: Circumcision was tied to the 8 • h▪ day, therefore to circumcise on another day were sacrilege; Baptism is tied to Disciples, or believers, Mat. 28.19. Mar. 16.15, 16. therefore to baptize infants who are not Disciples or believers, cannot be justified without sacrilege, at the rate of Mr. Crs. reasoning. The rest of that Section and the next Section need no other answer then what is already made, there being no argument needful to be answered, nor anything almost but scosti • g Rhetoric, cavils, mis • representations of my words and the passages a • Disputes, which were rightly represented in the 2d. Section of my Plea.

SECT. C. The arguments of Mr. Cragg for infant Baptism are re-examined.

MR. Cr. in the dispute at Abergavenny began thus, Some infants may not be baptized, therefore some infants may be baptized ; and this the Relator (who was likely to be himself, or one whose relation he viewed and approved) terms an Enthymema. To which in my Plea • answered, 1. the consequence could not be made good according to Logic rules, but by adding this Proposition, All that may not be baptized may be baptized. 2. That it is like these arguings, Some infants may not have the Lord's Supper, therefore some may; some boys are not to be ordained Bishops, therefore some are.

To this he replies, Part 2. sect. 1. 1. That the Relator and I were both mistaken : Which if true, it was ill done that he did not rectify the thing ere i • was printed. 2.

Answ. I am content that an ingenious fresh man judge whether there were any ignorance, inadvertency or mistake in my answer to this arment, and whether there be not gross ignorance and Sophistry, in his argument, and in the reply impudent boldness to avow such a shameful act; and that any wise conscientious Christian judge, whether the argument at first, or this reply, could come out of any other then a wrangling spirit, bent to baffle a respondent, and make sport for a company of vain auditors and readers, without any care befitting a Christian teacher to clear truth. At first when I denied the consequence he proved it not, but brought a syllogism concluding another thing then the consequence; and whereas then his syllogism appeared to have four terms, he brings another syllogism, in which he would infer, that because subcontraries may be both true, therefore that proposition, Some infants may be baptized, must be true; as if because both may be true, it follows that proposition must be true: whereas every fresh man knows, that though both may be true, yet it is true also one may be false, and that may be the proposition he infers, notwithstanding the • o • ce of that rule. Now in the reply he discovers the same spirit. Though his relator (with whom he must concur, or else they juggle with Readers) term his dispute an Enthymema, yet he would not have it so conceived, bu • tells us there is a kind of argumentation in Ke • kerm. syst. Log. l. 3. tr. 1. c. 1. defined, one sentence or proposition following another without disposition of the medium as in conversions. But doth he show there is any such c • nversion, or any other way of consecution of sentences allowed by Keckerman or any Logician in his argumentation? Then when I had reduced it to that syllogism to which the Enthymeme was to be reduced according to Logic rules, he hath the impudence to term this my syllogism, and • o suggest as if I were not able to make a syllogism, or reduce that to a syllogism which was reducible, whereas the syllogism was his own virtual • y, as all Logicians know that understand the rule about Enthymemes, though it were formed by me rightly and the monstrosity of it must • ie at his door, not mine, who value little his judgment of my abilities, better known to others of better esteem then to him. And for the way he new forms it, it is quite another argument then what he made at the dispute, and of which the minor is to be denied, which is thus, There are some infants besides them that are excluded Baptism, but this is contrary to the antecedent in the Enthymeme, Some infants may not be baptized, which should be the minor He adds▪ that the force of the argument lies in the immediatoness of the propositions, that what belongs not to one of them must needs belong to the other, and a topick rule out of Cracanthorp, and some other instances about divisions, in all which there is nothing but vanity. For let Propositions be immediate, yet w •• n they are opposite as these are, some infants are to be baptized, some not, the one follows not from the other, but the contrary rather, except in those termed subaltern, which are rather subordinate then opposite. His instances of consequences upon a sufficient division, they are all impertinent here, where there is no division of term, but the same terms are in both Propositions. In his answer to my instances he would make a difference between the Propositions about infant Bap • ism and the Lord's Supper, and ordination to be Bishops, that the one is in a capable subject, not the other ; but he shows not that an infant is capable of Baptism any m • re then of the Lord's Supper, or a boy of ordination; nor if they were doth the force of the argument • old more in the one then in the other: and therefore it's his ignorance to say, the scruple here will be, whether infants are capable of Baptism or no • ut it is whether this • llation be good, Some are not, therefore some are to be baptized ; which if right, it will follow in the other instances of Communion and o • dination as well as in it. That which he saith of my grant of the capacity of Ba • tism, because I grant they may be elected and believe and would if I knew it of infants baptize them, follows not; for though my ignorance hinders not their capacity in themselves, yet it hinders their capacity from me, I being not warranted to baptize any believer till his faith be manifested to me.

Sect. 2. Mr. Cr. goes on to scribble after his usual manner. He had thus dispu • ed, To whom belongs the essence of Baptism they may be baptized, But to some infant, belongs the essence of Baptism, Ergo. To this I said, This Proposition, the essence of Baptism belongs to infants, may have two senses. He replies, as if I distinguished of a two f • ld essence of Baptism ▪ which he terms a Chymaera, the essence of a thing being but one and indivsible ; whi • h shows he hath some smattering in Metaphisicks, but is impertinent to the thing in hand. For be it all granted, yet a Proposition which speaks of the essence may have a twofold sense; and the senses I conceived of his words were rightly set down, and more favourably to Mr. Cr. then his words did deserve. For this Proposition, To some infants belongs the essence of Baptism, must have one of those senses, or a worse, to wit, either that infants are in the definition of Baptism, so as that there is no Baptism but of infants; or that Baptism is of the essence of infants, so as that they are no infants without Baptism, which are absurd. And to speak truly, the whole argument is ridiculous, take it what way he will, except he give the same sense which I did, and then the minor and the conclusion are all one, and the major merely tautological, To whom the right administration of Baptism belongs they may be lawfully baptized, But to infants, &c. Ergo ▪ In the other sense it is more vain. For if the essence numerical of Baptism belong to infants then not a moral right is asserted, but either a present or a future event, and so the minor Proposition should be, Some infants are baptized, which is a thing discerned by sense; or shall be baptized, which were a prediction, but nothing to the point about moral or legal right. To understand it of the specifical essence, makes no sense but what is worse. His proof from the definition is also as vain▪ For it is a proof of the same by the same: But he tells me, It is not all one as to argue infant Baptism is Baptism, therefore it is right baptism, but it concludes infant Baptism is baptism, therefore infants may be baptized, which is the question by this inference put out of question. To which I reply, this talk 〈◊〉 to me like the words of a crazed man, there being no question between u • about the baptism of infants, whether they may be baptized, that is whether this may be done to them so as that they be passive subjects of it, I never denied that infants may be thus baptized, but the question is whether it may be lawfully done by him that doth it, and then to say they may be baptized is all one as to say infant Baptism is right baptism, and so his argument from the definition is that which he denies not to be vain, infant Baptism is baptism, therefore it is right Baptism.

But he thinks to prove from the definition, that infant Baptism is right Baptism, and he sets down his conceits of Baptism, that it is a relation whose fundament is the Divine institution in • olding infants in all nations in several families, which if he onc • p • ove, he needs prove no more, but here he doth not attempt it, but excepts against me for denying Baptism to be a relation, but an action or passion with a relation superadded, and he brings against me sayings of Divines who call it a sign, which I deny not in respect of the use, but that shows not the nature of it, no more then Circumcision is in its nature a relation, because it is a sign of the Covenant in its use, the carrying a scepter is in its nature a relation, because in its use it is a sign of royalty. What he saith, that I tell not whether it be action or passion, and not to be placed in one category is to be placed in none, is answered by his own confession, that in Baptism is included baptization which is both action and passion, which is enough to show that Baptism is in its nature either an action or a passion, and may be put in either predicament, and that in different respects a word may be put in divers predicaments, and his talk false, that nothing formally can be placed in two categories, and the rest of his talk about the genus of Baptism being a sign, and other passages to be but mistakes.

But he attempts to gain his • urpose by this argument, Every Sacrament is a relation, But Baptism is a Sacrament, Ergo. To which I answered, both premises • ight be d • nied, and as a reason of the denial alleged, • That the term [ Sacrament ] being but a term invented by Latin Fathers, may be laid asi • e. He replies, that the 12. Tables and Tully mention it, therefore it was long before the Latin Christian Fathers ; True, but not in the sense in which Baptism is termed a Sacrament. But, if the word Sacrament be laid aside because a Heathen word, then should also the terms Bishop, Pre • byter, Deacon, be laid as • de also. Answ. No, f • r they are Scripture terms, not so the t • rm Sacrament in the Ecclesiastical sense: Yet again, then Trinity, Unity, Humanity, Antipaedobaptist must be laid aside. Answ. It follows not, yet what • said of Sacrament I say of them, they may be laid aside, when an argument is drawn from them, as here from the word Sacra • ent. He adds, Besides is there not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mystery in the original? Answ. It is, but never in the use in which the term Sacrament is used as now it is defined.

2. I alleged that there is no common nature of Sacraments (not as Mr. Cr. of a Sacrament ) expressed in Scripture, This he saves is untrue in the sequel. For what consequence? There is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture, therefore Baptism is not a Sacrament, more then in this? There is no common nature of infused grace expressed in Scripture, therefore faith is not an infused grace.

Answ. It was not my sequel; but this, therefore the term Sacrament may be laid aside, and no good argument is from the definition of a Sacrament to prove Baptism to be a relation.

The term grace or grace of God, I do much question whether anywhere in Scripture it be applied to inherent qua • ities in us, or good acts proceeding from us, and I conceive that the use of it in that manner hath occasioned or strengthened the error of justification by inherent righteousness, because we are said to be justified by grace, and do wish that when approvers of Preachers are directed to examine persons of the grace of God in them, the thing had been otherwise expressed, and that such an expression as the gift by grace, or the like were used; yet I deny not there is in Scripture a common nature of those gifts by grace in us which accompany salvation, and that faith is a gift by grace infused, inspired, or wrought by the spirit of God.

Mr. Cr. saith further, untrue in itself, for though not in one place there may be in many places of Scripture compared together a common nature of Sacraments compared together. And is there not the common nature of a Sacrament expressed in one Scripture Rom. 4.11. a seal of the righteousness of faith? This is the judgment of the Ancients, and the most of the Divines of the reformed Churches ▪

Answ. That neither the text Rom. 4.11. nor the Ancients do so define a Sacrament, is shown before; and however the Divines of the Reformed Churches do define thence a Sacrament as the seal of the Covenant, yet not (as there it is expressed) a seal of the righteousness of faith ; But of this I have said enough before sect. 31.

What I said of Austin's definition of a Sacrament, that it is a visible sign of invisible grace, as imperfect (which I proved by instances) was without a miscellany of absurdities ; • f the descent of the Holy Ghost as a Dove were a sign or seal of Christ's office of Mediatorship and not of his righteousness of faith, yet it was a visible sign of his holy qualifications, Luk. 4.18. Joh. 3.44. and so of invisible grace, and consequently a Sacrament by Austin's definition; Christ's washing his Disciples feet, shown his love and humility, ergo, by Austin's definition must be also a Sacrament; and holding up the hands in prayer shows faith in God; kissing the Bible in swearing shows appealing to God as Judge or hope in his word, which are invisible graces according to Austin, and according to his definition Sacraments. And though it be added in the Common Prayer book Catechism, ordained by Christ, yet it is not so in Austin's definition used by Mr. Cr. in the dispute, and if it had, holding up the hands in prayer had been a Sacrament, being ap • ointed 1 Tim. 2.8. And for the addition in the Catechism [ as a means to receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof ] I know no Scripture that ever made Ci • cumcision, the Passover, the Lord's Supper, or Baptism, means to receive invisible grace, and how fa • and in what manner it assures I have before sect. 31. and elsewhere shown. Enough of Mr. Crs. vain pra •• le in this section.

Sect. 3. Mr. Cr. quarrels with my reconciliation of my own words, denying all invisible Church members were to be baptized, but affirming it of vi • ible. He tells me, 1. This distinction is not fitly applied, for the proposition was meant of visible Churchmembe • ship. But 1. however it were mea • t the expression was, God appointed infants Church members under the Gospel, and this might be understood of invisible as well as visible Church membership; and therefore it was fitly applied to take away the ambiguity of the expression. 2. It was fitly applied also to • l • er my meani • g, and to free my words from contradiction. 2. He tells me my proposition is not true, for all visible Church members are not to be baptized, then all ba • tized before (they being visible members) were to be baptized again. But what is this but wrangling, since the proposition was his own, and I granted it with that limitation in his own sense, of them that were not yet baptized? He tells me of the state of the question between us, which is impertinent to the present business of clearing my words.

He adds,

But what a dotage is this? Doth visible Church member praedicari de pluribus specie differentibus in quid? If it be asked what is an invisible Church member, will any that is in his wits say he is a visible Church member? Is not this a contradiction, to say all invisible members are visible? How is it proved that any are visible members of the Christian Church, but by profession of faith? The like dotage is in what he saith after, that there is an intrinsical connection of th • se terms [actually to receive into Covenant under the Gospel, and to appoint Church members under the Gospel] that they are as essentially coincident as to be a man and a reasonable creature▪ which makes this proposition to be aeter • ae veritatis, those whom God did actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel, those God did appoint Church members under the Gospel. For is the one to be defined by the other? Do not these terms express existences restrained to hic and nunc (for sure actual receiving and appointing are singular acts in ti • e) not essences? If these speeches of Mr. Cr. be according to Metaphysical and • ogical principles, I am yet to seek in them, as having not heard or read of such principles before. And if God did promise before the Law, fore • ell under the Law, actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel, or appoint Church members under the Gospel without faith or profession of • aith, then infidels are actually in Covenant under the Gospel, and so justified; then is Mr. Baxter's dispute against Antinomians, about the condition of the Covenant and justification false, and if they be Church members without faith or profession of faith and to be baptized, and the truth of Mr. Crs. proposition, those whom God did promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, actually receive in • o Covenant under the Gospel, those God did appoint Church members under the Gospel, have no dependence upon • aith or profession of faith ; then Mr. Baxter's 20 arguments in his 2d. dispute of right to Sacraments against Mr. Blake are fall • e; so that I need no more but to leave Mr. Cr. to be chastized by his magnified Doctor Mr. Baxter about this point; and so enough of this section.

Sect. 4. He terms this an untruth, that a person may be in Covenant, who i • not yet born or conceived as my i • stance of Isaac implies, and saith;

But this is false, he may be a person though not in present but future existence. Those Ephesians who were el • cted before the Foundation of the world, Eph. 1.4. were persons when elected, for they were singular men, though not then in actual being but future. Mr. Crs. reasoning in this, is like the reasoning of Adam Medlicot my neighbor, in his book styled Comfortable doctrine for Adams offspring, p. 99▪ Surely infants are in Covenant no otherwi • e then by God's promise or man's vow, or some such act in their behalf, and this may be afore they are in being, and consequently they may be in Covenant afore they are in actual being. If I do not mistake, Mr. Cr. both here Sect. 5. and in the 3d. Part Sect. 9. makes those with whom the Covenant was made Deut. 29.10. to have been in Covenant, but doubtless the Covenant there was made with the posterity yet unbegotten v. 14, 15. for no other can be meant by him that was not with them that day, all that were born or begotten then of the Congregation of Israel, whether by nature or Proselytism being present, as the words v. 10, 11. show, and the end of the Covenant being to prevent the Apostasy of their posterity v. 18. therefore the unbego • ten were in Covenant. Nor is it a good argument, A man is in Covenant, ergo he is, anymore then a man is elected therefore he is, these terms being termini diminuentes, as Logicians speak; and the verb ( est is ) in these speeches not noting the present existence of the subject of these propositions, but of the act of the person who elects or covenants. A child unbegotten may be said to be in a copy or a deed, and so in covenant in respect of the assuring an estate to him wh • n he shall be existent.

But Mr. Cr. tells me,

Answ. It is so far from being ridiculous, that to me it is very plain to be in covenant precedes calling, and to be in covenant is to have a covenant made to one, and that a person is said to be in covenant with God by God's promise to be his God though the man be not existent. This is in my apprehension that which Paedobaptists mean by being in covenant, for they usually say infants are in covenant, which sure they mean of God's promise to them, for they prove it from Gen. 17.7. Acts 2.39. Nor can they mean it of any other being in covenant, since there is no act of any infant or any other for him, that can denominate him in covenant with God in the time of the Gospel, but God's promise, which is long before the being of those to or for whom it is made, Tit. 1.2. Gal. 3.16, 17. And thus two Kingdoms are said to be in league and covenant, and they that are born many years after may be said to be in covenant by virtue thereof. This being in covenant may be, though the things covenanted be not executed or performed till long after the being in covenant, as persons first enter into covenant and then perform. And yet to be in covenant and to be elected would not be both one, though attributed to the same persons, si • h there is a different formal conceit of them, election being an immanent act, covenant a transient, that from eternity, this in time, as to be justified and sanctified are not both one, though to the same persons. Nor is it any absurdity to say Paul was in cove • ant while a persecutor, nor that to be in covenant precedes conversion, since i • is by virtue of being in covenant that one is converted, Heb. 8.10. Rom. 11.26, 27. As for being in covenant with God by prerogative of birth, I know not of any such in the time of the Gospel.

Answ. Surely Isaac was a child of the promise, Rom. 9.8, 9. and Jacob, v. 11. afore they were born, and •• nsequently in the Covenant; and when God said he would establish his Covenant with Isaac, he meant no other then the Covenant made with Abraham, and therefore it was made to him then, and he in Covenant, though confirmed and performed after.

Mr. Cr. saith of my speech, that a person is not actually received into Covenant till he is born, and by some acts of his own eng • geth himself to be God's, That it is founded upon the basis of this mistake, that every Covenant must be expressly and actually mutual between both parties ; and talks after his foolish fashion, as if it were an argument sophistically (though sillily) drawn a negatione unius speciei ad totum genus : But this is his mere cavil. For my reason added, receiving importeth an offering, which is to be done by profession, shows I inferred it otherwise. Against which his exception is in these words, as if more were to be required for admission of visible members into Covenant, then was for admission, or actual receiving of Christ as God▪ man and Mediator to be visible head of the Church. To which I reply, When and how Christ was visible head of the Church, is a point that requires much discussion. To be head of the Church imports direction, government, &c. To be visible head, is to do these things discernably by reason from something sensible. That he was visible head of the Church till he was manifest to Israel, and how he was visibly head of it but by his preaching, calling Disciples, or how he was actually received as such but by believing on his name, Joh. 1.11. or how he was admitted visible head but by Johns Declaration, his Baptism of him, the Spirits descent on him, and his Fathers Proclamation of him, or how any according to the Evangelical order are admitted visible members into Covenant but by their own profession of faith, and thereupon being baptized, I understand not. But as for my speech, I see not how it imports that which Mr. Cr. would have it to do, but only, That being actually received into Covenant doth import an offer or tender on his part who is to be received, which however it might be under the Law, yet sure in the Gospel is no other way but by the persons own profession; and this neither smells rank of Heresy nor Blasphemy, but Mr. Crs. conceit as if under the Gospel some might be received into Covenant, and admitted as visible members representatively by others, who are their Proxies, and engage for them, they being but mere passives without any voluntary act of their own, is but an innovation from what Christ or his • postles appointed o • practiced; and his acknwledgement that it is not necessary that a Covenant be mutual, that the Covenant Ezek. 36.26. Gen. 15.8. & 17.9. are such as wherein one party maketh the Covenant without mentioning the other but as patient, serves me to prove what I assert before, sect. 45. against Mr. Bl. that a Covenant is not always a mutual agreement, and that a person is said to be in Covenant in that a Covenant is made to him, and this may be to persons not actually existent, against Mr. Cr. in this Section.

Mr. Cr. to prove that God did promise to Abraham that infants should be in Covenant under the Gospel, alledgeth Gen. 17.7. and thus a • gue.

To this I said I had many exceptions; for besides those to which Mr. Cr. here replies, I might and do deny his major for another reason then I did before. For now by his words p. 254. I perceive by being in Covenant under the Gospel, he means an outward and visible Covenant, like to which he hath p. 155. and p. 261. he calls this an impregnable rock which the Anabaptists will never overthrow, that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in visible Covenant ; and p. 158. he saith, I clearly affirm with all the Reformed Churches, that all in visible Covenant a • e subjects of Baptism, and all subjects of Baptism are in visible Covenant. I must confess, Imagined that Paedobaptists if th • y would speak plainly could mean no other by the being of infants in Covenant under the Gospel but their being baptized; and so their argument, infants are in Covenant, ergo to be baptized, is but a mere tautology, or worse, they are baptized therefore they are to be baptized. But I think I have sect. 25. before shown, that the distinction of outward and inward Covenant as the Paedobaptists use it, is either non ens or non-sense, and I now deny this Proposition, He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations promised that infants should • e in covenant under the Gospel, not only for the reason given in the Dispute, but also because I now perceive he means (unless he still juggle, as I fear he will in the use of the phrases being in covenant, the covenant is made, &c.) that God promised that infants should be baptized under the Gospel, which is too ridiculous a sense to be put upon the promise of being a God to Abraham and his seed, Gen. 17.7. much unlike Christ's exposition of the phrase, Luke 20.38, 39. and seems to be the attempt of men that have for their baby-sprinkling resolved to avow the grossest absurdities. But to keep to the Dispute as it hath been printed. I said the covenant Gen. 17.7. to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations, if it be understood of the natural seed of Abraham, the everlastingness of it was but for a time, and that time afore the Gospel as in the next verse; the possession o • Canaan is promised to be everlasting, and yet the Jews now dispossessed of it. Which Mr. Cr. grants, and therefore must needs grant, that the promise v. 7 though it be termed everlasting, yet it is to be understood only of a limited time, as in other passages, Exod. • 1.6. & 12.24. &c. if meant of the natural seed of Abraham.

To this he replies,

Answ. My meaning was plain enough, that the Covenant as it was Evangelical, that is, as it contains a promise of the Spirit, justification, &c. (which is the only Gospel Covenant I know) if meant of the natural seed of Abraham, that is, the generality, or body of them was but for a time afore the Gospel, which I learned from our Lord Christ, who foretold Mat. 21 43. that the Kingdom of God should be taken from them, and the Apostle saith was accomplished, Rom 11.20. that the branches, meaning the Jewish people, were broken off by unbelief : and this is true, though it be true also that there have been a succession of Jewish believers still, they being a remnant only according to the election of grace, Rom 1 • .5. and thus they were not merely Abarhams natural seed, but also his spiritual, to wit, elect and true believers, to whom I never denied the Covenant to be simply everlasting.

Mr. Cr. adds.

Answ. If Mr. Cr. me • n, that to the natural seed, who are also the spiritual seed, the Covenant Gen. 17.7. is simply everlasting, I grant it; but this doth no way advantage Mr. Cr. For then it will only follow, that to such infants as are not only the natural seed of Abraham or a believer, but also are themselves believers, God hath promised they shall be in Covenant under the Gospel; which would not be true of all the infants of believers, or any but the elect: If he mean it as it is there meant (as appears by the next words, v. 8.) being understood of the natural seed of Abraham of the nation or people of Israel, and not of a remnant of them, it can be true only of a limited everlastingness, and not at all of the Gentile believers infants, and so is not at all for Mr. Crs. purpose.

But he tells me,

Answ. My arguing needs not proceed thus, but is good against Mr. Cr. thus, The term [ everlasting ] signifies a limited everlastingness afore the Gospel, v. 8. therefore it may be so meant v. 7. and if meant of the body of the Israelitish people who were the natural seed of Abraham, it must be so meant, otherwise it were not true. And for his instance, I think the argu • ent not good as he makes it; yet it follows, the term [ God ] doth not necessarily of itself infer infiniteness and eternity, but when it is appl • ed to the most High God the Creator, who is the God of God's, because it is sometimes spoken of Creatures.

But Mr. Cr. tells me,

Answ. That the land of Canaan, Gen. 17.8. must be meant of that part of the earth so called is manifest from the expression, wherein thou art a stranger, or the land of thy sojournings, and might be, if need were, proved by multitudes of other Scriptures And that the seed of Abraham is that which is natural and afore their later conversion, is apparent from v. 9, 10. where the seed to whom the land of Canaan is promised are enjoined to be circumcised, and the term possession v. 8. cannot be meant of a mere title, for that's implied in the words will give, but the possessi • n is distinct from it and consequent upon it, therefore I choose rather to untie Mr. Crs. knot by expounding it thus, I will give to thee and to thy seed after thee all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, but not altogether, thou shalt possess a part in thy time as a pledge of the whole, as his burying place was, and thy seed in Joshua 's and David's time shall possess the whole, and this shall be not only a place to sojourn in, but a possession for them to dwell in, and that everlasting, that is, f • r many ag • s, as Phine • as his Priesthood is termed everlasting, Numb. 25.13. so long as they shall keep my Covenant and observe my statutes. Now this will serve thus far to support my cause, which is still standing and not declining, to show that the Covenant Gen. 17.7. as it is made to the natural seed of Abraham is termed everlasting, that is, for a limited time afore the Gospel; which sense also the terms forever and everlasting have, Exod. 12.14. & 21.6. Numb. 25.13. &c and so the major Proposition of Mr. Cr. justly denied, He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations, promised that infants should be in Covenant under the Gospel.

Sect. 5. Mr. Cr. endeavors to draw Gal. 3.8. to his purpose, to prove a continuance of the Gospel Covenant to the end of the world, to Abraham and his seed, by paraphrasing it thus; That the Scripture foretold that God would justify the Heathen through faith, that is, the partition Wal • should be pulled down, and the Heathen nations should profess faith as visible members, whereof some should be actually justified as members invisible. But besides his inept expression of [heathen nations] which is all one with nations nations, he abuseth the text by paraphrasing [ through faith ] thus; that the nations should profess faith as visible members, when it should be, shall be true believers as Abraham was, and would justify the nations, by whereof some should be actually justified, whereas the text mentions no other then should be justified; and v. 9. terms them, they that are of the faith, who are blessed with Faithful Abraham, and only meant by the nations, v. 8.

Mr. Cr. tells me, 1. That

But sure he that reads his first argument in his Sermon p. 88, 89. and his Defense p. 256. where his words are, the minor I prove from Gen. 17.7. where the infants of believing parents are implied, it being a Covenant not only established with Abraham, but with his seed after him in their generat • ons for an everlasting Covenant, by virtue of which Isaac and all succeeding male infants were circumcised ; now sure these were Abraham's natural seed, and here the Covenant is everlasting, and therefore according to Mr. Crs. reasoning to extend to the end of the world, and the infants of believing parents, who are their natural seed, are, he saith, implied ; which can be no otherwise then as Abraham is imagined to be taken for each believer, and the believers natural seed proportionably correspondent to Abraham's natural seed, by prerogative of birth, as he there speaks, and then adds. In Gal. 3.8. there is implied Abraham's seed, in that it was a Gospel Covenant, and that in him all nations shall be blessed, and is directly for me, for it asserts the Covenant, and in that justification to the believing Gentiles, not only from Abraham • promise, but also a promise to them and their seed ; which plainly shows that he imagines Gal. 3.8. the Gospel Covenant, to be a promise to believers and their seed who are their natural seed, as in Abraham his seed is implied, which conformably must be his natural. And if Mr. Cr. did not in the dispute mean Abraham's natural seed he went from the point to be proved, and by me denied, that the Covenant Gen. 17.7. was not simply everlasting to the natural seed of Abraham, since they were dispossessed of Canaan. His suggestions therefore of my using officious untruths and pious frauds, are but the venom of his spirit which throughout his book he discovers, and most pestilently in that Section, for which the Lord rebuke him.

What he next saith, that when I say the thing promised Gal. 3.8. was justification, and that of the heathen and that through faith, therefore this text proves not Abraham's natural seed in Covenant under the Gospel, is, As if all this might not be, and yet some of the natural seed of Abraham be in covenant under the Gospel, who professed, were justified and had faith as well as the heathen ; which I grant; but then they were not only Abraham's natural seed but also his spiritual, to which I grant the Covenant is made Gen. 17.7. and is everlasting, and if he can prove infants of believers to be such, there's no question but they are in Covenant under the Gospel and to be baptized, till then he can never prove either from Gen. 17.7. or Gal. 3.8. that Abraham's natural seed, much less infants of believing parents to be in the Gospel covenant, which whether he had reason to be ashamed of attempting the Reader may judge. That the entering into Covenant, Deut. 29.10, 11. was a tran • • unt fact and not a thing perpetually binding, I had thought none would deny; nor argue as Mr. Crag doth, it was by command, Deut. 29.1. they wer • v. 29. to do the words of the Law, and that was a command, and the revealed things belong to them and their children forever, therefore the entering into Covenant v. 10, 11. was a command perpetually binding under the Gospel, which is too frivolous to spend time in answering, and his argument, that if wives and servants were in Covenant under the Gospel much more infants, is alike frivolous, • ith he himself makes no other then believing wives and servants in Covenant under the Gospel, which when he proves of infants their being in Covenant will not be denied. This is enough in answer to that Section and most of the 8th. and 9th. Sections of the third part.

I said his allegation is vain of Heb. 8.6. to prove that if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospel, whereas the meliority of the Covenant is not placed in the extent to the sort of persons; He asks me, what then? will it follow, if a Covenant was made to no more then before, therefore not to all that were before? Answ. No, yet it will follow that the text is vainly alleged to prove the co-extension to persons, that speaks not at all of that thing, nor is it at all to the purpose, that it is extended to more, to wit to Gentiles. For 1. however that text speaks not of it. 2. It is extended to more nations of the world besides the Jews, but to none but believers of those nations, and consequently not to infants of believing parents as such. That the new Covenant contains promises of better things then the old Covenant, and differs more then in administrations, is shown before Sect. 43. and yet the • e is no such thing implied as if there were salvation in any other then Jesus Christ, unless he could prove salvation were by the promises of the Law. My third Paradox (as he calls it) that the promises of the Gospel are not to any other then the elect and true believers, is proved before Sect. 33. That there are in the Gospel Covenant promises of external ordinances made to all visible members, is more then Mr. Cr. proves or any other, and therefore I count it a figment, I know none but spiritual promises in it, which Mr. Cr. grants are made absolutely and terminated or performed only to the elect and invisible members, which is the same with my Paradox, but hath more assertors then his most gross speech, that the meliority of the Covenant consists principally in outward ordinances, manner of administration and dispensation, extent and amplitude of the proposal, not of grace and glory. He adds, of which there was always the same reason ; Enoch, Abraham, Elijah, Moses, were as well justified by faith, which is true, but not according to the Covenant of the Law, but by the Covenant of the Gospel, which it seems Mr. Cr. understands not, though he assume the title of a Preacher of the Gospel.

Mr. Cr. saith of me, His last assertion is, that because the promises of the Gospel are not to any other then the elect, and true believers, therefore they are not to infants as the natural seed of believers: The antecedent is proved to be false, for though the spiritual part of Gospel promises is absolutely performed and terminated to the elect, yet they are conditionally proposed to all Professors; and the external part, which consists in administration of ordinances, is equally belonging to all visible members. But are the promises to all professors because they are conditionally proposed to them? If so, we may say the promises are to the most obstinate infidels, to eve • y man in the world, for to them they are conditionally proposed. Sure this is not according to the doctrine of the Scripture which makes the promises to be the believers inheritance, 2 Cor. 1.20. 2 Pet. 1.4. Gal. 3.16. & 4.28. Heb 6.12, 17. according to the doctrine of Protestan • s, the Saints Legacy, yea Paedobaptists make them their privilege, Rom. 9.4. though the promises there were other promises. As for an external part of Gospel promises, which consists in administration of ordinances equally belonging to all visible members, it is a mere figment nowhere in Scripture; And the sayings of Mr. Cr. Part. 3. Sect. 11. p. 261. [

For • . if the first speech were true, then unless we grant infants to be baptized, which is in his language, to be in Covenant, either the new Covenant shall not be better then the old, or Christ not mediator of it, which is as much as to say, if infants who were circumcised under the Law be not baptized under the Gospel then the promises of the Spirit, justification, God's writing his laws in the heart, teaching, forgiving sins cannot be better then the promises of the Law, which assure righteousness and life to the keepers of the Law, or Christ cannot be Mediator of the new Covanant, which if it be not a more monstrous conceit and to be more abhorred by Christians then ever any Popish conceit of the necessity of baptism to infants to prevent exclusion out of heaven, for which Austin is by Mr. Cr. himself reckoned the hard Father of infants, I know nothing. Sure all that doubt of infant Baptism, must by this reason either doubt whether it were not as good to be under the Law as under the Gospel, or whether Christ be a better Mediator then Moses. 2. It is a monstrous boldness in him to tell us of a visible Covenant of so great necessity, and never tell us distinctly what it contains, nor where it is to be found, especially when not only myself, but his Oracle Mr. Baxter, hath written so much against it, as he hath done in his Apology against Mr. Blake. 3. It is alike confidence in his own conceits, to tell us, that it is an impregnable rock which the Anabaptists will never overthrow, that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in visible Covenant, and yet show us none that useth such language but himself. How doth he think I or any other should answer his arguments, which are vented in such gibberish as no Dictionary or Author, or use makes intelligible? Is not his own first agument in his Sermon here pag. 254. Those (meaning under the Gospel) that are in Covenant with God (meaning outward and visible, which according to him is all one as to be baptized) ought to have the seal of the Covenant which is baptism, But infants of Believing parents are in the Covenant with God (that is in his language in the outward Covenant which is all one as to be baptized) therefore they ought to have the seal of the Covenant, which is baptism. In which he plainly makes 1. baptism the Covenant, and yet the seal of it. 2. He argues in this manner, infants are baptized therefore they are baptized, which either merely an inept tautology, such as boys in Schools would hiss at in a Freshman, or else it infers from baptism already done baptism to be done, which Paedobaptists call Anabaptism, and so Mr. Cr. is turned an Anabaptist. 4. He tells us, this is an impr • gnable rock which the Anabaptists will never be able to overthrow (though it be a Castle in the Air built by his imagination and will of itself vanish) that the reason of baptizing a person is his birth right, tuition, which proceeds only on that conceit as if there were the same reason of Baptizing as of Circumcising, which is oft before shown to be false. 5. If his words [ whereby they are visibly admitted into Covenant ] be referred to the outward Covenant and baptizing, then the sense is Anabaptistical, by baptizing they are admitted to baptism, i • to [ birthright, tuition ] and admission be meant as Mr. Baxter in his Book of Baptism page 24. then the sense is, by birth right persons are baptized and so they baptize themselves and need no other baptism besides Birth right. 6. He corrects me for saying God makes, when I should say completes, as if the Translators of Heb. 8.8. were mistaken, or God's making his Covenant were not his completing it, or he did not complete the Covenant he made. But this exception of Mr. Crag shows either his ossitancy or unskillfulness; since it is the same word in Jerem. 31.31, 32, 33. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to strike, rendered in the Greek LXX by the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and so Heb. 8.10. & 10.16. which is as much as to dispose or put, and Heb. 8.9. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I made although it be v. 8. rendered by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will complete, so that this exception is but nodus in scirpo, out of a cavilling vein. 7. He saith, I do not touch the true state of the controversy Exam. par. 3. sect. 1. Antipaed. part. 1. sect. 5. though it be the very hinge of it, unless they mean no otherwise by being in Covenant then baptism, and then I must confess there is no controversy about the consequence of Mr. Ms. argument Infants are in Covenant, that is to be baptized, therefore they are to be baptized, but the argument to be derided as nugatory, as indeed it is. 8. He terms my dispute there a confused Maze intricated, which either his ignorance or impudence prompted him to do, sure he shows no confusedness in it. 9. He calls my proposition of God's making his covenant only with the elect or spiritual seed, my Master fallacy, and yet it is proved from Scripture before, and acknowledged by Protestants, yea Mr. Cr. himself to be true. 10. He takes on him to foretell no satisfaction to be expected from the third part of my Review before he sees it. 11. He saith Heb. 8.6. the new Covenant is a better Covenant, because it is established on better promises in circumstantials and extended to move all nations, which are not in the text. 12. H • saith, it would not be better if any sex age or degree were excluded, which being meant of the outward Covenant, it were as if he said, the new Covenant were not better then the old if an infant of a day old were excluded baptism.

He tells me pag. 140. His consequent is also unsound, for the internal and spiritual part may be made intentionally to infants as the spiritual seed of believers, and yet the external part and that of Ordinances to infants as the natural seed of Believers, as well under the Gospel as under the Law ; In which passage the phrase spiritual seed of believers is a new notion, intimating that believing fathers beget them spiritual, contrary to John 3.6. and that there is in the Gospel promises a part which is of ordinances, which is a figment, and that belongs to the natural seed of believers which is fall • e, and that my consequent is unsound for that reason, which if it were good the consequent is sound nevertheless.

What he adds,

is true thus far, that the Covenant Gen. 7.17. so far as it did assure righteousness to Abraham's spiritual seed by faith was the Gospel Covenant the same with ours, made in Christ and everlasting, but this is nothing to prove that there was such an external part of outward ordinances belonging to infants in that Covenant. But that Covenant is mixed, Mr. Cr. himself saith, there was a promise of Canaan and temporal blessings in it though in the main the Covenant were spiritual, and that part belonged to the Israelites by nature only, not to our children at all. So that Mr. Crags terms of carnal and gross put upon us, and Calvin's observation are but reproaches and calumnies by Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptists, devised and used by them wickedly to make us odious: but in time their wickedness will return on their own head.

Sect. 7. Mr. Crs. speeches of infants sad condition without baptism, are like the Popish talk of the necessity of baptizing infants that they may enter into God's kingdom. By denying their baptism we deprive them not of God's Covenant. The privileges Rom. 3.2. & 9.4. were peculiar to the Jews; Did he write with heed, he would not say they belong to infants of Gentiles under the Gospel. When I say Baptism is not an ordinary means of salvation without faith, I mean that no ones baptism but the baptism of true believers is an ordinary means of salvation, which is true, though there may be true baptism without true saving faith if it be professed. His talk of preaching to infants by presenting objectively the benefit of that which is preached without manifesting to the understanding, is another of his wild conceits. It 's no contradiction to say infants are not saved by ordinary means, to wit, preaching the word, &c. and yet to say they are saved by election, redemption, the work of God's spirit, since by ordinary means I understand and so do others, the Word and Sacraments and Christian discipline.

It is false he saith of me p. 146. that I confess if I knew infants were elected I would baptize them, or that here I acknowledge of the species or sort of believers infants, that they are not only elected of God but redeemed of Christ and have the work of his spirit. Sect. 8. the major of his Syllogism [ That which was proposed and entertained with success amongst the Jews, which were the natural seed of