TO THE GODLY READER. IT was well said by a Learned man; Rauleighs Preface to the History of the World. That there is nothing more to be admired more to be lamented; then the private contentions, passionate disputes; the personal hatred, and the perpetual war, massacres and murder for Religion, ●mongst Christians; the discourse whereof hath so o●●●pied the world, that it hath well near driv●n the practise out of it: and therefore it may be thought, that to enter any further into disputes about Religion, may be but to add ●ewell to that fire that burns hot enough. But knowing our Saviours prediction to be true, that he came not to bring Peace on the Earth but a sword, and that five shall be in one house, divided three against two, and two against three, and kno●ing with what deceivableness of unrighteousness the mystery of iniquity hath a long time wrought, as in other points, so in this of paedobaptism. I have adventured( though unwillingly) as being conscious of mine own inabilities in a great measure( rather then the Truth should suffer) to defend the true baptism of Jesus Christ, against the Innovation( to say no more) of Infants baptism: Being really persuaded in mine own conscience, and I trust from clear light, that it is one of the greatest over sights for disordering Churches, that ever came into the Christian world; and until it be rooted up, there is little hope that Church-Government will come into a right order, h●w confident soever some men may be of their Reformations. Let it not be dreamed pride or sauciness in me, to give my advice; which I assure thee Reader, love to the Truth moves me to speak, which is this: That Christians condescend one to another; Let the Presbyter, and nicknamed Independent, or congregational, consent to the nicknamed Anabaptist, or Antipaedobaptist; in exploding Infant baptism: and let the Independent, whether the mere Separate or Antipaedobaptist, yield to the Presbyter, in giving more power to the Elders, to prevent tumults and breaches;( but let it be onely in the respective Congregations.) Let the presbyter yield to the Independent, in changing the matter of Churches from mixed multitudes, to visible Saints; that the World and the Church may be severed: Without every of which, I am doubtful of the Churches attaimment to Scripture perfection in Reformation. But if every side, out of a confident tenaciousnesse of their own opinions, shall out of pride or conscience, be loth to comply: What kind of unity, will be the like liest bond to bind us all together? Whether the Unity of Verity, or the Unity of Authority, or the Unity of persuasion, or the Unity of necessity, or the Unity of the Covenant, or the Unity of Charity? Not the Unity of Verity, because one man thinks this to be a truth, and another thinks that, according to the several light they receive; yet Truth can be but on one side. Not the Unity of Authority, that the Magistrate setting down one uniform practise, shall command all manner of persons to comply thereto; for were any such practise attempted, should persons yield to it, it would make many gross hypocrites, in the highest degree of hypocrisy; and should they not yield to it, the Magistrate must fall to persecuting many a precious Saint of God, who with their lives and purses have helped to defend the life and power of the Magistrate, or else expose himself to contempt and shane, in not daring to punish the violation of his commands or else ashamed hereof. Nor can an Unity of persuasion be hoped for, seeing both in press, in Pulpit, all sides have endeavoured to persuade one another, to little or no effect. Nor can an unity of necessity do any thing to unite all, because the presbyter, independent, and Antipaedobaptist are all in like danger of the common enemy, should the adversary prevail; for ties of necessity usually bind no longer then one side hath need of another. Nor can any unity of Covenant do it, for not to speak of the forcednesse of it in many places, wherein J fear too many may say as the heathen did, Iuravi lingua mentem injuratam gero I swore with my tongue but not with my heart, because heresy, schism, innovations, &c. Are expounded by the consciences of the Covenanter; so that what is heresy, schism, innovation, in one mans conscience; is counted orthodox, charitable, and anciently apostolical, in the conscience of another: Therefore though the Covenant may tie us together, against the common Enemy, yet can it not tie us together among ourselves. What then remains as a most firm bond, to tie all the Godly party together, but only the unity of charity? Which is, that conscientious men, be left to that light which GOD shall reveal unto them; each of them having a loving affection to all those that fear the LORD, however differing in judgement: and the rather, in that the number of the truly godly is but few; so that they need not to grieve one anothers spirits: And as in this present distress, one godly party had need of another, without either of which party, the whole had doubtless sunk; So no man knows how soon they may have need of one another hereafter: Many seemingly, few sincerely, adhering to the Godly party. Reader, J pray thee take in good part this rejoinder to Mr. black his Reply, wherein I trust thou wilt find what is material therein, to be answered; as the shortness ●f time wherein I was employed about it, would permit. So desiring thy prayers for the propagation of the Truth. J rest; Thine, in the Bond of the SPIRIT: CH: BLACKWOOD. A sober rejoinder to a Book written by Mr. THOMAS black; entitled, Jnfants baptism freed from antichristianism. Which was written in way of Reply, to a Book; called, The Storming of Antichrist. MR. black, in his Preface to the Reader, and all along his whole Treatise, having many hard speeches; compounded of revilings, and scoffs, as Pag. 20. 21. &c. Which the Lord in mercy forgive: To which once for all I answer; I have not so learned Christ, and shall therefore in this whole Treatise, pass by his revilings, and answer his Reply. First, Mr. black is offended at the Title of my former Book, because I styled it; The storming of Antichrist in his two garrisons, viz. Compulsion of Conscience, and Infants baptism: Now that compulsion of Conscience is one of Antichrists garrisons, see Apoc. 13.15. The Beast causeth, that as many as would not worship the Image of the Beast, should be killed. As Nebuchadnezz●r did Dan. 3.6. Also, vers. 16.17. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to r●ceive a Mark in their right hands, or in their fore-heads, and that no man might buy or s●ll, save he that had the Mark, or the Name of the Beast, or the number of his names. See whether this be not the garrison of Antichrist. For when the power of Antichrist( signified by the Beast that came out of the Sea) began to be slighted, the second Beast that came out of the Earth, had power to give life to the image of the Beast, by this compulsion. Now why I called Infants baptism another garrison of Antichrist? Was, because I conceive it an in-let of Antichristian doctrines, as a false matter of a Church, &c. And because its point-blank against the Commission of Christ, Matth. 28. And because it hath been established by so many decrees of Antichrist; and because it enters persons into Church-state, after the way of Antichrist. Now these doctrines of compulsion of Conscience and Infants baptism, being set upon on all sides by so many powerful Scriptures, might be said properly to be stormed by the same; as a garrison is said to be stormed, when it is assailed on all sides, though it be not taken. The second thing Mr. black excepts against is; That I make a compulsion of Conscience by Magistrates, which must be Antichrists bane, to be Antichrists last refuge. Answ. I suppose Antichrist had never any harm by a forced uniformity, for your places for compulsion; as Esa. 49.23. and Apoc. 17.12.16. Let the Reader peruse an answer, Storm. of Antichrist, pag. 31.33. part. 1. But to answer further to Apoc. 17. Whereas Mr. black charges me for this Assertion, viz. That the compulsion of the Whore by eating her flesh, and burning her with fire, was not done by penal laws, but onely by force of arms. I bring these reasons, why the Whore shall be destroyed in that manner; that is, by force of arms. 1 Because she shall be utterly burnt with fire: Now Magistrates executing Civill and not military power, use to punish the Offenders, but not to burn places where the Offenders are: See this Apoc. 18.8. She shall be utterly burnt with fire. 2. Because in one hour, so great riches as was in Babylon is come to nought. Apoc. 18.17. Which can be no otherwise, but by the souldiers burning and plundering. 3. Because Apoc. 18.21. Babylon fals like a ston thrown into the Sea, which can be found no more; so the Roman Babylon shall be thrown down and found no more: which can be no otherwise( the circumstances of this Chapter, and the two former considered) then by war. 4. Because there shall be such a desolation in her; As appears, Apoc. 18.22. That there shall no more be heard the voice of musicans in her: Nor any Crafts-man, of whatsoever craft he be, nor the sound of a millstone shall be heard any more at all in her, nor the light of a candle shall shine no more in her, nor the voice of the Bridegroom or of the Bride, shall be heard no more in her: Now this total desolation cannot come in any show of likelihood, from the command of the Magistrate in his judicial sentemcing of Babylon, but from the Military force of arms. Obj. But you will say, how can this war with babylon come, if it be unlawful to compel persons in point of religion? Ans. These armies that shall destroy Rome, shall be only defendants, babylon and her Champions shall give the first blow; so that though it be not lawful for us to invade the Religion of others, yet is it lawful to defend our own against those that would rob us of it, and now that Babilons armies strikes the first blow, appears Apoc. 17.14. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them; the Romish party opposing the Protestant party, I suppose the protestant may defend themselves. This same war I suppose is begun and will not come to an end, till the ruin of babylon come to pass, in which all the Roman Princes will be engaged on one side, and all the Protestant Princes on the other. Now that this fall of babylon shall not be by the judicial sentence of any Prince or Magistrate, but by the power of our armies appears Apoc. 17.16. Because her desolation comes not from any one Prince, but from ten princes together, which can be no otherwise then from the mixture of armies. See vers. 16. And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. But lest any man should say, what shall become of their popish cities and territories, you may see Apoc. 16.19. In the powring out of the 7th. viol, where itis said: The great City was divided into three parts and the Cities of the Nations fell, and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. Now whereas Mr. black demands, whether this force of arms against the whore of Babylon be an act of Iustice, or cruelty, and infers; if it be just where Kings and states have a power military, they may not be denied a power civill. Ans. The just execution of military, power so of civill, which Magistrates have against this whore as a spiritual strumpet, is not because of her spiritual whoredom, or because the Magistrate hath power to compel any person to any kind of Religion; but because the whore gave the first onset, to take away the religion of those that have military power in their hands. For, Quer. Whether every person be not freely born to the choice of what religion seemeth true to him, and may defend himself against invaders thereof, as he may do against the invasion of his estate, liberties, &c. though it be not lawful for him to invade another mans religion? To conclude, Is it not highest cruelty to force mens consciences or practices in point of religion( for the distinction now is, the conscience cannot be compelled, but the practise may, or else the person punished by banishment, Helw. mystery Iniquity. imprisonment, &c.) I say is it not highest cruelty to force mens consciences in their religion, seeing it they err, they must pay the price of their transgression with the loss of their souls. Is it not most equal saith one, that men should choose their religion themselves, seeing they only must stand themselves before the Iudgment seat of God, to answer for themselves; when it will bee no excuse for them to say we were compelled or commanded to bee of this religion by the King, or by them that had authority. Mr. Fox having spoken of the conversion of Ethelbert King of Kent, by Austin and his company, who was converted to God, and baptized in the 36. year of his reign, the words of the history are these, viz. After the King was thus converted, innumerable others daily came in and were adjoined to the Church of Christ, whom the King did specially embrace, but did compel none, for so he had learned, that the faith and service of Christ, ought to be voluntary and not co-acted. Haec ille, Acts and monuments, vol. 1. Pag. 150. 7. Edition. Neither was this doctrine unheard of in the ancient Church, seeing Lactantius lib. 5. Vide Sculpt. Analis. Pater. de justitia, speaks fully, chap. 19. The persecutors of the Church commit an unexpiable evil, both that they kill themselves by serving devills, and also suffer not God to be worshipped of others, these soule-killers falsely pretend, that they provide for Christians, and that they would call them back to a right mind, for they ought not to do it by violence and torments, but by reason and exhortations. For religion cannot be compelled, Christians are ready to hear; religion is not to be defended by killing but by dying, not by cruelty but by patience, not by wickedness but by faith; also in the 20. chap. he saith, the Pagans destroy their Gods, by compelling the unwilling to sacrifice, for they distrust the power of their Gods: lastly, these Pagans do neither do a benefit to the Gods to which they compelled Christians to sacrifice, nor to them whom they compel: not to them whom they compel, because it is not a benefit which is brought into one that refuseth; not to the Gods, because it is not a sacrifice, which is offered unwillingly. Lastly, whereas divers learned men in books and pulpits, render us odious, and so incense the magistrates against us: I shall desire all men, but specially Magistrates, to consider this as a former method of satans; witness these instructions given by Pope Adrian to Cheregatus his legate, touching his proceedings in the diet of Norinberg, how and by what persuasions, to incense the Princes against Luther. 1. You shall declare the grief of our heart for the prospering of Luthers sect, to see so many souls, redeemed with Christs blood, to be turned from the true religion. 2. The infamy of the Nation, viz. of the Germans. 3. Their own honour, which will be stained if they be not like their progenitors, some whereof lead John Hus to the fire. 4. That Luther condemns to hell, all their progenitors that died in the Romish faith. 5. To consider the end whereto the Lutherans tend, which is, under pretence of repressing the usurped ecclesiastical power as tyrannical, to infring and break in pieces the secular state. 6. To consider the fruits which follow of that sect; as slanders, seditions, dissensions, blasphemies, murders, scoffings, &c. 7. That the Princes should consider, that Luther useth the same way of seducing, that Mahomet did; who permitted liberty of those things which flesh desired, as to have many wives, and to put away those they had if they listed; so Luther to draw away Nuns, monks, and Priests that are lascivious, permits unto them that they may mary. I list not to provoke by making too close applications, onely I shall desire,( that whereas these and such like ways are taken, to render odious those that are no less the servants of God then Luther was, and that by aspersing of them and their doctrines, as Luther here was charged,) that the Magistrates imitate the Lord, Gen. 18.21. Because the cry of sodom is great, I will go down and see, whether they have done altogether according to the cry which is some unto me. It will be well, if Magistrates inquire whether the Antipaedobaptists, so cried out of, be such persons as they are defamed; if it be enough to accuse, who can be innocent? It was in time of Pagan Emperors, that the name of Christian, was crime enough. tart. Apol. usque ad gentes. Let it not be so amongst those that seem to profess the name of Christ; if sundry pamphletters that accuse, can prove us guilty of what they accuse, currat lex fiat justitia But if they causelessly irritate Magistrates against us, because we will not prostitute our consciences to creatures, nor practise against our own principles, I trust God will consider the cause of the poorer For Mr. Blakes exception at this passage in my former book, Part 1. Pag. 32. Little did the Holy-Ghost( using such a similitude of love and kindness) think, that men would pervert it to violence or constraint. And to this I answer, the fault for any thing I know, was the printers not knowing their was such a word in the original copy. 2. It might have past by an anthropopathy, as God is said to grieve repent; But had it been a real oversight, the book going hastily to the press, necessity then compelling, ingenuity might have taught you what my meaning was, and that I had no thoughts to limit Gods omniscience. For your conclusion in your Preface, that your care hath been to render my arguments to the Reader in the full strength; I appeal not to you, who are a party, and therefore not fit to be a judge; but to the understanding and consciences of those, who have red my former book; whether you have so done, let the Reader compare the books, and he will easily see the contrary. Having spoken to your Preface, I proceed to your Treatise. Against my first Argument, viz. The baptism of Christ is dipping; The baptism of Infants, is not dipping; therefore, the baptism of Infants is not the baptism of Christ. To the mayor now: Except, viz. That the baptism of Christ is dipping, you being to prove 〈◇〉 to signify to wash, from my own acknowledgement out of the greek Lexicon. Ans. I city the Lexicographer, only to show his partiality; in that he brings so many authorities from the Greekes, that knew the true use of the word, that it signifies to dipp; but brings so little authority that it signifies to wash; and none at all that it signifies to sprinkle. And I do marvel, Pag. 3. That you allege from the Septuagint on 2. Reg 5. As if they did use the word dipping and washing promiscusly; no plainer place can be brought against you. Farther, Pag. 3, 4, 5. Whereas I say they were baptized of John into jordan, 〈◇〉, Mark 19. You bring Mr. Cookes Search, Pag. 5. to show, that this signifies in, as well as into; and so there was no necessity of the application of the person to the water. Ans. In those places, all or most by you cited, and also with words signifying motion( as this doth) it signifies, to, or into, as your own authorities, Mat 13.33. Shee hide it into 3. Pecks of meal; there was no application of the meal to the leaven, but of the leaven to the meal: so Mat. 10.9. possess not money in, or into your purses; their was no application of the purse to the money, but of the money into the purse. For your answer to John 3.33. John was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there were many waters there; you answer, that many waters were requisite, not in respect of dipping, but that Iohns disciples might be employed in baptizing, as well as John himself. Ans. We must take your bare word for this, for you cannot produce any place that Iohns disciple baptized at all, much less that they baptized at Aenon, or had any Commission so to do. Nay, John 3.26. Iohns Disciples thought it a strange presumption, to think that any one should baptize, save John himself; therefore sure they did not baptize. For that which you call a criticism of ascending and descending, from Acts 8.38.39. Answ. The light is not more clearer, then that the proposition signifies( into) that Philip and the Eunuch went into the water; and therefore vers. 39. Its said, they came out of the water. Next Mr. black Pag. 6. Goes about to nullify the proportion, which the Holy-Ghost makes, as if it were made by me; when I say, dipping signifies death and burial with Christ, and rising up above the water, resurrection with Christ. Answ. Peruse Rom. 6.3.4. & Coll. 2.12. And see whether the Holy-Ghost set not before your eyes the same proportion; and red ex positors upon the same, as Paraeus, &c. Must we allow your proportions from circunctsing of Infants to prove baptism of Infants, without any proportion so made by God; and will you not allow this proportion, so clearly made by the Apostle, as appears in the word, 〈◇〉, Rom. 6.5. And whereas you seem to retort the argument drawn from proportion, making a proportion betwixt sprinkliag in water, and the blood of sprinkling; that speaks better things then that of Abell, Pag. 6. Answ. yourself confess herein, you attempt only a human proportion, without divine institution, Pag. 6. But had you not said so much, it would have appeared; because the Apostle alludes only to the sprinklings in the Law, and against which and not baptismal water, he opposes the blood of sprinklings, and the sprinkling from an evil conscience, as the Antitype thereof. Pag. 7. Next Mr. black seems to nullify my Answers, to Mark. 7.8. Where the Pharisees held the baptism of Pots, which washing, I affirmed was by dipping, yea total dippings; for persons use to wash them all over. Mr. black saith, itis no satisfaction of the objection, unless I could prove we never wash otherwise then by dipping. Answ. Its the intrution of all manner of persons, when they wash any vessel, one way or other, to dipp it, or should they power any water upon it, it were virtually the same. Further, whereas you desire me P. 7. sincerely to speak my thoughts, whether I believe that the Pharisees, as oft as they came from market, plunged themselves over head and ears, before they eat any meat. Answ. I marvel you should desire me so vehemently, to declare myself in so trivial a matter, but to answer; I believe so oft as they came from market, they plunged or dipped their hands, though not themselves over head and ears; which if they did, that is all I would deduce from that Scripture. And whereas you charge me, P. 7. As if I should necessary imply the word to baptize, to signify to dipp over head and ears: I never maintained any such thing; but the ground of total dipping which I bring is. 1. Because the Holy-Ghost speaks of much water. John 3.23. Whereas a little water is enough for sprinkling, 2. Because we red of Iohns and Philips applying of the subject to the water, not of the water to the subject, Mark. 1.9. Acts. 8.38.39.3. Because Paul tells us of burying with Christ in baptism. Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. Now the word baptism signifying dipping,( no adversary being able to deny this) how can there be a burial therein, unless we be under the water, as Persons dying are said to be butted, not when they lie dead in their winding-sheet; but when they are covered over with earth. After p. 8. Mr. Bl●k● comes to bring arguments, against the necessity of dipping: As first, pharisaical washings were not always dippings, but pharisaical washings are baptisms. Ergo, baptism is not always dipping. Answ. We may deny the proposition; as it doth not appear but all their washings were dippings, or that which did amount to the s●me, what doth hinder but that they might dip their beds? which Mr. black brings to oppose it; He knoweth not the form and manner of the Jewish beds; it may be they might use hammocks, as they use in hot countries, which might soon be taken down and dipped, and hung up again. The thing having no weight i'le pass it over. 2. Arg. legal purifications are not always dipping, but legal purifications are baptisms. Ergo, baptism is not always dipping. Answ. I deny the assumption, legal purifications are not called baptisms, neither bring you any place to prove it; but were they, it follows not but baptism might be dipping. 3. Arg. If the way of baptism were only dipping, then the baptizer must put the baptized over bead into the water, and after a space receive them up again; but we find no such thing in John to Christ, or in Philip to the Eunuch. Answ. We find them both going into the water, with the administrators; and we find the Apostle speaking of a burial, not onely in the death of Christ, but a burial with him in baptism, and arising again, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. which is equivalent with putting the baptized over the head into the water. Arg. If Scripture way of baptizing were thus to dipp, then the baptizer and batized must both put off their garments, but among all multitudes baptized, there is not one word of unclothing, nor yet the putting on of garments after baptism. Answ. What hurt can follow, If both change garments either before or after, may they not do it so that there be not the least appearance of evil? 2. Though there be nothing spoken directly of their changing garments, yet without doubt they did. Had it not been a kind of tempting his Father, for Christ when he came out of Jordan, not to have changed his clothes? Or the Eunuch, when he came out of the waters? Its not likely a man of that quality that he was of, would go along the way with wet clothes; as he came out of the water. But for your speech, Pag. 8. viz Therefore those that have put a kind of necessity upon Dipping, have spoken much of being received naked into baptism. I suppose it would trouble you much to name one such in the world: Search your heart, whether this and such like speeches, come not from, you to breed an hatred in people towards us, rather then out of conscience of fortifying your Argument, where you allege it? for our parts, we abhor those things in our worship, which are not so much as name among the Heathen. 4. Arg. It was the Apostles way, to baptize Disciples as soon as they were become converts; the same day, yea the same hour; as in the jailor, Lydia, &c. But conversion of Disciples sometimes must necessary happen, when there was no season for dipping; the element of water being over could. Answ. 1. Suppose the coldest time that can come, yet know I not the same would prove destructive to any persons for so little time as they are in the water. 2. In case of weakness of body, when itis truly, and not pretended; such persons, if they did scruple of receiving it, otherwise then in Rivers and pounds, they might put off their baptism till the season were more moderate; because God will have mercy, before any other sacrifice. 5. Arg. The number of Converts was so numerous, 3000, 5000, in one day, that there was no possibility of baptism in that manner. Answ. Why not as well as by sprinkling? The Dipping is as soon done( in a manner) as the sprinkling. 2. As the Disciples converted were many, so it's probable the Administrators were many; seeing that besides the Apostles, we red of others that baptized; as Philip the Deacon that baptized the Eunuch, & Ananias who baptized Paul. Arg. Sometimes the baptizers were in that condition, that they were unable for the work of baptizing; as Paul and Silas, when they had been afflicted with such stripes, that their convert was said forthwith to wash them: And sometimes the baptized have not been in case to be dipped; as Paul when he was lead into Damascus. Answ. Paul and Silas notwithstanding their stripes, might baptize the jailor; especially, having washed their stripes. Besides, it was not necessary that either of them should go so deep into the water, that the water should come as high as their wounds; or should it come so high, I suppose it would rather have been beneficial, then hurtful, to such an inflammation as usually arises from stripes. 2. If a person be in such a condition that he is not fit to be baptized, without hazard of health; he may lawfully put it off, till he be able; And I suppose, if Paul had felt his natural strength to have been so impaired, that he could not have been safely baptized, he would have alleged the same to Ananias, when he asked him why he tarried from baptism? Acts 22.16. But finding sufficiency of strength, he submitted. Now whereas Mr. black, Pag. 10. Accuseth us to join in garrison with Antichrist, in being so zealous for Dipping, as he saith the Papists are. Answ. I fear me, he and others that maintain Infants baptism, come nearer the Popish party: Seeing by Infants baptism, there is one and the same admission of Membership into the Romish Church, and into sundry Protestant Churches hereby. And whereas, Pag. 10. You conclude the Answer to my first Argument thus: Every baptism, which for the outward Rite is Dipping, Washing, or Sprinkling, is in that respect the baptism of Christ: But the baptism of Infants, is either Dipping, Washing, or Sprinkling; Therefore the baptism of Infants, is in that respect the baptism of Christ. To your Proposition: I aclowledge Dipping, and deny sprinkling; neither hath there been any thing alleged by you, to confirm it; and for Washing, such a washing as is by dipping, or application of the subject to the water, I aclowledge to be baptism: Otherwise, I doubt hereof. On the contrary, I argue thus; for the cleared of my former assumption, denied by you: viv. That the baptism of Infants is dipping. The baptism of Christ, is Dipping and burial therein; Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. The baptism of Infants is not Dipping,( or though it were) yet not burial therein: Therefore the baptism of Infants, is not the baptism of Christ. If any shall allege against the assumption, that some Infants are butted; or that it would be very hazardous? Answ. I grant it hazardous, therefore it appears they are not the subjects of baptism; and though they be so dipped and butted, yet is their dipping and burial nothing, became the persons that are to be butted, are such as have saith of the operation of God, Col. 2.12. Which Infants have not, as Mr. black seemeth to confess, by asserting the rationality of the 9. page. of my former book; wherein is proved, Infants have no faith; and no where in all his book asserting them to have faith, so far as I remember: see him, Pag. 23. 2. Suppose baptism signify dipping, washing, and sprinkling, the last whereof is denied, the middlemost much questioned, and the first confessed by both sides; now which of these significations would an impartial unprejudiced Reader, give to baptism, when he reads this phrase? Rom. 6.4. Therefore we are butted with him by baptism, &c. And that phrase, Col. 2.12. butted with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him; would he read it any otherwise then thus? butted with him in dipping, wherein also you are risen again; yet for so reading and conceiving thereof, is there so much of the reproach and fury of man vented against divers of Gods Saints, especially when they shall practise accordingly. 3. Admit the word baptism were a word of divers significations, and should signify washing as well as dipping( for I affirm it never to signify sprinkling) yet surely there is no doubtfulness in the signification of the words, butted and risen. If the word baptism do signify washing as well as dipping( which yet could never plainly appear to me) yet must there be a burial in that washing, and arising again therein? as appears, Rom. 6 4. Therefore we are butted with him by baptism into death, also Col. 2.12. butted with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen again, which burial and rising again with him in washing, can be no other ways then by dipping, yea by to tall dipping; which is enough to overthrow the practise of infants baptism, commonly used. Obj. But we are said to be butted with Christ spiritually, therefore spiritual baptism and not corporal is there meant. Answ. Outward or corporal baptism is in both those places meant, in which corporal baptism or washing, we are said to be butted and risen again; appears by these reasons. 1. That which is the likeness of a spiritual baptism, cannot be only a spiritual baptism, but must be also a bodily: but the baptism expressed Rom. 6.4. Is a likeness of a spiritual baptism. Therefore a bodily also, and not a spiritual baptism only is meant. The proposition appears from a received axiom; which is, no like is the same. The assumption appears, Rom. 6.5. As we have been planted( viz. by baptism) in the likeness of his death, so shall we be also in the likeness of his resurrection. 2. Where the sign baptism or washing, and the thing signified, death and resurrection with Christ, are both expressed, there an outward baptism must be meant as well as an inward. But so it is here, Rom. 6.4. We are butted with him by baptism. The thing signified, or spiritual baptism in these words, viz. butted with him, the outward sign viz. by baptism. Therefore bodily baptism is here meant. 3. That which agrees with the Apostles scope, must needs be meant, but an outward baptism as well as an inward, agrees with the Apostles scope, for the Apostle, vers 2. Had said they were dead to sin. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? now he proves it, vers. 3. That they were dead to sin, because they were baptized, which is a sign of death to sin; which they could not have been, had they not been deemed dead to sin, therefore a corporal baptism as well as a spiritual, or washing with the blood of Christ, is here meant. 4. If the parallel place, Colos. 2.12. butted with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen again, doth set forth an outward baptism as well as an inward, then bodily baptism is meant, as well as a spiritual washing in Christs blood. But the former is true, viz. butted with him &c. 〈◇〉, in baptism, 〈◇〉, in which baptism or washing, you are risen again; therefore corporal washing, as well as washing in Christs blood, is here meant. Now because this doctrine of dipping, savours so of Novellisme; not to instance in histories, not without difficulty attainable; Peruse the book of Martyrs Edition. 7. Mr. Fox saith, Augustine and Paulinus baptized them in rivers, not in hallowed Fonts, as witnesseth Fabianus, Cap. 119.120. Acts and Monuments, Part. 1. pag. 138. After speaking of Austin, he saith, he departed after he had baptized ten thousand Saxons or Angles, in the West river that is called small, besides york, on a Christmas day. Where note by the way, Christian Reader, saith Mr. Fox, that whereas Austine baptized then in rivers, it followed then there was no use of Fonts, for this story Mr. Fox cites Fabian. Acts and Monuments, Part 1. Pag. 154. After in the story of King Edwin, he hath this story; Paulinus having convicted Edwin the King, to the faith of Christ, and having baptized him; during the life of the said Edwin, which was six yeares more, Paulinus christened continually in the rivers of Gwenye and Swala, in both provinces of Deira and Bernitia. Acts and Monuments, Part. 1. Pag. 156. Onely I cannot but clear a place in Mr. black, Pag. 4. His words are; compare Revel. 19.13. with Esa. 63.3. And you will find there no such difference, but the word be 〈◇〉, rendered in our translation dipped, Revel 19. To be no other in Esa. 63. Then be sprinkled. But what ever the difference bee between them, though sprinkling be not at all baptizing, it makes little to your purpose; seeing those that dipp not Infants, do not yet use to sprinkle them; there is a middle way betwixt these two. Reply. The Reader may observe, Mr. black hath a defence for what he is going to say, whether it be true or false, his words are, there is no such difference. Why, if there be any difference betwixt these two sayings, and the Persons of whom they are spoken, is it not enough to disprove that you would prove by them, you bring these two places to prove dipping and sprinkling to be one, yet you yourself aclowledge a difference betwixt them, in the thing for which you allege them. Yea, as despairing of the proof, your own words conclude; but what ever the difference be, though sprinkling be not at all baptizing, &c. 2. But had you not confessed the same, we can easily prove it, Esa. 63.3. The words are there, Blood shall be besprinkled upon my garments; where the Prophet speaks of the victory, Christ gets against his enemies, after the manner of conquerors, who when they kill their enemies, the blood of the slain is wont to besprinkle the conqueror. Hence Iunius reads it, inspersus est Sanguis cujusque robustissimi illorum vestamentis meis, but Revel. 19. Iohu speaks of Christ clothed with a vesture dipped in blood, which was no other then Christs own satisfaction, the righteousness of Saints; therefore there can be no parrellellisme betwixt these two places; not to show the difference of the learned tongues herein, the difference of the scope is enough to nullify what is said, to prove the word besprinkled, Esa. 63. And the word dipped, Apoc. 19. To be the same, it must be spoken of the same occasion, of the same time, of the same action, of the same subject, in the same language. Now 1. The occasion was different, or Esa. 63.1.2.3. There are 2. questions propounded by the Church of the jews, 1. The Church of the jews seeing Christ revenging his enemies, asks who he is? verse. 1. 2. Why he was read in his apparel? to which the answer is given, vers. 3. 4, 5, 6. That the cause was the slaughter of his enemies. Now the occasion Apoc. 19. Is of the victory Christ got over the beast and the false Prophet, from vers. 10. to the end of the Chapter. 2. The time is different, one was in the Prophet Esays time, the other was near to the end of the world; as appears by the order of the Apocalyptycall history. Neither let any man say, this place of Esay, might be a prophecy of the other in the Revelations; for in Esay 63. Theres no mention of babylon, or any thing that can accord with this history, in any seeming type. 3. Yea though it were the same occasion, and the same time, yet if in both Scriptures the same action were not mentioned, the argument of 〈◇〉, dipped, in Revel. 19. And the word sprinkled, Isay 63. Would not follow to be the same, now that the action is not the same, appears because there are no such questions propounded, Apoc. 19. As are propounded Isay 63. Nor no victory against the beast and false Prophet, mentioned, Isay 63. As is mentioned Apoc. 19. With many other differences of the actions, which any man that looks both texts may see. If so bear allusion of a word in the new Testament, to a word or phrase in the old Testament, will serve to prove points; we may make every thing of any thing, and make Christian religion more doubtful, then the oracles of Delphus. 4. Theres difference in the subject; Though the occasion, time, and action were the same, yet if the subject, viz. The enemies over which Christ triumphs be not the same, then it follows that sprinkled, Isa. 63.3. And dipped, Apoc. 19.13. Are not the same; but so it is that the enemies over which Christ triumphs, are far different; for when Christ triumphed over his enemies, Isa. 63. He came out of Edom, and with dyed garments from Bosrah, vers 1. Which Bosrah was the Metropolit of Edom, Isa. 34.6. 1 Machab. 5.26. So that his victory was there( in the true history) got over the Edomites and Bofraites; but this victory Christ gets, Apo. 19.13. Was over the beast and ●alse Prophets in another part of the world, together with a many of Kings, & Princes, their confederates. Which being so clear, not to trouble the reader in so plain a case with more differences, it follows that sprinkled, Isa. 63.3. And dipped, Apoc. 19.13. Are not the same; but the allegation is a mere flourish, to deceive supeficiall understandings. If any ask why I have been so long upon so weak an argument. It is to undeceive those, who have been by divers learned men( some whereof are of great note) been deceived in this particular, by the counterfeit Parrellellisme of these two places. Arg. 2. Mr. black, instead of taking away my answers to exceptions against Christs Commission, takes a long discourse out of his Book called, Birth privilege; which is nothing, but 〈◇〉, only instead of answering one 〈◇〉, he inserts this long discourse, P. 11. 12. 13. out of which, all that I can deduce, is only 2. arguments against infants baptism. 1. Esay 49.22. Behold, I will lift ●y my hand to the Gentiles, and set up my Standard to the people; and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders: Therefore, Infants may be baptized. Answ. For the opening of this place at large, I refer the Reader to my former book, part. 1. pag. 31. In a word, God promised the Jews, that though now in captivity their Land were desert, and their desolations great; yet the Inhabitants should be so many, that the land should be too straight for them, vers. 19.20. Hence, vers. 21. They fall to enquiry who hath begotten these? Seeing themselves were desolate and sorry Captives: To which the Lord answers, vers. 22. Thus saith the Lord, I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles: As if he should say, it shall be my Work. There shall sundry of the Gentiles come in to them as proselytes, and not onely themselves, but they shall also bring their children in their arms, and upon their shoulders, with them; and so by multiplication of Proselytes, the Land in a short time became too straight for them. But what is this to the baptizing of Infants? But that the Prophet should speak of the rejection of the Jews, and the call of the Gentiles in their stead, as Mr. black would have it; it's both contrary to the tenor of Scriptures which affirm, that the Jews at their last conversion, shall be taken into the Gentiles, not the Gentiles into the Jews. See Rom. 11.12.15. and contrary to the tenor of that place, which speaks of a bringing in many Gentiles to the godly Jews. And what if the godly Gentiles be so zealous, that rather then they will lose the benefit of Ordinances, by tarrying at home and looking to their infants, will take so much pains as carry them in their arms and shoulders unto them, what can hence be deduced for the sprinkling of Infants? And that this is the meaning of it, if there be any literal sense therein, appears because the Prophet saith, I will set up my standard to the people, and they shall bring their sons, &c. which standard, is nothing but the preaching of the gospel. Howbeit, I rather lean to Iu●ius, who acknowledges all these things to be spoken Allegorically, of the enlargement of the spiritual kingdom of Christ; as the Prophets are wont to speak. Mr. Blake's next intermixed Argument is; 2. A●g. To belong to Christ, and be a Disciple of Christ, are both one; Matth. 10.42. compared with Mark. 9.42. Infants belong to Christ, therefore they are Disciples, p. 13. 16. Answ. To your proposition, I answer; First, itis true of such Disciples as Christ spoken of, which were converted to the Faith, but not of others; neither Infants who are not yet enlightened, nor of Elect persons unborn, who belong to God in respect of Gods decree, yet cannot properly be called Disciples; as not having any being: these to belong to Christ, and to be Disciples of Christ, are two several things; the one, that is their belonging to Christ, is in present; the other, that is, their being Disciples, is in future: To this Mr. black gives a scoff, instead of an answer, p. 16. 2. Children cannot be Disciples, See Mr. Den An● to D. Fea● P. 10. because they cannot take up Christ his cross, Luk. 14.26. Now what Infant hath an habitual intention to take up Christ his cross? 3. Disciples of Christ, they have a call into that state, either extraordinary, or ordinary. But what call have Infants in that state? 4. Infants cannot be Disciples, because they are not capable of learning reason, much less deep things of Religion: Now Disciple in English is a scholar. 5. I will not speak of sundry badges of Disciples, whereby all men may know them; as Joh. 12.35. By this shall all men know ye are my Disciples, if ye love one another; and fruitfulness, Joh. 15.8. Herein is my father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my Disciples. So Joh. 8.31. If ye continue in my word, then are ye my Disciples indeed. Now how can love, fruitfulness, or continuance in Christs word, be ascribed to Infants? which they must be, if Infants were Disciples: As Mr. black would make us believe. But still Mr. black, lest he should seem to have said nothing, distinguishes— p. 18. that a Disciple is taken two ways; 1. Strictly, for one that actually learns. 2. Largely, for those that are taken into the number of those that do actually learn, though themselves do not; and in this order he would make us believe Infants to be Disciples, p. 18, 19, 20. Answ. 1. There are none are Schollers in Christs School, but do learn; and therefore the similitude from little ones being called Schollers, though they do not learn, is of no weight. 2. Christ cuts off that distinction of two sorts of Disciples, in requiring one sort of qualifications in all his Disciples, as was shown before; Luk. 14.26.27. Joh. 8.31.12.35. Whosoever will be Christs Disciple, must hate father and mother. Further, Mr. black goes about to weaken my answer to Mr. Marshals Argument, out of Acts 15.10. which was this; p. 17. All they upon whose necks the false Teachers would have put the yoke of Circumcision, are called Disciples: But they would have put this yoke upon Infants, therefore Infants are Disciples. Answ. Not to repeat my former answers, assailed by Mr. black, but not overcome, I answer: We deny the Proposition; All that can be deduced from this Text is, that they would have put a yoke upon the neck of all the Disciples; Not that all were Disciples upon whom they would have put this yoke, or that they would have put the yoke onely upon the Disciples. See this answer with clear demonstrations for it, in Mr. Dens Answ. to Dr. Fearley, pag. 11. 12. Who hath spoken so fully to it, that I need not add thereto. There are some other small exceptions, which Mr. black hath against my vindications of Christs Commission, which because they are not material, as p. 14. and p. 20. I will not insist upon, he having past over so many matters of moment, alleged concerning Christs Commission, as the Reader may easily observe. Only the 5. exception he punisheth with very grievous strokes, to make it an example to all the rest. The exception, word for word by me a●ledged, is thus. viz. Obj. Christ saith, baptize all nations, but Children are part of the nation, therefore they may be baptized. Answ. In the proposition, there is a fallacy of division, whereby one conjoined proposition, is divided into two pieces. As a certain atheist, that would prove out of Scripture, there was no God; for which he alleged, the 14. psalm, vers 1. Where it is said, there is no God; but he left out the foregoing words, the fool hath said in his heart. So here Christ saith, baptize all nations, but he conjoins with it, make disciples all nations; which the objector here left out. Mr. black his answer hereto Pag. 21. This is the man that being reviled will not revile again, atheist is the worst word a brother shall hear from him; but if here be any fallacy, it is none of the objectors sophistry, but of the stormers forgery; I challenge this daring champion, who so contumeliously slanders the Churches of Christ, for garrisons of Antichrist, and then so insolently insults over them, to produce the man that ever laid the weight of this conclusion; that Infants are to be baptized, upon this one observation, that they are part of the Nation. Reply. Nor do I charge any man so to have done; But yourself know, that it is an usual Argument brought for baptizing Infants; and therefore it stood me in hand to answer it: Yea, it is answered, that it is a fallacy of division, which you are not able to refute. And whereas you charge me, that what is rightly observed by the Objector( meaning I suppose yourself) is falsely put together by the Stormer, p. 21. Answ. I did not give it as an answer to any such Argument brought by yourself, not remembering you had any such; but to an Argument I once heard brought in a populous Auditory. And therefore you do not fairly, in making persons believe that of me, which I never meant: And so much the rather, in that you accuse me of calling a brother atheist, which never was in my thoughts, much less dropped from my pen. Yea, that I contumeliously slander the Churches of Christ, for garrisons of Antichrist; I abhor such speeches. Neither can Mr. black produce the least reviling speech in all my Book, and if he could, I doubt not but I should have heard of it. But for lack of such speeches, I may say of him, as the King of Israel said of the King of Syria, 2 Reg. 5.7. Consider I pray you and see, how he seeketh a quarrel against me. The searcher of hearts knoweth, that in using this similitude, I never meant to charge either Mr. black, or any other man, with any reviling speech; but being a story I had formerly react, and clearly demonstrative in this particular; I made use of it, not imagining any man could have been so heated hereby, as Master black seemeth to bee. And whereas in conclusion he tells me, of such as would loose their God, rather then their jest, I suppose he cannot find nor jest, nor jeer in all the book which he takes upon him to confute; and those that know my life, I appeal to, whether they know me to be given to any kind of jesting, much less to profane jesting. And therefore Mr. black is much mistaken, in saying that I slanderously and contumeliously traduced a brother( I suppose he means himself) in using such a comparison. If Michael durst not bring a railing accusation against the devil, Iude 9. then far be it from me to rail upon any, that either are, or may be Saints of God; but of this perhaps enough and too much. Now to answer to your argument, with which you close up your answer, Pag. 22. The disciples of Christ belonging unto him and bearing his name, ought to be baptized. But Infants of Christian parents, belong to Christ, and bear his name in Scripture language; Therefore, Infants of Christian parents ought to be baptized. Answ. 1. In your proposition there is a contradiction in the adjunct, viz. the disciples of Christ belonging unto him, and bearing his name, ought to be baptized, to speak properly, they do not bear his name, till they be baptized. 2. To your assumption; Infants of Christian Parents in Scripture language, belong to Christ. I have disproved before, that belonging to Christ, and being a Disciple of Christ, are two several things; which were enough to overthrow your assumption. But I will deny your assumption in the 3. branches of it. As first, that Infants of Christian Parents, belonging to Christ; for they no otherwise belong unto him, then as God shall call them out of the world, Acts 2.39. And so do the Infants of wicked men. 2. A second branch, that Infants bear Christs name in Scripture-language. Mr. black might have done well to have brought his Scripture to prove it; for I know no Scripture, that holds forth Infants of Christian parents, more then the Infants of wicked parents, to bear Christs name in Scripture-language; Oft doth God convert the children of wicked parents, when the Infants of godly parents growing up, prove wicked. 3. A third branch is, that they are disciples. Answ. None for the present are, for Christ hath no disciples but are learners, which infants are not; nor are they so qualified as Christs disciples are and ought to be: As was proved before. Contrarily, I argue: Those of whom there can no appearance be ●ad of their belonging to Christ, or of being his disciples, they ought not to be baptized into the faith of Christ, or profession thereof. But of no infants, there can ordinarily appearance be had of their belonging to Christ, or of being his disciples: Therefore, no infants ought to be baptized. The proposition is undoubted; The Assumption appears, that there can no appearance be had of any infants belonging to Christ, in their infancy; for no infants of the holiest persons, appear so; and some prove wicked: as appears in some infants of Abram, Isaac, David, Samuel, &c. No man can say for certainty, of any infant of any godly man; this infant belongs to Christ, or will be a disciple of Christ. Obj. But you will say, no more can you have certainty of their belonging to Christ, that make profession, seeing Magus, &c. were hypocrites. Answ. True, we cannot have a certainty of infallibility, but we have a certainty of precept, being bid to baptize those that are made disciples, Matth. 28.19. Also we have a certainty of evidence, by words and life; neither of which infants can give, and which charity reaches us to judge as truth. Also we have certainty of example, in that PHILIP baptized the Eunuch upon the confession of Christ his nature, knowing him to be a Proselyte of the Jewish Church, to be instructed in Christ his Offices; and it seems this profession or confession, was of all Christians at their baptism, Heb. 10.23. As it is word for word in the Greek, viz. And having washed the body with pure water, let us hold fast the confession of the hope without wavering. What profession or confession was this? Surely that which was made at our baptism, when we washed our bodies with pure water. Next, Mr. black comes to reason against my fourth and fifth Argument together, p. 22. viz. The baptism of Christ requires faith and repentance, to the right receiving of it; but neither of these can be in infants, therefore infants baptism, cannot be Christs baptism. To this Mr. black p. 23. distinguisheth and answereth, that want of faith and repentance is twofold: First privative, which he makes to be want of that grace in a subject capable of it, and by the precept of the gospel called to it: Secondly Negative, where it is not( meaning faith, where Note, he acknowledges infants have not faith, as also in the next page.. See p. 22. 23.) Negative, where it is not, but not expected, nor the subject of capacity to receive it: Now it is not mere negative want of faith, that makes uncapabale of baptism, but privative; that is, the unbelief of a person of capacity to believe. Reply. The Scripture requires justifying Faith in all, or that which is deemed equivalent thereto: viz. A profession thereof, which every Church and person judges to be in truth, not being able to search the heart; See for this these places, Heb. 10.22. Mark. 16.15.16. Acts 8.37. Therefore where there is any kind of want of it, the person so wanting it, and especially being known to want it, ought to be excluded from baptism: Negative want of faith, and privative( if any such distinction can be herein, which I deny) though they may differ in degree of guilt, yet are they both alike, in that they hold forth a want of those absolute qualifications of faith and repentance, without which( at least in profession) we never find baptism administered. Away with these frivolous distinctions, great is their guilt. Mr. black having acknowledged want of faith in infants: Yet after comes to be offended, for my calling the distinction of seminal and actual faith, a vain distinction; seeing there is but one faith; Ephes. 4. And replieth, though faith be but one, yet it may admit of a double consideration, in the root and in the fruit. Answ. The root of faith, is the habit which most properly is called faith, and the fruits are the acts of it; still there's but one faith. Again, Mr. black is offended, because I said the first seed of faith is illumination, of which infants are not capable; To which he replies, the Spirit is the first seed. Answ. The spirit is the sour, illumination is the first seed. Then pag. 24. Mr. black tells us; It's the absurdity of our party, to maintain this Sacrament of baptism is applied upon the ground of charity, and not certainty, upon hopes that the person is of capacity, not upon assurance. Answ. We do so, because we find it so administered in Scripture; as we see in Magus, in charity they thought him to be a believer: And we have a certainty of charity herein to bear us out. But for a certainty of infallibility, upon which baptism is to be applied to any person, the Scripture mentions no such; and had there been any such I doubt not but the Churches would have excluded Ananias and Saphyra, Magus, and many others, from baptism: And if Mr. black, or any other Paedobaptists, know of any such certainty of infallibility, upon which to dispense the Ordinance of baptism, they do ill to dispense it to so many, as after prove wicked. Then Mr. black concludes with this Argument, p. 25. That want of faith and repentance, which debars from baptism, excludes also from salvation: But want of faith and repentance infants, excludes not from salvation; Therefore, the want of faith and repentance, debars not infants from baptism. Answ. We deny the proposition to be simply true in adult persons, unless it be final; for present want of faith and repentance, may debar them from baptism, and yet they may be saved, believing after. Also it's not true in infants: infants being not of capable understanding neither to believe nor repent, may be excluded from baptism, and yet may be saved through Gods Election, or Christs satisfaction; jacob was loved before he had done good or evil. Or through Gods future calling of them. Contrary, I argue: Such qualifications as Christ and his Apostles, set down for persons baptizable, these ought onely to be observed. But Christ and the Apostles set down onely the qualifications of faith and repentance, for persons baptizable; Therefore, the qualifications of faith and repentance, ought onely to be observed. The proposition is undoubted, for we are to hear Christ as the Prophet of his Church, Acts 3.22. And the Apostles as speaing from him, Ephes. 2.20. The Assumption is as sure, that neither Christ in his commission cited by Matthew, or Mark, nor any other of the Apostles in their sermons, set down any other qualifications for baptism, save faith and repentance; and it had been great unfaithfulness for them, to set down Ordinances for Christians, and left out qualifications for the persons that should have received them. The next Argument Mr. black sets upon, is this. The children of wrath are not to be sealed with the seal of grace; infants are such, Ergo. &c. To this Mr. black faith, a child of wrath is to be considered two ways: First, so by nature, original corruption putting him into that condition. Secondly, so in his present state and condition, not translated and changed through Grace. Answ. Your distinction is no distinction; For what difference is there betwixt a child of wrath not changed, and a child of wrath put in that estate by original corruption? The one is unchanged, and so is the other. 2. Christ giving commission, that repentants and believers should be baptized; infants by nature impenitent and unbelieving, must needs be excluded. Next, Mr. black excepts against an objection I made, which was: But if infants as well as others, be children of wrath by nature, then they dying in their infancy must needs be damned. Answ. No: natural de●lement with original sin, doth not simply damn; it shows there is something in us deserves damnation; but it doth not appear from Scripture grounds, that any Person was damned for it alone. To this Mr. black answers, P. 27. The universal damning power of original defilement, we can prove out of 1 Cor. 15.50. John 3.3. Ephe. 2.3. Answ. That there is an universal damning power of original defilement, is clear, out of Romans 5.12. &c. In respect of merit we aclowledge, but not in respect of execution; for if there bee, good now tell me whether it be executed on your infants dying after baptism in their infancy, before th believe, or whether your baptism hath taken away this damning power or original defilement? If you assert the former, then you uncharitably affirm, your own infants dying after baptism in their infancy, to be damned; if the latter, then you assert your baptism, to take away the damning power of original defilement, and so join hands with the Papists. As Heterodox is that which Mr. black saith, p. 18. That the charity of the Paedobaptists( whereby they hold infants dying after baptism in infancy to be saved) is not grounded upon any conceived immunity in those infants, from all damnable guilt, but on the title to that covenant, whereof circumcision was a sign and seal. Answ The supposition of the salvation of any person whatsoever, must be grounded upon an immunity from all manner of guilt; which cannot be upon any imaginary title to that covenant, Apoc. 21.27. whereof circumcision was a sign, but upon the presentment of the satisfaction of Christis death to the justice of God, for all manner of sin and guilt. My next Argument Mr. black sets upon, is out of Acts 8.10.12. where there is mention made of a whole City baptized, both men and women; there's no mention made of believers and their seed. To this Mr. black answers; the sex is in this place noted, and not the growth and age, as appears in the distinct mention of both sexes, and the age and growth not mentioned at all. Reply. Is not the distinct age and growth mentioned, when they are said to be men and women? Are infants ever said to believe as these Samaritans did? Or called men and women, as these Samaritans were? Further, whereas p. 30. Mr. black saith, that this distinction of sex, in all probability, was to distinguish baptism in this particular from circumcision; where the male was circumcised, not the female: But here, male and female, men and women, are both baptized. Reply. It is of far more probability, if not of direct certainty, that the Holy Ghost by this distinction of them, both by grace of faith, and statures of men and women, would denote unto us, that onely believing men and women, are fit subjects of baptism, and not believers seed; none of which are mentioned. Then Mr. black assaults my seventh Argument, from Acts 19. 2, 3, 4, 5. which is; baptism that wants faith in one of the persons of the Trinity, is insufficient. Infants at baptism wants faith, not onely in one, but in every person of the Trinity; Therefore is insufficient. To this, Mr. black p. 31. saith, Faith is twofold: First, explicit; as able to know a Trinity and Unity, and to distinguish it. Secondly, implicit; to know one jehovah in Covenant with his Elect, and reconciled to them, though not knowing distinctly any Trinity of persons; to make baptism insufficient in all, in whom this explicit knowledge is not found, is( I suppose) to nullify the baptism, almost of all whom John baptized. Reply: Baptism may be deemed insufficient in all persons, who have not an explicit knowledge of the Trinity after Christs ascension: because the form of it, is in being baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Now the from gives being. If a person then be ignorant of any of the subsistences( or as they are commonly called, persons in the Trinity) how can he be baptized aright? and though sometime persons were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, yet doubtless had those persons a knowledge of the Trinity. Yea, and Iohns Disciples also had the same knowledge; in that the Spirit descended visibly like a Dove upon Christ, at his baptism, and a voice cried out; This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased. Matth. 3.16, 17. Where Father, Son, and Spirit, are all name. Its a prime principle, that souls be informed in the object of worship, especially, if they go so far as to take Christs badge on them by baptism. Mr. black, p. 32, 33. counts it a singular opinion in me, in that I affirm the Particle They, twice mentioned in the 5. verse, to have reference to Lukes relation, of Pauls proceeding with these twelve disciples at Ephesus, and not to have reference to the hearers of John Baptist. Reply. This is no singularity it me, for Cyprian long ago thought so much. Epist. ad Iubaian. 2. It seems not spoken of Iohns hearers, but of the twelve; because there's a period at the end of the 4. verse at these words; saying, They should believe on him that should come after them: that is, on Christ I●su●. Here is a period, when it should onely have been a Colon, had it been spoken of Iohns hearers. 3. If this had been meant of Iohns hearers, and not of the twelve Disciples, then Paul should lay his hands on the twelve, and the Holy Ghost come upon them, vers. 6 before they were baptized into the Holy Ghost; which is not any thing credible. 4. It seems clear by the continuation of the History; and it would trouble a good Grammarian to give a reason, why the Pronoun They, should agree with Iohns hearers, rather then with the twelve. But my second reason, is that which sways with me. I grant, if it can be evinced that it's spoken of JOHNS hearers, then the Argument is of no force: For to confirm which, Mr. black brings no Arguments from the Text. But if the contrary be evinced further, as others may see further demonstrations for it, more then is yet revealed, then the Argument is unanswerable. For Mr. BLAKE'S saying herein, vers. 5. hath a full relation to saying yea to JOHN's saying, vers. 4. And why not as well or better to PAUL's saying? vers. 4. Then said P●ul— Wh●n they b●ard this, vers. 5. And for the agreement, it may be very fit, for vers. 2. he asked them, whether they had received the Holy Ghost? And the twelve answered; they had not heard whether there had been an Holy Ghost: He asks them, unto what then were ye baptized? And the twelve answered, vers. 3. into JOHNS baptism: Then vers. 4. PAUL replied, that JOHN baptized with the baptism of repentance, &c. q.d. The scope of JOHNS baptism, was to bring persons to believe Christ: And when they heard this that is the 12. they were baptized into the Name of the Lord JESUS, which may be put Synecdochically for all the Trinity: And when PAUL had laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them, vers. 6. as it did on the Samaritans, Act. 8.16, 17. as soon as ever they were baptized: I see not, but there may be a good agreement, betwixt all the parts of the Text. But of this enough. Next, Mr. black licks over my 8. Argument, which is this. The same conditions and qualifications, are required in persons baptizable in our dayes, as were in time of the Apostles. But to have put on Christ, to be baptized into Christs death, to have the heart sprinkled from an evil conscience, to be butted and risen again with Christ, to have the answer of a good conscience, were the conditions then required; Ergo, such conditions and qualif●cations are required in our dayes, ●. 34 Here Mr. black gives not any answer worth replyall, onely he saith, my s●lf ac●nowledged the benefit of salvation which infants have by Christ his death, and why may they not then be baptized into his death? Reply. I put it onely in a charitable supposition, for elsewhere I say, the Scripture reveals nothing of the salvation or damnation of infants. 2. Though dying infants( it's to be hoped) have benefit by Christs death, yet being no man knows which of them will die in infancy, nor which of them will grow up and prove godly or wicked, yea they all being without any profession of life or godlinee, yea without any such qualifications whatsoever; therefore we baptize them not, because no such unqualified persons, were bap●ized in the Apostles dayes, nor by Christs Commission; to the adherency of which Commission and example, we are not yet informed that we transgress Next Mr. black, P. 35. Examines my 9 Argument, which is. That tenant which brings mischiefs to the Churches, and the contrary practise, benefits: the pract●zing of the one is unlawful, and the contrary practise required. But the baptism of Infants brings mischiefs to the Churches: And the delaying of baptism till Persons believe, brings benefits; Therefore the practising of infants baptism is unlawful, and the contrary practise required. To the proposition Mr. black answers: the same lists of mischiefs which you heap up to make good your assumption, were undeniably in the Church of the Jews through circumcision of infants, as well as in the Churches of Christ, by their baptism. R●p●y. You should have added[ ●n their infancy] to the word[ baptism] or else you deceive the Reader, to make him think, that I think, that there are mischiefs in the Ordinances of God; as in a right baptism, which I do not. Now granting your speech to be of infants baptism, I deny there was any such mischiefs could b● pretended against Circumsition. Did that confounded the world and the Church together, when there was a command from God to circumcise every male? was that a groundwork of traditions, which was done by a precise command from God? or could that fill the conscience with scruples, where there was a clear command for it? Gen. 17. I might go through the rest of the particulars of the assumption which you urge, in answering to the proposition; but these are enough. P. 36. Mr. black saith, in further answer to the proposition, viz. You imagine no un●●l mischiefs to com● to the Churches, by compulsion of conscience, yet that which you thus brand, in the old Testament, was the command of God, and p●actised of renowned Princes, with singular approbation of the Holy G●ost. Reply. I suppose this instance, doth not a whit prove the point in hand; we never find in the old Testament, any Magistrate, compelling any persons to this or that belief; or punishing him if he did no● so believe, as the Magistrate would have; we only find him compelling those of the Jewish Church[ himself being a Member thereof] to practise the things they did professedly believe; yet did not the Magistrate, bring in any proselytes this way, nor compel any Town or City of any foreign nation, to embrace their belief; as the Ammonites, Hittites, or the remainder of those Nations that remained amongst them. That he did; I suppose, he did by command from God. In the new Testament, we find none compelling in point of belief, hat I know of, save the beast, Apoc. 13.15. Which causeth, that whosoever would not worship the Image of the beast should be killed, and v●rs. 16.17. Causeth all, small and great, rich and poor, bond and free, that he may give them( for so it is in the orginal●) a mark in their right hand, or in their forehead, and that no man might buy or sell, unless he ●ave the mark. Besides, what Asa did in compelling the Jew a themselves to enter into Covenant with God, he had some Prophet to direct him herein; else could he not have done i●, seeing there was no ru●e for any such thing in the law of Moses: without which how he could have b●en exemp●ed from will-worship, I cannot for the present understand, neither he nor any other King, compelled any Person to the Jewish religion, or to be present at their Sacrifices, or to be a member of the Jewish Church. And what if sundry Princes in the old Testament practised the same, yet was the kingdom of Israel an earthly or worldly kingdom, an earthly or worldly Temple, an earthly or worldly People, and the King an earthly King, who in and over all that kingdom, Temple, and People, could require only earthly obedience: but the kingdom of Christ, now is an heavenly kingdom, not of this world; his Temple, Tabernacle, House, People, all heavenly, and spiritual: and the King Christ Jesus, a King requiring spiritua●l obedience; to whom obedience ought to be willing and cheerful, not voluntary and forced. Nay, should the Magistrate by his power bring his people to truth, and they walk in an outward conformity to the trut●, and ●y in the profession thereof, in obedience to the Magistrates power, either for fear or love; shall they be saved? no they shall not, but they only whom the love of God constrains to obedience, shall be accepted: The Magistrate being then unable to make men offer acceptable sacrifices to God, will he( whether Persons will or no) make them bring unacceptable sacrifice to God? surely the Magistrate herein will not please God. It was not long since, that the Magistrates compelled men to kneel at the Sacrament, to bow at the name of Iesus, at the alter, with many other will worships; as cr●ssing their Children, joining in the service book, &c. Had the things been lawful, they had been abominable to the Persons that did them, if in their consciences, they had been u●lawfull. But the things being unlawful, and the Magistrate compelling them too, did he not compel them to sin against their conscie●ces? and those that would preserve their consciences, and departed from evil, were they not made a prey and ruined? If the Magistrate have not power to rule the conscience, in the least things, which are in their own nature indifferent, Rom. 14.23. As to command a man to eat meate, or wear clothes, of the lawfu●nesse whereof he doubts; then hath he not power to command mens consciences in the greatest things, as the choice of his religion. And if ●his magistrate or state have this power, then all foregoing and following magistra●es have the same; then had queen Mary power to compe●l her s●bjects to go to M●sse, and if they refused, she might burn them; and who knows what Magistrates in following times may produce, or what ●heir religion may bee? Neither let any man though at present sitting ●t the ste●●, think that how ever things go he shall have his principles sa●●sfied: for reflect but upon the A●rian controvercy, in the course of history after Constantines time; how men potent in state were in a moment degrad●d. H●w great a man was Cyprian, yet dyed a martyr, because he would not worship the Gods at the Magistrates command. Hyppotlitus as P●u●e●tius rep●r s, to be torn in peec●s by horses. Was not Athan●sius Bishop of Alex●●●ri●, having s●ff●red many treacheries of the Arrians, forced ●o fly to the ●mp●ror Co●st●ns, and after his death was driven away again: was not Chrysostom B●shop of Constantinople, by the envy and calumny of Th●ophilu● of Al●x●ndria, banished into armoniac, by the command of the Emperour ●●cadius and not being at rest there, his enemies procured a further banishment, till they got his life at length in banishmen●. These and many more lost lives and liber●ies, from the commands of Magistrates, who being in great degree, times turned against them in a moment. Are not the Marian dayes and episcopal banishments fresh in our memories, because we would no● worship the Images that they set up. How often did they compel persons to ea● the Lords supper with doubting consciences, nay against their consciences, and so made t●em ea● unworthily, to their own judgement, by kneeling, bowing; and being constrained to practise against conscience, in time lost all conscience. truly can the Magistrate or State, prove that we may obey them in the things that they command in point of religion, without the everlasting destruction of soul and body then let us for ever be branded, if we refuse to obey, but if they cannot, that rule remaines everlasting, that we must obey; God rather then men: and so much the more as the Magistrate is set over us only as men, not as we are Christians, but onely by accident; the bond betwixt Magistrate and subject being essentially civill; but religious, accidentally only. To conclude, with the word● of a late writer, considering God is not pleased with unwilling worshippers, Christian societies bettered, nor the worshippers themselves neither, but the plain contrary in all three; the saying of the wise King of Poland( Stephen by name) seemeth approvable; that it is one of the three things God hath kept in his own hands, to urge the conscience this way, and to cause a man to profess a religion, by working it first in his heart. Further, whereas Mr. black, Pag. 36. Distinguishes of inconveniencies, and makes a greater, and a less, and that the lesser may be born to avoid greater. Reply. The allegation is not of inconveniencies, but of mischiefs, the particulars in the assumption, alleged are not only inconveniencies, but mischiefs; yea such, which so far as I apprehended( with submission to better judgements) tend unavoidably to ruin the Churches, as will appear in examining the particulars. Mr. black Pag. 36. Excepts against the first mischief, viz. That Infants baptism fills the Church with rotton members, to which he answereth; Pag. 36. That he and his, find not by experience, rottenness of members by our way prevented; and eagerly breaks out in charging heavily, not any person, but almost the whole, of some newformed congregations. Reply. For secret rottonnesse, that is only known to God, for scanda-rottennesse I am persuaded it is a notorious untruth. Mr. black to the 2. mischief viz. paedobaptism, confounds the world and the Church together; he saith, just nothing in effect, Pag. 37. To the 4. mischief, wicked persons rest in their infants baptism. Mr. black, so will they in their baptism, received at the age of Magus. Reply. But do Persons rest in such sottish ignorance, and open profaneness in the one, as in the other? To the 5. viz. Infants baptism is a nest-egge to traditions. Mr. PLAKE, Bellarm. When he is to deal against Anabaptists, can prove it from Scriytures. Reply. It is a known refuge for Papists, and popishly inclined, and cannot be denied; for your saying, I quote Bellarmine, with as good a conscience, as Bellarmine wrote. Your office was to judge of the cause in hand, and not of the conscience of a person you know not, Rom. 14.4. Who art thou that judgest another mans Servant? To the 6. It fills the conscience with scruples; as some question, whether they were ever baptized? Mr. black to this saith, with as good reason as Paul might question whether he were circumcised, Pag. 39. Reply. Not so, for circumcision made a visible mark, which baptism in infancy doth not. Mr. black, Pag. 40. is offended at this. But that which causeth most scruple, is about the formal cause that intights persons to baptism: to which he saith, God is one party in the Covenant, the Believer and his seed is the other; when the believer assents to the promise with a faith dogmaticall, so as to make profession, he and his are interested in the privilege, Pag, 40. No where hath God made a promise to be the God of believers and there seed, but promised so only to Abraham and his seed. Reply. Seeing you say God is one party in the Covenant, and the believer and his seed is the other; if you mean an inward covenant, or the Covenant of Grace, wherein Salvation is promised, and the Believer and his seed are one party in that; how come they to fall away? doth God fall from his promise, or the child fall from Grace? If you mean only, an external dispensation of this Covenant, and that though infants are not in the external covenant, yet they are in the external dispensation of it; To this I answer, 1. Its a gross error, to think the signs of the new Covenant, viz. baptism and Supper, to be outward dispensations of the Covenant; this new Covenant is wholly an inward thing, lying betwixt the Trinity and a believing soul; there is but one way of dispensing this inward Covenant, viz. the spirit of Christ applying the blood of Christ to the soul; and baptism is a sign hereof. 2. There can be no outward dispensation of an uncertain thing; now itis uncertain of any individual infant, whether he be in the new covenant. 3. As it was not being in Covenant gave right to circumcision for any external dispensation of it, for Noah, Adam, Lot, & Abel, had the same covenant, yet was there no external dispensation of it, for want of a command; so it is not being in Covenant makes a person a fit subject of baptism, but profession of life joined with profession of words, Acts 8.37. Heb. 10.23. 4. Its no where said in the new Testament, that where parents are in Covenant with God, their children shall be in the external dispensation of the same, much less is it said, where parents are only in external dispensation of the covenant, their children shall be in the same. Now whereas Mr. black seems to make the formal cause of baptism, to be the Believers assenting to the promise, with a dogmaticall faith; so to make profession. Answ. If he understand profession of life and words, we assent thereto; and this being acknowledged to be the formal cause of the baptism, doth wholly cut off Infants; and no other formal cause doth he assign upon demand. Mr. black, p. 41. Endeavoureth to excuse this mischief, that infants baptism makes no jar betwixt the doctrines laid down by the learned; making it a sign or seal of forgiveness of sins, of ingrafture with Christ, and the present dispensation of it to infants; of which we have no ground of their forgiveness and ingrafture with Christ, seeing many, if not most, grow up and prove wicked. This, Mr. black excuseth by a distinction, p. 4.42. There is, saith he, in baptism two parts; an outward, and an inward, and a double benefit proportionably answering: First outward, which is initiation into Church society. Secondly an inward benefit, which is the blood and spirit of Christ, with the fruits and effects both of justification and sanctification; of which infants are capable by the immediate work of God: And hence he thinketh, he takes of all jarring herein. Reply. The question is not about the parts and benefits of baptism, but about the right of dispensation; Seeing that baptism is a sign of forgiveness of sins, whether it be well done to administer it to those, of whose forgiveness of sins we have not the least ground to be persuaded. But whereas Mr. black seems to affirm, that baptism is a sign of some external thing, viz. Initiation into Church-societie, and infants are capable of that, in the persuasion of any administrator of baptism, though he have no ground to think their sins pardonned. Answ. The matter of Churches in Scripture being Saints; 1 Cor. 14.33. 1 Cor. 1.2. how can infants be capable of initiation into Church-societie? Especially, seeing the ground of all society with the Churches of Christ in fellow membership, is a presupposed communion that those persons have in Christ, and his death; whereupon they are taken into membership, to remember the said benefits. Therefore none ought to have the outward part in baptism, and so consequently no initiation into Church society, but they that upon some grounds are supposed to have the thing signified; which Infants cannot. Mr. black p. 42. setteth upon the 9th. mischief, viz. Infants baptism produceth many absurdities: Ar first, it puts Infants in a state of remission of sins before calling. To which he answers, I had thought neither you nor we, had believed such an opus operatum in baptism, as thus to work grace and remission of sins: It presupposes indeed a capacity( you would say a capability) of such grace in Infancy. Reply. But is it not absurd, to presuppose all infants in a state of remission of sins, ●●rsu● om●● disputa●onis inci●●t a defi●io●. as they do( or ought to do) that administer baptism to Infants, which is so much more absurd, because the persons were never capable of any external calling. Hence, itis necessary for me to set down what baptism is; and will describe it no otherwise, then the famousest Divines have done and do generally in their books; and I could wish Mr. black had done so. baptism is a sign of our fellowship with Christ, in his death, burial, and resurrection, Rom. 6.3, 4. Col. 2.12. Of our putting on of Christ, Gal 3.27. Of remission of s●ns in his blood, Acts 22.16. And the answer of a good conscience issuing therefrom, 1 Pet. 3.21. That as the person is butted in water, so the sins of that person are deemed to be butted in the death of Christ, Rom. 6, 3, 4. Col. 2.12. I wish Mr. black would define, or at least describe baptism, it would clear many controversies. 2. Absurdity, It makes them visible members of Christs Church, before calling; contrary to 1 Cor. 1.2. To this Mr. black saith, if you mean effectual calling, according to purpose, there are many such among your own baptized on●s. Reply. The absurdity is, that they are made members, before any manner of calling appear to the Administrator or Church, which is contrary to Christs Commission, and apostolical practise, who first called persons to faith and repentance, Acts 2.38. and then after baptized them. 3. Absurdity, paedobaptism upholds a national Church. Mr. black saith, tell me how there can be a nation of Disciples, and not a national Church. Reply. It upholds a national Church, because if that were taken away, a national Church would fall down, for it is hereby that all the Nations become( Pseudo-Christians, many of them) Christians, not from any national multiplication of Disciples. In the old Testament, there was a national Church, Deut. 16.16. all the Tribes of Israel were three times to appear at Jerusalem, there was an high Priest for the whole Nation, and sacrifices to be administered by him, Lev. 16.1. to 29. and with him other Priests and Elders, to whom appeals should be brought, Deut. 17.8. to 13. 4. Absurdity, by this christian, all are compelled to become Christians whether they will or no; to which Mr. black saith, compulsion is against heart, and Infants themselves have no heart rising against their baptism, p. 43. Reply. If they have an heart-rising against Christianity, when they come to yeares of understanding, itis enough to prove the vanity of Infants baptism; for the people of Christ ought to be a willing people, Psal 110.3. And as at other times, so especially at their baptism, Acts 2.41. 5. Absurdity, many by Infants baptism, are received into communion of baptism, who are excluded from communion in the supper; whereas the communion in baptism, is one and the same. To this p. 44. Mr. black saith, what warrant to deny a baptized person the L●●ds Supper, who is qualified with knowledge, and manifests no scandal in his life. Reply. Nay show what warrant, to deny any baptized person the Lords supper; if they were ignorant or scandalous, why did you bapti●e them? if there be a sameness or communion in baptism, and in the supper, as you confess; then those that are received to the one, ought to be to the other: is not baptism as well as the supper, a sign of communion with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection; and consequently there is an absurdity( I might call it a profanation) in infants baptism, in that hereby thousands are received, who neither can, nor ought to be received to the supper. Some other absurdities Mr. black reckons up, which because he gives to some of them no answer; as absurdity the 8. and to the rest no material answer, I will not spend time about them. Whereas I had alleged, that delaying of baptism till persons believe, brings benefits: Storm of Antichrist, page. 22. As first, Hereby the matter of the Churches will be right, whiles none but Saints in profession will be admitted members, and without a right matter, there will never be a comfortable reformation: to which Mr. black saith. The experiment of the present and former age, hath found it far otherwise. Reply. Compare the matter of the church, throughout all the Parishes in England, where infants baptism is received, with the matter of those Churches where it is ejected, and the experiment will appear just as I have laid it down. Against the 2. Benefit viz. That Persons being delayd, would be careful to get knowledge, that so they may partake of church privileges, and without which, they cannot partake of them; and to address their lives according to the rule of Christianity; Mr. black saith, that it would rather provoke them to despise knowledge, and persecute them, who against the free charter of heaven, aod prescription of all ages, deny them the right of privilege. Reply. Though they have their infant baptism, yet multitudes that have it do, both despise knowledge, and persecute the Saints of God, yea even those that members with them in the same Church: and they would do no more, if they were kept off from baptism. Against the 3. Benefit, viz. That Christians would have a more perfect understanding of baptism, which being administered to infants, seems be under a cloud: To this Mr. black saith, that this known, and were it not for the clouds I draw over, it would be more clear. Reply. When the Scripture maketh baptism a sign of our fellowship with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, that as our bodies are butted or washed in water, so our sins are butted in Christs death, or washed in his blood. Rom. 6.3.4. Col. 2.12. 1 Pet. 3.21. Heb. 10.22. Now you shall make it a charter, whereby all infants of believers are christianised by their fathers Christianity; is not this a clouding of baptism, a sign of Covenant, holinesse of believers and their issue, page. 62. an hereditary privilege of birth, conveyed from ancestors to posterity, page. 74. A holinesse which the parents transmits to the Child, the ancesstor to posterity, page. 81. An intitlement to outward privileges. Birth-Privil. page. 14. And elsewhere expressing it, as if it were a sign or seal of the Covenant wherein salvation is promised. Against the 5. Benefit, viz. Deferring of baptism would take off Scruples from Godly Ministers, who scruple the giving of the Lords supper to ungodly civill persons, and not without cause. Being, 1. They bear false witness to them, asserting the body of Christ to be given for them. 2. Give them a knife, wherewith they know they will out their own thoats, now if these should profess the faith in words, and not deny it in deeds, before they were baptized, by virtue of the same profession, they might be admitted to the supper, with out any more ado. To this Mr. black saith, if the deliver of the Sacrament to any that unworthily receive it, rises to the guilt which your language expresses; all ministerial dispensation of it, in a Church that is most right in the world, will prove the greatest of snares, page. 46. Reply. I know no tie from Christ, to bind Ministers so to give the bread and cup; wickedness to use any such words, as to say the body or blood of Christ, which was given for thee M.N. And how so deliveri●g, it will arise to a less degree of guilt unto them, I should be glad to be informed, we have no example of Christ or the Apostles, that so delivered the bread or wine; Christ only said, take, eat, 1 Cor. 11.23. Which they might do after the blessing, without any delivery of it to them: and in my apprehension. Ministers have a great snare in so delivering it, which is the greater, if they use such words, viz. The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for them. For its possible for a person to have a Church right to Ordinances, and yet have no true union with Christ; yea, the Minister may greatly, suspect so much by him, and therefore cannot he comfortably say such words, viz. The body of our Lord, &c. For your saying, Paul was baptized by a Minister, it is rather presumed. then proved. Whereas Mr. black adds, page. 47. We red of single persons of fami●yes of thousands, baptized upon the first profession to believe; we red not of one of them denied, nor an interrogatory put to them, concerning their personal qual●fication. R p y. We contend for no more but a profession of word and life, we meddle not with internal qualifications, known only to God; howbeit chari●y teaches us to judge persons who make a godly profession, to be so inwardly qualified, till we know the contrary. Next, Mr. black sets upon my tenth Argument viz. That Infants baptism was taken up, upon unsound and erronous principles, as that it did wash away original sin, which I proved from Origen. Mr. black to this saith: I pray did Origen speak by way of prophecy, upon what ground baptism of Infants, many yeares after his time should be received? In the nex● page. but one. You say some Christians out of worldly wisdom, and a weariness to suffer, you doubt not about the time of Austin, or a little befor●, brought the baptism of infants into the Church: now Origen was 200. yeares Austins ancient, I pray you lay your hand upon your heart, whether you contend not more for an opinion, then for truth. Origen with you is a competent witness, that baptism of inf●nts was brought into the Church upon corrupt grounds, but he must be no witness, that it was at all in being in his time. Reply. I have laid my hand upon my heart, and assure you, that I contend o●ly for truth, for baptism of infants b●ing in Oregens time. I grant it as a tradition, but what is this to your pract●c●, who con●end for it as a d●v●ne birth-priviledges, and part of Christ possession, which he holds in his heri●ag● of infants, as in your title page.: I reconcile that seeming contradition you would make, v●z. That abou● Austins time, or a little before, some would have gone about to have brought it in by divine right, when in Origens time it was esteemed only a tradition. I city corruptions comparatively, so long as they are acknowledged human; but when once they come to b● of divine right, i●s time then to oppose them I count it not to have been, till it was urged by divine right, yet you yourself confess, page. 51. That Austin saith The custom of the Church in the baptism of infants, is by no means to be despised; and call it a tradition of the Apostles. It was but the other day we cast out unwritten traditions, and now must we ressume them, because we find them in some speeches of Augustin or * Espec●ally, seeing that orig●●all of Origen is lost, and ●he translator confesseth, he added many things of his own; so that Era●mus, in his censures of his hou●e on ●eviticus, saith; a man cannot be certain w et●er he red Ruffinus or Origen; the learned puts his comm●ntary on the Romans where he calls Infants baptism a tradition, amongst his counterfeit works; as being much sophisticated by Ruffinus. M.S. of Mr. T. Origen, and yet whether the phrase of calling infants baptism a tradition of the Apostles, hath not crept into the writing of the fathers by the Romanists, I much question: seeing it is so like their tenant at this day; and for your authority of Austin, which you seem so much to magnify, lord. Vives, a man well skilled in Austin, believes no such matter; for in his annotations upon the 27. Chap. of the first book, de civ. Dei( as Mr. Den cites him against Dr. Featly) he hath these words, viz. That of old it was the custom to baptize unless they were of full age, and did desire baptism in their own persons, and did understand what it was to be baptized. Further, Mr. black P. 50. bringeth in 5. Benefits upon Infants baptism: as first, as soon as capacity serves, they are taught to know even by their baptism, to whom they belong, what master they are to serve, and in what school they are to be trained. Reply. How can this bee, seeing there is no visible sign to teach them, unless opinion or traditionary relation can so teach; and yet few have both of these, some not one; and if their infants baptism teach them what master to serve, the greatest part of baptized persons are little bettered hereby, in that assoon as they come to understanding, they choose to serve the devil and their lust. For Mr. BLAKES 2d. benefit, viz. A necessity is seen to get the knowledge of Christ, and walk in his ways. Reply. Nay many persons can see no necessity of getting knowledge, being they are Christians already; and will your divinity teach you to baptize persons into a faith, they are ignorant of; and for the necessity of persons from their infant baptism to walk in Christs ways, we see the clean contrary; in that multitudes whom you deem baptized in infancy, live such unholy lives, nay they being taken into covenant with their parents, and this Covenant being the Covenant of Grace, they are apt to be careless of holinesse, being they are from their infancy in Covenant. Mr. BLAKES 3d. Benefit is; A delight is wrought in those, in whose communion they are bread; being debard from society with Christians, it is the way to bring them to malign them; but being taken into them, It must needs occasion delight in them. Reply. When God works a new nature, then do we delight in the company of Christians, and this we do whether baptized or not; Association with Christians, doth not simply breed delight, for Christ saith, five shall be divided in one house, three against two, and two against three; outward communion can never be delightful, till there be first a communion of spirits. Mr. BLAKES fourth benefit is, the aggravation of their sin in the ministry, by reason of the favour they receive from God, the society in●o which they are incorporated, and the real Covenant into which they are entred, in case their conversation answer not their profession. Reply. As deep aggravations may be against them, in case they go on in sin, and remain unbaptized, Eph. 2.12. sorely did John threaten unbaptised persons, Matth. 3.7. Mr. Blakes fifth benefit is; Parents see a strong engagement to bring them up for Christ, when they have dedicated them to him, and put them into the fellowship of those that are his Saints and members. Reply. The cursed condition wherein children are by nature, in that they are children of wrath, is engagement enough for godly parents to bring up their children for Christ, and those Parents upon whom this motive worketh not, nothing will work; that doth persuade so much, that nothing can seem to make an addition. Next, Mr. black pag. 52. comes to set upon my last argument, drawn from antiquity, wherein he goes about to weaken my authority, drawn from the ancient Fathers; As justin Martyr, Tertullian, &c. Where I shall desire the Reader, onely to compare what I have written, with Mr. Blakes answer thereto. And for his excuse of Mr. M. in that he alleged a spurious book of justin Martyrs, I suppose Mr. M. is of more conscience then to justify it, yet will Mr. black seem to face out Mr. M. his mistake. And whereas I desired a proof for Infants baptism out of justin Martyr, Ireneus, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, or Tertullian, Mr. black hath nothing to say, saying; That Origen called it a Tradition. I have plentifully proved the practise of believers, from the most ancient Fathers, Storm. of Antich. p. 27. part. 2. And there being nothing brought by Mr. black, nor any others truly, for the baptism of Infants, I will not tyre myself or Reader, in a further producement of human authority, having done it so largely in my former book, and the same remaining still unanswered for substance: As the Reader may see if he compare what I have there alleged, and Mr. black his answer thereto. By examining his Exceptions, the Treatise would swell too big. A REPLY to the Second Part. entitled, A Vindication of the Birth-Priviledge. First, Mr. black makes a digressions, and contends from a small occasion to make a long discourse, to prove an universal visible Church:( and being offended with me, that I explode it as a Monster) he goes about to prove it by reasons. As first, the confession of the Churches called Anabaptists. Secondly, that many p●rticulars make up a general; many particular men make up a multitude of men. Thirdly, in that God sets forth in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, 1 Cor 12.28. This is not each particular Church, but the Church universal. Fourthly, 1 Cor. 15.9. from the Apostles speech, when he saith, He persecuted the Church of God: his spleen was not carried against one particular Church, but the whole Church. Fifthly, from 1 Cor. 10.32. Give no offence to the Church of God: no one particular Church is there deciphered, but under the notion of Church, universally all Churches. Reply. First, to your first: Its a wonder you will confirm your Position, from the confession of Churches, or persons; elsewhere in your Book so stigmatized. But I suppose, the confession speaks of that spiritual kingdom and Church Synechdochichally, onely as it is part of the body of Christ. 2. To your second, viz. That many particulars make up a general, many particular men make up a multitude of men; therefore many visible Churches make up one visible Church. You may as well reason, many women make up one woman; and with more probability, many Ministers make up one Bishop. To your third, 1 Cor. 12.28. God hath set forth in the Church, first Apostles; that is, not in each particular Church, but the Church universal. Reply. Its a Sinechdoche of the species, the singular for the plural, in the Church, for in the Churches; So Eph. 3.21. Unto him be glory, in the Church. i. e. in the Churches. So Jam. 5.14. Let him sand for the Elders of the Church. To your fourth, 1 Cor. 15.9. I persecuted the Church; which was not one particular Church, but the whole. Reply. PAUL means that part of the church, or of the body of Christ, which was here on earth, which is called 〈◇〉, church, or a company called out, in opposition to them that were yet in the state of nature, weltering in sin. He speaks not of churches, as visible; of which the question is. To your fifth, 1 Cor. 10.32. Give no offence to the Church of God. The answer to the third and fourth may serve here: though there be some hypocrites, yet may they be said to be of the church, as a glass eye, a wooden leg, or when on the face, may be said to be the body. These things being so, and you declaring pag. 65. that you enter not upon the controversy concerning an universal church political, and yet maintaining, that there is a church abstracted from all consideration of single congregations, that receives ministerial gifts, and such an universal church; into the privileges of which, Believers are received. You disclaiming an universal church political, and no other church being possibly assigneable, save the company of Believers, from Adam to the end of the world; your church is a mere chimera, or Monster, concerning which the Word is silent. Concerning Presbyters being called, the Church, if any such thing be( though divers of the learned oppose) it is only as they have a power from the Church, delegated to them, or representatively, as the Parliament are called the kingdom, because they have the power of the kingdom committed into their hands. Reasons why there is no universal Church. 1. Because it must have an universal service and worship; That must belong to all, as the Jewish Altar and sacrifices; they must have universal Officers, as High-Priest, and Levite of old, and the Pope in these times to be the head thereof, and some universal Officer. 2. Because no man hath seen, nor can see such a church. 3. Were there any such universal visible church, then Christ should be the head of it; but Christ cannot be the head of it, because there should be many hypocrites therein; to whom Christ cannot be a head to convey influence of comfort. Further, whereas Mr. black avouched a covenant-holinesse, in his Birth privilege; I answered, there was no other covenant with the Gentiles now, but that which was to be covenanted before the world, viz. That eternal life should be by believing in Christ. Mr. black saith, though the covenant be but one, yet may there be several ways of dispensations of it; it may be given to the Jews, shadowed under earthly promises, outward types and shadows,— This very covenant was sealed in the Sacrament of the Jews, held forth in these types, and veiled in the promises of Canaan, and no covenant essentially, differing from this page. 66. rejoined. The question is not about the dispensation of the covenant, which formerly was dispensed in types, and sacrifices, but new is dispensed in the history, but about the covenant. The whole scope of both your books for the most part, is to prove another covenant, that is an inrightment to outward privileges, which though you conceal the distinction, yet any man may see your aim. If this covenant of grace were viewed in the Jewish types, and no other, then any covenant inrighting to outward privileges must needs fall down. Mr. black. There must be a way of conveyance of this covenant to the Jews in their dayes, to the Gentles in these times, other wise there would be no covenant at all. God had no immediate intercourse with any people, to strike Covenant with them, his way of covenanting, is his Ordinances, these ordinances are therefore called the covenant, Rom. 9.4. As containing, and conveying the covenant; they are the outward part of the covenant, and right and title to this outward part of it, in the Church is hereditary, which your oneness of covenant doth not overthrow. rejoinder. Is a box that conveys a jewel, the outward part of the jewel? is a conduit pipe that conveys the water, the outward part of the water? yes, with as good reason as the Ordinances of God, through which God conveys his covenant in Christs blood to the soul, are the outward part of this covenant of Christs blood conveyed to the soul; your saying, because the Ordinances convey the covenant, they are the outward part of the covenant, is a proposition that destroys itself, as if you should say, Arons pot, Ex. 16.33. which kept the Manna for the generations of Israel, was the outward part of the Manna. 2. Suppose Gods Ordinances, as Baptism, Supper, preaching of the word, were the outward part of the covenant, how doth it follow, that right and title hereto is hereditary, seeing that not only particular persons, but even from whole Churches these Ordinances have been removed; as Ephesus, from which the candlestick is so far removed, that I have been informed from a learned man, that was lately in Ephesus, that there is not so much as one therein that bears witness of the name of Christ. If Ordinances be hereditary, how came all the eastern Christians to lose them, and Mahumitanisme come in their stead, except we should groundlessly and beyond belief, suppose that all those Christians dyed without heirs. For your saying, the Ordinances are called his Covenant, for which you city, Rom. 9.4. To whom pertains the Covenants; the Apostle says, Covenants not Covenant, by covenants are meant the tables of the covenant, by a metonymy, unless we understand the two Covenants mentioned, Heb. 8.7.8. Heb. 9.1. Called a better and a worse, a first, and a second, or the renewings of that one Covenant of Grace, which was made to Abram, and renewed to the several Patriarks. Next, P. 67. Mr. black taxes me for saying, this incision in the root Abram, of us Gentiles in the Iewes stead, by a visible constitution, is merely imaginary; his reason is, because then the Apostles dispute upon this subject should be imaginary; for that he speaks of the body of the Jews, and the body of the Gentiles called by the ordinances. rejoined. What can any such incision in the roote Abram by visible constitution bee, but imaginary? seeing only the natural branches that had the sign of circumcision, were planted in him only by visible constitution; and in taken thereof, they had a visible sign to be known by, viz. The cutting off the foreskin of the flesh. But we Gentiles are planted in him in a spiritual manner, as he is a spiritual Father, like unto God. To use the Apostles expression, Rom. 4. As we are part of the spiritual seed; for all the relation betwixt Abram and Gentiles is wholly inward, and spiritual, being he, as a common father, believed the promises for all believers. For your saying, the Apostle speaks of the body of the Jews, and the Body of the Gentiles, called by the Ordinances; I suppose you mean, all the Gentiles that hear the sound of the Ordinances; that these are planted in the roote Abram, in the Jews stead, I deny it for this reason; because Abrams Fathership to us Gentiles, is in respect of faith only, not in respect of any outward privileges, see Rom. 4.11. Further, whereas I said, Abram stands as a roote two ways, 1. Visibly, to the Jews that descend of him. 2. Invisibly, to the believers among the Jews and Gentiles, Rom. 4.17. It is by virtue of this latter incision, that not the Gentiles, but the believers among the Gentiles, are grafted in. Mr. black to the former saith, Abram, Isaac, jacob, jesse, David, and all within the promise, by virtue of the Covenant made with them, are an holy root, and convey that Covenant holinesse, to all that are their branches. Abram is a first leading roote, P. 67. rejoined. If this were true, then abundance the Turkes whose progenitors were christians, and in covenant with God, should have a covenant holinesse. 2. Abram alone, Rom. 11.16.( if any other roote besides Christ can be understood) is the roote; if the roote be holy, so are the branches; Its a grand error to think every believer to bee invested in the same privilege that Abram was, and that Abram was only the first leading roote; because it was allotted to Abram and to no other believer, to be a root or spiritual father of many Nations, Rom. 4.17. To the Second, Mr. black saith, P. 67. The distinction of Gentiles ana believing Gentiles, might have been spared. rejoined. Not very well, seeing that the scope of your dispute, aym●s at a covenant holinesse of a believing Nation, by which the infan●s of that Nation may be baptized; neither is it in any one Nation, but I suppose you would bring in all then nations where the name of Christ is in any profession, whether true or false: for Pag. 67. You tell us, that the body of the Gentiles called by the Ordinances, are planted into Abram, whereas not Gentiles, but believers among the Gentiles, or called out from them, are Abrams seed, Apoc. 5.9. Thou hast redeemed us to God, by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and Nation. For that place of, Rom. 11.16. Which you so much beat upon, it belongs only to the Jews, and Abram in that relation, stands engaged only as a roote, and first fruit, in that place unto the Jews, of whose conversition, in the end of the world, together with her sanctity, the Apostle prophesies. Mr. BLAK●, P. 86. Abram is to be considered as a man, so he is a root to all descending from him, but no holy roote; so he was the roote of the Hagarens, Edomites, and all the line of Keturah. rejoined. Abram was as much a holy root to these, as he was to any Jew whatsoever( saving the promised seed) for these by command from God, were to be circumcised as well as any of Isaacs issue. Ishmael was circumcised, and so no doubt were his posterity, by command from God, so was Esau circumcised; we cannot think holy Isaac would have any of his seed uncircumcised, the like judge we of Ahram towards the Sons by Keturah. Mr. BLAKES 2. Abram is to be considered as a justified man, this justification is a personal privilege, not communicable, nor discendable. rejoined. No man ever affirmed it, for we know the just must live by his own faith, yet that doth not hinder, but that root, Rom. 11.16 Being Christ( as I proved by divers reasons yet unanswered) believers may be grafted, and yet Abrams justification not descend; but should we say believers are grafted into Abram, in respect of participation, of that Sonship, and spiritual privileges and promises, which he as a common father received for all believers, what absurdity will follow therefrom? especially, seeing the Apostle seemeth to say so much, Rom. 11.20. Well, because of unbelief, they were broken off, and thou standest by faith, &c. Mr. black P. 68. 3. Abram is to be distinguished as a professor of faith or worshipper of God, so he is a root or first fruit in this relation; the Covenant made with Abram, Isaac, jacob, entitled all their natural seed, and all that profess the like faith, in that royal privilege of Gods own peculiar people, all professors of the same truth; which Scripture stiles by the name of believers, to the end of the world, are within the Verge of this covenant, as receiving a privilege communicable and discendable. rejoined. Then First, it entitled persons to be Gods peculiar people, when God had declared their rejection, as Ishmael, and Esau, and all the Haggarens and Edomites, for these were Abrams natural seed, and professed the same faith. 2. Where doth the Scripture prove your distinction, that Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, as professors of faith, and worshippers of God, entitles all their natural seed in the privilege of Gods peculiar people, if they do, then do they entitle the Jews, that are now in a state of rejection, to be Gods peculiar people, who are enemies to the truth of God: These are Scripturelesse dictates. 3. Then it entitled all the ten Tribes to be Gods peculiar people, not onely in the time of the Calve-worship, which lasted about 200. years; but after, when they were carried away by Salmanazar, and never returned. 4. If Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, as worshippers of God, could entitle all their natural seed to be Gods peculiar people, then other godly men, worshippers of God, can do the like; seeing there's no difference betwixt Isaac, and Jacob, and other godly men; and so all the posterity of Believers( many whereof are infamously wicked) should be Gods peculiar people. For your Arguments to prove infallibly that Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, and not Christ Jesus, are the first fruits and lump, and their postetity and Believers to be the root and branches; how ever the thing should be, if it were granted that Abram were the first fruit and root, yet cannot we conclude, that Isaac, Jacob, and every godly man, are first fruits and lump; for the reasons aforesaid. But were it granted, that not onely Abram, but Isaac, and J●cob, and the Jewish Patriarks, were these first fruits and lump,( for there is not the least title in the 16. verse of the Gentiles) ye should it onely follow that their root and branches should be holy? That is, those Jews that flowed from them, and yet not all them neither, but onely those that should be called home at the fullness of the Gentiles coming in, Rom. 11.26. And so all Israel shall be saved: which is nothing to make Believers of the Gentiles or their posterity holy. And whereas, vers. 17. the Apostle speaks of some of the branches being broken off, that is, of the unbelieving Jews, and of the Gentiles that were wild Olive trees, grafted in amongst those Jews, that were not broken off, and that these Gentiles with the remnant of these godly Jews, did partake of the root and fatness of the Olive three. I suppose the Apostle speaks of an ingrafture, not in respect of Jewish Ordinances or constitutions, for so the Gentiles were not grafted or planted in with the Jews, but the believing Jews were grafted in with the Gentiles, into the new Ordinances of Christ in the gospel, in which they partook of the fatness of the Olive three. For the Olive three to be the Jewish Church, and the fatness of it to be the privileges thereof; is far from my belief. I rather think it was Christ, and the fatness the benefits that flow from Christ, and the rather, because vers. 20. Paul speaking of this ingrafture of this wild Olive, saith; Thou standest by Faith. For Mr. BLAKE'S Arguments to prove that the root is not CHRIST: First, because this root and branch in the Text, can be severed; but Christ and his branches cannot be severed: Therefore root and branch is not here Christ. The contrary appears, Joh. 15.2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away; there are branches that may be severed from Christ. Secondly, the root, is that of which the whole body of the Jews were branches, but that whole nation were never branches of Christ. Answ. They might be branches externally, and yet be broken off; Esa. 5.7. The Vineyard of the Lord of Hostes are the house of Israel, and the men of judah his pleasant plant. Thirdly, that is the root and first fruits, which renders them beloved, though for present enemies to the gospel; but ABRAM, Isaac, and jacob, renders them thus beloved, Rom. 11.28. Answ. David rendered many of his posterity beloved, yet was he neither root nor first fruits to them; as it is no necessary consequence to say, I am loved for such a mans sake to get credit, therefore he is a root or first fruits, to me, in communicating to me wealth: So itis no consequence to say, the elect Jews are loved of God soul-savingly, occasioned by a kind affection GOD bore to their godly progenitors; therefore I am loved for the same forefathers in outward privileges, yea in outward privileges of having any Infants baptized; when the Word speaks not a tittle hereof. Besides, this onely is spoken of the Jews. For my three Arguments, that by the first fruit and lump are meant Christ, let the Reader see whether Mr. black answer them. I will onely mention the second, because there is nothing material spoken to the first and third. Which is, the root and branches, the first fruit and lump, must be of the same kind; but ABRAM and his posterity are not of the same kind, his posterity being many of them wicked; but Christ and his body-mysticall are of the same kind, having the same graces, &c. Mr. black. So it is here, all are of the same faith and profession, all are hand-fasted to one and the same GOD in Religion; this holinesse the Text holds forth, is the same in ABRAM and his posterity. rejoined. The contrary appears, in that the ten Tribes so long approved the Calve-worship, and were so far corrupted, that Hos. 4.15. the Lord commands, Though thou Israel play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend. Yea further, the Jews are bid not to go to Gilgal, nor to come up to Beth-haven, which were the places where the Calves stood. Mr. black p. 71. complains, this Argument was not answered, viz. The grand Birth-Priviledge of the Jews was to be an holy Nation, but this honour to be an holy Nation, is given to believing Christians, 1 Pet. 2.9. Therfore Christians in this Birth-Priviledge, are equal to the Nation of the Jews. Answ. To answer further, I deny your proposition; their grand privilege was, to have the Oracles of God among them, Rom. 3.2. What advantage hath the Jew? Much every way; but chiefly, that unto them were committed the Oracles of God. Besides, to be an holy nation, was no absolute privilege, but onely a conditional; See Exod. 19.5, 6. If ye will obey my voice, ye shall be unto me a kingdom of Priests, and an holy nation; sometimes they did obey Gods voice, and then they were an holy nation; sometimes they did not, and then they were a profane Nation, to whom it was then said, Hosea 1.9. Ye are not my people, and I am not your God. Secondly, to your assumption; viz. That the honour to be an holy Nation, is given to believing Christians. Answ. True, to such Christians as are a royal Priesthood, who are called out of darkness to his marvelous light, 1 Pet. 2.9. which had now obtained mercy of God, vers. 10. to whom Christ is precious, vers. 7. These in respect of the distinct laws, whereby they live under the government of their King, the Lord JESUS, separate from the rest of the world, are said to be an holy Nation; doth it follow therefore that Christians have this as a Birth-priviledge? Or that they have this privilege as the Jews had it, who sometimes had it, sometimes fell from it? No, the condition of this holy Nation, being the Elect of God, and united in CHRIST, is unchangeable. Far is it removed from Mr. Blakes scope, that would make us dream we are a Believing nation as the Jews were, though the far greater part are visibly profane, and descended from persons, as visible wicked and profane as themselves. When you see a Nation of Believing Christians, to whom CHRIST is precious, &c. called out of darkness into Gods marvelous light, then you may have some ground to call us a holy Nation; but never so long as persons Christianity is a forced work, and their lives so vicious as they are. Therefore I exhort Mr. black to desist, from thinking, that because the mystical body of CHRIST is an holy Nation, to draw the same privilege to any Nation under heaven, unless he give us some rule, whereby we may know infallibly, when a Nation is a Believing Nation: These kind of doctrines tend to nothing, but to make wicked men dream of a groundless peace. Next, Mr. black page. 72, 73. Bids me speak without tergiversations, where I place infants in regard of Covenant relation, whether Jews by Birth as the text speaks, or else with sinners of the Gentiles. Answ. Doth the Apostle speak a word of faederall holinesse in that place? the Apostle speaks in the person of himself, Peter and Barnabas, and all other Jews of what age or sex soever, if able to understand: we know that as well ourselves, as the sinful Gentiles stand need to be justified by Christ, and knowing the inability of any of our legal services, privileges, or works whatsoever, to make us righteous, we believe in Christ, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ. And further, that neither Gentles nor Jews, should be compelled to observe the Law, because no person living could be justified otherwise then by faith in Christ, Rom. 3.919. He calls himself and the other Jews by nature, to difference them from proselytes, who were only Jews in affection. Or an argument from the greater, if we that have had such privileges stand need of Christs righteousness, much more others, sinners of the Gentles, who never had Gods law as we have had, Psal. 147.20, 21. This is the scope of the place, as we may see, Gal. 2.15.16. Now to answer your question, where we place infants, whether with jews by birth, or else with sinners of the Gentiles. Answ. 1. The Apostle speaks not one word there of Infants. 2. Concerning infants state, the Scripture speaks not in what condition they are, and where the word hath not a tongue to speak, we must not have an ear to hear. 3. We place Iewes by birth, and sinners of the Gentiles, and infants, in one and the same condition, for so the Apostle places them at large in that disputation, Rom. 1. Also cap. 2. and cap. 3. When jews and Gen●iles were one lifted up against another, he concludes, Rom. 3.9. What then are we better then they? no in no wise, for we have before proved, both jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; and verse 19. Every mouth is stopped, and all the world becomes guilty before God, and verse 23. All have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God; and in this condition are infants of jews and Gen●iles, as they come into the world, children of wrath, Ephes. 2.2. Howbeit God through his free grace, may, and it is well to be hoped, doth, save some or all of them, through the satisfaction of Christ, which may be effectual without believing, to persons not in abled to believe Mr. black. There are but two kingdoms, Familyes, cities, Households, Gods and the devils; if Infants be not of Gods family, kingdom, household, then are they of the devils. Answ. The visible Church being meant, many are not of this kingdom, who yet are not of the devills, a● Iobe, Lot; and many are of the kingdom of the visible Church, who ●re of Satans kingdom, as Magus. Mr. Blakes Reply. weeds may be in the Garden, flowers in the Commons. Rej. Your reply is unsatisfactory. But further to the Argument I answer, First, many there be that are not of Gods Family or household of the visible Church, that are not of Satans kingdom, God having elected them, will in time call them home, Ephe. 2.12. There have been in all ages a company of elect, uncalled ones; who hath been of neither of these kingdoms: the thief on the cross, Rahab, Iam. 2.25. who believed in jericho; the three wise men that came to worship Christ, were of neither these kingdoms. Answer. To Mr. Blakes additional arguments, brought to confirm the Birth-priviledge, and covenant holinesse of believers and their issues, page. 74. 1. If Abraham be a father in respect of Covenant, both of the circumcised, and those of the uncircumcision; then it follows, that this outward Covenant holinesse hereditary, and a privilege of birth, conveyed from ancestors, to posterity. But Abram is thus a father, in respect of Covenant to the circumcised, and those of the uncircumcision, Rom. 4.9 10. Ergo, We deny the consequence. And first let us open the place, Rom. 4.9, 10. Paul having showed that all believers are justified, the same way that Abraham was justified, from vers 1. to verse 9. an objection might b● mad●, vers 9. Abrahams example was particular, and therefore we can draw no general doctrine from it, to which the Apostle begins to answer, that Abram is not to be considered as a particular person, but as the father of all believers, whether circumcised or uncircumcised. But it might be objected, Abram was a circumcised person, what is that to us Gentile●? To this the Apostle answers, ver. 10. Faith was reckoned to Abram for righteousness, how was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision, not in circumcision but in uncircumcision, q. d. Peruse the history, and you shall find, Abram had righteousness imputed to him, before ever he was circumcised, viz. Anno 86. Gen. 16.16. Compared with cap. 15.6. But he was circumcised Anno. 99. Gen. 17.24. and Rom. 4.11. Having received the sign of circumcision, the Apostle shows what the use of circumcision was to him; which was twofold. First, to be a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised; the meaning is, whereas God had promised that righteousness should be imputed to all them that believe, though not circumcised, verse 11. And to them also that are circumcised, walking in the steps of Abrams faith, verse 12. the promise being made to Abram, as father of all this believing seed, verse 16. He received circumcision, as a sign of this paternity or father-hood-ship; that this righteousness should not only bee to himself, but to all his believing seed, whether Jews or Gentiles, and no other; verse 11 12, 13. So that if you ask why Abram received circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, when as other Jews received it as an obligation to keep the law. Gal. 5.3. Or at most to oblige them to circumcision of heart, it was( observe this final cause) that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them, and the father of circumcision to them, who are not of the circumcission only, but also walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abram, which he had, being yet uncircumcised. So that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness which Abram had, not in Persona Propria, but in Persona Relativa, as any one may see, if he seriously peruse, verse 11. and verse 16. and 17, It sealed unto him, not his own personal righteousness, which he had long before, but the righteousness of all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, which was promised to him as a public father, Gen. 17.5. compared with Rom. 4.17. This being premised, in answering to the Argument, we deny the consequence, viz. That though Abram be a father in respect of Covenant, both of the circumcised and uncircumcised, yet it follows not, that either there should be any outward Covenant holinesse, or that it should be hereditary, or any Birth-Priviledge, should be conveyed from ancestors to posterity, Abram's a father 〈◇〉 the unci●cumcise 〈◇〉 as well 〈◇〉 the circumcise 〈◇〉 not as u●circu●cised pe●sons, but as uncircumcised believe● because Abrahams Father-hood is only in respect of believing, Rom. 4, 11.12, 16, 17. Not in respect of any outward Covenant holinesse. Hence Rom. 4.13. The promise that he should be here of the World, was to Abram through the righteousness of faith, that Abrams Father-hood, of which the Apostles here speaks, is onely in respect of believing, appears further, verse 16. Therefore it is( viz. The promise of faith; that it might be by Grace, to the end, the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the Father of us all. Secondly, Abraham is not a father in respect of Birth-Priviledges, conveyed from himself to others, by any lineal hereditation, and so from ancestors to Posterity; for his Father-hoodship was in respect of the internal covenant established in the promised seed, Rom. 4. And therefore to argue, that because ABRAM was a father in respect of this internal covenant, therefore an outward covenant holiness is hereditary from him, and a Birth-Priviledg conveyed from Ancestors to posterity, is a mere paralogism; as if we should reason, such an one hath wealth from his father, therefore he hath health from him; which is a thing of another nature. If the natural branches that came from ABRAMS loins, have no lineal hereditation in the covenant of grace, by virtue of that promise, Gen. 17.7. for, Rom. 9.7. neither because they are the seed of ABRAM, are they all children, then much less have the natural posterity of other believers. Whereas Mr. black. p. 74. to prove the consequence of the foregoing Argument, saith; Its necessary to the being of a Father, to communicate being to posterity: If ABRAM be a father, not onely in respect of being in nature, but also of being in covenant, then as a father he doth communicate a covenant, being not inward, which is communicable; but outward, which onely is hereditary, and discendable. Reply. To us Gentiles ABRAM is onely a father, in respect of being in covenant; hence Rom. 4.17. as it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations, like unto him( so it is in the Greek) whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead. Here the Apostle sets down the Godlike properties and qualities of ABRAHAMS father-hood. First, it was not partial, but universal; as God was father of all Nations, so was ABRAHAM a father like him whom he believed. Secondly, it was spiritual, not bodily; as God was the father of all believers, not by commixture of essence, but by spiritual adoption, so was ABRAMS fatherhood onely spicituall; ABRAM as a spiritual father to whom the promises were made, adopts after a sort all believers, into copartnership in the Covenant: But to imagine( besides these two properties of ABRAHAMS fatherhood, which are plainly set down by the Apostle.) A third property, which is external and discendable, is groundless and most uncertain. Mr. black his second Argument is; If there be an outward covenant, and holinesse of covenant relation( different from that which is inherent and qualitative) in the dayes of the gospel, as there was in the time of the Law, then is there the same reason of an hereditary discent of covenant, now in the times of the gospel, as in the times of the Law; but the former is true, Erg●, the latter. Answ. First, to your assumption; There is but one covenant under the gospel) the law whereof is writ in the hearts of the godly, Heb. 8.10, 11. Secondly, whereas you would p. 75. prove there is an outward holinesse or covenant relation, because there is an outward calling; Then first, visibly wicked and profane men should be holy, because they hve an outward calling. I would fain know what holinesse there can be, in a people that are outwardly called, and do not inwardly answer: nay are they not esteemed more profane then others? Pro. 1.24. Because I have called and ye have refused, &c. And declared not to be Christs sheep, John 10.27. My sheep, hear my voice: but if you say they have an outward calling, because they do in some measure make profession of Christ, and take his badge upon them, though they are vicious Answ. This badge, by paedo baptism they never consented to in their Infancy, and therefore no way can be said to answer to a call, no not Quod extra, and for any personal presence at ordinances when they come to understanding, if that can outwardly sanctfie them, then the Heathens may be sanctified, who in many places will come, and sit them out very demurely, as well as Christians. For your distinction of Terminuta quo, and terminus ad quem, in calling; I pray what is the term from which all men are called? is it not from the state of nature? for your terminus ad quem, is not fellowship with Christ, or a state of reconciliation? is there any middle estate, whereunto you are wont to call your hearers? which distinction of yours, if it be true in calling as it is most true; then in vain do you imagine a calling unto outward privileges: and that this should give being to an outward holinesse, or a covenant relation. Thirdly, whereas Mr. black would prove his ●ssumption, viz. That there is an outward Covenant, and holinesse of relation, now in the times of the Gospel, as there was in the times of the law, because the titles of believers and Saint be of equal latitude and extent, which those of the old Testament, people of God, holy, beloved, P. 76. Answ. These titles are not of equal extent and latitude, for in the old Testament they were called, first the people of God, in respect of their separation from Idolatrous worship, to the true God. But yet 2. though they were called a holy nation, yet was it only conditionally, Exo. 19.51.6. If ye will obey my voice and indeed, and keep my covenant, then shall ye bee unto me a holy Nation, q. d. No more of you then do really obey, shall be so accounted. Thirdly, but under the new Testament, they are called holy, because they are deemed to bee inherently holy. Hence to the word Saints, is joined some other epithet evidencing an internal sanctification, Rom. 1.7. To those that be at Rome, beloved of God, called to be Saints, 1. Cor. 1.2. Sanctified in Christ Iesus, called to be saints, Ephe. 1.1. Saints which are at Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Iesus, Phil. 1.1. To all the Saints in Christ Iesus, Col. 1.2. To the Saints and faithful brethren in Christ, which are at Coloss. Cor. 3.12. Put on therefore as the elect of God, holy, and beloved, &c. 1. Thes. 1.1. The Church of the Thessalonians which is in God the father, and the Lord Iesus Christ, Heb. 3.1. Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling. For your allegation from the corruptions that were in Corinth, and yet the Corinthians were called Saints, I answer; many of them were not thus overtaken, when he so entitled them: besides they being newly called out of heathenism, wherein they counted fornication a thing indifferent, and that the body was made for that, as the belly was made for meats; they might be real Saints, and yet commit great evils in dark times: and itis very like they had amended all upon the Apostles warning; for in the second Epistle he chargeth little upon them( that I remember) that he had admonished them for in the former Epistle, save fornication; which they thought to be an indifferent thing, 1 Cor. 6.13. And which the Gentiles generally so thought, that the Apostles at jerusalem made one decree against it, Acts, 15. Yet doth the Apostles reprove them for divers other things. Fourthly, for Mr. black his fourth ground, to prove Covenant holinesse, P. 77. in that the Sons of God took the daughters of men, Gen. 6.2. Answ. Why must this be an outward holinesse, rather then an inward? doth not true sanctification, rather denominate a son of God; or is this such a sin as cannot befall a sanctified person? joseph married the priest of On his daughter, samson married a Philistim, Adam was called a Son of God, yet had no such Covenant holinesse, Luke 3. ult. Mr. black his 3. Argument is this. That holinesse which the roote necessary transmits to the branch, the ancestor to posterity, must necessary be a Birth-Priviledge, and holinesse of discent hereditary. But there is such an holinesse in the dayes of the Gospel, which the roote necessary transmits to the branch, the ancestor to posterity, Ergo, P. 77. Answ. Though I might wave this Argument, because Mr black seemeth not to urge it for me, but for others; yet I answer, there is no such holinesse which believers, as a roote transmit to their posterity● for, they transmit to their posterities inward uncleanness and pollution, witness David, who though the son of a good man, was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did his mother conceive him, Psal. 51.5. and job saith, Cap. 14.4. Not one man living whether he be believer or unbeliever, can bring a clean thing out of an unclean: and Christ tells Nichodemus, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, John 3.6. And Paul though in the jewish Covenant and circumcised the 8. day, yet Ephe. 2 3. Saith of himself, that he was a Child of wrath by nature, in calling himself a Child of wrath by nature, he hath respect to his conception and Generation: now is it not absurd to think, that parents should convey to their seed an universal defilement both in soul and body, in every faculty and member, and yet convey an outward holinesse, which shall be hereditary, and not inherent; to use Mr. Blakes words, P. 77. & yet in the same page. he saith, the same holinesse which is in the parent is transmitted to the infant, the same in kind and no other. So that it must be the same in kind, and inherent in the parent, and yet not in the infant; what uncertaintyes are here for the conscience? And whereas he produces, 1 Cor. 7.14. The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, &c.— Else were your children unclean, now are they holy. And hence Mr. black concludes, holinesse cannot be meant a legitimation of issue, whereof others give the reason, viz. That their children had been legitimate, being born in lawful wedlock, though neither of the parents had been a believer, marriage being lawful to Pagans, as well as Christians. Answ. True, so it is; but yet they scrupled the contrary, and therefore the Apostle doth but take away the scruple, and tells them that their marriage was lawful, and their issue was lawfully begotten; yea, though one person were an unbeliever. If a person should scruple the plainest thing, as whether it were lawful to eat flesh, and drink wine? it were both godly and reasonable, that such tender consciences should be satisfied; so if a Pagan and a Christian being married, the Christian shall scruple whether the marriage be lawful, and their issue lawful, though the case be never so plain to others, yet is it pious to satisfy such poor souls; and so did the Apostles here, and in all the chapter, answer scruples of conscience, whereof they wrote to him for satisfaction, v. 1. See many answers, both to 1 Cor. 7.14 and, Rom. 11.16. storm of Antichrist, Pag. 42, 43, 44, 45. Mr. black P. 82. Comes to except against an answer given to this argument, viz. Those that have the substance and thing signified, must not be denied the sign. But infants have the thing signified viz. Christ; Ergo, must not be denied the sign. Answ. I denied the second proposition, upon this ground; that all infants, nay the greater part, have not the thing signified, but grow up and prove wicked, and for those that have the thing signified, let them make it appear to any Church of Christ, and they cannot deny their baptism; mean, time because the greater part go the broad way, and the Church is to judge only of visible things, give us leave to forbear till we see how those that have right can make it appear. Mr. black to this replies, this reason will bee of equal force against the baptism of adult or grown persons, that it will bee against infants baptism, because their right to the outward part of the covenant, by virtue of their profession, is that which undoubtedly doth entitle them: also, page. 83. He saith, you know we maintain a visible right in infants, equal to that in grown persons. rejoined, 1. Covenants do not always carry seals with them, as in the covenant, betwixt David and jonathan, 1 Sam. 20. Yet if seals were always annexed to covenants, yet were it boldness in us to annex the seal of baptism, where God hath not so appointed; and no less then will worship: besides, the Scripture never calls baptism a seal; if it be a seal, where is the impression it makes under the new Testament, I know no other seal wherewith believers are sealed, save the seal of the Spirit, the covenant of the new Testament is a covenant of life and salvation, to all that believe, Mar. 16.16. The seal of the covenant must then be answerable to that holy covenant, su●able whereto I know no other seal, but the spirit of promise, Ephe. 1.13. 2 Cor. 1.22. To this I answer, Secondly, it is not of equal force to disable grown persons from baptism, that it is to disable infants, to say let the thing signified appear and they shall not be denied bapsme; for grown persons, believers, can make the thing, signified, viz. Christ in their soul, to appear both by profession of words, and profession of life, which charity teacheth every Church and Administrator to judge to be in truth; but infants cannot make any profession either way; and though some hypocrites may make profession of that which is not in them, yet( God only being able to search the heart) charity teacheth us to receive them. And for Mr. BLAKES maintaining a visible right in infants, equal to that in grown persons, it doth not appear to me what it is, but the ordinary practcie is, that in most places the father being a parishioner, the infant is baptized, when the father of the same infant is many times excluded from the Lords supper: For the visible right founded in the profession of grown persons, appears in the Eunuch, who upon his profession was baptized. 2 Also Acts 18.8. Acts 16. The jailor, and the Samaritans, Acts 8. How could it be known that these persons did believe( being the Apostles and Philip were with some of them but a few houres) but only by their profession 3. Christ most plainly, in Heb. 10.23. 〈◇〉. And having washed the body in pure water, let us hold fast the confession, or profes●●on of the hope, without wavering. Now what profession speaks he of? Undoubtedly, he speaks of that profession they made at their baptism; because he speaks of their washing their body in pure water: and then bids them hold fast their profession of their hope, that is, that profession which they made at their baptism. This Confession was in use in Salvians time, l. 6. de Gubern. Dei. In spectaculis quaedam apostacia fidei est, & a symbolis ipsius, & coelestibus sacramentis lethalis pravaricatio. Quae est enim in baptism salutari Christianorum prima confessio? quae scilicet nisi ut renunciare se diabolo, ac pompis ejus, atque spectacul●s & operibus protestentur? Ergo, spectacula & pompae juxta nostram professionem, sunt opera diaboli. Quomodo O Christian, spectacula post baptismum sequeris, quae opus diaboli esse confiteris? Renunciasti semel diabolo & spectaculis ejus, ac per hoc necesse est prudens, & sciens dum ad spectacula remeas, ad diabolum te redire cognoscas. utrique enim rei simul renunciasti, & unum utrumque esse dixisti, si ad unum reverteris, ad utrumque remeasti; ab renuncio enim inquis diabolo, pompis, spectaculis, & operibus ejus; & quid postea? Credo inquis in Deum patrem omnipotentem, & in jesum Christum filium ejus. Ergo, primum renunciatur diabolo, ut credatur Deo— nos vero quid respondere pro nobis possumus? tenemus symbolum & evertimus, & confitemur munus salutis, pariter & negamus, &c. This Confession was in use in SALVIANS time, lib 6. de Gubern. Dei. In stage-plays there is a certain falling away from the faith, and a deadly trensgressing from the signs and heavenly Sacraments thereof. For which is the first confession in the wholesome baptism of Christians? what to wit is it, unless that they protest that they renounce the devil and his pomps, and plays, and works? Therefore, stage-plays and pomps according to our profession, are the works of the devil. How, O Christian, wilt thou follow plays after baptism, which thou confessest to be a work of the devil? Thou hast renounced once the devil and his plays, and hereby it is necessary that thou mayest know thyself witting, and knowing to return back to the devil, whiles thou makes hast to plays. For thou hast renounced both together, and hast said both to be one; if thou returnest back to one, thou returnest back to both. For thou saidst, I renounce the devil, pomps, plays, and his works, and what after? Thou sayest, I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ his Son. Therefore first the devil is renounced, that God may be believed— But what can we answer for ourselves? We understand the sign or badge and overthrow it, and we confess the gift of salvation, and in like manner deny it. Where we may see what they confessed at their baptism. First, they protest to renounce the devil, and his pomps, plays, and works. Secondly, they professed they believed in God the father Almighty, and Jesus Christ his Son. M. black spends many words, to disable my answers given to Mr. M. his Argument, and to his own, p. 82, 83, 84. but let the Reader compare them, and he will see the invalidity of them, if he peruse my former Book, viz. The storm. of Antich. p. 51. 52. Where there are many answers given to this Argument. Next, Mr. black p. 86. 87. 88. comes to except against Answers to this Argument, laid down by himself and others, viz. Those that are in Covenant, must be sealed with the seal thereof: But Infants are in Covenant. Answ. To this as before I answer, the females of the Jews were in covenant, yet not sealed; whereas you say there was an incapacity of circumcision in the females; I answer there was no incapacity, but the want of a command, and they were naturally defiled in generation, as well as men. Were not Enoch and Noah in the covenant, yet not circumcised for want of a command? Besides, where are the Sacraments of the New Testament called seals? For your saying you have a command to seal all in covenant, p. 87. if you speak of the covenant of Grace, made betwixt the Trinity and the believing soul, grace being an invisible thing, it will be hard for you to know who they are; neither do I know that you have any such command to seal those that be in covenant; outward and visible signs, cannot be founded on the covenant of grace, which is invisible. Or if you speak of an outward covenant, of which circumcision was the counterpart on mans part, and the giving the Land of Canan the counterpart on Gods part, Psal. 105.7, 8: Act. 7.8. Then baptism is no sign of any such, being peculiar to the Jew; or if you mean by outward covenant, the outward part of the covenant of grace; I answer, first, there is but one covenant under the new Testament, Heb. 8.8. The branches whereof are only proper to the Elect, Heb. 8.10, 11, 12. Secondly, all this covenant is wholly inward, and there is nothing outward, Heb. 8.10. I will put my laws into their mind, and writ them in their hearts, &c. q. d. All this covenant is wholly inward, nothing outward: Hence the work of new creation is called the Inner man, Ephes. 3.16. Rom. 7.12. the Hidden man, 1 Pet. 3.4. If you say, we may visibly know who are in covenant of grace by their fruits; I answer, this we cannot know in infants, who have not brought forth any fruits. If you say, we may visibly know who are in covenant, by some visible charter made to ABRAM and his seed, and so to believers and their seed. Answ. 1. There is no such branch in it, that those that are outwardly in the covenant of grace shallbe baptized. 2. The Apostls when they baptized any, never had recourse to any such visible charter, but only asked them whether they believed, or repented; if you say it was because they came out of heathenism, I answer; it was required in them that were in the Jewish Covenant; for Paul though in the Jewish covenant, must first repent, before Ananias had power to baptize him. 3. Whatsoever branch of any charter made to Abraham that reacheth unto us Gentiles, teaches to us only as believers, and as we are in Christ, and no otherwise, Gal. 3.28. Rom. 4.12. So that if our children be not Christs, they are not Abrahams seed. For your bidding me name the man that made circumcision the covenant, I could do it if it were expedient; but for his honour sake, charity teaches me to cover his oversight, For your reply, P. 87. to this speech, viz. Abram had but 3. seeds, Christ, So yourself acknowledge P. 116. The proselytes were no otherwise Abrams sons but by walking is the steps o● his faith. the carnal Jew, the believer of Jew and gentle, and many mistake in imagining a fourth seed, that is, the seed of believers, whereas you reply, and ask, P. 87. To which of these 3. seeds Will I refer the proselytes of the Gentiles? I answer, those that were believers among them, refer to the 3. kind; and those that were unbelievers among them, were no manner of way Abrams seed, though they did partake with the Jews, in outward ordinances, for to partake of outward ordinances, which servants purchased with money, might instantly do, did not make any person to be Abrams feed, yet this was all the unbelieving proselyte had. And whereas P. 90. Mr. black would clear himself of former aspersons cast on us in his former book, by a distinction, viz. By calling us the Anabaptists of this presentage, and so distinguishing us from the Anabaptists of the former age. Answ. We deny your title, anabaptism signfying baptism again; our consciences are fully satisfied with one baptism, provided it be such a baptism as we judge to be the baptism of Christ, and if our consciences judge that sprinkling we had in out infancy to be none of Christs baptism, I ask you whether can we in good conscience rest satisfied therewith? we are[ if we must needs be] new name, Antipaedobaptists, or Catap●dobaptists, but no Anabaptists. For your scoffs and wrested collections, P. 91. I desire to take notice of them here, and in many other places of your book, and to answer as Christ did; when they said, he had a devil, John 8.48. Who only took notice thereof, and said he had not a devil, v. 49. so desire I to do. Lastly, whereas Mr. black would clear himself from such reviling speeches, P. 92. In that I returned far more then ever I received, let any man peruse the book, and find one reviling speech therein, against any person whatsoever, and let me bear the blame, and shane thereof, if any such should pass from me, I am sure it was contrary to the intention of my heart; but I am sure there was none. But that Mr. black might clear himself in this kind, P. 92. He saith. You have returned far more then ever you received: To make the Churches of the Saints garrison-keepers for Antichrist, with you is fair language; to single out two brethren in the fore-front, to serve such a master &c. Answ. If the imbracement of one point of Antichrists doctrine, make the Churches garrisons of Antichrist, and the Ministers, Ministers of Antichrist, then do you no less brand the Churches of Christ in queen Maryes time, as Garrisons of Antichrist, and the martyrs as Garrison keepers for Antichrist: seeing they retained those things, which yourself I suppose now deem: popish, as prelatical Episcopacy of Diocesan Bishops, and Archbishops, you know five of the Bishops suffered martyrdom, yea they retained the Common prayer book, and some of them contended for Ceremonies, yet you never called them Garrison keepers for Antichrist; many of Gods faithful ones may be in babylon, in some one point, and yet not of B●bilon; in the Garrison of Antichrist, yet no keeper of it. Yet for your own part; that seem to be Zealous for that( which the Lord I doubt not will pull down) take you heed that you be not a Garrison keeper for Antichrist,( though not in the whole body of Popery) yet in this point. I do not a little suspect baptism of Infants, which is the same for subject● with us and the Church of Rome, to have been the cause we came no sooner, nor faster out of babylon, for all that are baptized are supposed to be believers, or in Covenant with God, and so the Children of Papists come in as the children of supposed believers,( though too too many of them deny Christ in all his offices) and so two often come to be one in Church fellowship; as in the dayes of the Bishops, when many alter-bowers and persons defiled with deep points of Popery, did commnicate with godly Protestants at one and the same supper of the Lord. For your saying, P. 92. That to make Arguments of my own, and to farther them upon my objector( that so he may stand in comparison with a certain atheist) is neithe reviling not persecution. Answ. The passage Mr black excep●s against, is, Storm of Antichrist pag. 6. Part 2. Where if the unprejudiced Reader can see any word in that comparison beyond the bonds of charity, let me be reputed as one that justifies himself in an evil action. A REPLY to Mr. black, his Vindication of Jnfants baptism. PART. III. THe first Argument. As the infants of the Jews were circumcised, so the infants of Christians are to be baptized. I denied the consequence, because then the Lords supper should be given to infants, because they par●ooke of Manna, and the paschal lamb. Mr. black to this saith, Manna and the Rock are considered two ways. 1 As common food and means of livelihood, so infants partooke of it. 2. As a visible pledge of Gods abode among them, so it was a Sacrament; this use infants could not make of it. rejoined. If infants could not make use of Manna and the passeover as a Sacrament, then not of the Lords supper, and consequently, not to be admitted to baptism, because they cannot make use of it Sacramentally, if nothing be to infants a Sacrament, of which they cannot for present make use of, then infants baptism cannot be a Sacrament to them, and so ought not to be administered. The second reason of my denying the concequence, was; Circumcision was commanded to reprobate as well as Elect, Gen. 17.10. Every man-child shall be circumcised, so was Esau, after God had said the elder shall serve the younger, Gen. 25.23. And Ishmael, after God had rejected him, Gen. 17.20. Compared with v. 23. But baptism is to be administered only to those that repent and believe. To this Mr. black saith, P. 95. Where is that command of circumcision of reprobates, or restraining baptism to elect ones. Reply. The command of circunctsing all males, is Gen. 17.10. Therefore for the circumciseing reprobates, for restraining baptism to elect ones, I never so restrained; it, but said it was to be administered to them that repent and believe. There many other reasons of my denying the consequence, as the difference betwixt circumcision and baptism, 1. In the matter, cutting in the flesh, being the matter which left sensible sign in the flesh, but sprinkling with water, the matter of infants baptism, leaves no sensible sign in faith, and therefore in respect of them cannot be Sacrament, so other differences taken from the change of the visible Church, from what it was in the time of the Jews, &c. See storm Antichrist, P. 32. 32. And compare Mr. BLAKES answers therewith. Ile only add this to what I delivered, that if the command which bound the Jews to circumcision, bind us to baptism then. First) we must be of Abrahams loins, as all circumcised jews were. Secondly, then we must be obliged to the 8. day, and that only for our males. Where is that Scripture that points you to let baptism succeed circumcision as far as you please, and on whom you please, that it must succeed circumcision in point of infancy, and not in point of obligation to keeps the law of ceremonies, succeed for time of infancy, but not for the time of the 8. day, succeed it for males, and yet not for all the males, but only for the males of believers? and Female infants to bee baptized, without any president at all, of Female infants circumcised. To maka the institution of circumcision to be the institution of baptism, that from the command of circunctsing the Males, the 8. day we must baptize, Male and Female is to call us back again to Iudasme, and to set up again the partition wall of ceremonies, which the death of Christ hath puled down. I know no more reason why circumcision should bind us by the analogye and proportion,( if there were a proportion betwixt circumcision and baptism) then the rest of the Jewish cerimonyes, the proportion of the passeover may as well tie whole familyes to eat of the supper. I dar say, we may bring in most of the points of popery, if out understandings without command from God, may under the new Testament make proportions from the old. From hence, pope Gregory as D.N. places in his book of the mass, Lib. 2. Cap. 7. undertook to reduce all the old Testament into the new, changing the elders into the sacraficing priests of the law, the Tables into Altars, the Sacraments into Sacrifices, the Deacons into Levites, and there entred an endless piece of work. Christ being the end of circumcision and passeover, as of all orher ceremonies, to whom they have reference, as the shadow to the body, Colos. 2.17. Christ being come in the flesh, we have nothing to do with them not with any command annexed to them. Obi. But circumcision was a sign of the covenant of grace, and baptism baptism is the same; therefore basptisme succeeding circumcision in the same office of signing the covenant, it succeeds also in the same subject. Sol. Though it will very hardly be granted, that circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith to any other then Abram, and we have answered, Rom. 4.11.( See storm of Antichrist) where there are 6. answers thereto; yet grant it that circumcision signified circumcision of heart, and was a sign of the righteousness of faith; yet was it a sign of these things to be in Christ to come: but baptism signifies them in Christ already come, who dyed for our sins, and rose for our Justification; did not divers other things under the law signify the same covenant: as the cloudy Sea, water out of the Rock, 1 Cor. 10.1.2.3 4.5. Did not Manna, John 6. signify the same. Did not the Ark, 1 Peter. 3.21. signify our salvation by Christ from the flood of Gods wrath? Did not the sacrifices, Heb. 9 19. The blood of Goates and Calves, and scarlet woll and bysop, signify the same things, viz. That all cleansing was in Christs blood; And to use the words of a learned man, why may we not say, baptism succeeds the flood Ark Manna, dayes of atonement, clow-by Sea, and that the Lords supper, succeeds circumcision as well as baptism, and so all Males Were to eat the supper as all were baptized. 2. For the consequence; that because baptism signs the same covenant, therefore there must be the same subject. A. Then by the same reason, the Lords supper signifying the same covenant, there must be the same subject; and so infants must receive the supper. 2. Circumcision cannot possibly be asserted to be a sign of the covenant of grace, to all he posterity of Abra●, but only to the believing Jew grant baptism to be also a sign of the covenant of grace, yet will it then follow that baptism signifies the same, onely to the believing gentle. Obj. But this covenant, I will the the God of thee and of thy seed; Gen. 17.7. Was made with the faithful and their seed. Sol. No it was made with Abram and his seed, not with believers and their seed,( for no where in Scripture is any such thing spoken) but with believers, as his seed; the children of the flesh are not the seed, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed, Rom. 9.8. This doctrine of christians begetting christians, or persons in covenant with God is very pleasing for a moment, I wish it may not destroy us for ever, especially, seeing under the pretence of baptizing the children of the faithful, the infants of all or most of the unbelievers of a parish are baptized. again, those with whom God makes the new covenant under the Gospel, are Heb. 8. They in whose hearts he writes his law, how then dare we say, that now under the gospel, believers and their seed are confedderates in the Covenant of Grace; seeing we have no knowledge of Gods writing his law in their hearts, and many of them prove wicked. ●●●ry ●of iniqui●● P. 184. ●●. 167. I will shut up this, with the words of Mr. HELWYS. Obj. As the seed of the faithful were circumcised, so the seed of the faithful must be baptized. Answ. The proportion is deceitful, thus ought the consequence to be drawn: As Abram believing was circumcised, and all the males of his household, both men, and children of 8. dayes old, bond and free, so now any man believing, must be baptized with all his household, both men, and children of 8. dayes old, bond and free. 2. It is not a necessary consequence, nothing must be proved by consequence, but that which must of necessity follow; but this doth not of necessity follow, that because infants were circumcised with circumcision of the flesh under the law, therefore infants must of necessity be baptized with the baptism of repentance, for remission of sins under the gospel. But a true consequence is this; none were circumcised, but those that were expressly commanded, by rule or example, so under the Gospel none may be baptized, but those that are expressly commanded by rule or example. To conclude, whereas God saith, I will make a new covenant, not according to the old; persons will have it according to the old, that as infants were circumcised under the old covenant, so they will have infants baptized under the new: and is not this to change the covenant which Christ hath sealed with his blood, Next Mr. black P. 97. Comes to city over the answers to Colos. 2.12. Which i● generally brought to prove baptism to succeed circumcision, as an initiating sign, for see the arguments and reasons. storm of Anti-Christ P. 2. P. 36. Next Mr. Blak●, P. 97. replies to the answer of this argument. If infants may not now be baptized, then they are deprived of some grace circumcision did confer. Answ. No, circumcision did not bring any grace to the Jews, but was rather a yoke, Acts 15.10.11. Gal. 5.3. Reply. Circumcision is to be considered as a Sacrament, as given to Abraham as a sign and seal of Christ, so it was no yok but a privilege; thus considered, it was no obligation to the law, or as a law Cerimony enjoined by Moses. rejoined. Consider circumcision which way you will, yet was it burdensome to the flesh, burdensome to the conscience, to be bound over to such ceremonious observation as circumcision bound to; I do not read of any such thing that it was a sign or seal of Christ to the believing Jews; onely to Abraham it was a seal of the righteousness of faith, in respect of his common fatherhood; but that it was so to other believing Jews, it must have many syllogistical labyrinths to wind it in, for the Scripture no where saith any such thing. But to answer more fully to the fore-named Argument; First, you understanding by the grace, circumcision did confer not inherent grace, but external privilege: I answer, that is only a privilege which God makes to be a privilege, if circumcision was a privilege, then it was because God had so established it, and being he hath not so established Infants baptism for a privilege under the gospel, it is no privilege. 2. There was an answer Mr. black left, because it weighed too heavy for him, viz. It is not a benefit, but a misery for children to be baptized; for hereby they are apt to think themselves Christians, when they are strangers from Christ. 3. We have no ground to reason the Jews had such a privilege, therefore we Gentiles must have the same, unless the Word say so; in some things the Jews had privileges above us, see Rom. 9.4. In other things we have privileges above them, Matth. 13.16, 17. Obj. unless Infants be baptized, they are excluded from the new Covenant; But they are not excluded. Answ. The Canaanitish woman without baptism, was in covenant with Christ. Secondly, you think your Infants not baptized, are saved. Thirdly, the Scripture no where sets down baptism as a Gate to let in, or a condition, without which we cannot partake of Gods Covenant. Reply. You use to put your objection in such terms, that you may answer it with most advantage to yourself; you might have put it, That the visible Church is made up of them, and therefore the ordinary gate of entrance into it, is not to be shut against them. rejoined. Though this answer be far from an answer, yet suppose it had been so put, it had damnified your cause. Those of whom the visible Church is made up, to them the ordinary gate of entrance is not to be shut; But the visible Church is made up of Infants. I deny your assumption, the visible Churches are not made up of Infants, but of men and women, Acts 8.12. of visible Saints, 1 Cor. 14.33. of such as are born again of water and of the spirit. Answ. 2. For the assumption, it follows not because Christ bade suffer these little children, therefore he would suffer all such; from a particular, to an universal, is no consequence. It once rained Manna, and once water came out of the Rock; therefore it shall be so always. Reply. To this Mr. black saith, p. 99. Did Christ bid suffer these little children to come, pointing at these individual children? Or whether are his words, suffer little children( giving licence to all within the coasts of Israell to whom he was sent) in general? rejoined. Here is a smooth discourse, were it but truth; If all the children in Israel, had such admission to Christ, and the kingdom of God belonged to them, how came they to be so wicked shortly after, to crucify the son of God? which was done according to the voice of the multitude: And forty yeares after, at Jerusalems destruction they were so wicked, that if God had not shortened them, there would no flesh been saved, Matth. 24.22. Mr. black may as well collect, that Christ bade all Infants come, as them Infants of Israel, seeing all sorts of persons came to see his miracles. So that Christ speaks only of those that were so qualified as these present children which were now brought, and whose pertinency to Gods kingdom, Christ did sufficiently know. But however they were, or whatsoever you mean by the kingdom, yet did not Christ baptize them, for Jesus baptized not, Joh. 4.2. And if he did not baptize these who were so qualified, surely he would not baptize others. Had Christ used to baptize Infants, the Disciples would not have kept them back: It appears Christ laid his hands on them, but it appears not that either Christ or his Apostles baptized them. To infer Christ baptized not, therefore we may, is absurd; these words( the kingdom of God) having so many acceptions: As taken for the kingdom of Grace, the kingdom of Glory, and the visible Church, it is hard to bring any such proof, that the visible Church should be here meant; and far more hard( yea impossible) to prove, that though the visible Church were meant, yet that those little children that were then bid come thereinto were baptized: But to make it more unlikely that a visible Church should be meant, this kingdom is not called the kingdom of God, but the kingdom of heaven, Matth. 19.14. To them that were so qualified as these Infants were 〈◇〉, of such is the kingdom of heaven: But what is this to baptizing Infants? The consequence is true of none but those Christ blessed. For Mr. Blakes saying, p. 101. The text is not, suffer humble children, but little children; which refers to quantity not quality. Answ. The ground that we suppose a quality meant, is not in the word little, but in the word[ such] 〈◇〉, yet do we find godly persons, called little children, in respect of the quality of humility, Matth. 18.3, 4, 5, 6. The seventh Objection being very little different from the former, and barely recited by Mr. black, p. 101, 102. and no answer of any right given thereto, I will pass it over, and leave the Reader to peruse it, Storm. of Antich. pag. 38, 39, 40. Having spoken so fully thereto, that I think it superfluous to add any thing. Arg. 8. When Peter exhorted his hearers to repent and be baptized, he useth an argument from the benefit that should come to their posterity; for the promise is to you and your children. Answ. That is not the scope; but Peter answers a question, which troubled consciences pricked for killing the Lord of life made, viz. What shall we do? Besides, the mountains and millions of our sins, we have the blood of the Son of God upon us, what shall we do? To whom Peter saith, Repent and be baptized; they further scrupled, what grounds for this? To whom Peter propounded the universality of the promise. It is to you and your children, even as many as God shall please effectually to call; they further scrupled, we have contracted guilt on our children, his blood be on us and our children; to this Peter saith, the promise is to you and your children. Reply. Mr. black, p. 105. And in the answer of this question, he prescribes the use of this Ordinance of baptism; and to persuade to the use of it, he produceth the promise, in the same latitude as it was by God delivered. rejoined. If the question were so, and the answer so as I have laid it down, and yourself confess, then down fals the whole fabric of the Argument; men that were startled under such great guilt of conscience, stood need of a plaster of remission of sins to be preached; It would little have eased them, to have exhorted them to be godly, from the benefit that should come to their children by baptism. Whereas I said this place is not a promise but a proffer of a promise, to persons not actually converted, but in a way of conversion. Mr. black saith, he cannot reach this distinction. To which I answer, had these persons been actually converted, as sundry of the Paedobaptists argue( in saying, as it is to a godly man, so is it to his children, but the promise is to a godly man; which argument I heard pressed in a very great auditory) then had been a promise in being to them; but being unconverted, it was onely a promise in proffer, not to persons converted, but onely in a way of conversion. Yea not onely proffered to these, but to all whom God should call effectually; and that an inward calling is here meant, because some have questioned it; Appears first, because Remission of sins is promised to this calling, but remission of sins is onely promised to effectual calling. Secondly, because these persons that have these promises, are bid to repent▪ Verse 38. Therefore PETER speaks of effectual inward calling. Thirdly, the LORD is said to call them; As many as the LORD our GOD shall call, therefore inward calling is meant; Acts 16.14. Whose heart the LORD opened. 9. Obj. The parents faith is sufficient to receive baptism for the Infant. Answ. The just must live by his own faith, Heb. 2.4. Ezek. 18.11. What did Isacks faith profit Esau, or Iohosaphats faith jehoram. Reply. Mr. black saith to this, he that lives by his own faith, may by that faith entitl● his posterity to the ordinances; in the old Testament they had benefit by their fathers faith, to be circumcised the 8. day, Isacks faith did so much profit Esau, as to entitle him to circumcision. rejoined. You spoken heretofore, as if the charter granted to Abraham, had been the formal cause of enrightment to circumcision, and to baptism, now have we a new formal cause assigned, viz. the parents faith; and that not only his professionall faith, but his justifying faith, or such ● faith as a just man lives by, which being a thing invisible there is no administrator can have a sufficient ground to administer baptism to any person, because he knows not whether his father lives by faith. 2. It was God● command, and not the fathers faith; no nor yet Abrahams faith, that inrighted to circumcision; for Abraham had saith long before, yea also had issue, yet did he not circumcise them, till God commanded. 3. It is not said to the Samaritans, Acts 8.12. That they believing, they and their children were baptized, but they that believed only: So, Acts 2.41. They that gladly received the word were baptized, not they and their children. 10. Obj. baptism and circumcision are essentially the seals of faith, Rom. 4.11. Therefore baptism succeeding in the room of circumcision, ought not to be denied to infants, although it be the baptism of faith and repentance. Answ. Then none should be baptized but grown persons, and such as have the righteousness of faith, as Abraham had at this time when he was circumcised, neither of which are compatible to infants of dayes; Its absurd to think t●●t baptism should succeed circumcision, in respect of infancy, not mentioned in the text, and not in grownenesse of stature, which now was the age of Abraham, nor in qualification of the righteousness of faith, which now was the qualification of Abram, both which are mentioned in this text. Reply. None but they and there seed, as it was with Abraham. rejoined. The text speaks of Abram alone, and Mr. black puts it in the plural number, they and their seed, which is a mere fallacy, to bring in the children of believers, had not the text been thus sophisticated, truth would have appeared; we are not Abrahams seed, as from Abrams loyne●● but only as having his faith. 2. To all former answers, some of the principal whereof are no name by Mr. BLAK●, see storm of Antichrist P. 42. Ile add, that infants cannot hence be baptized, because though they may have a righteousness, yet they cannot have the righteousness of faith, because they have no power to believe, during their infancy circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith, which Abraham had being uncircumcised, so if there were any such succession of baptism to circumcision, as the Paedobaptists would bear us in hand with, then baptism should be the seal of the righteousness of faith, which the person unbaptised hath; but we know infants have no faith, neither can we know they have any righteousness, till they grow up and make it appear, therefore are not to be baptized, neither can we see baptism to be a seal. For the first and 2. Answers, Mr. black would seem to take away, P. 106. Let them be compared with the text, Rom. 4.11. And the Storm. of Antichrist, P. 41. 42. It will appear he hath said nothing in effect. Obj. 11. Holy persons are to be baptized, but infants are holy persons; Ergo. Answ. 1. Holy persons endowed with an holinesse known to the Church, ought to be baptized, but the Apostle speaks of an outward holinesse common to reprobates. 2. If the child be holy with a covenant holinesse, then is the wife, though an Heathen, holy with covenant sanctification, so the wife though an Heathen belongs to the covenant of grace. 3. If there should be any covenant holinesse conveyed to Gentiles, it must be by our being Abrams seed, Gal. 3.29. 4. Covenant holinesse doth not agree with the context, for the question was not after what way, man, woman or child, become holy; but whether a believer or an unbeliever might live one with another in marriage to which the Apostle answers, affirmatively they might, and gives a reason, in v. 14. Mr. BLAK● replies to the first, that which can bepickt out is, that outward holinesse cannot be known to the Church. To the Second, the contrary in the text is evident; the wife is sanctified as to the bringing forth holy issue and the issue and not the wife, is styled holy. To the Third, this faith( as the text shows) carries the covenant holinesse to posterity. To the Fourth, they had a further scruple, viz. What might be thought of their infants, whether they were to be counted holy, with the believing parent, or unclean with the unbelieving one; these are Mr. BLA●●S replies. rejoined. To the first, when we speak of an outward holinesse that makes capable of baptism, we mean not such an holinesse as was in the Law, Heb. 9. But the outward expression in word and dead, of that inward inherent holinesse in the heart, that it may be made visible to the judgement of charity. To the second, whereas Mr. black saith, the issue and not the wife is styled holy; the contrary appears, in the Text the unbelieving wife is sanctified; 1 Cor. 7.14. Neither saith he, to the bringing forth an holy issue, but saith, is sanctified in or to the husband; that is, is sanctified to his use, and enjoyment, and cohabitation. He saith not, the unbeliever is sanctified to the believing husband, but barely to the husband; to show, that the holinesse consisted in the relation of matrimonial institution. To the third, I deny that faith carries any covenant holinesse to posterity; for faith onely purifies the heart where it is, Acts 15.19. So that the just live by their own faith onely, Rom. 1.17. How a grace that inheres in the soul can externally redound to any sanctifying of another, is a mystery to me. To the fourth, if you look in the Text, you shall see there was no scruple whether their infants were to be counted holy with their believing parent, or unholy with their unbelieving; as any one may see, vers. 12, 13. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away; and the woman which hath an husband that believeth, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him: In these two verses any one may see what the question was, viz. Whether a believer and an unbeliever may live together, and not the least scruple about the holinesse or unholiness of children? Now lest he should barely speak the thing, he gives three reasons. First, because the unbeliever is sanctified in the believer; that is, the unbeliever is not defiled in any such bond, and much less the believer, vers. 14. Secondly, because there's no defilement in your children, as there must needs be, if the believer must put away the unbeliever, as in the time of the Law; then must your children by such slows be put away, else were your children unclean, now are they holy. The third reason, because you may one of you, be the means of saving another, vers. 16. [ 4. From their Christian calling, vers. 17.] Ile add one reason more, viz. The Corinthians knew, that as their children were not capable of profanation by one of the parents, viz. the unbeliever; so could they not be capable of holinesse by the other parent, viz. the believer; therefore did they not scruple, whether their children were to be counted holy, with the believing parent, or unholy with the unbeliever. Ile conclude this Argument: Whereas an holinesse of legitimation, in opposition to illegitimation, though not to bastardy, is meant;( for those that were put away in Ezra's time, were not put away as bastards, but as unholy; because they violated these holy rules God set down concerning marriage) What ground is this for any hereditary covenant holinesse? But what if legitimation had been opposed to Bastardy? Perhaps you will say, their children had been born in lawful Wedlock, though neither of their Parents had been a Believer: True, but a child of GOD may scruple for want of light, things that are clear enough, and so might these Corinthians do. And the Apostle doth charitably in answering their scruple, and I will not say but they scrupled legitimation of their children, not onely in opposition to illegitimation, but to bastardy. For the twelfth Objection, it was answered in the second Part. For the thirteenth Objection, from 1 Cor. 10.1. you give no answer, because you never supposed any great validity in it, to the question in hand; as yourself aclowledge. Obj. 14. Lydia and all her family was baptized, but it is not said her family believed; therefore itis lawful for persons to be baptized, although they do not believe. Answ. Lydia and her family were baptized as Christ commanded, else Paul had contemned an Ordinance of Christ. It's absurd to baptize any one in the faith of their Master or mistress; I ask those that hold Infants baptism, whether they would baptize all the servants of a Turk, if he should believe, and not his servants? Reply. To this Mr. black saith, these are of capacity to believe, and their unbelief is privative and damning; neither have they any other title then faith to baptism. rejoined. This doth not answer the question, whether an unbelieving servant may be baptized by the faith of his master? And for title to baptism, I know no title to baptism but by believing. Obj. 15. For your exceptions against my answers to the families, I clear thus. First, for Lydia, itis probable she had no husband, because she was so earnest with persons so hated and persecuted, to come to her house, had she had an husband she durst not. Mr. black. This conjecture is weak, for Ioanna did as much, Luk. 8.3. rejoined. Its denied, she ministered of her goods, but did not urge Christ at all to come to her house. Besides, Lydia might be an ancient Widow, and all her children grown up, no necessity of infants. For Stephanas it s beyond your exception; That there were no infants, see 1 Cor. 16.15. For your reason from Luk. 19.9. if you can prove the house received salvation, as the house of Stephanas ministered to the Saints, you might make a little shadow but small substance. For Cornelius his family( though there was some mistake) in my alleging him, yet he feared God with all his house, Acts 10.2. and after was baptized. For your exception against Acts 18.8. The Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized, because ABRAHAM hearing, believed and was circumcised. Answ. Do Infants do so? Obj. 16. As the child is born free by the fathers freedom, so if God take the the father into covenant, he takes in the children with them: As the Son of a Priest or Levite, or the Son of a State Officer hath right to his fathers Office. Answ. If by covenant you mean the covenant of Grace, no believer is born in this; we being by nature children of wrath; but if you mean some outward covenant, that is inrightment in Church-proviledges, as baptism, supper, &c. show some copy, that by the fathers inrightment herein, all the children come to be inrighted; as there are patents for the other, in divine or human Ordinances. Reply. Mr. black saith, a Nobleman begets a Son as a man, not as a person of honour; so a free-man, a State officer that holds a patent of inheritance, yet these beget sons vsted with their discendable immunities and privileges. rejoined. So do Christian men as well as other men, but this doth not prove Christianity or baptism to be a discendable immunity; you tax me for charging the traduction of Christianity on these times, but if these comparisons tend not hereto, I know not what doth; onely you lie hide, in not making your reddition in express words, but leave it so, that any one may know your meaning; The course of all disputation, should begin from the definition of a thing; I have defined baptism, Storm. of Antichrist, p. 58. and elsewhere, I would you had done so. But this comparison doth in some good measure express your meaning, what you think it to be; which how it can in any way agree with Rom. 6.3, 4, 5. Col. 2.12. 1 Pet. 3.20. and many other Scriptures; I see not. Mr. black adds for a conclusion of this Argument; That if I or any other can bring any considerable witnesses of credit, from the time of ABRAM to this hour, that will say, that no such thing was held in their age in which they lived, no such doctrine maintained, nor no practise bearing witness to it used, meaning unto this holinesse of birth-priviledge; then he will quit the the cause, and betake himself to our party, pag. 114. Answ. First it lies upon your part to prove it by the witnesses of the respective ages, to tell us that our Infants have a holinesse of birth-priviledge. Secondly, it is not sufficient to conclude, that because we cannot bring witness, that holinesse of birth-priviledge was not held in the several ages, from ABRAM to this age, that therefore it was held in all or any of those ages: Is it sufficient for the Papists to argue, that if the Protestants can bring any considerable witnesses of credit, from the times of the Apostles, for 700. yeares after Christ, that no transubstantiation was held in their ages wherein they lived, we will quit the controversy of transubstantion; yea the whole cause of Popery: Nay( say we to Papists) it lies upon you to prove it in the apostolical times, and in following ages, or else we explode it as Idolatry and novelty. Onely we must take notice of the good opinion Mr. black in his sober mood hath of us poor Anabaptists; in that could we disprove his traduction of Christianity, or holinesse of birth-priviledge, he would quit the cause, and betake himself to our party, pag. 115. Which shows, he deems us not so heretical in could blood, as he doth in a passion; well, if our heresy be no gre●ter then denying the holinesse of birth-priviledge, I hope we shall never have that Peccadillo charged on us. Object. 17. As soon as Zacheus professed the faith, the covenant of salvation comes to his house, forasmuch as he is a son of ABRAM. Answ. Salvation was Christ, Luk. 2.30. Reply. Salvation was saving Ordinances, incorporating him and his to this Common-wealth, Joh. 4.22. rejoined. It was Christ: For Ordinances might have come again and again, yet no salvation; we read not that all the family became sons of ABRAHAM, by his receiving Christ joyfully; which must be the thing proved, to prove your point; but onely himself was a son of ABRAHAM: For your comparing Zacheus and Stephanas his house, I have answered before. Obj. 18. Though I have oft heard it urged, yet you pass it over without any reply, and so do I without any rejoinder. Obj. 19. You say hath already been examined, and so it hath. Obj. 20. baptism of infants is not forbid in Scripture, therefore itis lawful, p. 117. Answ. That worship is forbid, which is not commanded, Col. 2.23. Matth. 15.9. Deut. 12.32. 1 Reg. 12.23. Esa. 29.13. Jer. 7.31. Hos. 13.2. Reply. Mr. black doth not take away my answer in any kind, but changes the terms, yea so far, that he puts a new argument, which is this. Infants baptism is commanded in Scripture, therefore itis lawful. rejoined. You bring not not tittle of reason to prove it, yet will I not retort your Epithitē magisterial. Could you have brought any such command, I doubt not but we should have heard of it very loudly, especially seeing the producement of such a command would end the controversy. Obj. But here is no alteration of the worship, but of the subject, for the manner of baptizing is the same. Answ. The change of the subject makes it will-worship, because herein you go from the will of that one Law-giver, who wils onely that believers should be baptized, whose sins in the judgement of charity are forgiven, Acts 22.16. Reply. I pray tell us, saith Mr. black, where we may find a text of Scripture that sets forth our charity for a judge in these things. rejoined. I commend Mr. Blakes discretion, that after his usual manner, that if there be an answer hath any infirmity in it, he is nibbling at that, and lets go the strong, for fear he should conjure up more spirits then he can lay down. I answer, that those that defend Infants baptism, would think it will-worship if any Ministers should baptize the children of Turks, and that upon this ground, because they are not fit subjects: the like conclude we for the baptizing of Infants, as being not fit subjects. But to answer your demand, where we may find a Scripture that sets forth our charity for a judge? Answ. Though this was no essential point in the Answer, which Answer wisely you left untouched in the least kind, and fixed upon a Parenthesis set down for exornation; yet, I answer, Acts 8.37. Philips charity was a judge that the Eunuch did believe, and had his sins pardonned; and so was Ananias charity,( Acts 9.) a judge that Paul beeleeved, compared with Acts 16.22. and so was Pauls charity to Lydia, Acts 16.14. and to the jailor, ver. 34. he could not look into either of their hearts, whether their faith was unfeigned; on what ground else was Magus baptized, Acts 13. but because Philip deemed him to believe, as well as the rest of the Samaritans. So Ananias, Saphira and Demas, and many others, both sinners and hypocrites, were baptized from the judgement of charity; yea, 3000. at one time, Acts 2.41. and 5000. at another time, Acts 4. are texts of Scripture beyond exception, that sets forth our charity for a judge concerning persons baptizable, even such as repent, and consequently have their sins forgiven, for these two go together, Acts 5.31. A Saviour to give repentance unto Israel, and forgiveness of sins, Luke 24.47. repentance and remission must be preached together. And upon this ground of repentance, because John in charity deemed persons to have repented who confessed their sins, he baptized them, Matth. 3.6. hence his baptism came to be called, the baptism of repentance. 2. Either conjecture, infallibility, or charity, must be judge what persons are baptizable; not bare conjecture, for there is nothing but uncertainty, in that, such as there is in Infants baptism, who baptize in a manner all in Christian kingdoms,( as they call them) because there are some Elect. Or infallibility must be judge; but though Mr. black bear much upon this, as if he and such administrators did administer upon more certain, grounds then others, not onely the certainty of charity, but of infallibility: for, so he saith, page. 24 so we should fall upon the absurdity of your party to maintain, that this Sacrament is applied upon the ground of charity, and not certainty, upon hopes that the person is of capacity, not assurance. Yet, must he, in challenging a certainty of infallibility, if any such he challenge, exceed the Apostles, who were not infallible, in their judging persons to be baptized, as we see in Ananias, Saphira, Magus, &c. Bare conjecture, nor infallibility being not the judges what persons are baptizable, what remaines, but that charity must be the judge, whose office it is to believe and hope the best of all things, much more to believe and hope well of those who make a good profession of life and words before many witnesses, 1 Tim. 6. no greater certainty being attaineable; and God onely being the searcher of hearts. But of this enough, The 22. Objection is formerly cleared, when Mr. black did conjoin it with another. Obj. There are three great mischefes go along with denying Infants baptism; as, 1. Rejection of the Lords Day. 2. Taking their proselytes wholly from the ministry of the Word. 3. Putting of Infants of believers into the condition of Turks and Indians. Answ. To the first, for the Jewish sabbath once commanded by God, itis put to an end, Col. 2.16. else it stands in force yet, and that being put to an end, we observe the Lords Day from the Apostles example, and the morality of the fourth Commandement, which requires one day in seven. 2. To the second, we take them not off, but yourselves by preaching and praying against the things we practise. 3. To the third, why may not the Infants of Turks, being equally guilty of original sin, with Infants of Christians,( for yourselves confess, baptism takes not away original sin) and equally free from actual sin, partake of the same benefits of free grace, why may we not have charitable thoughts concerning the salvation of Turkish Infants, being we know nothing of their damnation? Reply. To the first Mr. black saith, take heed of a real refutation not from the pen, but from the practise. Secondly to the second, look to the confession of the faith of your Churches, and see what they leave to the ministry: All who have gifts may and ought to prophesy, &c. Thirdly, your third mischief is sufficiently spoken to. p. 73. rejoined. To the first, I wish we may take your counsel. 2. To the second, though they leave not so much to the ministry as perhaps you would have them, yet this proves them not to take off persons wholly from the ministry; which is the charge you are to prove, else you say nothing. Secondly, to the second; persons that are hearers, are either weak or strong, if weak they are in danger of being misled, if strong they are in danger not onely of partaking in the sins of a whole congregation, whiles false and scandalous doctrines go for truth, whiles the strong hears them and makes no replies, and so all the congregation through his silence come to be misled; but also they are in danger of denial of Christ, whiles things manifestly false in their conscience, goes for truth by their silence, they not testifying against them, nor justifying wisdom, as all the sons of wisdom are bound to do, Matth. 11.19. And what a sin it is to deny Christ habitually, as here strong persons are like to do, I leave to persons to consider; there is but one remedy for to prevent this that I can see, viz. To make reply after sermon is done, to any doubtful point, in meekness and modesty, which if the several Congregations would friendly permit, as the laws of the land( so far as I know) do suffer it; provided reply be not in sermon time, but after, not onely myself, but I am persuaded many hundreds more, would be glad to partake of the pains of many learned preachers, whose gifts we reverence in an high measure; but till our scruples can be salved( it being in the power of your side to salue them) give leave to those that doubt thereof to forbear, because of the Apostles rule, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Howbeit, in the Church wherein I am a Member, if any man be not moved with the foregoing reasons, but thinks that with a good conscience( rebus sic stantibus, things being as they are) that he may hear a Parish Minister in a Parish Church, though he have no habitual intention to profess against any untruth, or being weak, is not able to protest in words of weight, we leave these persons to themselves, without any threats of censure, not making our consciences or reasons in such new controversies, the rules of other mens practices. Howbeit, in regard of doctrines usually preached, contrary to their practise, & petitions in prayer powred out contrary to their principles, we greatly fear they do it out of compliance to temporal ends, which in-dwelling corruption keeps them from the sight of, and dance upon ropes, when they may go without fear upon the ground; that worship doth a man little good, wherein he hears and prays, in fear of something that may be spoken contrary to his own principles. Thirdly, Whereas you tax the confession of faith made by some of our Churches( for to it I suppose some of the Churches never subscribed) for their holding, all who have gifts may and ought to prophesy: I wish you, or any man else would make it clear, that they have not power so to do, and convince them by your reasons, rather then by your exclamations: Following times will find this to be a controversy of great moment; in which I must confess myself to be very dark, though I heard the point once well sifted in new England, at a great presence of learned Elders. To the third, you say it hath been spoken to, but I cannot find where. Obj. 24. There is no express command of womens receiving the Lords Supper. Answ. Yes, from example, Acts 1.14. Where the Virgin Mary and others were gathered, there were divers women. These were together in one place, and they continued in the Apostles fellowship, and breaking of bread, chap, 2.42. and 44. all that believed were together. Therefore women received the supper. 2. It appears from command, 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man or woman examine, 〈◇〉. 3. There's one and the same communion in baptism, and in the supper; Now women were baptized, Acts 8.12. Therefore they received the Supper. Reply. Both your examples and reasons, are by way of collection and inference from Scriptures. R●joynd. How should they be else; let the Reader judge, whether Mr. black hath in this answer given a full repulse, as his title page. professeth. Obj. 25. The denying of infants baptism is contrary to the practise of the Churches, and casts an aspersion upon them. Answ. We find the history of the Acts of the Apostles, and the first 300. years, well nigh, if not altogether clear for us. Reply. For a full discovery of the notable untruth of this assertion, I refer your Reader no further then your 12th. Argument, with all your diligent search, we have not from you one piece of a witness, to deny the practise of infants baptism in that time; but much to the contrary. R●joynd. For the truth of it in the Acts of the Apostles, it is beyond all exception; in all that Book there is not one tittle for infants baptism, but plentiful testimony for the baptism of believers, Acts 8.12.13.37. Acts 10.47. Acts 16.14.33.18.8. &c. For the well-nigh 300. year we find clear, that Believers were the subjects of baptism. I prove it; First, because in justin Martyrs time, who lived 140. yeares after Christ, as Sculptetus saith, and the ancientest Father extant; there is no mention in the least tittle, of Infants baptism, but clear mention of the baptism of Believers, more then once: See his second Apology to the Emperour Antoninus; And see, how Mr. black answers this authority, pag. 53. In which words, we see enough for baptism of Converts, brought from heathenism to the Faith; but not a syllable against the baptism of Infants: To which I answer, that he could not speak against the baptism of Infants, except he had prophesied: Could any man speak against an error, before the error were in being; speaking so often as he doth of baptism, in, many places, had Infants been baptized, we should have heard something thereof. Next after him have we Irenaeus, who lived a hundred seventy eight years after Christ, and nothing at all have we from him of the baptism of Infants. Next after Irenaeus followed Clemens Alexandrinus, in the year 196. after Christ; as Sculptetus gathers out of Chronologers: Who, pedagogue. l. 1. c. 6. pag. 95. 96. tells us plainly; That Believers were the subject of baptism. See Iustins words, and Clemens his words, and authorities of other Fathers in their own words, Storm. of Antich. p. 27. an● 28. To this Authority Mr. black saith, p. 54. We shall not find Infants once mentioned; much less their baptism denied. To which I answer, if we in this author find not Infants once mentioned, much less can we find the baptism of Infants. So we have here 196 yeares of the 300. complete. Amongst the Latin fathers, Tertullian is the ancientest, who lived in the year 183. after Christ, I appeal to the learned, whether his book which he wrote concerning baptism, be not only full for believers; and tells us, for every persons condition, disposition, and age, the delaying of baptism is profitable. To sundry sayings which I produced from Tertullian, Storm. of Antichrist P. 29. Mr. black P. 55. saith, we expect some direct Testimony from one father at the least, of the first ages, denying the practise of infants baptism, and affirming the Church, knew no such custom. rejoined. If any one please to red my quotations out of Tertullian, he shall see Mr. black hath his desire in good measure granted to him. Origen is next, who as Sculptetus saith, was born in the 189. year after Christ, and dyed at Tyre in the 69. year of his age, doth he ever speak of infants baptism, save that he calls it a tradition in some one place, and yet was it a good while above 200 yeares after Christ, before he began to teach, and how long it was before ever he name infants baptism is uncertain. Mr. black P. 56. From Origens calling it a tradition, for want of a better authority, begins to triumph in these words: why is there not then a plain confession of the truth, that this piece of antiquity is against you? rejoined. I never said the name of it was in the first 300 yeares. Is not Origens calling infants baptism a tradition, above 200 yeares after Christ, a godly piece of antiquity, to prove infants baptism from antiquity; and to make a full discovery of notable untruth in me, P. 120. The next father is Cyprian, who lived 250. and odd yeares after Christ, he once in all his works names infants baptism; divers reasons I brought to prove the spuriousnesse of that Epistle, but suppose that were true, which to my dying day I shall ever suspect, yet have we a great many yeares above 200. wherein we only find believers baptized; and if that Epistle in Cyprian be false, I suppose, we have above 300. yeares complete; now lay all this together, and the Reader may judge, whether there be a full discovery of a notable untruth, in my asserting; We find the history in the Acts of the Apostles, and the first 300. yeares, well nigh, if not altogether for us. Further, whereas I said, ●ll the Churches erred for many 100. yeares since the time of the Antichristian apostasy, not only in smaller matters, but in point of the mass, justification by works, transubstantiation, Judge of the faith. Yea they have I supposed errd, I mean the protestant Churches, since the reformation, in these particulars; As first, in retaining baptism, which they had from the hands of Popish Priests, which they could never retain, without acknowledging the Roman Church to be a true Church, and their Priesthood to be true, and their Ministers to be the Ministers of Christ. Reply. To this Mr. black P. 121. Saith; First, the baptism thus received, they could never wash off and maintain the Pope to be Antichrist; who opposes not Christ openly, but in a mystery, being in the Temple of God. Secondly, there are many truths in that Church, why must we then deny the truth of the Sacrament of baptism to be with them. Thirdly, What do you find out of antiquity to reject baptism, received from the hands of heretics, where the essence is retained. Fourthly, their priest-hood is wholly Antichristian: and whatsoever they do, Qua. priests we justly condemn. Fifthly, When you have condemned all ministery & baptism, and both ours and theirs, you will hardly find a way to set up any ministry, re-establish any baptism, but leave us among the seekers, who deny any Church or ministry at all upon earth: the gates of hell having prevailed contrary to Christs promise. rejoined. It seems you would not wash off your baptism, because if you did, you could not maintain the Pope to be Antichrist, else you would have done it; yes, you may better prove him to be Antichrist by washing it off, or if you had rather by wiping it off; for the more opposition there is against the truth of Christ( whereof I doubt not this to be one yea a great one) the greater proof there is of Antichrist; if you would prove your Church true, and baptism true, by interpreting these words, sitting in the Temple of God; to be sitting in the Church of God; and therefore your Church is true, because Ant●ch●ist sits there: will not the Romanists come in with a share with you, and upon the same ground prove their Churches to be true, because Antichrist sits there? So that 〈◇〉 he sets himself into the Temple of God: As God signifies not the place where he sits properly, but the persons over whom he tyrannizes, even the Saints of God, who are called Gods Temple, 1 Cor. 3.16. 2 Cor. 6.16. Not constituted Churches, who are never that I remember, called Gods Temple; and if they were, the Romanists, would come in for a share; he sits into the Temple of God, or multitudes of believers by his injuctions: and sometimes by his erroneous tenants which they receive from him. But his sitting most properly is his chayr-power, which he pretends to have over all Christians in spirituallibus, to sit into the Temple of God, is an usual phrase; as we say, sit into the Church, sit into the shadow. Secondly, to your Second, viz. Seeing there are many truths in that Church, why must we deny the truth of the Sacrament of baptism to be with them? rejoined. Our question is no●, whether they have some truths among them? for so perhaps may the Turkish Alcoran have; but whether this point is truth? or rather, whether the power by which the Protestants in the beginning of the reformation, received baptism from them be a true power? which I deny, and Mr. black hath not yet proved; and I deny it on this ground; because the succession of their ministry, or rather priesthood, was false, as descending from the Pope; also because they were visible Idolaters; sent to say mass, and sacrifice, as well as to baptize, also because their Church was false, for whereas the true Church is the pillar and ground of truth, their Church was the pillar and ground of fa●shood. again, they were none of Christs Ministers being for the far greatest number, unable to preach or to believe, and therefore had no power to baptize; upon all which grounds the baptism which the Protestants in the reformation received from them, was a nullity had the subject been right, how much more a nullity, the subject being false? Thirdly, to the 3d. viz. What do you find out of antiquity, to reject baptism received from the hands of heretics? Answ. Cypr. de baptizand. hareticis. P. 397, 398 399. 4●0. &c. Edit Pamel, there you may. I suppose see, it was the judgement of 87. Bishops, that the baptism of heretics was a nullity. Fourthly, to the 4th. viz. Whatsoever they do, Qua● priests you say, you wholly condemn. rejoined. Then must you reject their sprinkling of babies; for as they say mass by their power of priesthood, so do they baptize by the same; and by that power were the Protestants in the beginning of the reformation sprinkled. Fifthly, to your 5. I answer, suppose all ministry and baptism were condemned, both theirs and yours,( to use your words) yet is there no difficulty in setting up a right ministry and baptism, the way whereto is; 1. For believers to consider that they are the subjects to receive all ordinances in time of an apostasy. 2. That these believers gather themselves together, 3. That they make profession of their faith one to another. 4. That they consent and agree together, to worship God in all his ways, that are or shall be revealed to them. 5. That they choose out a Pastor( if he may be had) that may administer all ordinances to them. For Christs promise, of the gate● of hell, not prevailing against the Church; I understand not that promise of any visible Church or Churches, against which in all ages the gates of hell have prevailed; but the body of Christ, or the invisible Church, who only makes the same believing confession that Peter did: Against these, the gates of hell cannot prevail to make them renounce that confession, which with heart, or mouth, or both, they have made. Secondly, the 2d. thing wherein the Churches were charged to err, was in that the elders of the Churches received all sorts of persons to baptism upon a supposed covenant holinesse, derived from the parents, which were Idolaters in the grossest Idolatry, for many 100. yeares. Reply. To this Mr. black having evaded altogether the former part of the charge without any answer, answers the latter part, viz. For Idolatry which you charge upon our forefathers, we must distinguish it; 1. As worshipping of a false God, 2. As worshipping the true God in a false way; the former dis-churches a people, and wholly casts them out of covenant; of this our fore-fathers were not guilty, they worshipped the true God, yea they believed all things aright concerning the person of Christ, in both natures. rejoined. You should have spoken to the latter too, and told us whether or no, the worshipping the true God in a false way, do not unchurch a people, see whether it doth; Hos. 1.9. Hos. 2.2. P●ead with your mother, pled, for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband, let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, &c. Secondly, Whether is it likely, our fore-fathers did believe all things aright, concerning the nature of Christ; bu● if they did, whether is that enough? what think you of misbelief of the offices of Christ? as in point of satisfaction, to join works with it, so in point of transubstantiation, and mass, and Image worship, Saint worship, rellick worship, can these stand with your pretended covenant relatio●? Thirdly, They have erred, in that Elders, Members, and the whole Church, did agree that the Church should be divided by Parishes, making cohabitation or dwelling together, a sufficient inrightment to Church privileges. Reply. Somewhat more is required, by protestant Churches for such inrightment; so a Jew or turk renting an house, should become a member of a christian congregation; it is not then bare cohabitation, but a cohabitation of christians, accepting of ordinances, that is inrightment. rejoined. What more is required saving paedobaptism? All persons that have been sprinkled in their infancy, and live together, whether good or had, are members or may be so, in that parish where they live, and their children by virtue of their fathers paedobaptism and cohabitation, are baptized in that parish. Further, it is not the cohabitation of Christians, but of persons baptized in their infancy; many whereof are desperately wicked, and are so far from accepting, that they reject and persecute ordinances that gives inrightment to Church privilege. For your saying, all the christians within the compass of such a place make up one only Church, we grant it; but what is this to your practise, that make all Church, and none to be the world, in this kingdom, or not one of many? Fourthly, the 4th. The churches have erred in a wrong matter, in that they have taken the whole profane world, and made strangers from God, to dream of a communion with him: Till the other day, this abomination began to be discovered. Reply. This Fourth is the same with the Second of mischiefs, which you charge upon the baptism of infants. rejoined. This was such an app●rent error, that Mr. black hath said nothing at all to defend it. Fifthly, the fifth thing the Churches have erred in is, the continuation of Episcopacy for so many 100. yeares, though in some places the name be now changed into superintendency. Reply. A●l the Church 〈◇〉 have not been in this guilty; some never were under Episcopacy; not the French, nor Geneva Churches, none of them have been so long guilty, as to have erred so many 100. yeares. R●joynd. Will you deny all Churches till the reformation of Luther or Calvin, if you aclowledge them, then had they Episcopacy for many 100. yeares, yea, what if they had it before Paedobaptism●? I doubt not but they had; if you deny them to be Churches before that time, then must you aclowledge what you denied, viz. That the Protestants in the reformation, received their baptism from an undue power, from persons that were of no Church, and so no Minist●rs; you instance in Genev●, was there not a Bshop in Geneva before their reformation? Sixthly, the sixth thing the Churches have erred in is, the mutual invectives of the Lutheran, against the Calvinists, and these against them, yet I never red of any of the Ministers censured, for this violation of charity. Reply. To this and divers other branches in this 6th. error, Mr. black saith, nothing but this; I do not in●end any apology for them; and adds, you tell us of the banishment of Molerus from wittenberg, and Zanchy, from Strasburg, of which you were it seems an eye-witnesse, for it is not within the compass of your reading. rejoined. I like you the better for not apologizing for evil, wo to them that call evil good; but for the banishment of Molerus and Zanchy, I assure you they are in the compass of my reading: Molerus hath the story in one of his prefaces upon the psalms, and Zanchy sets it down in one of his letters to Bishop grindal, as I remember; but sure I am, it was in an Epistle to an English Bishop. Obj. 26. There are many mischiefs go along with denying infants baptism, and therefore we ought to abandon such doctrine. As first, There will be a wide door set open to heathenism, for a great part of the world will in time become Heathens. Answ. This will be no damage but benefit to christianity: in that many that live the lives of Heathens, under the name of Christians, will be discovered. Reply. That benefit may be over-ballanced with many unsufferable evils, and there may be other means of redress then so desperate away of cure. rejoined. I know no means to discover such, or to redress this evil, so long as they are admitted to baptism; it is not keeping such from the Lords supper will redress such evils. Secondly, this will overthrow Parishes, or parochial constitutions. Answ. True, and I think it comes nearer the apostolical constitution. Reply. Mr. black seems to affirm, that paedobaptism and Parish constitution, have no dependence upon one another. rejoined. They have this dependence collateral, that he that will not baptize infants, shall not be a Parish Minister though otherwise well guifted; the truth is, there is great difference betwixt their coming into the Church, the kingdom being divided into Parishes in England, when Henorious was Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, which was about 500. or 600. yeares ago at the utmost, but now they have partly by custom, and partly by edicts of Princes, been so twisted together; that it will not be an easy thing to untwist them. I added further, I fear me this parochial constitution, and the large tithes that accompany it, are one of the greatest objections that hinder the passage of this truth. Reply. To this Mr. black saith, and may I not as justly fear your high applause of yourselves; as men resolved to bear banishment, persecution, and run the hazard of certain ruin, for the truth, in which you among others take not the least freedom; and your charge of others with self-seeking, is one of your chief Engines to hook in this error,— This of tithes, you willingly serve in, as a second abomination: Men will be your proselytes to save charges. Reioynd. It was far from me in judging all; I hope there are a number of faithful ones, that would not sell themselves, but are there not a number that will willingly embrace any way, that they may embrace their tithes? there being I fear no small number of these, cannot but retard any reformation according to the Word; much more this point, for do you think that those multitudes of carnal, civill, and profane men, every where, would ever pay thithes, if they could not have their infants baptized? if they did, it should be violently haled from them. For your fearing our high applause of ourselves, in our resolution to suffer, to be an engine to draw in this error. I answer, either his or our vain glory is either invisible, or visible, if invisible, then itis known only to God; if visible, it being a sin visible, is not like to hook in persons, but rather to put persons off from us, had we become fools in glorying, as the Apostle saith, 2 Cor. 12.11. Ye have by your disparagements of us, compelled us thereto; in that both press and pulpit ring of us, as if we were the Monsters of the earth. It was not vain-glory in job, when his friends had accused him, for him to commend himself as he doth, Cap. 29. From v. 8. to v. 18. When the false teachers had undervalued Paul, it was not vainglory in him to spend almost two whole Chapters, 2 Cor. 11. From v. 4. To Cap. 12. v. 19. In his own commendations; which he did not, not out of any vainglorious, itch, but for to assert his Apostle-ship, against those that had depraved him. For your places which you alleged against me, to make your charge good, let the Reader peruse, Storm. of Antichrist, Part 1. P. 12. Part 2. P. 57. Which are the places you allege; I hope he shall find nothing spoken but that which may stand with modesty: and moved from your aspersions, though with grief: I must aclowledge, that I carry a whole body of death about me. For tithes I, meddle not with to dispute the point, only this I say, there being a change of the priesthood, there must needs be a change of the maintenance, Heb. 7.12. That priesthood that had tithes by divine right affixed to it, did offer sacrifices of beasts, and other oblations, which had reference to Christ to come. I Quere, whether it be safe to recall any such thing as so trenches upon judaism? but if you will have tithes as a civ ll tribute from the Magistrate, I suppose you must show us better ti●le that they have to do it, then, your place which you bring, viz. 1 Samuel. 8.15. wherein Samuel, shows not the power of a King, but the manner of the King that should rule over them, v. 11. And this King was Saul, wherein Samuel having spoken of many of his oppressions, v. 11, 12, 13, 14. he adds v. 15. And he will take the tenth of your seeds, and of your vine-yards, and give to his Officers, and to his servants: Every good mans heart should tremble, to have his maintenance by such a title. Secondly, show us since the abolishment of the law of tithes in the Scripture, that any Prince in the new Testament; did either de jure, or defacto re-establish them, and we shall yield thereto. For your saying, men will be our proselytes to save charges. I answer, it hath been the mishap, that true teachers have still had the barest maintenance, see 2 Cor. 11.9. Yea they have been forced to prophesy in Sackcloth. 1260 dayes, Apoc. 11.3. When the Ministers of Antichrist had for mirth and jollity, v. 10. Yea whereas the Churches ought to allow their Bishops or Pastors an honourable maintenance, even that they may keep hospitality, 1 Tim. 3.( and not in away of charity, or arbitrarinesse, that they may give what they please, or when they please, which in my apprehension is a great point of disorder, where ever practised) maintanance in this particular, being matter of duty, not of charity, yet not withstanding this duty so often inculcated, as Gal. 6.6. 1 Cor. 9.7.8 9. 1 Tim. 5.17. &c. Suppose some particular persons, or whole Churches, should be close fisted or penurious, yet dare not I think( whatsoever you dare do) that any man is so Athesticall to be a Proslite with us to save charges; he hath a mean opinion of his religion, that embraces it on this ground, because of the cheapness. Third mischief, that comes by denying paedobaptism is; That such persons as hold this, are going into deeper errors; and that this is but the entrance. Answ. I know many that I have been acquainted with, that are as sound in the faith a sour accusers. Reply. This were a new piece of juggling in Satan, if he could cast so thick a mist over the eyes of men, as not to see the errors which men of this opinion maintain. rejoined. You might do well to instance in particulars, deceit lies hide in generals; Whereas you come to instance in one particular, P. 127. In these words; what is vented I tremble to relate, even such things as( by Mr. BLACKWOODS approba●ion) the Magistrate ought to punish. Answ. I suppose you have respect to the first, Storm. of Antichrist, Part. 1. P. 23. Where it was, objected; Magistrates are to be a terror to evil works, but heresy is an evil work; I answered, evil works are of 3. sorts. First, Those that are committed against the light of nature. Secondly, Against the light of faith; as denial of Christs heresy, &c. Thirdly, Against the light of Nations, where I used these words; There is no nation in the world, but in it the Magistrate will punish those that speak against the God they profess, and against that which they think his Scripture; so if any one rail against Christ, or deny the Scriptures, to be his Word, or affirm the Epistles to be only letters written to particular Churches, and no rule for us, and so unsettle our faith; this I take may be punished by the Magistrate, because all or most Nations in the world do it. For to clear which, forasmuch as some besides Mr. black, have taken offence hereat; I in the faults that were escaped in the said book, desired the Reader further to inquire thereof, as doubting of it myself upon second thoughts, the words in the escaped faults are these; for do it, red, do it, but Quere, hereof P. 23. But though my soul abhor all such opinions, as I do hell, yet do I doubt, whether the Magistrate have any power to deal with any such offender, unless he or they break the public peace; so that I retract the foresaid distinction, as suspecting it of error, and distinguish sins, that they are either against the light of Nature, as tumults, whoredom, drunkenness, theft; or against the light of faith, as pride, covetousness, unbelief, schism, heresy, &c. the former belongs to the Magistrate to punish, the latter belongs to the respective Churches to censure, and not to the Magistrate to meddle with: and for sins against the light of Nations, I retract the same as being utterly uncertain, that the Magistrate hath any such power; yea, I do think the Magistrate hath no power, as he is a Magistrate, in or about matters of religious worship, but onely to preserve the peace, that no man be molested in or about his worship. But the Mr. black should hear any such errors vented amongst us, as I suppose he would make the Reader believe, I could have wished he had name the persons, and places of such errors, that all Gods people might( after admonition) have avoided them as heretics. The last mischief was, denying Paedo-baptisme was against charity, in making a schism in the Church. Answ. How is it possible to recover the souls of men out of this will-worship, but by dividing them from the common practise: Christ and his Apostles were not schismatics, in keeping his Passeover two dayes different from the received practise of the Jewish Church; no more are we, keeping to the rule, though the generality of men practise otherwise. Reply. What pains do you take to hook in this example, that you and your followers may be parallel with Christ and his Disciples. rejoined. To omit your intricate disputation about the Passeover, which is by the by, the places of John 18.28. and John 19.14. prove it sufficiently that Christ varied from the practise of the Jewish Passeover, at least one day, as yourself confess; yet was he no schismatic, to parallel ourselves with Christ, in departing from public errors, we dare not do so; but we desire to follow him in the same steps, though we cannot take such long strides. To conclude; whereas in this Treatise you have branded myself, and many others of Gods Saints in this Treatise, I will onely give you a seasonable counsel from a grave Author. descant nostrae aetatis homines ne hac calumniae quosvis qui in omnibus punctis & sillabis cum illis non consentiunt, temere & petulanter prescindant, credibile nanque est nos in extremo illo Christi judicio, multos à dextris judicis inter oves computatos visuros, quos in hac vita faedo illo & execratione digno nomine diffamavimus. Bach●sius in vita Philastrii; Let the men of our age learn, that they do not rashly and reproachfully defame any one that do not agree with them in all points and syllables; for it is credible, that we at the last judgement shall see many at the right hand of the Judge reckoned among the sheep, whom we in this life have defamed with that filthy and execrable name, meaning heresy. A Postscript, to prevent mistakes. WHat I have writ concerning Infants baptism, I aclowledge to be so far true, that J am undoubtedly persuaded, That Infants baptism is not of God; in confirmation whereof, J shall( the Lord assisting, and if I be called thereto) leave the dearest comforts I have i● this life. And for liberty of conscience to the different ways of Brethren, whether Independent or Antipaedobaptist, I am undoubtedly persuaded: But whether there be liberty to be granted to men of no conscience? Or to loose lived persons? That pretend conscience, when visibly it is onely passion, humour, fancy, or cloaked iniquity, I leave it to inquiry. The scope of this Treatise, as of the former, is partly to show the corruptio●s of Infants baptism, and partly to show, that no man can be compelled to Christian worship, or to a profession of the Christian Faith, nor punished( so far as I can see yet) in case of unbelief or misbelief. Let the Reader also further inquire, whether the Magistrate have power to punish gross idolatry, and blasphemy against God, Christ, the Scriptures, and holinesse, and seducements of persons by corrupt doctrines in fundamental points, when there is no violation of the public peace; These being real do●●ts to me, I will determine nothing on any side. Yet seeing there is nothing that I know of in the New Testament for the same, my conscience for the present incli●es me rather to think, That conservation of peace, equity, sobriety, &c. is the adequate object of the Magistrates power: Yet( knowing there are many instances in the Old Testament, of Magistrates that have used a coercive power herein, and knowing how hard it is for a Christian spirit who loves his God to hear him blasphemed, or to see any man, much more a dear friend, seduced in d●ctrins that being fundamentally erroneous will damn their souls) I have some fear of the contrary. This I have added to avoid all retractations, and that I may not be urged by my conscience, to print any recantation, in case I should be mistaken in so weighty a matter. To conclude, Experience teaching us that every prevailing party, being prove, through pride, suspicion, or conscience, or some such grounds, to crush those of a different judgement, for fear they should become the greater number, and so should crush them, will hereupon endeavour to bring all manner of tenants different from what themselves hold, under one of these three heads; either Blasphemy, Idolatry, or Seducement; and so( if Grace prevent not) will be apt to tyramnize over all persons different from them in judgement: so that nothing shall be preached, printed, or published, but if it be different from what the prevailing party holds, it shall be branded with the infamous name of Seducement; and nothing different shall be practised, either in worship or discipline, but it shall be stigmatized with the brand of Idolatry; and nothing shall be spoken or written, against the present ways of worship or government, but it shall be defamed with the horrid name of Blasphemy: it standeth Magistrates in hand, that if in these three cases they shall be found to have any coercive power ( which yet doth not clearly appear to me) that they so bound these three cases, and all other of the like kind, that they become not snares and traps to the godly, who shall differ injudgement from the present Governours; lest hereby there be a stop against new truths, when God shall reveal them; and godly persons as far removed from Blasphemy and Idolatry as their present Judges be taken in these pits, as late experience can tell us in the High Commission Court, which at first was erected to kerb the Papists, but in a short time became the bloody scourge of Protestants. FINIS. Errata. there are many oversights in the Treatise, the Author living in the Country, only gentle Reader, the Author desires thee to blot out; Quer●, pag. 3. Whether every persons be not freely born to the choice of what religion, &c. And once, whereas the Author calls, The signs of the Covenant no seals, he desires thee upon second thoughts, further to inquire hereof. The other faults being many, and more then once interrupting the sense, the Author desires thee to construe them charitably. Vale.