saying one to another that is expresly men not women Again in v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every man expresly not woman likewise v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. expresly said of men-dwellers as distinguisht from women so v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. strange men of Rome men Jews c. likewise v. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying one man to another Again v. 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. ye men Jewes and all ye men that dwell at Jerusalem so v. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye men Israelites and as ye men know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And v. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Men-Brethren expresly as distinguisht from women who are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sisters Again v. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every man of you not woman Likewise v. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men that gladly received his Word And v. 47. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those men expresly that should be saved Add to these what you find Acts 4.4 when the Church was more increased the number of the men were about 5000. of men Diametrically opposed to women and never used for women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And why not those 2000 Acts 2. be so too By these things you see that this Instance and example which you bring for womens receiving the Lord's Supper is not so express as you make it to be nor so void of exception and yet you own their right thereunto I shall now produce as probable examples of the Baptism of Children and leave it to consideration Only I shall first premise that as there was no mention in express-terms of any woman that received the Lord's Supper as hath appeared even so there is no mention in express terms of any Infant baptized Yet nevertheless there is good reason to conclude both the one and the other from the sacred Scripture and if you deny Inferences in the one you must by the same reasondeny them in the other In particular 't is said that Lydia wa Baptized and her House or Houshold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 16.15 It is not said that any of her House was converted besides her self Also the House or houshold of Stephanus 1 Cor. 1.16 And it is apparent in Scripture that House doth comprehend Children in its signification in sundry places and it is often put to signifie Children and Posterity chiefly if not only 1 Sam. 20.15 Thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my House saith Jonathan to David And David minded it afterwards 2 Sam. 9.1 Is there yet any left of the House of Saul that I may shew him kindness for Jonathan's sake yea Jonathan hath yet a Mephibosheth a Son which is lame on his feet v. 3. It 's clear there that the House of Saul and Jonathan is put for the Children and Posterity of Saul and Jonathan See also 1 Kings 17.12 13. Her Son is called her House v. 15. And it is apparent by the Context that he was a Child * Puer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 puerulus natus recens proprie Buxcorf in the Mothers Bosom not grown up to ripeness of years see v. 19.21 22 23. See Ruth 4.11 Rachel and Leah built the house of Israel to wit by the Children that they brought forth and v. 12. Let thy House be like the House of Pharez of the Seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young Woman To these add Exod. 1.21 God made the Midwives Houses that is gave them Children and Families for the Mercy they shewed to the Children of Israel Many other Scriptures might to this purpose be produced Now to sum up the whole we find in the Scripture which next the Holy Spirit is the best Expositor of it self that the word House is often put for Children yea for young Children and that Lydia and her House and Stephanas his House was Baptized Let impartial persons judge whether this doth not carry as much if not more probability and evidence in it than what hath been brought for Women's receiving the Lord's Supper and not liable to such exceptions from the context nor from any other Scripture I shall now come to examine that command that is brought to warrant Women to receive the Lord's Supper 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a Man or Woman say you Examine and so eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. You gather it from the Greek word Anthropos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is of the Masculine Feminine Gender and so signifies Male and Female which I deny not But I must crave leave to inform you that when it is limited with words of the Masculine Gender it hath reference expresly to Men and not to Women And that it is so here I shall abundantly prove after these two things premised 1. The Woman can be but implied in this word if it had been left unlimited for If it had been expresly spoken of the Woman the Article He should have been exprest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. It is not immediate but first Examine then Eat Now that the word Anthropos here is limited expresly with words of the Masculine Gender and so expresly appropriated to the Man will appear 1. From the Context And 2. From the Text it self 1. From the Context 1 Cor. 11.19 speaking of the same persons that came together into one place pretending at least to eat the Lord's Supper v. 20. he sets them forth expresly in the Masculine Gender which points at Males only not at Females 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those Men that are approved may be made manifest And v. 21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Every one that is one Man and another Man and not Woman Thus in the Greek as you cannot deny Again v. 27. Whosoever that is what Man soever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 likewise v. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that Man that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth judgment to himself not her self 30. v. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many Men are sick clearly distinguished in the Greek from Women And lastly v. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Brethren not Sisters When the Brethren or Men come together tarry ye one for another all of them expresly respecting Men as distinguished from Women Thus much from the Context where there is not one express-word of Women but all of Men. But 2. That which most clearly and strongly weakens your assertion is the Relative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text. Let a man examine Himself expresly and so let him eat c. Though the word Anthropos be Masculine and Feminine in the general yet here it is expresly limited to a word of the Masculine and so to a Man only and not to a Woman What Arguments do satisfie me concerning the right of Women to the Lord's Supper and how I can solve this Text to my own satisfaction is not my work at present to declare I must confess it is not pleasing to me to
dispensed to Abraham and his Family with respect to a visible-Church-Estate and by that Covenant so dispensed by God and received by them they became the Church of God 4. That the natural seed and Children of Abraham and the rest of the members of that Church in his House were externally and ecclesiastically within that Covenant of Grace I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 which is meant not only of his Spiritual Seed but also of his Church-Seed in their Generations v. 9. 5. That Circumcision was then by God's appointment the ordinary Initiatory-Seal of that Covenant under that Ecclesiastical Dispensation 6. That the Male-Infants of those inchurched Parents were then signed and sealed with the Seal of Circumcision as well as their Fathers 7. That it is the same Covenant of Grace that was made with Abraham as to the substance of it that is now come upon us Gentiles 8. That there are Temporal Blessings included in the Covenant now as well as Spiritual 9. That now in these Gospel-days there is an External and Ecclesiastical Dispensation of this Covenant as well as there was heretofore to the Church in Abrahams Family whereby visible Gospel-Churches are constituted 10. That Children of an Inchurched-Parent are now within the External and Ecclesiastical-Dispensation of this Covenant mediate members by means of their Inchurched-Parents as well as heretofore the Church-Seed of Abraham 11. That Baptism is now by God's appointment the ordinary Initiatory Seal of the Covenant under that External and Ecclesiastical-Dispensation instead of Circumcision of old 12. That all the Legitimate-Infants of Inchurched-Parents being Disciples and mediate-Members ought to be baptized as well as Infants of Old were Circumcised God having now enlarged his Grace and given such a Seal as Females might partake of as well as Males and Infants as well as their Parents A friendly Answer to H. D. about Infant-Baptism CHAP. I. IN Page 105. of your Book you say we shall find both Example and Command for Women's receiving the Lords Supper and in Pag. 106. you say Let but as good Proof appear for Infants-Baptism and it shall suffice I shall now essay by the Lord's help to make as good Proof appear if not better that is clearer 1. The Example you bring is out of Act. 1.14 we read say you That Mary and other Women were gathered together and that these Women with the rest of the Disciples were alltogether in one Place and continued stedfastly in the Apostles-Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers Acts 2.42 44. It being expresly said that all that Believed were together You take this to be an evident Example that Women received the Lords Supper therefore that there is ground in Scripture to admit them but that there is not the like Example of any Infants that have been Baptized In Answer to which I shall first premise four Things in general and then Answer more particularly 1. I am not against inchurched-Women's-receiving the Lords Supper any more than against inchurched-Men but do believe they have an equal right unto it whil's they continue in a right estate in the Church But 2. This Example that you bring and the Command also as afterwards I shall shew is not express nor so clear as you make it to be 3. That there is as much room for Objections against it as there is for Objections against the Baptizing of Infants as I hope I shall make appear and that there is as much evidence and clearness for the latter as you judge to be for the former 4. All the evidence that your Example and Command will afford you for Womens receiving the Lords Supper you must deduce by way of consequence and that very darkly too from what you bring And if so I hope you will use the same candour integrity and right Reason in allowing what will rationally follow from the Scriptures that shall be produced for the Baptizing of inchurched-Infants Veniam dabimus petimusque Vicissim Now more particularly to your Example 1. It is not here expresly-said that these Women were Believers Act. 1.14 but you must gather it by consequence from this and other Scriptures compared together 2. That this Assembly was not the same that is not mentioned Acts 2.42.44 For this was to constitute a new Apostle in the room of Judas and wâ—â— somewhat before as appears Acts. 2.1 The other is spoken of the multitude of Jews and Gentiles converted afterwards when the day of Pentecost was fully-come and the Spirit given in that miraculous gift of Tongues 3. Here is no express-mention that those Women were in and of that great Assembly Acts 2.42 44. who continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of Bread and Prayers How do you know but that they might be dead or sick or upon some other occasion absent as Thomas was before John 20.24 As here is nothing exprest to the contrary so nor any thing expresly affirmed that they were present 4. Nor is there any express-mention of any other Women in that great Assembly Acts. 2.42 44. though afterwards there is Chap. 5.14 when the number was increased If it be objected that Sapphyra is afterwards mentioned Acts. 5.1 2. I Answer neither doth that expresly and directly prove your Assertion For 1. It is not expresly said that she was a Member of the Church though by consequence we may gather she was 2. If she were It is not said that she received the Lords Supper for she might be dead before she received it 3. You cannot say she was one of those that are spoken of Act 2.42 44. for she might be one of those that were afterwards converted to the Christian Religion Cap. 3. and Cap. 4. when the number was much increased Chap. 4.4 to five thousand Men. 5. The words upon which you lay the stress of Womens receiving the Lords Supper here are in express-terms against you though you take them expresly for you your words to prove that those Women did receive the Lord's Supper Acts 1.14 with Acts 2.42.44 are these It being expresly said say you that all that believed that all that believed were together Let us now fairly-examine the Greek Phrase and we shall find it expresly of Men and not of Women I doubt not but you know the Gender of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth expresly limit it to men and not to Women As if he had said all the Men that believed were together continued in the Apostles Doctrine c. and in breaking of Bread And if you examine the rest of the Chapter Acts 2. You shall find it spoken expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of and to men and not women yea some of them the same men that are said to believe and to continue in the Apostles Doctrine and breaking of Bread In v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Man heard them speak not woman In v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
raise Objections against any Truth of God nor yet would I lose any grain of Truth that will flow from a Scripture nor would I have done this but to shew that there is as much if not more shew of Objections against Womens receiving the Lord's Supper from the Proofs you have brought than is against Baptism of inchurched Infants But I have done it in Answer to what you have said Page 106. Let but as good Proof appear for Infants-Baptism and it shall suffice I shall now by the Lord's help shew as clear if a not clearer Command for the Baptizing of the Infants of Inchurched Parents than hath been given us for Womens receiving of the Lords Supper And do hope that others may receive some Scripture-Light thereby even from that Text from which you infer the contrary The Text is Mat. 28.19 Christ's Commission to his Apostles rendred in English Go ye and teach all Nations Baptizing them c. The word in the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciple all Nations not only the Nation of the Jews but the Gentiles also That is 1. Go and Preach the Gospel to them for their Conversion 2. Put them into a Church-Estate when converted 3. Then Baptize them when Inchurched This was the ordinary way 4. Then teach them to observe all other things which are after to be learned in the Church or School of Christ That the word Disciple them doth imply not only preaching the Gospel to them for their Conversion but also constituting them into a Church-Estate and is more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the word used for teaching v. 20. will thus appear 1. Christ undoubtedly gave his Apostles Commission to constitute Gospel-Churches to put converted souls into Gospel-Congregations that they might orderly enjoy all Gospel-Ordinances among themselves else it would have been a meer humane invention and not an Institution of Christ and so they would not have been owned and approved by him as without Controversie they were see 1 Cor. 1.1 2 Cor. 1.1 and sundry other places Every particular Gospel-Church being the House of God and of Christ who is the Builder of it Heb. 3.3 4.6 1 Tim. 3.15 2. If Christ gave them such Commission then 't is most likely to be here For 1. They were now to go about this great work and so needed Christ's Authority to bear them out and the presence and power of his Spirit to assist them in it 2. This was therefore the fittest time both in respect of the Apostles themselves and in respect of Christ who was now risen from the dead and actually invested with all power in Heaven and in Earth Now in those 40 days between his Resurrection and Ascension he gave Commandements to his Apostles whom he had chosen Act 1.2 speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God v. 3. which necessarily must respect and comprehend in it a visible Gospel-Church which is so called 3. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seem's clearly to imply a putting them into a Gospel-Church-Estate I find it used but in four places in all the New-Testament in every of which I conceive it hath reference to a Gospel-Congregation The first is in Math. 13.52 rendred in our English Every Scribe instructed unto the Kingdom of Heaven Which I rather render according to the proper signification of the word which also well suits the sence of the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every Scribe Discipled into the Kingdom of Heaven brings forth out of his treasures things new and old which I shall thus expound 1. By Scribe is sometimes meant a Teacher Scribae denique dicti sunt Juris Divini periti inter ceteros quo nomine laudatur Ezra c. 7.11 quorum munus fuit cum in Synagogis cum in Templo legem docere Beza in Mat. 2.4 Et rurfus scribas illos dictos fuisse ex eo quod legi Scribendae interpretandae vacarent quasi sacrarum tabularum custodes constare potest ex Jerem. 8.8 Beza in eundem Loc. and so I take it here Such a one was Ezra Chap. 7.6.11 12. with Nehem. 8.1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9.13 2. By Kingdom of Heaven here and in some other places is meant a Gospel Church and Congregation see Mat. 13.24.47 Mat. 20.1 Mat. 25.1 3. By Discipled into the Kingdom of Heaven is meant that he being converted to Christianity was now made a Member of a Gospel-Church And he being a Teacher before and fitted to teach the people being now translated into a Gospel-State is called to be and so was made a Minister and Teacher of a Gospel-Church 4. He brings out of his Treasures things new and old Now he stirs up the gifts of God that are in him and teaches the people things New concerning Jesus Christ already come crucified risen from the dead ascended into the Heavens actually-invested with all power the great High-Priest in the Heavens actually invested with all power the great High-Priest in the Heavens making Intercession for his People who shall come at length to judge the World And things old to wit the Prophecies that went before concerning Christ to come the signification of the Ceremonial Law and the particulars thereof leading to Christ and now fulfilled and accomplished in him This sence of the Text seems fair and suitable to the Scripture and the practice of the Apostles see Acts 17.2 3 17 18. Acts 9.22 And this seems to be the scope of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews I must confess I have trodden an uncouth path in the Exposition of this Text without help from any Expositor but I leave it to the impartial and judicious Reader to judge The second Scripture where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used is Math. 27.57 concerning Joseph of Arimathea and I see no reason why it should be translated Intransitively in a Neutral-signification The Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In English who also himself Discipled or made Disciples to Jesus And not as it is rendred ordinarily who also himself was Jesus Disciple My Reasons of this Exposition are these 1. This is the proper signification of the Greek word and why it should be changed here I see no reason 2. It is not here to be limited to that time when Joseph begg'd the body of Jesus but to that time when the Gospel according to Matthew was written which was some time after the death and ascension of Jesus Christ Some say nine years 3. That Joseph of Arimathea Si Eusebio Theophilacto creditur Matthens in Judaeâ p imus Evangelium Scripsit Anno tertio Caligulae qui erat post ascensum Domini nonus Nativitatis 41. Sic Pareus in praefat ad Matth. was not only himself Jesus Disciple but did also make Disciples to Jesus is commonly acknowledged especially here in England which had the benefit of his Labours as is believed humana fide his Tomb being reported to be at Glassenbury which the Papists
natural Seed of Inchurched-Parents be now ceased in these Gospel-days what then mean's that Scripture Rom. 11.28 spoken of the Israelites to be called in these latter days That they are beloved for the Fathers sakes It would be sad and lamentable if believing-Parents now under the Gospel should have no such Priviledge left them in reference to the eternal Estates of their poor Children Heretofore Church-Members had a promise that God would be the God of their Seed and Circumcise the hearts of their Seed to love the Lord with all the Heart and all the Soul Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 but now by the coming of Christ it is ceased This is sad indeed What visible grounds of hope of any saving Grace or Mercy have Inchurched-Christians now in reference to their Children more than Turks and Pagans have Durus Sermo yet some have been so bold as in plain terms to say so But are they ceased indeed when and where hath God repealed them Not by John the Baptist as we have made appear Nor could I yet ever see that he hath done it by any other hand Hence therefore they must be in force still Hath God given his people promises of food and raiment and other temporal things for their encouragement and comfort 1 Tim. 4.8 and left them no promise at all now in Gospel times to help their faith concerning their poor Childrens eternal Estate whose souls they prize more than their own lives The Apostle saw something in it when he said we that are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Gal. 2.15 And why not also in a safe sence Christians by nature and not sinners of the Turks or Pagans who are yet strangers from the Covenants of promise Eph. 2.12 as the Gentiles generally then were You will say we are all by nature Children of wrath Eph. 2.3 And was not Paul and those Jews so too and yet the Apostle makes that distinction between them And whence was it but from God's Covenants in which they externally were even before their Coversion And why there should not be the like Priviledge of Children of Inchurched-Parents I never yet could see And hence such a child may go to God and plead Lord thou art my Fathers God Exod. 15.2 and hast promised to be my God And a Parent may go and plead Lord thou hast promised to be my God and the God of my Seed and to circumcise their hearts to Love thee Deut. 30.6 with Gen. 17.7 O! let it be so according to thy promise Thou hast said I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed and my blessing upon thine offspring Isa 44.3 and then one should say I am the Lord 's c. see v. 5. they should engage themselves to the Lord and to his Church by the strongest bonds And this is a Gospel-promise and belonging to Gospel-times and a great part of that blessing of Abraham that is come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 Why then should any contradict it Is not the second Commandment still in force to parents in Church-Covenant with God in reference to their Children whom they have given over to God in his Covenant Hath he not there said He will have mercy on thousands of them that love him and keep his Commandements That is on such Parents as give up themselves to God in the Commands of his Instituted Worship in reference to their Children Psal 112.1 2. even to a thousand Generations Deut. 7.9 But repayeth them that hate him to wit in a sinful neglecting or rejecting his instituted Worship to their face v. 10. And this is one way whereby God doth testifie it even by rejecting their Children so as not to vouchsafe them the External Priviledge of his Covenant and means of Grace See an eminent instance of it in Esau and his posterity who sold his birth-right Heb. 12.6 which was then a Church-Priviledge and is therefore called a profane person and so lost the blessing from himself and his see the like in Ishmael and his Generations I conclude then that John Baptist did not upon that change discharge the Church-Seed of Abraham which I shall yet a little further explain by opening the Children of the Flesh and the Children of the Promise which are accounted for the seed Rom. 9.6 7 8. 1. Negatively 1. By Children of the flesh cannot be meant the natural Children of believers as their natural Children Nor 2. Their Children that have only sin and corruption in them for then Isaac must have been a Child of the flesh For he was the natural Son of Abraham and by nature sinful 3. By Children of the promise cannot be meant only such as are really-converted For many that were of Isaac's Posterity and so Children of the Promise were not so and some in Gospel-Churches are not so now 2. Affirmatively First by Children of the Flesh are meant 1. Of old Ishmael and his Posterity begotten by strength of nature which was the Type 2. Now in Gospel-times all such as look for righteousness and life by their own personal performances or abilities whether in whole or in part and that not only invisibly but visibly and Ecclesiastically also as the Apostle said of Jerusalem in his time Gal. 4.25 Jerusalem that now is the Antitype of the other in bondage with her Children Secondly by Children of the Promise are meant 1. Of old Isaac and his Posterity in the line of Jacob which was the Type 2. Now in Gospel-times all such as look for righteousness and life alone by faith in Christ his righteousness only according to the Covenant of Grace And these again are either 1. All such as are true believers indeed who look by a true and lively-Faith to Christ and his Righteousness only 2. Or such as profess only and pretend to do so but indeed do not These latter seem and appear to be Believers to Men to the visible-Church but are not really-such before God Yet even these are Children of the Promise in the genuine sence of the Scripture and not Children of the Flesh in the Apostles sence Gal. 4.21 22 23 c. God doth and will indeed distinguish between the spiritual seed and those that are meerly the Church-seed of Abraham but Men cannot unless by some miscarriages they discover themselves and appear to be what they are as Simon Magus did Acts. 8.23 And thus under one we have an exposition of that Eâdem fideliâ duos parietes Gal. 3.7 They which are of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham they which are of Faith to wit true Believers indeed as Abraham was are Spiritually and savingly the Children of Abraham And they which are of Faith to wit Believers in appearance only before the Church only they are only Ecclesiastically the Children of Abraham And this is sufficient to entitle them to Church-Ordinances and their Children to Baptism the initiatory Seal of the Covenant And this also helps us to expound Gal. 3.29 If ye be Christ's then are
could wash my hands as clean that way as you could wash yours by dipping them into the water and I should not count her a Slut that would so wash her hands when they were foul Our experience therefore you see tells us that there is as effectual a way to wash our dirty-hands by pouring water upon them as by dipping them Besides unless you rinse or rub as well as dip you will not easily make clean work of it and if this your similitude hold you must not only dip the person you Baptize but you must rinse or rub him too to signifie his cleansing You take away the cavils of unseemliness from dipping by saying It is the fruit of â—â—â—rnal Wisdom Unbelief and shunning the the Cross and so no other than to reproach the Wisdom of Christ c. I Answer Were it apparent from Scripture that Christ had ordained Dipping and himself so practised it as you affirm I hope through the Grace of Christ many of his people would not count it undecent as now they do And there must be clearer light to convince them that are considerate of it than any you have yet held forth And I much wonder that you who will not admit of Consequences concerning Infants-Baptism which are far more rational and certain should content your self with such uncertain ones as you have brought for dipping I would only recite out of Mr. Cobbet p. 212. what he saith out of Nicephorus lib. 13. cap. 19. of the flying of the Women naked being beset with armed-Men as they were to be Baptized and that sad story of a Priest defiling of a Woman when to be Baptized Then as to the hazard of health you say known experience doth amply refute that vain Imagination You will not be offended I hope if the experience of some others be set against yours It is more than probable that some have presently upon it fallen into a Fever which cost them their lives And I could tell you of some Eye-witnesses credible-persons who saw both the Baptizer and the Baptized in danger of drowning and had very probably been both drowned if one had not leapt in from the bank in his Clothes and relieved them both I would not have mentioned these things had not your words required an answer for it is Truth and Peace that I aim at and not Contention and bitterness To your Chapter V. pag. 253. I Answer Having as I trust given satisfactory Answers to what you have said and in some measure evidenced and confirmed the contrary-truth those several mischiefs absurdities and contradictions cannot justly be charged upon our practice I shall mention them very briefly having spoken to most of them amply before Only I must tell you that the Errours you charge our Doctrine and Practice with do not naturally and perse follow from them but they are accidental to them as far as they are Errours They are the Errours of Persons only not of our Doctrine nor of our Practice according to our Doctrine And therefore you injuriously charge them upon our Doctrine Practice It is fallacia accidentis As for what is Truth in any of them we own and have proved it before but the most of them you falsly charge upon us Let those that own what is Erroneous in their Expressions make them good if they can or rather repent of them Our Assertion of Infant-Interest and Baptism will stand without them 1. Baptizing of the Infants of Inchurched-Parents is not an altering of the Order of Christs Commission as hath been proved but it is acting according to his Commission Disciples we have proved them to be and so by Christ's Commission to be Baptized Repentance and Faith visibly-professed at least should precede in grown-persons not so in Infants but their Baptism and being Externally in the Covenant of Grace is to engage and stir them up to seek to God for Repentance and Faith And this Answer will undermine all the rest of your absurdities mischiefs and contradictions It 's no changing of the subjects that Christ hath appointed Nor a frustrating of the holy and Spiritual Ends of Baptism but a means to attain them if it be rightly-improved Nor doth it invert the Order by sprinkling or pouring water upon the face Nor doth it naturally and of it self introduce any Errour or false Doctrine We do not hold that it is to take away Original Sin Nor that it doth of it self work Grace and Regeneration yet we dare not limit the Lord that he should not work it then or at any other time when he pleaseth And that it was an Apostolical Tradition we own it no otherwise than from their writings and practice recorded in the Scripture If any make it an unwritten Tradition let them please themselves with their own fancy Nor doth it maintain that Children have Faith though it is beyond your reach to say this or that Child hath no Faith secret things belong to God But that they are Disciples of Christ and in Christ's School we have proved though they have not yet learnt one Letter That all the Infants of Inchurched-Believers are Externally in the Covenant of Grace and federally-Holy I have proved and you cannot prove it to be an Errour or false Doctrine Nor doth it defile and pollute the Church either by bringing false matter therein who are no Saints by calling neither capable to perform Duties nor enjoy priviledges Those words Saints by calling if you mean such as have Actually answered the call of Christ in his word at least in the judgment of Charity respect only-Adult-persons who are immediate-Members and not Children who are Mediate Members by means of their Inchurched-Parents as middle persons appointed of God to convey them into that Estate and Relation This distinction will free the Church from pollution of which more hath been said before We do not hold that a Church is gathered or made up only of Infants but of grown persons who alone are able to perform Duties But Infants are capable of enjoying Priviledges Is it not a Priviledge for God to be their God Externally in Covenant To be under a promise of God's Circumcising the heart and to provide them outward means for that End Some of your perswasion have held that they have great priviledges They are then true matter of the Church as visible in their kind and do not pollute and defile it By your Argument the Children of the Jews must be false matter for they were no Saints by calling nor could they perform duties yet they were mediate members of the Church and a part of that holy-people as hath been shewed Nor doth it lay a Foundation of Ignorance and prophaneness but the Contrary as I have abundantly proved Nor is it a confounding World and Church together nor bringing the World into the Church and turning the Church into the World You will see the contrary if you impartially-weigh what I have said before This reasoning of yours is as much against Children