I HAVE received a Paper from you, wherein you use your best indeavour to prove that Infants ought to be Baptized: Which Proposition (you say.) you began to prove at a Meeting at your house, July 10. 1655. in the forenoone.

Whether you did not at that time, doe like the Builder that Christ speaks of, Luke 14.28, 29, 30. viz. begin to doe that that you were never able to finish, I shall not now determine, but leave it to the Reader to judge, when he shall survey your Arguments, with the Answers to them.

Your first stone that you lay in this building, or Argument that you bring to prove Infants ought to be Baptized, is,

IF all Nations are commanded to be baptized, then Infants are commanded to be baptized.

But all Nations are commanded to be baptized.

Ergo, Infants are commanded to be baptized.

I Doe first deny the major Proposition, because that in many places of Scripture, the word all Nations is used, where Infants are not included; as Psal. 72.17. All Nations shall call him blessed. Deut. 29.24. All Nations shall say, wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this Land? Mark 11.17. Is it not written (saith Christ) that my house shall be called of all Nations, the house of prayer? Psal. 118.10. All Nations compassed me about, but in the name of the Lord will I destroy them. And so Mat. 3.12. All Nations shall call you blessed. And the very place upon which you frame your Argument, is enough, if there were no more, Mat. 28.19. where Christ bids his Disciples to Goe and teach [Page 3]all Nations, &c. I would ask any man that knowes what an Argument is, whether by your Rule of reasoning (viz. All Nations are commanded to be baptized, therefore Infants) I may not as well say, The Disciples were commanded to teach all Na­tions, therefore they were commanded to teach Infants of eight dayes old?

And again, the Disciples were commanded to teach them (to wit, the Nations, according to our Translation) all things that Christ command­ed his Disciples to doe. Now the Disciples were commanded to break bread, and drink wine, in remembrance of the body and blood of the Lord, Mat. 26.27. And they were commanded to wash one anothers feet, John 13.14. and many other things. Now may I not as well say, That Infants were commanded these things, as well as bap­tism, since, as the 19 Verse saith, Baptize them, the 20 Verse saith, Teaching them to observe all things that I. ( viz. Christ) have commanded you.

And again, May I not as well say, from the fore cited Scriptures, because the Psalms saith, all Nations shall call Christ blessed, that Infants in the Cradle, at eight dayes old, shall call him bles­sed? And because all Nations shall say, wherefore hath God done this to Israel? therefore Infants of eight dayes old shall say so? And because that Christ saith that his fathers house shall be called of all Nations a house of prayer, that therefore Infants of eight dayes old are commanded to call it so? And because David saith, all Nations compassed him about, therefore Infants of eight dayes old compassed him about? And because [Page 4]it's prophesied that all Nations shall call Israel blessed, therefore Infants of eight dayes old shall call them blessed? I say, May I not as well rea­son thus, as you may reason, If all Nations may be baptized, Infants may?

2 I yet Answer further, as before at our meet­ing, That this Argument pleads as much for the baptizing of all Turks and Infidells, because, as Turks and Infidells, they are a part of all Nations, though they never believe in Christ; and by this rule, the Eunuch, Acts 8. might have desired baptism, although he had never believ'd in Christ, because he was of some one Nation, or other; which is contrary, I presume, to your own opi­nion, and to the opinion of the Church of Eng­land, who will not baptize a Turk or an Indian, un­lesse he convert and professe Christ. But may not the Turk or Indian, if he should be denied baptism, take up your Argument, and say, If all Nations may be baptized, then we may be baptized: But all Nations may be baptized; Therefore we may. See therefore how this Ar­gument doth interfere with your owne pra­ctice.

3 Again, You seem to plead for the baptism of believers Children onely, but your Argument pleads for unbelievers Children, as much or more then believers; for if that believers Children must be baptized because they are a part of Na­tions, who sees not but by the same rule unbe­lievers Children may be baptized, because they are a greater part of the Nations, then the Chil­dren of believers.

I Answer to your minor Proposition, as before at your house, That it's a Command for belie­vers and Disciples of Christ, that they should be baptized, and not for all the Nations, as appears by the Originall word, which is [...], make Disciples, [...], baptizing THEM, and not the Nations, which you could not deny; which made way for your second Argument, which was to prove that Infants were Disciples.

ALL that are taught of God, are Disciples.

But the Infants of Gods people are taught of God. Ergo.

They are Disciples.

I Answer, first, by distinguishing of the Tearm Taught, in the major Proposition. If by Taught you mean as the Prophet Jeremiah doth, Chap. 32.33. where it's said, God taught them, but they re­fused to receive Instruction; then I deny the major, for those that refused to receive instruction, were not Disciples, though they were taught.

But secondly, If by Taught, you mean taught so as to receive instruction, and learn; then I deny the minor, for that Infants at eight dayes old are not taught, neither doe they receive in­struction, or learn. To prove this, you bring Isa. 54.13. where it's said, All thy Children shall be taught of God.

Answer, This doth no more prove that in­fants in the Cradle of eight dayes old, were taught and learned, then the Command the Di­sciples had to teach all Nations, proves that they taught infants of eight dayes old, and that they learned instruction.

2 This is a Prophesie that all Israels Children should be taught of God, and not a Prophesie that they should all be taught so as to learn, in your sence, which is the thing you are to prove; for if they should all be so taught, then they should all of them be saved.

3 If you shall say the Prophesie respects the believers Children, whether Jewes or Gentiles, that they shall be all taught, &c. yet it doth not say they shall be taught in their Cradle, or at eight dayes old; which you must prove, because you say infants are Disciples.

4 How soon doe you lose the tearms of the Proposition! You are to prove Infants are taught, and you bring a Text that speaks of Children; as though there were no Children but infant-children: Whereas indeed, the Scripture tells us of all Abrahams Children, that were so by believing, and not by virtue of their carnall di­scent from Abraham, Gal. 3.7.

You further goe on, to prove that this Teach­ing is to be understood of infants, and that it's a teaching by which they learn, and are made Di­sciples, by the Argument that you used at your house, which is the same in your Paper.

THey that are inwardly and effectually taught, are taught, and learne:

But infants according to this Scripture (Isa. 54.13.) are inwardly and effectually taught.

Ergo. They are taught, and learn.

I Answer, by denying the minor, to wit, That infants are inwardly and effectually taught, according to that Scripture.

For first, The word infants is not in the Text, which is the tearm of the minor Proposition.

2 If by all thy Children shall be taught of God, the meaning should be, as you say, that the naturall seed of the believers bodies should be all taught of God inwardly and effectually in their infancy, then to what purpose doe you teach them to be converted when they come to years?

3 If all the naturall Children of believers be inwardly and effectually taught of God, then you must hold falling from grace totally and fi­nally, or else conclude that all the naturall Chil­dren of believers shall be all saved: For what is it to be inwardly and effectually taught, but to be really and truly Regenerated?

You goe on to prove the minor, (viz.) That all believers infants are inwardly and effectually taught; thus.

IF infants were not inwardly and effectually taught, (you say) there were no hope of salvation in their death:

But there is hope (say you) of salvation in their death. Ergo.

They are inwardly and effectually taught.

I Answer, first, You leave out the tearm ALL, and put your Argument into indefinite tearms: But I presume by infants you mean all the naturall seed of believers, according to your practice in baptizing all of them that you call so.

2 But I shall answer further, by denying the major, which is, That if infants were not inwardly and effectually taught, there were no hope of salvation in their death: For first, there was hope of the salvation of those Children with whom the Lord had not SPOKEN, nor to whom he had not given his Lawes, Deut. 11.1, 2. But if they had been inwardly and effectually taught, then the Lord must needs have spoken with them; and if they were taught, it must be in Gods Law; but it is said of those Children, That God had not spoke with them.

3 Again, We have great hope of the salva­tion of infants, because they are made righteous by Jesus Christ, Rom. 5.18, 19. though they [Page 9]should not know this by an inward and effectu­all Teaching.

Also the Scripture saith, That the Child shall not bear the sin of the father, and it hath commit­ted in its infancy no sin of its owne, what there­fore should hinder us from hoping that they shal be all sayed, if they die in their infancy, although they are not taught inwardly and effectually.

4 But last of all, it's a fiction of your own brain to say, Infants are inwardly and effectually taught, or else there is no hope of their salvation, because there is not one word of God for to justifie such a saying in the whole Bible.

But yet you adventure to bring that Text, 1 Thess. 4.13. where the Apostle adviseth, that the brethren would not sorrow as those that have no hope, because that there shall be a resurrection, which some did not hope for at the death of their friends, which made their sorrow the more in­temperate. But now that I may have hope of the salvation of my Children at the resurrection, although I should not believe that unwritten Proposition, to wit, That in their infancy they are effectually taught, appears, because of the Text you so much urge in favour to your Baby-baptism, Mat. 19.14. where Christ bids the Disciples Suffer little Children to come to him, because of such is the Kingdome of Heaven. So that the Kingdome of Heaven belonged to infants before they had so much as been with Christ, or before he had actually blessed them.

But you proceed to prove the minor Proposi­tion, That Children must either be inwardly and ef­fectually [Page 10]taught, or else there is no hope of salvation in their death; thus.

WIthout the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, which is eternall life, there is no hope of sal­vation.

But without the inward and effectuall teaching of God in infants, there is no knowledge of God in Christ. Ergo.

Without the inward and effectuall teaching of God, there is no hope of the salvation of infants.

YOu left out the term Infants in your major Proposition, by which your Argument be­comes fallacious, because it's a tearm that is after­wards inserted, both in your minor, and conclu­sion: which if you had played the part of an honest Logician, you should have inserted it in your major, and then it would have run thus, Without the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, which is eternall life, there is no hope of salvation for in­fants; then I would have denied the major, and that because there is not one word of God for such a Proposition.

2 God said he would have pity upon the City of Ninive, because their infants did not know their right hand from their left. Can any man believe that any body should be acquainted with the great and sublime matters of Jesus Christ, and eternall [Page 11]life, that knowes not his right hand from his left in nature? and yet you say thus of children, viz. That they have the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, when as yet they have not know­ledge to know their right hand from their left in nature.

3 Again, They that know his name, will trust in him: But you see Children in their infancy are call'd upon to doe neither.

4 Again, They that know God in Jesus Christ, are alwayes in the Scripture distinguish­ed from those that know him not: If so, then all Children in their infancy know God in Jesus Christ, or else you must shew how some infants of eight dayes old may be judged to know him, and others may be judged to be ignorant of him. If you say you cannot distinguish, then I say you have as much reason to baptize a Turks Child at eight dayes old, as a Christians, since there ap­pears as much of the knowledge of God in Christ in the one, as in the other, and then what be­comes of your favour you would shew to belie­vers Children?

Again, if they, viz. the infants of believers doe know God in Jesus Christ in their infancy, how comes many of them so wicked when they come to years? Doe you not here strongly smell of Arminianisme, which you so much preach against, that men may be in the saving know­ledge of God to day, and out of it to morrow?

5 Again, the Scripture saith, Without saith 'tis impossible to please God, Heb. 11. and yet this is not to be applied to Children, because James [Page 12]saith, Faith without works is dead, James 2.17. So that if Children have faith in infancy, it's a dead faith, because it hath no works. And faith without works cannot save, ver. 14. So that you see this Text, Heb. 11. Without faith it is impossible to please God, must for what James saith, be under­stood of men that are arived above the stature of intants of eight dayes old. In the like manner must we understand Christ, John 17. This is life eternall, that they know thee the onely true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Or else we must conclude, that some Children shall be damned dying in their infancy, for not knowing God in Jesus Christ, when they were no way made ca­pable of such a knowledge.

Lastly, The Scriptures say, Deut. 1.39. that Children in their infancy have no knowledge of good or evill; the like is said of Christ himself in his infancy, Isa. 7.14, 15, 16. How then can you imagin that infants can know God in Jesus Christ, and yet not know good, when the know­ledge of God in Christ is the knowledge of the best good of all.

But you goe on, and tell us, ‘That infants dying in their infancy are saved.’

Which is not the thing denied; but the thing denied, is, That they cannot be saved without the knowledge of God in Christ; and instead of this, you would prove that infants shall be sa­ved, which I never denied.

Only let me tell you, That you miserably abuse the Scripture you bring to prove their sal­vation, [Page 13]which is Isa. 65.20. from which Text you observe, ‘That they dye in as good a case, as Disciples of a hundred years standing.’

O miserable blindnesse! the Text saith, There shall not be in the New Jerusalem an infant of dayes; and yet you bring this in favour to your eight dayes infants.

Again, You say, That infants dye in as good a condition, as Disciples of a hundred years standing; whereas the Text saith, The Child shall dye a hundred years old, I pray how many such infants doe you baptize? So that this Text I believe you urged without Book, for there is not the least word of such infants as you plead for, nor of such old Disciples to whom you would com­pare them. But are you so charitable towards infants, that you believe they shall be saved? then pray let not the Midwives baptize, for fear they should be damned, which some of your cloath have allowed, making the sprinkling wa­ter upon their face, a cause of their salvation, rather then the knowledge of God in Christ, that you now plead for.

But you goe on, and tell us.

THat if we judge infants shall be saved, then they should be daily added to the Church by Baptism. And for this you cite Acts 2. ult.

I Shall first speak to your Argument, and then to the Text.

This is a palpable non sequitor, for by this Argu­ment Moses might have Circumcised Children the first day they were born; for Moses might have said, I judge these Children have a right to salvation the first day they are borne, therefore they have a right to be added to the Church by circumcisiō the first day they are born. Upon this account he might have circumcised the females, because he judged that salvation did belong to them. But if you shall think to salve this sore, by saying He was commanded to circumcise the eigth day, and to circumcise the male Children; let me tell you, that he was not forbid either the one or the other: But if you shall say, that in as much as God commanded the eighth day, he did forbid doing of it before; and in as much as he did Command the Circumcising of males, he forbid the circumcising of females: Let me tell you then, that in as much as God hath prescribed believing to be the time of baptizing, it will be found a sin to doe it upon any persons, at any other time but when they believe with all their hearts, according to Acts 8.37. And as for that Text which you urge, Acts 2.47. The Lord ad­ded to the Church daily such as should be saved. Compare this but with vers. 41. and you will find these to be no such Babies as you baptize, and add to your Church; for the Text saith, Then they that gladly received his word, were bapti­zed, [Page 15]and the same day there was added to them about three thousand soules. And Acts 5.14. Believers were added to the Lord. What serves this to prove that which you would have? Doth it not strongly carry the contrary, That infants were not baptized, because they are no where called believers.

You now face about, as though all were not safe in the Rear, and goe back to the Text in Esay 54. Surely you feared all the hay and stub­ble that you built upon that Text, was set on fire by the Answers that I gave to it at your house, and now you are returning to quench it: But you must know, that your clouds of Argu­ments are without water, as I shall make appear upon Examination.

First, You say,

THat teaching must be inward and effectuall, in Isa. 54.13.

1 Because it hath the great peace of God going along with it.

From whence you Argue thus.

They that have the great peace of God going along with their teaching, are inwardly and effectually taught:

But all the Children of Gods people have the great peace of God goe along with their teaching;

Therefore they are inwardly and effectually taught.

I Answer this, by denying the major; for all the world gave the great peace of God going along with their teaching, in as much as God holds forth life and peace in the Gospel. And yet you will not say that all the world are in­wardly and effectually taught.

2 Again, to your minor, if by all the Children of Gods people, you mean all their natural Chil­dren in their infancy, as you must, or else you say nothing to your purpose; then I doe deny the minor, because it supposeth God doth inwardly and effectually preach peace to believers infants, whereas he preacheth nothing at all to them: Neither doth the Text say he doth, for then they must (viz.) all the infants of believers, be actu­ally saved, although they should live to perpe­trate never such horrible wickednesses; for if they, to wit, all the naturall Children of belie­vers, are in this condition in their infancy, what sin can deprive them of eternall life, when they come to years? unlesse (as I have said before) you will hold falling from this grace and peace you speak of, totally and finally; which is an opinion that you doe not reckon among the least of errors.

Again, if believers naturall Children, as such, are thus priviledged, as you speak of, with this grace and peace, then the Children of the flesh are the Children of God. But the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God. Ergo. They are [Page 17]not as believers naturall Children, thus privi­ledged.

You goe on to a second Reason, to prove the teaching in Isa. 54. to be inward and effectuall teaching; which what if it were granted, doth it prove that this was to infants in the Cradle of eight dayes old: But we have before shewed the contrary, that it is not meant of such: But how­ever let's hear your other Argument, which is.

THat if it were not inward, and effectuall teaching, it were rather a judgement threatned, then a mercy promised.

BElike then by this kind of reason, when God teacheth a people, and they doe not learn, his teaching is a judgement, and not a mercy. If this be true, then they that are under your teach­ing, and are not inwardly and effectually taught, doe not live under mercies, but judgements; and so they doe not despise a mercy, when they are not inwardly and effectually taught, but a judge­ment. The weight of this Reason is lighter then vanity.

Your third Reason that this must needs be in­ward and effectuall teaching, is,

BEcause John brings it in as a proof of effectuall Teaching.

From whence you say the Argument may be thus framed.

THey that are drawne to the Father, and come to the Son, are effectually taught:

But they that are taught according to that Scrip­ture, Isa. 54. are drawne to the father, and come to the Son. Ergo.

They are inwardly and effectually taught.

HEre the minor is denied, for the Reasons be­fore named (viz.) For then all believers Children must all be saved, or else they may fall away from this teaching. And Christ himselfe doth suppose as much, in the place cited by you, out of John 6.44, 45. where though he saith, It's written, they shall be all taught of God; here is not the least cry of the teaching of infants of eight dayes old.

But secondly, Though he saith, They shall be all taught of God, he doth not say, they shall all hear, learn, and come to him.

But he saith, Every one that hath HEARD, and LEARNED, comes, thereby shewing that more were taught, and more heard, then did learn and come to him.

You goe on to a fourth Reason, and say,

CHildren are all taught of God, because all know him from the least to the greatest, Heb. 8.11.

I Wonder you have forgot the Curse that God pronounceth against him that addeth, or ta­keth from his word; which if you had not, you would not have said, that all know him from the least, to the greatest; when the Text saith no such thing, but that they SHALL all know him from the least to the greatest; not that they doe all know him. But if you say, they do all know him; then remember that the same Text saith, They shall not need to teach their Neighbours, saying, know the Lord: If this be already fullfilled, what doe you preach for? And if all believers Children both little and great, know the Lord so as to need none to teach them, then you must find out ano­ther Trade, or else goe and teach among the Heathen; for you judge all the Parish of Criple­gate believers, in as much as you baptize all their Children, and refuse none: And by the same rule you may as well judge all England believers, and if so, then if that all these believers and their Children know the Lord, according to that text, so as they need no Teacher, from the greatest to the least, then you must goe to Preach to the In­fidells in America, for by your own Text we have [Page 20]no need of you here. I doe therefore charge all men with folly in the Parish of Criplegate, that shall pay you a farthing for Preaching, till you doe repent of your folly in thus expounding Heb. 8.11. For is it not folly for a man to pay for that he hath no need of?

5 You goe on, and tell us.

THat Children trust in God, Psal. 22.9.

Ergo.

HEre you pervert Scripture, for the text saith not that Children trust in God in their in­fancy; but it saith that David as well as other infants were made by God to hope upon their mothers breasts; for these words [When I was] are unnecessarily supplied by the Translater, and are not in the Originall, and therefore we see that as well unbelievers as believers Children doe hope upon their mothers breast. I wonder how any man in his right wits can say from this Text, that David or any infant in their infancy doe trust in God? Nay, may not a man as ratio­nally conclude, that the whole Creation are in­wardly & effectually taught, and that they trust in God, because Paul saith, Rom. 8.20. that the Creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that hath subjected the same IN HOPE.

6 You goe on, and say,

THat infants are most humble, therefore taught.

THe Text that you urge, Luke 9.48. saith no such thing, only that Christ set a little Child before them for example: I would therefore know whether or no the Text proves the humi­lity of these Children to be by teaching, or by nature. If by teaching, then the Disciples had no need to learn of Children, because it cannot rea­sonably be supposed that infants in the Cradle should be taught more then those Master-build­ers that were to goe forth to teach others. If this humility was naturall to them, as to all Children before they come to have knowledge, then it makes nothing for your purpose; and that it was such, appears by the matter in hand, for the que­stion was, who should be the greatest, vers. 46. Now he bids them take example of Children in their infancy, who then have no natural propen­sity to such kind of ambition, as to think them­selves greater, or more honourable then others. In the like case Christ bids his Disciples Be wise as Serpents, may not a man as well conclude that Serpents are inwardly and effectually taught, because Christ sends his Disciples to learn wise­dome of them, as you may conclude infants are inwardly and effectually taught, because Christ sends his Disciples to learn humility of them? [Page 22]And Christ bids his Disciples to learn innocency of Doves, doth it therefore follow that Doves are inwardly and effectually taught?

7 You tell us

THat inward and effectuall teaching of infants ap­pears from 1 Thess. 4.9, 10. Where he tells the brethren, they were taught of God to love one another.

WOuld any body that had but common sence conclude that Paul writ this to in­fants, when he writes to the Thessalonians, that they are taught of God to love one another?

8 You tell us,

THat you may say of infants, and their spirituall birth, and teaching, as Solomon saith of the na­turall, Eccles. 11.5. As thou knowest not which is the way of the Spirit, nor how the bones doe grow in the womb of her that is with Child, even so thou knowest not the works of God that ma­keth all. Yet this I grant, that the time of Gods teach­ing is not alwayes in infancy; for some are called at the last houre, and you baptize some who (possibly) are not effectually called till afterward.

INdeed you may say so of their spirituall birth, for your tongue is your owne; but the Scrip­ture speaks of no such spirituall birth in infants, as you doe imagine: And you have answered your selfe, and given a reason why you may not say of their spirituall birth, as Solomon doth of their naturall, because you say that many are not spiritually born in their infancy; but I hope you cannot say so of any infants, that they have not a naturall birth; for though Solomon saith, We doe not know how the Children are formed in the womb, yet he denies not but they are all formed in the womb: But you as you doe not know how, so you confesse you doe not know who are spiritually thus born. But is not this strange, that you should spend so many Arguments as you did a little before, to prove that all infants of believers are inwardly and effectually taught, drawn, and come to Christ, and that now you should tell us, that some of them are not called till the last houre: And if you should think to excuse the matter by saying, that you mean some unbelievers Children are not called till then; that will not doe, because you told me in the be­ginning of your paper, that it was for believers infants that you pleaded, and the whole scope of your paper speaks forth the same thing, and not one word of unbelievers Children, &c.

You tell us, That some that we baptize are not effectually taught till afterwards.

To this I answer, That it justifieth us if they [Page 24]doe professe so to be when they are baptized, For with the heart man doth believe, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation, Rom. 10.10. And so it would justifie you, if that there were a confession of faith made at the time you did bap­tize, and a life conformable thereunto, which is all that we are to look after, because it's Gods work to search the heart, and not ours.

You proceed to prove (if you can) that in­fants are Disciples, thus.

THey to whom we may give a Cup of cold water in the name of Disciples, are Disciples:

But we may give a Cup of cold water to little Chil­dren;

Therefore little Children are Disciples.

I Answer, first, by denying the major; for may I not as well say, that they to whom we may give a thing in the name of a King, are Kings; and they to whom we may shew favour in the name of God, and Christ, are so many Gods and Christs; as you can say, they to whom we may give a cup of cold water in the name of a Disci­ple, are Disciples: Who seeth not the weaknesse of this kind of arguing? But now to the minor Proposition, where you assume that we may give to little children a cup of cold water in the name of a Disciple. I answer, If by little Children you mean such as John means, 1 John 2.1. Little Chil­dren, [Page 25]these things I write, that you sin not. And ver. 12. I write unto you little Children, because your sins are for­given. I say, if you doe mean such, I doe grant the minor Proposition, viz. That to such little ones we may give a Cup of water in the name of a Disciple: But this I suppose cannot be your meaning, in as much as you are to prove that infants are Disciples, and there is nothing to that purpose in the Text: However I take notice of your wandring up and downe, in saying, Sometimes infants are Disciples, not telling us whether you mean believers or unbe­lievers infants. Sometimes that all believers infants are Disciples: And sometimes that some are not called till the last houre: Only we take for granted what you said at first, that you would undertake for believers Children; if so, then suppose that the little ones here in Mat. 10. last. were understood of infants, yet how doe you prove that they were be­lievers infants? But it will be a task too hard for you to doe either the one, or the other.

You goe on to tell us,

THat you have five things more to say for infants Di­sciple-ship.

The first is this, If that infants may be called his ser­vants, though they doe no service, Lev. 21.41, 42.

Then they may be called Disciples, though they doe not appear to learn:

But they may be called Gods servants, though they doe him no service. Ergo.

They may be called Disciples, though they doe not ap­pear to learn.

I Answer, first, by denying the major, for if it be granted that Children were called his servants, though they did God no service, yet it followes not that therefore they are Disciples, though they doe not learn.

May not a man as well prove the unprofitable ser­vant, Luke 19. by the same Logick, to be a Disciple? as thus: If one may be called Christs servant, though he doe him no work, then he may be called Christs Disciple, though he doe not appear to learn: But the unprofitable servant, Luke 19. was called Christs servant, as appears by vers. 13. and Mat. 25.14. and yet he did him no work. Ergo. He was Christs Disciple, though he did not appear to learn: And by this Rule the non sequitor of your major Proposi­tion appears.

But now to your minor, that Children are called Gods servants, though they did him no service.

I answer, first, That infants of eight dayes old are not called Gods servants any where in Scripture. 2 As to the Text urged in favour to this, Lev. 25.41, 42. if you compare it with vers. 39. you will see it was not spoken to prove infants in the Cradle Gods servants, but rather to shew, that because the Nation of Israel, that he brought out of Aegypt, were his ser­vants, therefore they should not be slaves one to ano­ther, and sold as bond men, which they never did use to doe to Children in the Cradle.

3 Again, Cannot God speak many things con­cerning Children, as that they are his servants, &c. and yet not speak of Children in their infancy? May not a man as well say, because Israel was bid to teach [Page 27]their Children, that therefore they were to teach in­fants of eight dayes old? And because Josh. 22.10. it's said The Children of Gad built an Altar, therefore the infants of Gad were Masons, and Stone-cutters? And because it's said of the vertuous woman, Prov. 31.20. Her Children rise up, and call her blessed, there­fore her little infants of eight dayes old did call her blessed? Is not this as good reason as that which you bring, viz. Because God saith, the Israelites children were his servants, therefore their infants of eight dayes old were his servants.

2 You goe on, and tell us, that

PEter in Acts 15.10. calls infants Disciples.

ARe you not ashamed to speak such a notorious falsity? Doth that Text say, that Peter calls in­fants Disciples? Oh what a mercy is it that we can read! surely if we could not, you might as well say, that Peter said you should have the fifth penny of our estate for preaching, as say he saith, Infants are Di­sciples.

Now indeed Peter blames them for putting the yoke of Circumcision upon Disciples; but this doth no more prove infants to be Disciples, then if a man would say, The Clergy are opprest by Taxes, there­fore every one that's opprest by Taxes, is a Clergy­man; for is it not the same that you bring? The Disciples were circumcised, therefore all that they circumcised, were Disciples. Now if you look to the foregoing verses, you shall see that the false Teach­ers taught circumcision to the brethren, and not to infants, and told the Disciples, that if they were not [Page 28]circumcised, they could not be saved. And now if it be granted, that they would have circumcised in­fants, as well as old folks, doth this prove infants are old folks? No more doth your saying, they would circumcise Disciples, prove infants to be Disciples.

You proceed to a third Reason why Children should be Disciples, and that is this, viz.

THat if you should grant they are not learned, but ig­norant, yet ignorance (you say) did not debar from Circumcision, therefore not from baptism.

I Answer, by shewing you how willing you are to gather up any thing to serve your turne, though nothing to purpose; one while they, viz. infants, are to be baptized, because believers Children, doe know the Lord, and are taught of God, &c. And now you plead, they may be baptized, though igno­rant: What a miserable shuffling is here? What, knowledge the cause all this while, and now be bap­tized though they are ignorant, what strange Logick is this?

But to the Consequence, viz. Ignorance (you say) did not hinder from Circumeision, therefore not from baptism.

I answer, first, ignorance could not hinder infants from that which God commanded Parents to doe unto their Children, while they were infants; so that if God had commanded parents to baptize their infants, then their ignorance could not hinder, no more then it could hinder their parents from Cir­cumcising them, after God had commanded it. But here you doe beg the question, by taking it for gran­ted, [Page 29]that God commanded infants to be baptized, as he did Command the Children of Abraham to be Circumcised.

2 Again, in Gospel worship whatever is not of faith, is sin. God will (in Gospel worship) be served in Spirit, which is a service no where required of in­fants, therefore ignorance must needs hinder infants from that which God no where requireth, and which they are no way capable to perform.

You goe on, and tell us, that

IGnorance did not hinder Peter from his Masters wash­ing his feet, John 13.7, 8. The 7 ^th verse (you say) shewes his ignorance, and the 8 ^th the necessity of his washing.

WHy doe you not conclude somewhat from hence, or else why doe you bring it? If you bring it to prove that therefore ignorance may not hinder Children from baptism, then pray see whe­ther or no Peter did not know Christ washed his feet, and whether in reason can you believe that Christ could wash Peters feet, and Peter be as ignorant of his washing, as your babies are of their sprinkling.

Again, it plainly appears that Peter was ignorant, not of the washing it selfe, but of somewhat Christ would make known by it, which was to shew, That they whom he washed should learn of him to doe so to others; and therefore Christ asketh his Disciples if they knew what he had done to them. Now they could not but know he had washed them, but they did not know that he had hereby set them a Copy to write after; and therefore if your Children had [Page 30]as much knowledge of Christ when you baptize them, as Peter had when Christ washed his feet, though they might not know all circumstances re­lating to baptism, then indeed it were somewhat to your purpose to quote this place.

Again, is it not a strong signe of a weak cause, that you should compare the ignorance of Peter to the ignorance of your infants? his being but a partiall ignorance in a circumstance, and your Babes are to­tally ignorant of both substance and circumstance. Again, this Law of washing the Disciples feet was never in practice before, till Christ now did it, and commanded it; and therefore no marvell though the Apostles were ignorant of the end of it, till it was de­clared; neither was there any such qualifications required in washing one anothers feet, as is required in baptisme.

You proceed, and say, that

THe Scripture doth not say, None shall be baptized but understanding Disciples, and if it did (you say) yet that had not excluded infants; for the Apostle saith, He that will not labour, must not eat, and yet Chil­dren (say you) must not starve, though they doe not labour.

TO this I answer, first, that the Scripture doth not say, you shall not baptize, bells, nor goe a Pilgrimage, why then do not you do these things?

2 Again it did not say (as we have elswhere ob­served) that the Children of Abraham should not be circumcised the sixth or fourth day, why then did not they doe it before? Nor the Scripture doth not [Page 31]say, Infants shall not receive the Sacrament of the bread and wine, why doe you then refuse to give it them? Doe you not plainly see that you condemn others in the thing you allow? for you condemn us that will not baptize our infants, because you say it's no where forbidden; why may not others as well condemn you for refusing to give the Lords Supper to infants, by the same rule, because it's no where forbidden.

I but you will say, it's implicitly forbidden, 1 Cor. 11.28. because the Text saith, Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eat; and Children cannot exa­mine themselves. In the like manner (say I) in­fants are denied baptism, because the Scripture saith, He that BELIEVETH, and is baptized, &c. Mark 16. and If thou BELIEVEST, thou mayest be baptized, Acts 8. Doe not these in the judgement of any rational man as plainly exclude infants from baptism, as the other Scripture doth exclude them from the Supper?

But you presume and say, that

IF the Scripture had said, None but understanding Disci­ples should be baptized, that had not excluded infants.

IS not this strange that you should say, That they are not to be excluded, though the Scripture doe exclude them? Doe you not hereby give us to un­derstand, that let the word of God say what it will, you will doe what you list? Neither doe you think to mend the matter by that place of Scripture, 2 Thess. 3.10. If any will not worke, he should not eat. Now you seem to conclude from hence, that though Children doe not work, yet they must eat. Ergo. Though chil­dren [Page 32]doe not believe, yet they must be baptized. Now see the fallacy; the Text doth not say, He that DOTH not worke, as you say, when you apply it to in­fants; but He that WILL not worke. Now if there be any children that WILL not work, they must not eat, viz. of the Churches Charity; therefore infants, and they that are impotent, it cannot be said of them that they WILL not work. Now if God had given you the like Command to baptize Children in their in­fancy, as he hath done to fathers and mothers to feed them in their infancy, then you had said something to the purpose, otherwise you had as good have said nothing.

Again, You (say I) brought in the word [...] to prove that the Command, Mat. 28. reacheth only Disciples, not all Nations; my reason (you say) is, Be­cause [...] is the Neuter, and [...] the Masculine Gender. But this (you say) is no reason at all, as appears by Mat. 25.32. where the word [...] must neds have relation to [...], unlesse there shall not be a separation between all Na­tions at the last day. This Enallage generis, where the Masculine Gender is put with [...], is usuall in Scripture, and many times (you say) includes Children, as Mat. 25.32. Rev. 2.26, 27. & 19.15. Acts 15.17. & 21.25. & 26.17. & 28.28. Ephes. 2.11. & 4.17.

1 YOu did agree at your house, that [...] did re­late to Disciple, and accordingly went about to prove that Children were Disciples, as appears by many of your Arguments.

2 I said not that [...] did no where refer to [...], but that in this Scripture it ought to refer to [...], which you also granted.

3 Though [...] be referred to [...], yet it doth not follow that the infants in the Nations are included, yea, the contrary is apparent from the latter clause of the sentence, where it is said, Teaching them, which doth sufficiently intimate, that those of the Nations are hereby only meant, who are capable of Disci­pline, and consequently had the use of reason, which agreeth not unto infants, who, as the Scripture shew­eth, together with the attestation of common sense, have no knowledge between good and evill. Deut. 1.39. Moreover, your little ones which you said should be a prey, and your Children which in that day had no know­ledge between good and evill, they shall goe in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possesse it. Isai 7.14, 15, 16. Therefore the Lord himselfe shall give you a signe, behold a Virgin shall conceive a Son, and shall call his name Imanuel. Butter and Honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evill, and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evill, and choose the good, the Land that thou abhorrest, shall be forsaken of both her Kings. Likewise the very instance you bring out of Mat. 25.32. doth refute your opinion, for there such only of the Nations are understood, as had acted in the world, and done either good or evill; for they are such as had either relieved Christ in his necessity, or refused to doe so; neither of which agreeth to infants; for would it not be ridiculous to imagine that our Lord Christ should say to the in­fants, Goe yee cursed into everlasting fire, for I was hun­gry, and yee fed me not? Besides, every one of the rest of the places cited by you, where the word [...] is found, doth, if the circumstances be examined, mean them only of the Nations that had the use of reason, [Page 34]and so are not a whit to your purpose.

4 You goe on to another Argument, and tell me, that

THat which God hath once commanded, and never re­pealed, ought still to be obeyed:

But he did once Command that the Children of his ser­vants, whom he hath taken into Covenant with himselfe, should have the seale of the rightousnesse of faith set upon them, which he hath never forbidden, only he hath taken away the outward circumcision, therefore we must obey that Command still.

I Doe deny this whole Sillogism, because first, there is not one of the tearms of the Propos: in it; which had you argued honestly, you should have said thus, That which God once commanded, and never repealed, is in force still: (and then you should have assumed) But God did once Command the baptizing of infants, and never repealed it; therefore that Command is in force still. Indeed had you reasoned thus, and proved the minor, a gracious heart would hardly have denied it: But then

2 This Argument contradicts it selfe; for you say, He did once Command, and never afterwards forbid that infants should have the seale and token of the Covenant; and yet you say presently after, That Circumcision was taken away; then it fo­lowes, that the seale of it was prohibited, and the use of it forbidden; is not this a palpable contradi­ction? For what was the seale of faith that God com­manded to Abraham? Was it not Circumcision? Gen. 17.10. Rom. 10.11. If so, then when Circum­cision [Page 35]was repealed, that Law which commanded no­thing else, must needs be repealed; and if the Law be in force, it must require some other thing as well as Circumcision, and so be but in part repealed; if Circumcision be repealed. You might as well have said, that James Duke Hamilton was a live, after James Earl of Cambridge was beheaded, as say that that Law given to Abraham, Gen. 17.10. is in force, and yet say Circumcision was taken away. Who but those are willfully ignorant, doth not see this empty kind of arguing?

You proceed to another Argument, and tell me, that

THey which had a right to the Ordinance that was pro­fitable every way, have still a right to baptism:

But the Children of Gods people have a right to that Ordinance that was profitable every way. Ergo.

The Children of Gods people have a right to baptism.

THis Argument among the rest we met with at your house; and I did then, and so I doe now deny the major; for if you look the text upon which it is grounded, Rom, 3.1, 2. you will find that this Ordinance you speak of, was Circumcision; so that then the major Proposition in plain English is this, They that had had a right to Circumcision, have a right to baptism; if this be a good Argument, why doe you plead for the infants of believers so much? May you not as well plead for the unbelieving Jewes, and their infants by the same reason, thus, They that had a right to circumcision, have a right to baptism; but the [Page 36]Jewes and their infants had a right to Circumcision, there­fore they have a right to baptism now. If you shall say, so they have, if they convert to believe in Christ, I say then you have answered your selfe; and then it followeth not that their right to Circumcision did give them a right to baptism; but their believing in Christ, for if it did, your must baptize a Jew though he did never believe.

You now come to scare me with great words, since you cannot doe it by Arguments; and this you in­deavour to doe, by telling me of fearfull and base Absurdities that will follow upon what I have said in denying infants baptism.

The first Aburdity (you say) is,

THat if baptism be denied to the infants of believers, then the Children of the Devills servants under the Law, had better means of grace confer'd upon them, then the dearest Children of the best servants of God have now under the Gospell, thought the Gospel be a better Covenant, established upon better promises, Heb. 7.22. Heb. 8.6, &c.

I Answer to this, first by denying the Conse­quence; for it doth not follow they had better priviledg [...]s then, then we have now, if we deny them baptism: But the contrary is true, we are, and so are our Children, freed from those rudiments they were in bondage to, Gal. 4.3, 4. and Vers. 5. 'tis said, Christ came to redeem us from the Law. And in Acts 15.10. (your Text that you did alledge for infants Disciple­ship) Circumcision is there call'd a yoke that nei­ther they nor their fathers were able to bear; and [Page 37]yet you presume to call this a priviledge, which the Scripture calls a bondage, and a yoke. But if you shall say, that in Rom. 3.1, 2. the Apostle sai [...]h, they had advantage by it. I answer, that proves not but that it was a yoke; for a servant hath an advantage by a Prentiship, doth it follow therefore that an Ap­prentiship is not a state of bondage? Now if God will freely bestow those things upon our infants without either Circumcision or baptism, this is so far from Lesse grace, that it is more grace then was bestowed upon infants under the Law. And I chal­lenge you and all the world to shew me one Text in all the Bible where God doth either threaten parents or Children with the losse of any favour, either spi­rituall or temporall, for not baptizing their infants. If so, then your talking of denying them favour, by denying them baptism, is but a figment of you own braine.

And whereas you talk of the Children of the De­vils servants, that they had more priviledge then we, be­cause they were Circumcised.

I answer, first, the Text that you bring to prove it, Ezek. 16.20. saith not so. 2 It saith they did offer their Children in the fire; but yet remember, that this Chapter treats of the whole Nation of Israel, which you spake so much in favour of but even now, though you now call them the Children of the De­vil; but be it so, you have heard that their priviledge you plead for, was a bondage that God hath freed our infants from, and as long as you confesse they are freed form Circumcision, and you cannot prove any other thing is injoyned to infants, what's become of your great Absurdity?

Your second Absurdity is like the first, for (you say) that

DEnying infants baptism, shewes God is lesse carefull, and his love is lesse, and his faithfullnesse is lessened towards infants now, over it was of old. And this you would prove from Jer. 30.20. & Mic. 7. last.

IN the first of these Scriptures it is said, that the Children of Israel shall be as afore time; and you say the Children of his people in the Gospel shall be as the Children of his servants afore time; which is al­together false, for it is a Prophesie of their return from all Nations, to become a Nation again as before time, as any body may see, that doth not wink, at Jer. 30.18. And as for this Text, if by making infants under the Gospel, as the Jewes were under the Law, if that be your notion upon the Text, and the word afore time, then we must circumcise them, or else they cannot be as afore time: Doe you not pervert Scripture to make us Judaize? And to that Text, Mic. 7. last. where God saith, He will perform his truth to Jacob, &c. I demand first, whether ever God swore to Jacob, or the fore fathers, or ever made any promise to them, that their infants under the Gospel should be baptized; if he did, show us where; if he did not, then you doe but slander God, instead of bringing the least absurdity upon me, in saying, that he is un­faithfull, &c. if infants are not baptized. And you tell us that Christ, Luke 1.71, 72. Came into the world for this end; it's true, he came to fulfill what God had promised before time, but how doth this bear [Page 39]hard either upon his love or faithfullnesse, viz. Not to baptize infants, unlesse, as I have said, he had be­fore promised they should be baptized?

Your third Absurdity, is that

DEnying infants baptism, doth dishonour Gods wise­dome; because we look upon it as folly (say you) to administer an Ordinance to infants; but the wise God did administer an Ordinance upon the infants that did not understand it.

TO this I answer, That our denying infants bap­tism doth rather dishonour your wisedom, and the wisedome of this world, then the wisedome of God, because God never required it at your hands.

And whereas you say, God did administer an Or­dinance to ignorant infants, &c. I demand if this be not horrible presumption for you to administer an Or­dinance upon infants without a Command, because the most high God caused an Ordinance once to be administred by a Command? And whether now for any one to oppose this practice of yours, be not much rather a flying in the face of your wisedome, then Gods? It's no marvell then that you say, Here is enough to kindle your spirit against my opinion for ever, because indeed denying infants baptism, sets as it were a fire the foundation of your Craft, by which you beguile the simple: And you know this put a fire into the breast of the men of Ephesus, against the Apostles Doctrine, when they understood that the gaine they got by their Will-worship, was like to be set at naught.

Your fourth and last Absurdity that you say fol­lowes [Page 40]upon denying infants baptism, is, that

IT makes believing parents and their Children, worse then Heathen and their Children, in whom the Prince of the power of the aire ruled, &c.

Yet such (say you) coming into the acknowledgement of the true God, had not onely themselves, but their infants taken into Covenant, and had the token thereof, which (you say) I deny to Children.

THis is all one with your first Absurdity, & there­fore the same Answer will serve it; for was not this your first Absurdity that you said followed de­nying infants baptism, viz. That the Children of the Devills servants under the Law, had better means of grace confer'd upon them, then the Children of the best servants of God have. And what doe you say more now? For what difference is there between believers, and their infants, and Gods best servants, and their infants? And what difference is there between the Children of the Devills servants, and the Children of those in whom the Prince of the aire ruleth? &c. And what difference is there between circumcising the Chil­dren of the Devills servants under the Law, and cir­cumcising the Children of those in whom the Prince of the aire ruled, &c.

But yet a word to this, though it be one with the former: First, how doth my opinion make them, Viz. believing Parents, and their infants, worse then Heathens, and their infants under the Law? since by your own confession neither the Heathen, nor his infant was to be Circumcised, till he, Viz. the Hea­then, had acknowledged the true God, so that then [Page 41]he feased to be a Heathen. In like manner therefore as the Converts to the Jewes Religion, were they and their children to partake of all the priviledges of the Law, upon obedience of all the Commands of God in the Law: so all Converts to the Christian Reli­gion, and their Children, upon obedience to all the Commands in the Gospel, shall be made partakers of the priviledges of the Gospel: But now if God hath not Commanded believers infants to be baptized, nor promised any priviledge to their baptism in in­fany, nor threatned any detriment to those infants that wanted it, as he did to infants that wanted Cir­cumcision, he told their Parents that that soule should be cut off from the people. I say, if there be neither Pre­cept for baptism of infants, nor Promise of Priviledg to their infants baptism, nor detriment threatned to the want of it, then you rather quarrel and find fault with God (because he did not make a Law for be­lievers infants to be baptized) then with me; and because he did not promise them some favour that were baptized in their infancy, and impose some pe­nalty upon those infants that were not so baptized. Now indeed if you had shewed us any such thing, then you had made good your charge; but till you doe so, you (as I have said) rather quarrell with God for not making such a Law, then with me for not keeping of it. And whereas you say, I deny in­fants the seale; You are first to shew where baptism is called a seale, or else to deny them baptism, is not to deny them a seale. 2 You must shew us, if baptism be a seale, whether God did any where command us to set it upon infants: And 3 in what place of the Child it must be set; for we know in the Law it was [Page 42]set upon the fore-skin of their privy members. This you must doe before you can fasten any Absurdity upon me, in denying a seale to infants.

You come now to remember me of somewhat that I said at your house, Viz. You did run in a round when you said Children had a right to the Ordi­nance that was profitable every way, and therefore ought to be baptized; and you tell me, that

MY saying you did run in a round, did contradict my selfe, and give away my cause.

TO this I answer, that this is sooner said, then pro­ved, Viz. That I gave away the Cause; but however, I perceive that you would be willing to be counted a ridiculous Disputant, and so ridiculous as circular disputing is accounted in Schools, so that I would but give away my cause, which is not mine, but the Lord Christs. This appears plainly, for you say that I told you, you run in a circle; which you doe not in the least indeavour to vindicate your self from, but say by this I gave away my cause. But if you had urged all that I had faid at that time, it would not so appear; for when you argued, That if infants had a right to the Ordinance that was pro­fitable every way, then they had a right to baptism: But they had a right to that Ordinance that was pro­fitable every way. Ergo. I did then answer, by di­stinguishing of the tearms of the major Proposition, Viz. What you meant by the Ordinance that was profitable every way: (I then said) if you meant Circumcision, then you run in a circle, because that was the thing denied in the former Sillogism, Viz. [Page 43]That they that had a right to Circumcision, had a right to baptism, which you endeavoured to prove, by saying, They that had a right to the Ordinance profi­table every way, had a right to baptism. If by this you meant Circumcision, then you did but run round, and no way prove the thing denied, but in effect said it over again. I further said, That if by the Ordi­nance that was profitable every way, you meant baptism, then I denied the Sillogism; for then it must have run thus, They that have a right to baptism, have a right to baptism: Indeed I should have had so much respect to your gray haires, that I should not have mentioned this your weaknesse, had you not in your Paper both mentioned it, and gloried in it, as though thereby you had made me give away my Cause. And that I did at your house detect your false Logick after this manner, as I have laid it down. I shall appeale to those Gentlemen that are well lear­ned in the Rules of discourses, that were then at your house, and to whom I did then appeale in the same case.

You proceed to more Reasons for infants-baptism, if I may so call them without giving away my canse again. The first is,

BEcause they are in Covenant, which you would prove by Deut. 29.10. to 15. Deut. 30.11, 12, 13. Rom. 1.7.10.

From hence you argue, that If they are in Covenant, they may be baptized.

I Deny the Consequence, for by this rule Moses might have baptized as well as circumcised, if a [Page 44]bare being in the Covenant were a reason why they should baptize; but you must remember; that it is the Command of Christ that we look at; and if he had not commanded believers to be baptized, their being believers would not have justified their bap­tism: So if it were granted that infants were in the Covenant, what reason is this why they should be baptized, if God hath not commanded it? Doe you not here open a door for will-worship, and other Popish fooleries? For may not they say they doe them because they are in Covenant? Further, doe you not here sin because grace abounds? For is God so good as to place our infants in Covenant with himselfe, must we therefore goe take the holy name of God in vaine, and sprinkle water upon their faces for a seale, as though we doubted whether God would keep his Covenant, unlesse we sealed it with a seale of our owne making? But to the Text. First, if you look Deut. 1.39. you will find the Covenant here is not the same that was made with them when they came out of Aegypt; for he saith, It is a Cove­nant BESIDES the Covenant he made then. 2 Compare but Vers. 10. to Vers. 12. and you will find that they stood that day before the Lord, that they MIGHT enter into Covenant, &c. Now then this could not be the Covenant made with Abraham, because that was confirmed, and Israel had it sealed to them long before; neither was it the Covenant made when they came out of Aegypt, if so, then it could not be the Covenant that your seale you talk of did be­long unto. 2 It could not be the Covenant of grace by Jesus Christ, unlesse you say there was two Co­venants of grace, Viz. one made with them before [Page 45]they went into Aegypt, and another after their co­ming out of Aegypt: Now if this was not a Cove­nant of grace by Christ, spoken of Deut. 29. what doth it availe to the matter in hand? unlesse you say they that are in any Covenant have a right to baptism. And if you say it was a Covenant of grace by Jesus Christ, that is here mentioned, then pray consider what followes, that the Covenant of grace by Jesus Christ was made with them, that (as the 4 verse saith) The Lord had not given a heart to per­ceive, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear unto that day. So that whereas you have been telling of us a of Cove­nant with believers and their seed all this while; you now come to tell us of a Covenant made with unbelievers, and their seed, for so were these at the time of the making of it: So that if your Logick be good, Viz. Believers and their infants are in Covenant, therefore they and their infants must be baptized. And the Text you bring to prove it, saith the same of un­believers, then by your owne Text, infidells and their infants may be baptized: But the Text you bring saith the same of unbelievers. Ergo. That the Text saith, this Covenant was made with unbelie­vers, compare Deut. 29.4. with Rom. 11.8. where speaking of the Jewes not believing in Christ, he saith, God (as it is written) alluding to this very Text, Deut. 29.4.) had given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and eares that they should not hear unto this day: And yet these are the believers whom you say are in Covenant, and therefore their infants must be baptized. But I confesse I doe not wonder at this, because most of them whose infants you bap­tize, are such believers, if I may so call them, as have [Page 46]not a heart to perceive, nor eyes to see, to this very day, else they would not receive for doctrine the traditions of men, and leave the plain way of Christ. You add, though to as little purpose as before, Deut. 30.11, 12. & Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. where (I confesse) the Apostle alluding to the fore-cited place of Deu­teronomy, saith, that the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and heart, even the word of faith which he prea­ched; and therefore the righteousnesse of faith he tells us is this, Vers. 9, 10. That if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be sa­ved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. You bid me compare this Text with Deut. 29. which I much wonder at, since I doe not know any two Texts in all the Bible that have more disparity; for in the one place it's said, They had not a heart to be­lieve; and in the other it is said, With the heart man believeth. Again, as this Text hath no affinity with the former, so, it hath no affinity to the matter in hand; for to what purpose doe you cite a Text that speaks of believers who professe Christ with their mouths, and believe him in their hearts, to justifie the baptism of infants, that never opened their mouths for Christ? Truly Sir, were it not that I am relieved with this saying, Opere in longo fas est obre­pere somnum, I should despair of having any thoughts of charity towards a man that professeth himself (as you doe) both a Christian, and a Scholar, and yet reason at this rate.

You add a second Argument, and say, that

BEcause they are in Covenant, the initiating token of the Covenant must needs be theirs.

I Answer, That here you have not concluded the tearms of the Question, therefore I may deny the whole Argument.

2 But further, If by the initiating token of the Covenant you mean baptism, let me see then how you can call this a second Argument, except you tell the first twice over? For was not this the Argument that went before? Viz. They that are in the Covenant have a right to baptism; and is not the second the same word for word, if by the token of the Covenant you mean baptism; therefore the answer to the first is also an answer to that you call a second. And whereas you say that the Text, Gen. 17. tells us that every Man-child had the token of the Covenant, because they were in the Covenant; why I pray had not the women-children the token of the Covenant? were not they in the Covenant? Can you deny it? and yet you see they were not circumcised: And were not the males in the Covenant (as I have said once and again) as soon as they were born, why were they denied the the token of it till eight dayes old? they might have died, as doubtlesse many of them did in this intervaile of time between their birth and the eighth day: Therefore you see that infants be­ing in the Covenant, could be no Argument to prove their Circumcision, till the time God appointed, though their lives had laine upon it. In the like manner all your talking of infants being in the Co­venant, cannot lawfully justifie their baptism, till [Page 48]the time comes that God commands it: And this kept female infants from Circumcision, Viz. because God had not commanded it. Although they were in the Covenant, yet you see they were denied the token of the Covenant.

You urge another Text, which is Ezek. 37.25. where God promises by his Prophet, that The Tribes of Israel shall be joyned together, and shall dwell in their owne Land they and their Children, and their Childrens Children for ever, under the Conduct of Christ their Princee in the latter dayes. And you say this proves infants should be baptized. Did ever any body infer thus from a Text? Israel and their Children shall come to dwell in their own land in the latter dayes, and Christ shall be their Prince. Ergo. The infants of believers must be baptized. This is the substance of the Text from whence you thus infer, as any body may see that doth but read the Chapter. But now, suppose this, that this were applicable to believing Gentiles, doth it not follow, that if the seed of the righteous, and their Children, and their Childrens Children for ever, should be baptized, that then we may baptize all the world, since they are all, and will be for ever, the seed of Noah, who was a faithfull man?

You tell us in the third place, that

INfants are included in the Command of baptism, be­cause Christ saith, Luke 9.48. They that receive a little Child, receive Christ.

MIght you not better have said, that this little Child was Christ, then have concluded that [Page 49]the little Child was included in the Command of baptism? May we not as well say, That the Con­verts were Commanded to baptize the Apostles, ra­ther then the Apostles were commanded to baptize them, because Christ saith to his Apostles, Mat. 10.40. He that receiveth you, receiveth me. May not a man as well upon the other hand say, That he that refused the Apostles, refused to baptize the Apostles, as you may say the receiving, or non receiving of infants, is a receiving of them to, or a rejecting them from baptism.

Again, He that receiveth an Angell of God, is said to receive God; may not a man as well plead from hence, Therefore Angels may be baptized, as you may, in saying, He that receiveth a little Child, receiveth Christ? Therefore a little Child must be baptized. And whereas you say, That a refusing to baptize infants, is a refusing to receive Christ. How strangely do you contradict your selfe? Did not you say in the former part of your pa­per, That many that we baptized, were not inwardly and effectually called till afterwards? Now doth not this plainly prove, That we that refuse to baptize Chil­dren, doe yet notwithstanding receive Christ; for what is it to be inwardly and effectually called, but to receive Christ?

In the fourth place, you say, that

THey are included in baptism, for whom Christ ap­pears so much, as we find, Mark 10.13. Luke 18.15. which (you say) Luke saith were infants, &c.

I Answer, You take great paines to prove that which nones denies, That these that Christ tooke [Page 50]in his armes, were infants: But how doe you prove that which is denied, That these infants were baptized by Christ. You say, That Christ reproved his Disciples for not suffering the infants to come to him. Which shewes plainly, that baptizing them was no part of their businesse that brought them: First, because if it were a Command of Christ to baptize infants, the Disciples that were his Messengers, were then ig­norant of a great part of their Message, that they were to deliver in their Ministry. Or else 2 If they did know that it was their work, and Christs Com­mand to baptize infants, they were desperately wic­ked in keeping any from it: This was not onely to break a Command, but to teach men so, and to be guilty of that abominable evill the Pharisees were guilty of, Viz. Of not entring into Heaven themselves, nor suffering others. This will follow, if to keep in­fants from baptism, be to keep them from Christ, as you would make it.

But that they were not baptized when they came to Christ, appears because the Text saith, John 4.2. that Jesus himselfe baptized NOT, but his Disciples.

And whereas you say,

HAnds were laid upon them, by which greater things then baptism was done.

I Answer, By the same rule you may give the bread and wine in the Sacrament, to infants, because greater things were done by laying on of hands, then eating bread, and drinking wine: And why doe you not by this rule preach to Children in their Cradles, because greater wonders were wrought by [Page 51]laying on of hands, then ever were done by Preach­ing. Who sees not but this Argument is as strong for Preaching to infants, and giving the Lords Sup­per to infants, as it is for baptizing infants? And yet though you allow them baptism, you deny them both the other Ordinances.

You say, Christ blessed them, as well as layd hands on them, which (say you) is as much. if not more th [...]n baptism. And is not his blessing as much, if not more then your giving the Sacrament of the Supper to them? Why then doe you deny them of it?

You say,

THat was a good reason for Christ to blesse them, viz. Because the Kingdome of Heaven belonged to them, and therefore it must needs be a good reason for us to bap­tize them.

I Answer, first, why this was not a good reason for CHRIST to baptize them, & yet the Scripture saith, He baptized none.

2 Doth not infants right to the Kingdome of hea­ven intitle them to all other Ordinances, as well as baptism, since under the Gospel whoever were found to be members of a true Church by baptism, had also fellowship of all other Church-priviledges, except they had (by some scandalous evills) deprived themselves thereof; so that infants right to the Kingdome of Heaven, serves nothing for your pre­sent purpose.

Your fifth Reason is,

INfants are branches of the true Olive, Rom. 11.17. Therefore they are included in the Command of bap­tism.

I Answer, first by denying the antecedent; for the infants of believers are not branches of the Olive in the Text, but onely such as did actually believe, and there is not the least mention made of their in­fants in the whole Chapter; for the 20 verse saith, That for want of faith the Jewes were broke off, and by faith the Gentiles did stand; which faith is not to be found in your infants you plead for.

2 To be branches by generation (if that were the sense of the Text) could not give them a right to baptism, because the Jewes were naturall branch­es, and yet that could not give them a right to bap­tism without faith.

Your sixth Reason is,

BEcause infants of believers are Abrahams seed, and so consequently members of Christ, Gal. 3.16. And baptism (you say) is an Ordinance of our incorpora­tion into Christ, 1 Cor. 12.13. Therefore (you say) they that are members of Christ should not be denied that Ordinance.

I Cannot but wonder at your presumtion; doth the word of God any where say that the carnall seed of believers are members of Christ? Doth it not say the contrary, that even Abrahams owne seed were not the Children of God, as they were his carnall seed, Rom. 9.7. Neither because they are the seed [Page 53] Abraham, are they Children, which is expounded, Vers. 8. That is (saith the Apostle) they which are the Children of the flesh, they are not the Children of God.

2 Again, How dare you say that the naturall seed of believers in their infancy, are the seed of Abra­ham? since that Abrahams own seed were under the Gospel no otherwise reckoned for his seed, then by believing, Gal. 3.7. Know yee therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the Children of Abraham, v. 9. They which are of saith, are blessed with faithfull Abra­ham: And what ever Abrahams seed, and the Prose­lites seed were accounted under the Law, it makes not at all to your purpose, unlesse you prove God doth so account of them under the Gospel: And therefore the Apostle saith not of seeds, as to many; but to thy seed, which is Christ. So that by this which you cited out of Gal. 3.16. it appears the Promises were not made to the naturall seed of believers, but unto Christ, or them that were Members of his my­sticall body by believing. And the Apostle tels them, That so many of them as had been baptized into Christ, had put on Christ, which was by making profession of Christ, which your infants doe not; and therefore the same Apostle concludeth, That if they were Christs, then they were Abrahams seed: Not if they were be­lievers naturall Children, that they upon any such consideration should be Heires of the Promise.

Your seventh reason is,

THat infants may be baptized, because they are holy: Which you indeavour to prove from 1 Cor. 7.14.

I Doe deny that the holinesse of these infants gave a right to baptism; for by the same rule the be­lievers wife must be baptized, though she was an unbeliever; for the same Text saith, That the be­lievers unbelieving wife was sanctified: And may I not as well say, That all that are sanctified in any sense may be baptized; as you may say, Because infants in some sense are holy, therefore they may be bap­tized.

You further urge Gal. 2.15. which I believe you did mistake your selfe in, as any body may see that shall but compare the Text with the matter in hand. To as little purpose you urge Dan. 8.24. where the Text saith, The King of fierce countenance should de­stroy the holy people: Therefore the infants were ho­ly. May not a man as well say, from Dan. 12.7. where it's said, He shall scatter the power of the holy people; that therefore the infants had power? The like answer serves to Dan. 11.8.

8 You say,

THey are included in baptism, to whom all the promises of baptism belong.

But the promises of baptism belong to infants, Acts 7.38, 39.

I Shall say nothing to this, but leave you to read over Acts 7.38, 39. and consider if the least pro­mise be made relating to baptism, in any of those verses. But I am apt to think you meant Acts 2.38, 39. which is as little to your purpose, as the other; where the Apostle bids the Jewes, Repent, and be bap­tized; [Page 55]where note, That if their being Abrahams naturall seed would have given them a right to bap­tism, what need had they to have repented, in order to their baptism? He further saith, That the promise is to them, and their Children. To that I have for­merly said, and proved, That in the Scripture Dialect many things may belong to a mans Chil­dren, that hath no respect to his infants, in the state of their infancy; for Christ tells the same people, Mat. 23.27. That he would have gathered their Chil­dren together, &c. Can any man think that Christ here means their infants in the Cradle. In like man­ner the Apostle concludes, That the promise was to them, and their Children, he plainly shewes, that he did not mean their infants, but that Gods promises should be made good to their Children upon the same tearms that they were to them, which was up­on their Repentance, Faith, and Baptism; and there­fore he afterwards urgeth, That it was not onely to them and their Children, but to all that were after off, even as many as the Lord our God should call.

And now you conclude, and say,

THus much for the proof of infants baptism from Scripture precept.

WHich if all the Scriptures you have urged, have any one Precept for infants Baptism, I shall leave to judgement.

You now come in the last place to prove infants baptism from Scripture practice, and your first, is,

THat they were all, viz. the infants of the Israelites baptized to Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. Psal. 77.17.

1 WHat's this to prove infants were baptized to Christ, if (one should grant) that in a sense they might be said to be baptized to Moses?

2 How doth this saying, They were baptized to Moses, prove that infants were baptized to Moses? If you say, They were baptized to Moses, because they also came through the sea with their fathers: Then I demand in

The last place, whether a man may not as well say, That their Cattle were baptized to Moses, be­cause they also came through the sea with Moses? Let him that's least among you judge if this Text proves that infants were baptized in water in the name of Jesus, because that infants came through the red sea with Moses.

Your second instance for the practice of infants baptism, is laid downe in a down right lame Argu­ment, thus.

THe Apostles practised what they were to preach: But they were to preach all that Christ commanded, Mat. ult. ult. But Christ commanded that they should suffer lit­tle Children to come to him, and not to forbid them, that he might lay his hands on them, and blesse them: There­fore the Apostles practiced this in suffering little Children to come to the Ordinance, and not forbidding them to that of baptism.

TRuly I could wish that this Argument had been born a little sooner, that so it might have been at Oxford or Cambridge the last Comencement, be­cause it is in a new mood and figure that was never heard of before in any of the Schooles; it may be it might have purchased for you the good degree of a Prevaricator against the next year. But however, I fear a worse thing, that it is still born, and hath no strength in it.

For may you not as well say, That the Apostles in all ages were commanded to bring Asses to Christ, because when he was upon the earth he did Com­mand them so to doe, because he had need of one, for so sayes the Text, Mat. 21.2, 3, 6. as say that because Christ when he was in person upon the earth, did bid his Disciples to let infants come to him, that therefore this was part of their Commissi­on when Christ left the earth.

But 2 May you not from hence as well command some of your Parish to goe and fetch you an Asse, and bring him to you, as you may from this Text in­joyne them to bring their Children to you for bap­tism, because they were injoyned to come to Christ for a blessing. What Command is this to bring my Children to you, because Christ commanded them to be brought to him, any more then it is for me to bring my Horse or my Asse to you, because Christ commanded one should be brought to him? But if this be a good Argument to justifie infants baptism, I wonder that any Clergy man of your opinion will goe one foot.

But more hath been spoken to this elsewhere, and [Page 58]fore I shall proceed to your third instance of the pra­ctice of infants baptism, and that is, say you,

WHole Houses, Cities, and Families were baptized. And for proof hereof you cite Acts 8.12. where the Text saith, That when they believed Phillips preaching the things concerning the kingdome of God, they were baptized both men and women.

WHat man would urge this Text (but he that was minded to quit the field of this contro­versie) to prove the Apostles baptized the Sama­ritans infants? You say the whole City of Samaria was baptized, therefore you would make us believe they baptized infants, when the Text saith no such thing, but that They that RECEIVED THE WORD were baptized, and not the whole City, as you would have it. Again, you urge.

THat the family of Cornelius and his near kindred were baptized, Acts 10.24, 44, 48. And the hous­hold of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1.16. The Jaylor, and all his, Acts 2.16.13. And Lydia and her houshold, Acts 16.15.

TO the first of these I answer, That the Scripture no where saith that Cornelius had any infants baptized, but that those that Heard Peters word, and had received the Holy Ghost, and spake with tongues, and glorified God, Acts 10.46, 47, 48. were bapti­zed, which Text you urge for infants baptism. I shall appeale to all that shall seriously mind these words, whether there be any comparison between the persons baptized in that Text, and the infants that you baptize.

Next you urge the houshold of Stephanus, that they were baptized, 1 Cor. 1.16. Hence you would infer infants were baptized. Now may not a man as well say, that because the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 16.15. that The house of Stephanus addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints, that therefore infants in Ste­phanus house were addicted to minister to the Saints, as you may say, Stephanus his houshold were bapti­zed, therefore infants in the house were baptized?

Your next is Acts 16.33. where 'tis said, the Jay­lor and all his were baptized: Now may not a man as well say, that his infants in the Cradle believed the Apostles, and that the Apostles preached to in­fants in the Cradle, as you may imagine that infants were baptized, because the Jaylor and all his were baptized? For the same Text that saith he and all his were baptized, doth also say, That the Apostles spake unto him the word of the Lord, & to ALL that were in his house, vers. 32. And Vers. 34. it is said, That he ( Viz. the Jaylor) believed in God with All his house: And yet you presume to call this, as the rest, Scrip­ture practice for infant-baptism.

Your other instance is in the 15 Verse of the fore­cited Chapter, where we read that Lydia and her house were baptized, &c. You cannot from hence prove that Lydia was a married woman; for when women have husbands as the head of their families, the houshold is not usually known by the womans name. 2 If she had been married, how doe you prove she had any Children?

3 If she had had Children, how doe you prove she had any alive at this time; since it often times so falls out, that good people as well as bad may see [Page 60]all their Children goe to the grave before them.

But 4 If she had Children alive, how doe you know but that the least of them were old enough to speak for themselves?

5 And lastly, if she had any infant Children, how can you infer from the Text that she baptized them? If you say, because her house was baptized; I an­swer, That a man may as well say, as I said before, that the infants of Stephanus did minister to the Saints, because the houshold of Stephanus did mini­ster to the Saints. You doe urge severall Texts to shew that oftentimes in Scripture whole housholds doe include their infants, as Gen. 14.16. Judges 9.16.18. 1 Kings 17.12, 13, 15. 1 Pet. 3.21. I shall not examine these Texts, whether you have urged them rightly, or no, because I agree with you, that often times in Scripture, we must from severall reasons and circumstances conclude, that when it speaks of housholds, it includes infants: But if you cannot prove from any reason or circumstance in the Texts under debate, that it should here be so understood, then you have laboured all this while for that which satisfieth not; unlesse you will say, that alwayes when the Scripture speaks of house, or houshold, it intends little infants, which you will not say. And again, you may perceive by what hath been said, that in these houses those that were baptized have enough to distinguish them from being infants, to any that have not put out the eyes of their under­standing.

You proceed, as though your conscience did con­vince you, that whatever you have talked of plain Scripture precept, and plain Scripture practice for [Page 61]infants baptism, that there is no such thing in all the Scripture, because you say

THat it is not expressed in the Scripture that women were admitted to breaking of bread, and yet (you say) we never question their right to that Ordinance, (You hereupon demand) why then should we questi­on Childrens right to baptism?

I Answer, First, that if we should doe a thing that we had no plain rule for, will this justifie you to doe evill, because we doe evill; and to walk in the dark without a plain rule, because we doe so.

But secondly, we have a plain rule for womens receiving the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himselfe; where the word [...] is of the Common Gender, and Beza renders it quis (que) Which is as much as if the Apostle had said, Let EVERY ONE examin themselves, and so let them eat. Where have you such a plain Text as this for infants bap­tism?

Lastly, you urge, Col. 2.11, 12. where you say,

IF that place doth not give Children a right to baptism, then the Apostle doth not write that which could satis­fie either the Colossians, or the false Prophets that were for Circumcision. Your Reasons are, Because the false Prophets might have said, That the outward Circumcision of Children, did point and signifie the inward Circumcisi­on of the heart: But if this be taken away, what have Children now to signifie the Circumsion of the heart?

SO then, by this you would give us to understand, that the false Prophets could no way be answe­red unlesse the Apostle had granted baptism of in­fants, to signifie that which Circumcision did before. To this I answer, That if Circumcision had signified the Circumcising of infants hearts, then the false Prophets might have pleaded thus, But I deny that it signified any such thing to or of infants: And therefore you said well when you said, The FALSE Prophets might say so, but I am sure no true Prophet ever said so.

And again, If the question had been about infants baptism, he could not have spoken that which had satisfied either the Colossians, or false Teachers, if he had not conformed his Answer thereto. But there is not the least noise of such a thing in the Text, as you or any body else that shall but view it, may perceive; for the Apostle sayes, Vers. 11. That they were circum­cised with the circumcision made without hands, by put­ting off the body of the sins of the flesh, &c. Doth not this plainly shew, that he doth strengthen the Colos­sians from returning to the beggerly Rudiments of the world, by the benefit which they received by putting off the sins of the flesh, which they could not obtain by cutting their flesh in Circumcision. And now he tells them not onely the Argument of their being converted from sin, and made compleat in Christ, should strengthen them from falling back to the Rudiments of the Law; but also, Vers. 12. their being buried with Christ in baptism, and their rising with him in baptism, through the faith of the operation of God, should so far ingage them in the [Page 63]Christian Religion, that all the Philosophicall de­ceits of men should never be able to turn them from it: And where is so much as one word to your purpose? I must needs say, That out of all the Texts you have prest, I cannot see water enough to sprin­kle upon the face of one Child.

And whereas you tell me,

I Might have saved you this labour, and my selfe too, if I had minded the Books of Dr. Featly, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Gerce, Mr. Church, Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Cooke, Mr. Blake, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Sidenham, besides many other excellent men who have written in Latine, as Hos­sius, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, and all the best lights in the Christian world full and clear against me.

TO this I Answer, That you might have saved me a lobour, if you had found out of all your Ob­servations of these men, but one plain Command or example for infants baptism, and given it me at your house, or sent it in your Paper, which makes me think, that either these men have said as little to the purpose as you, or else that you have minded them but a little, because you otherwise would have said more to the purpose, then I doe perceive you have done.

But 2 I have not lived without some observati­ons of (if not all, yet) many of these mens works; for I have not as yet taken up any Opinion wherein I differ from you, or others, but I have seriously weighed it in the ballance of the Sanctuary: And I have not declined the way of these men you name, nor any other, but when (I have upon serious exa­mination [Page 64]found) that they have declined the foot­steps of the Primitive Purity, either in Doctrine or Discipline.

And whereas you talk of learned men, and fathers, and best Lights in the Christian world, that they are all against me; I tell you, that if God and his word be for me, I care not who is against me: And I tell you further, that I had rather have one Testimony from the word of God for my practice, then ten thou­sand of these Authors without it.

I Shall therefore shew you

• 1 Plain Scripture Proof for believers baptism.
• 2 Plain Example for it.
• 3 Plain Command and Example for the manner of the Administration of it.
• 4 And lastly, That the footsteps hereof (since you talk of learned and godly men) was not whol­ly defaced in the three first Centuries after the Apo­stles, nor then neither. Nay, a man may make a shift to know this was the practice, by those relicks of it that remained in the Church of England, till the me­mory of man.

That Christ our Lord Commands this, who we must hear in all things, or else we shall be destroy­ed, appears first from Mat. 28.19. Teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c. Which most of your own Au­thors doe acknowledge See Mr. Baxter in his plain Scripture proof for Infants baptism. p. 15. (as I have shewed) should be read, Make Disciples, baptizing THEM, and not the Nations, as you would somtimes have it: Though at your house you granted the Text ought to be so Translated, as I have now rendred it; therefore you proceeded from hence to prove infants Disciples, [Page 65]which you could not have done, but by granting what I have said.

The next Text is, Mark 16.16. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, &c. Acts 10 48. And he ( Viz. the Apostle) commanded them to be baptized with water (who were converted by his Preaching) in the name of the Lord Jesus. Mark 1.4. John did Preach the baptism of repentance, which could not be infants baptism, Acts 2.38. Peter said, Repent and be baptized every one of you. Acts 22.16. Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.

Secondly, We have plenty of Example of this in the Scripture, Rom. 6.4. We ( Viz. believing Ro­mans) are buried with him in baptism. Mat. 3.6. They were all baptized of John in Jordan, confessing their sins. Mark 1.9. Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan. Mat. 3.15. Acts 2.41. Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized, &c. Acts 8.12. When they did believe Philips preaching the things concerning the King­dome of God, they were baptized both men and women. Acts 8.38. when the Eunuch profest faith, Vers. 37. 'tis said, Vers. 38. that Phillip baptized him. Acts 9.18. Saul, when he was converted, the Text saith, He arose and was baptized. The Jaylor, Acts 16.33. when he and his house believed, the Text sayes, He and all his were baptized. Acts 18.8. And Crispus the chief Buler of the Synagogue believed on the Lord with all his house. And many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized. Acts 19.5. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Thirdly, Command and Example in plain words for the manner of it, which was by dipping the per­son all over in the water, and not by sprinkling wa­ter [Page 66]upon the face, as the manner of the Nation is; This appears by the Command, Make Disciples (for so it must be read) of all Nations, dipping them into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit; for that is the English signification of the word: And I desire you to shew me where baptizo signifies aspersio in all the Bible. And the like Command you have, Mark 16.16. But that you may know that dipping and not sprinkling, was the Command of Christ, and the Practice of the Primitive times, however it is now laughed at, appears by the Practice of Christ himself, Mat. 16.3. Jesus when he was baptized went UP OUT of the water, &c. Mark 1.5. They were all bap­tized of him in the River Jordan, &c. John 2.23. John was baptized in Aenon near to Salim, because there was Much water there, and They Came and were baptized. Acts 8.38, 39. 'tis said, Vers. 38. that They (viz. Phi­lip and the Eunuch) went both downe into the water: And when Philip had baptized him, it is said, Vers. 39. That they came out of the water. I shall appeale to all unbiassed men, whether baptizing men and wo­men in Rivers, upon their professing faith in Christ, doth not better accord with these Scriptures, then sprinkling water upon the face of infants.

Besides, Fourthly, This was the Practice of the Church long after the Apostles, as appears first by what

Socrates Scholasticus in his Ecclesiasticall History reports of Constantine the Great, That though he was the Son of Hellena a zealous Professor of Christ, lib. 1. cap. 13. yet he was not baptized till he was 65 years old, which was after he had left Constanti­nople, and Helenopolis, and came to Nicomedia, where [Page 67]dwelling in a Mannor without the Town-walls, he was baptized into the faith of Christ, in which bap­tism he greatly rejoyced, lib. 1. cap. 26.

Again, the same Author saith, That in Alexandria the Holy Sciptures were read and interpreted by the UNBAPTIZED, which he cals Cathecumenists, aswell as by them that were baptized; which (saith he) was contrary to the Custome of other Countries and Churches, who did not suffer any to doe so till they were baptized, Socrates, lib. 5. cap. 2 [...]. Which plainly shewes, that infants baptism was not a tra­dition of the Apostles; for if it had, this Church of Alexandria, that had for the space of some hundred years been converted to the faith of Christ, would by this time (if all believers had baptized their infants, as the Church of England, and others doe now adayes, one Generation after another) have been without any that were able to read and interpret the Scriptures before baptism, as we see the Nation of Engl: now is, a few ( Anabaptists Children so called) excepted, otherwise where are your Oathecumenists, that are able to read & understand the holy Script: before you baptize them? And that they in those times did follow the way of Christ in baptizing, and not your Bason way, appears; for the same Socrates, lib. 7. cap. 4. speaks of a Jew which was baptized by Soticus, Bishop of Constantinople, who, saith he, as soon as he was [TAKEN OUT OF THE WATER] his Palsie left him. Can it be said so of any that you baptize, that they are taken out of the water?

The same Author further saith, lib. 7. cap. 17. of a Jew that was to be baptized upon his profession of faith, by Paulus the Novatian Bishop, that all things [Page 68]were provided for his baptism, among which he saith The Bishop did provide him a linnen Garment, which was to no purpose if he had not been to dip the person in water: And Bellarmiue himself acknowledges, that in old time they had women in the Church, whom they cal­led to the Office of Deaconnesses, to attend upon the women that were baptized, with baptizing cloaths.

And Jerome Translating the Lamentation of Ori­gen, saith, That Origen lamented and bewailed the Vow that [HE MADE WHEN HE WAS BAPTI­ZED,] in that he had now by sin walked contrary to it. However Origen is himself thought to favour this practice afterwards, yet those things are but the sup­posed works of Origen, and it's hard to say whether it was his or no.

Again, Eusebius who writ the Ecclesiasticall Histo­ry of the first 300 years after Christ; though he tells us of all the most observable passages of those times, yet he doth not so much as mention the baptizing of one infant, but doth often times mention things in favour to the baptizing of men, upon profession of faith; as appears lib. 7. cap. 8. of his Ecclesiasti­call story, where he relates of a man that heard the Questions that was by the Minister asked of persons to be baptized, and [THEIR ANSWERS TO THEM,] fell down and wept at the Ministers feet, because the baptism that he had received of the He­reticks, was not like the baptism [THAT WAS IN USE THEN,] which plainly sheweth, That at this time the Churches did not receive men to baptism, but upon profession of faith; and also, that it was no Apostolicall Custome to baptize infants. Further, Beza himself upon Acts 17.3. saith, That [Page 69]they professed in baptism the doctrine propounded by John. And besides this, how often have Mr. Tombs, and Mr. Den, and others, produced sufficient proof that this practice of baptizing infants, was not so much the Custome of the Primitive times, as you imagine.

That memorable instance of Gregory Nazianzen, whose father was a Bishop, and his mother a vertu­ous woman, yet himselfe was not baptized till he came from Athens, where (as Socrates saith, lib. 4. cap. 21.) he had spent much of his time in the study of Rhe­torick.

Again, That other instance of Mr. Tombes out of Hugo Grotius, in his Annotations upon Mat. 19.14. That even Chrysostome, though born of Christian parents, was not baptized till he was 21 years of age. The same Grotius adds, That the Canon of the Synod of Neosesarea held in the year 315, determined that a woman with Child might be baptized, because baptism did not reach the fruit of her womb, because in the confession made in baptism, EVERY ONES FREE CHOICE IS SHEWED. He adds further, That many of the Greeks to his time did defer the baptizing little ones, till they could themselves make a confession of their faith.

Again, Was not the Image of this Custome to be seen in the practice of the Church of England, when they asked, What was required of persons TO BE BAPTIZED, and the answer was, Repentance where­by they forsake sin, and Faith whereby they believe the Promises of God: Which afterwards by chang­ing the Command of God into a Tradition of their owne, they did use to ask the God-fathers, and God-mothers, a conceit that was never heard of till the Churches had apostatized from their Primitive Pu­rity.

And as for the manner of baptizing, by dipping the Person in the water, however it is now laught at, you see it was not onely that which as I have said, Christ and his Apostles Commanded and Practiced but it was used in the Church for a long time after; & the Church of England did look upon it as a more commendable way, in as much as they in their Ser­vice-Book did place dipping before sprinkling, and therefore they said, the persons DIPPED, or sprink­led, &c. Now may I not better say, That if you had looked over the Command of Christ, and the Pra­ctice of the Apostle, and traced the foot-steps of the Primitive Practice in this Point, for 300 years after, you might have saved me a labour, and your self too, then you could say, I might have saved you a labour if I had looked over the writings of a few men that you have named, who have not in all their Books cited either a Command or Example for infants sprinkling, but onely some far-fetched non-sequitors, which most of your Paper is filled withall.

I shall now conclude, leaving what I have said in Answer to your Arguments for your Practice, and the plain Scripture I have urged for my own Pra­ctice, to your judgement, and the judgement of all to whom this shall come, and desire that like the Be­reans, you and all others that shall peruse this, would search whether what I have said in the premisses, be of God, or no; and if in your Conscience you or any else doe so fied it to be, take heed then what you do in opposing of it, least you be found sighters against God. And what hath fallen from my pen that is not according to Gods word, I shall desire that you [Page 71]or any else would shew it me, either in word or wri­ting and it shall thankfully be received as a favour, by