THE FONT UNCOVERED FOR Infant-Baptisme; OR AN ANSWER TO THE Challenges of the ANABAPTISTS OF STAFFORD, Never yet Replied unto, though long since promised.  
Wherein The Baptism of all Church-Members Infants is by plain Scripture-proof Maintained to be the will of JESUS CHRIST; and many Points about Churches and their Constitutions are occasionally handled.  
By WILLIAM COOK late Minister of the Gospel at Ashby-Delazouch.  
LONDON, Printed by A. Miller for Tho. Vnderhill at the Anchor in Paul's Churchyard, near the little North-door. 1651.   

TO The Faithful Servants of Christ, and Lovers of the Truth in STAFFORD And the Parts adjacent, and others that are concerned in this Controversy of INFANT-BAPTISM, which desire to embrace the Truth in Love: Grace, Mercy and Peace be multiplied; through the knowledge of God the Father, and Christ Jesus our Lord.  
Honoured and Beloved Inhabitants of Stafford,  
AS your Wisdom, Resolution, Faithfulness and Activity to appear for the Truth, and contend for the Faith (shining forth in those whom God hath set in Civil Authority among you) in that great push of temptation; hath given occasion to many to glorify God in your behalf, rejoice in your steadfastness, and pray for you, and (I doubt not) yielded comfort to your own consciences: so they have engaged me to acknowledge myself your servant in Christ, and for the Truth, in this cause which doth so much concern the glory of Christ and comfort of Christians. I therefore, though conscious of mine own weakness, when I heard of those many loud and proud challenges, that had been made by the contrary Party to dispute about this Subject, was willing, upon the advice and persuasion of some of my Brethren, to undertake the Challenge, relying on the help of Christ and the goodness of the Cause. And having received the Papers of the Challengers, in as short a space as I could, prepared this Answer (except some additions and explanations, which since its return to my hand, I thought meet to insert, for the help of the ignorant, for whose sake it is principally written) upon the giving in of a Copy, whereof a Reply was promised shortly by the Challengers. I waited long and heard nothing of my Papers, nor any Reply, until a Letter came to my hands from some of principal note among you, dated Novemb. 11. expressing the contrary Parties boasting of a Reply ready long ago, which was to be Printed with their Propositions, and mine answered. Whereupon I was then in that Letter, and since by word of mouth, desired to Print mine Answer; lest I should be abused by others misrepresenting of the same. My answer was, that I would consult with my Brethren, and if they should think it meet, I would be willing to yield to you herein.  
Ever since that time I have been cast on a wand'ring and unsettled condition (as is well known,) far from my Study and Books. Yet when I could gain a little time with the help of the Bible, I added something by way of explanation, for the help of meaner capacities that are not able to see the strength of an Argument, or answer when it is barely propounded. Two Arguments more I have also added to the former number from one Scripture, whence I had only propounded one Argument at the first.  
It may be some will demand, What is the reason that their Challenge is not accepted in a way of public Dispute, seeing they have urged it frequently, and confidently upbraided your Town and all Ministers, that none would publicly Dispute with them? To this I Answer.  
1. What hope of a public Dispute on good terms, to be undertaken by a Minister of Christ, when your own faithful and peaceable Pastor might not be suffered to preach the Gospel to you, a people committed to his charge?  
2. What encouragement can any rational man have to Dispute with such as abhor Syllogisms, which are the rational way of disputing?  
3. What hope of finding out, or clearing the Truth by Dispute, where there is no likelihood that the laws and rules of disputing will be observed with freedom, safety, peace and love, with the help of a Learned, Judicious and Impartial Moderator.  
4. What likelihood of good by a Dispute, wherein impudency, audaciousness and verbosity, passion, bitterness and violence are like to bear sway?  
5. What can a public Dispute in such a case (which case there is too great cause to fear) be, but a sinful abuse of precious time, of people's patience, and even of Scripture and reason itself?  
6. Who sees not that the drift of these men is to turn Religion into a matter of contention, and to draw people together to vain-janglings and concertations, as heretofore they met together at Stage-plays, Bear-baits and Cockfights, which abuse What pious heart doth not abhor?  
7. It was judged that most or all these evils might fare better be prevented by calm considerate writing, wherein the passions of fear, anger, etc. and all tumults might be avoided; and reason might speak and be heard.  
8. Yet if this way of discussing the truth shall not be satisfactory, and good grounds of hopes shall be given, that the afore-named evils may be prevented. I doubt not, but the Challenge will be accepted. Otherwise no faithful Minister of Christ may, to satisfy the irrational desires of some, and answer the insolency of others, adventure on that, which will be by the judgement of the prudent, no better than a taking of God's Name in vain, and exposing of himself to certain danger. Paul himself, though full of zeal for the Truth, was willing to yield to the Disciples and his Friends, 
Act. 19.30, 31.  persuading him not to adventure himself into the tumultuous Theatre.  
It were much to be wished, that those men which have but weak reason, neither knowing how to manage an Argument, nor capable of conviction thereby; but are taken with plausible expressions and big words, or drawn by hopes of honour, pleasure, gain, ease or liberty, into new ways, like children Carried about with every wind of doctrine, would make more use of their sense (by which only it seems they live, making no use of faith or reason in this case) to observe the end and issue of these ways, into which they are so easily drawn.  
We need not go to Munster or other parts beyond the seas to see the judgement of God on these men: Our own Country gives too many sad experiences thereof. I will only give one instance, of one whose name deserves to be written in the dust, and doth already stink throughout the Land, and therefore I will not slain my paper with it: Yet he is so notorious and infamous, that a short description of him will sufficiently put men in mind whom I mean. In Warwickshire he appeared first, crying down in his Preaching the Ministry of England, and Infant-Baptisme: After that he proceeded to be a great Dipper; after that he became a Master of the Quakers, and would cast people into Trances and Revelations, as is credibly reported: Lastly he became Head of the Ranters, that abominable, rotten, blasphemous and hellish Rout. Warwickshire and the Counties adjacent know whom I speak of, and the truth at large of what I briefly touch. Yea this wretched man is notoriously known in the chief City of the Land; so true is that of the Apostle, speaking of hypocritical flagitious Deceivers, 
2 Tim. 3.5, 6, 7,  That have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof: Which creep into houses, leading captive silly women laden with lusts, ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth. But, saith he, 
9, 13.  their folly shall be made manifest to all men. And again, Wicked men and seducers wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.  
It might seem strange that they who so much depend on the answers of providence in outward success, as irrefragable arguments to demonstrate the goodness or badness of causes and persons, should not acknowledge and tremble at Divine providence, by this and many thousand such like spiritual plagues, warning all men that have any care of their souls, to beware those ways that lead thereto. But it is not strange that they thus preposterously judge; for those whom God hath given up to a sensual judgement, a reprobate mind, and hard heart, do alike cry down those ways that are attended with outward disgrace and misery, in a course of strictness and conscientiousness, though accompanied with riches of spiritual graces, which usually is the lot of the godly; and admire and greedily embrace the ways of sin and licentiousness, which for a time visibly prosper in the world, though accursed from heaven with invisible and spiritual plagues, which is the common condition of the wicked.  
It is a sad and shameful thing that evil men should be more industrious, active and bold, to study, plead for, and promote error and falsehood, than God's servants are for the maintaining of the truth; and particularly that these men should do more to cast themselves and their children, others and their posterity out of Covenant; then the godly will do to clear to themselves and others, theirs and their children's interest in the Covenant; but it is so. The best see, know, believe and love, but in part: Whereas corruption, lust and error, wholly reign in every unsanctified man, and have too strong a party in the most sanctified. Divine truths and Evangelicall mysteries, are strangers to our corrupt minds, and receive but cold entertainment there. Errors and lies are connatural to mankind, and soon closed with; when men speak lies they speak of their own. Honours, pleasures, and filthy lucre, fleshly liberty and ease, have a mighty influence upon carnal hearts, to carry them on in promoting and receiving falsehood, and resisting and rejecting truth. Nothing out pure zeal for God, love of Christ and his truth, care of our own and brethren's souls, can stir up earnestly and sincerely to contend for the truth, especially when it lies under outward discouragements, disgraces and frowns from the world, and alas, how rare are those graces amongst men, and how weak in the strongest Christians!  
Yet surely in other respects, Holiness and truth (though as a spark of fire in the midst of a sea of corruption, or as a Pearl in the bottom of a dunghill, or as a little glimpse of light under a dark chaos of natural and acquired sin and ignorance) have the advantage, for being of a divine original, they are of prevailing invincible power, and therefore believers that have this unconquerable truth in them, and on their side, cannot be excused if they do not stir up the grace of God in them, and take care and pains that they may be able to contend for, and maintain the truth that was once delivered to the Saints; especially in these times of so great light, wherein (besides the Scriptures in a known Language, and plentiful public Preaching,) in Catachism●s and larger Treatises the Truth is so fully cleared. It may be that God hath as for other causes, so for the correction of our sloth and carelessness, suffered these Controversies to break out, that he may quicken us to the more diligent use of all holy means to grow in grace and knowledge. If for this use dear brethren, this my poor labour may be serviceable to you, or others to whom at your desire (upon the consent and approbation of my brethren in the Ministry) it may be made common, I have my desire. But before I leave you, let me entreat you and others that may make use of it, that you will not content yourselves with a slightly looking on it, but be serious as the matter handled (concerning yours and your children's interest in the Covenant of Grace requireth,) deserves: howsoever in the manner you may find sundry imperfections in the instrument, yet let not that be any prejudice to the truth whereof God is the author. Because I was forced at the first to quote Scriptures briefly for speed, which their importunity called for, and since I have not writ them out at large to prevent bulkinesse, which might deter many from looking on it; let me entreat you to turn over to every proof in your Bibles, and read and observe the same carefully; and if you would write them out in the margin or some paper, it might be time well spent; without pains and diligence no profiting can be expected; he that deals with a slack hand, will come to poverty, but the hand of the diligent maketh rich. Thus committing this service and your use thereof to the blessing of God, desiring that he may have the praise if you shall receive hereby any increase in the knowledge of the truth and stability therein, and that I may have the help of your prayers, who remain  
Yours in Christ for the service of your souls to my power, WILLIAM COOK.   

AN ANSWER to two PAPERS, subscribed by Henry Huggar and James Brown: Wherein they endeavour to maintain their own Opinion and Practice of Anabaptism, and oppose the Practice of Baptising INFANTS.  

They begin their first Paper thus,  
Gentlemen,  
YOu having avoided public dispute, by yourselves so much pressed for at first; 
H.H. and J. Br.  and since rather paper conference: We to gratify your desire herein, have written these few lines, hoping thereby to beget some discussion of the truth. Wherein we affirm, That the Baptism (or sprinkling) of Infants, whereby the National Churches of Spain, England, France and Rome, etc. are constituted, and from thence called Christians and Christendom, is not the Baptism (or dipping) of Believers, which Christ Jesus ordained, and his Disciples practised for the right constituting of Churches under the Gospel, whereby they rightly became, and were truly called Christians.   

Answer.  
IN this your stating of the Question, Ans. divers things must be animadverted that you deceive not yourselves and others, through darkening the truth by words without knowledge. 1. Here you take it for granted that we hold, That by the Baptising or sprinkling Infants, Churches are constituted: This we deny. For  
1. As faith or interest in Christ, or the Covenant of grace, constitutes a Christian; for the joint and orderly profession of faith and interest in that Covenant, or Gods owning a people to be his in Covenant, is that which constitutes them a Church.  
2. Baptism is not essential to the constituting of a Church, being but adventitious or additional, as a sign or pledge of people's admission into the Church. The penitent thief on the Cross was a true Believer though unbaptised, and a multitude of such penitent ones jointly professing Christ should be a true Church, 
Act. 7.38.  though they wanted opportunity to be Baptised, as that Penitent did. The Israelites in the wilderness were a true Church, 
Iosh. 5.5, 6.  though they wanted Circumcision for forty years.  
3. This Church (or these Churches) of England, received its (or their) constitution in or anon after the Primitive times, when by the Ministry of the word, some were converted from heathenism to Christianity; at which time we grant persons of years were Baptised upon their profession of faith, or repentance, 
Gen. 12.4. Gen. 15.6. Gen. ●7. 1●, 3, 4, etc. 7.  and for they and their children received into Covenant. As Abraham at the first setting up of a Church, with a seal of admittance thereinto in his family, was Circumcised when he had professed or declared his repentance, faith and obedience, and then his children and posterity were Circumcised, whiles Infants, by virtue of the Covenant into which they were taken with their fathers. Now that being the first constitution of a Church in this Land which never yet was overthrown, though many ways depraved, through Antichrists usurpations (of whom it was foretold that he should sit in the Temple of God for a time, 
2 Thes. ●. 4. ) but being after, through the rich mercy of God repaired, it hath continued still the same Church, having been never razed to the foundation; and so we need not a new constitution, and therefore we deny that our Church was constituted by Infant-baptism, any more than the Church of Israel was constituted by Infant-circumcision.  
2. Whereas you say, that National-Churches are constituted by Infant-baptism or sprinkling. Ans. Ans. 1. I know none that you oppose to plead for the constitution of National-Churches by Infant-baptism. 2. Though we boast not of National-Churches, nor is there any necessity that the mention of National-Churches should come into this dispute, yet are we not ashamed of the name of a National-Church: But seeing you urge it upon us as odious, we desire you, with us, to consider these things.  
1. 
Gen. 22.18.  Did not God promise to Abraham, that all the Nations of the earth should be blessed in his seed, 
Gen. 12.2.  viz. Jesus Christ. And how can Nations be blessed but by being made Churches? as that one Nation which descended from Abraham, was blessed by being a Church and people of God. 
Psal. 2.8.  Hath not God promised to give to Christ the Nations for his inheritance, and utmost parts of the earth for his possession; 
Psa. 22.27, 28.  and that all the ends of the earth, and kindreds of the Nations shall turn to the Lord and worship before him? 
Isa. 49.23.  That Kings shall be nursing fathers, & Queens nursing mothers to the Church? And that Christ Jesus, whose visage and form was marred (with his blood trickling down the same, 
Isa 52.14, 15.  when crowned with thorns, nailed to the Cross, and pierced into the heart) shall sprinkle many Nations? 
Mat. 28.19.  Did not Christ bid his Apostles go into all Nations, make Disciples and Baptise? 
Rev. 11.15.  Was it not foretold that the Kingdoms of the world should become the Kingdoms of God and his Christ; and that the saved Nations should walk in the light of the New-Jerusalem; 
Rev. 21.24, 26.  and that the Kings of the earth should bring their light to it, and should bring the glory and honour of the Nations to it? Why then should the name of National-Church be so odious?  
2. And surely if 1. A company of Believers in one house have been justly called a Church (domestical) Rom. 16.15. 1 Cor. 16.19. Col. 4.15. Phil. 2.2. And if the number of Believers in a small Village or Town, may be called a Church (Congregational) Rom. 16.1. 3. And the multitude of Believers in one City embracing the truth in so great number that no one room or place could contain them all at once for the ordinary orderly edifying administration of God's Ordinances, may be called the Church of a City, or Classical, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as the Church of Jerusalem, which increased into many thousand, yea many ten thousand, and yet was but one Church, Act. 2.44.47. Act. 5.14, 15. & 6.1. Act. 21.20. 4. And multitudes of Believers scattered in many and several countries, are still the flock (and Church) of God, and an holy Nation, 1 Pet. 2.1. with chap. 2.11. and chap. 5.2. 1 Cor. 15.9. 5. And if the whole company of the faithful on earth, consisting for the most part of many particular visible Churches, may be called the Church (Ecumenical) Mat. 16.18. 1 Cor. 12.28. 6. Lastly, If all the Believers in heaven and earth, comprehending the militant and triumphant Church, may yet in a more comprehensive sense be called the Church Catholic, Heb. 12.23. I think no good reason can be given why men should make it so shy without scorn or reproach to call the faithful in a whole Nation (especially when the whole Nation doth generally profess the truth) a National-Church.  
3. The National-Church was not constituted by Infant-baptisme, but by the preaching of the Gospel God was pleased to call some in the Primitive times in this land, and they became a Church, 
Mat. 13. 3●, 3●, 33.  which was the first constitution of this Church. Afterward the leaven of the Gospel seasoning the whole lump, and that little grain of mustard seed growing up into a great tree; and the Primitive Believers of this Land increasing into a Nation, 
Ezek. 16.13.  as Abraham's family did; the Church did grow up into a Nation, as was said before; National, Ecumenical, Domestical or Congregational, being accidental, not essential to a Church's constitution or continuance.  
Thirdly, Whereas you say, The National Churches of Spain, England, France and Rome, were constituted by sprinkling of Infants: I answer,  
1. This is a poisonous insinuation, whereby the Church of England is put by you into the same condition with the Churches of Rome, Spain, France, etc. wherein you do not only wrong Gods holy people (which have striven, and continue striving for Reformation against Antichrist) in matching them with the popish rabble, and slander those Ministers and Ordinances of Christ amongst us (by whose means, if you have any knowledge of Christ and his truth, you have received the same) by equalling them with popish Ministers and superstitions; but also blaspheme God himself, at whose call and through whose grace we have come out of Babylon, have attained some, and breath after more Reformation. How will Christ take it that his people and Churches are thus compared with the slaves and Synagogues of Antichrist!  
2. Yet we are not ashamed to own that which is of God amongst the Italians, Spaniards and French. Shall we reject the Scriptures of the old Testament, or be equalled with the Jews, because we embrace them as God's word, which the Jews also profess to do? Or must we cast off the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and many precious truths gathered out of them, because professed by the Papists, who yet overthrow by many false doctrines and superstitions what truths they profess? no sure. Neither are we to think the worse of Infant-baptism, because it is used amongst them.  
3. Yea, we make no doubt but that if in Italy, Spain and France, they would hold only that in doctrine worship and practice which is agreeable to God's word, even the holy Scripture, which they profess to embrace with us, and cast away superstitious idolatry and impieties contrary thereunto, reforming according to the word; God would own them for his Churches, neither should they need a new constitution or new Baptism, any more than new Scripture. They have added indeed to Scripture and Baptism of their own; but let them repent of, and cast away their additions, and keep that which is of God in judgement, practice and worship, according to the Scriptures which are amongst them, and they become forthwith true and good Churches. The Church of Judah after it had fallen to idolatry, by casting away that idolatry in the time of Asa, Jehosaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah, was acknowledged a true and good Church without new constitution. Nay more, if backsliding Israel, after her many abominations, had returned to God when they had lain long in idolatry, 
jer. 3.1, 2. & 4.1.  God would have received them as his people without new Circumcision.  
Fourthly, Whereas you say, From this Infant-Baptism they are called Christians or Christendom, You do not prove it, We deny it, and assert That we are called Christians or Christendom from our faith in Jesus Christ and the profession thereof, and from our interest in the Covenant of Grace which God hath made with us in Christ the Mediator exhibited; yet granting that Baptism is the badge of our Christianity, but not that which constitutes Christians. What they of Rome or Spain say, we pass not.  
Fifthly, Whereas you say or imply, Baptism is dipping (in your sense) and call it sprinkling (by way of scorn) in our sense, and would imply that Christ ordained, and his Apostles practised dipping, or as others express it, dousing over the head, not infusion or sprinkling: We wish you to prove it if you can, either from the proper signification of the word, 
Mark 7.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mat. 3.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. See the accomplishment of this Prophecy, Act. ● v. 3. & 17, 18. Act 10.44 & 11, 15, 16. Luk. 12.50. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mat, 20, 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Isa. 63, 1, 3.  or from the nature of the Ordinance, or from the historical relation of the Apostles practice or otherwise. We find that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to wash or bedew, or imbrue lightly, whether by infusion of, or dipping into any liquid thing with a light touch; but that it should signify only dipping or dousing, the use of the word will not allow.  
1. It is used to signify the ceremonial washing of cups, pots, brazen vessels, or tables, which may be as well done by infusion or pouring water upon them, as by immersion or diping into the water, yea in some of them much better.  
2. The same word is also used to signify Christ's baptising with the holy Ghost and with fire. This cannot be so understood that Christ should dip or douse men into the holy Ghost and fire, but that in the Primitive times the holy Ghost should be poured upon them, as the texts in the margin show, and that Christ would in after times pour his Spirit ordinarily on his people, which Spirit, in respect of operation, is compared to fire, as giving light, heat, etc.  
3. This word is used to signify Christ's death, wherein his blood was poured forth and sprinkled on himself, and he washed in his own blood. I have, saith he, a Baptism to be baptised with, and again, Are you able to be baptised with the Baptism that I am baptised with?  
4. This word is also used to signify Christ's execution of Justice on his enemies, he being compared to a mighty warrior, which with wounding and slaying his enemies, is besprinkled with their blood, which spouts out of their body; when they are gashed and pierced by him. Our Translators render that in the Revelation, having his garments dipped in blood: 
Rev. 19 13.  But it may be well read as that in Isaiah, sprinkled with blood. For warriors do not use to dip or douse their garments in their enemy's blood lying on the ground, but well may they have their garments besprinkled therewith as it gusheth out of their bodies being wounded by them.  
2. As for the nature, use and end of Baptism, it is to signify the pouring of the blood and spirit of Christ on our souls for regeneration, remission of sins and sanctification, wherein we are not said to be dipped or doused into Christ's blood or spirit, but to be sprinkled therewith, or to have them poured upon us, Heb. 9.13, 14. chap. 12.24. 1 Pet. 1.2. Isa. 44.3. Act. 2.18. So that Prophecy of Christ's besprinkling many Nations, Isa. 52.15. may be understood of his sprinkling them with his blood (which having spilt, he was so deformed, more than any man, ver. 14.) for justification, and his Spirit (which by his truth he purchased) for sanctification. The scope of the text and coherence speaking of Christ's sufferings and the fruits thereof, confirm the interpretation as most natural and proper.  
3. As for the relation which the Scripture makes of the manner of baptising, 
Iosh. 3.17.  Sometimes indeed it speaks of baptising at the river Jordan; but how improbable is it that they should go into that mighty stream, 
2 King. 2.8, & 14. Act. 2.41.  which could not be passed over safely on foot (without a miracle) and there be dipped with extreme danger of drowning. 2. We read of baptising in a City, divers thousands in one day, without any mention of their going forth to any great water to be dipped. 3. We read of baptising a whole household in a City in the deep night, without the least intimation of their going forth to a river or any great water to be dipped, which if you consider well, it may be you will not be so confident in calling baptising, dipping.  
Sixtly, You say that This baptising or dipping of Believers was ordained of Christ and practised by the Disciples for the right constitution of true Churches. This you speak as your own sense. Ans. This opinion was confuted before, and by that which follows it shall further appear, that neither Baptism nor diping is essential to the constitution of a true Church.  
Seventhly, You say or imply, This baptising or dipping is that whereby they became, and were truly called Christians. Ans. This is false, that men cannot be right Christians without your dipping: Yea though we understand it of true Baptism, for faith or interest in Christ properly maketh Christians. Being interested in Christ, though we should be hindered by death or other providence from Baptism, yet we are true Christians, as the thief on the Cross. Those three thousand mentioned in the Acts, when they had believed, 
Act. 2 19, & 40.  were Christians, even before they were baptised; so Philip before he came to the water. Baptism is rather an effect or consequent, than a cause or antecedent of our Christianity. People are rightly baptised because Christians, not Christians because baptised.  
2. Neither were men hence at first called Christians, because baptised; for many thousands had been baptised a long time before they were called Christians: For whereas great multitudes had been baptised by John the Baptist, 
Mat. 3.5, 6. joh 4 5, 6. See Act 2. &. 3. to the 7 chap.  and more by the Disciples of Christ before his death, and many thousands also after his ascension, at Jerusalem, Samaria and elsewhere. Believers were not called Christians until a good time after the Persecution and dispersion at Jerusalem. For the faithful were first called Christians at Antioch, 
Act. 11. ●6.  where Paul and Barnabas had taught an whole year, and the number of Disciples was mightily increased, there is not the least intimation that Baptism or dipping gave them the name of Christians, but rather their famous profession of Christ. Thus much for particulars observable in the main proposition.  
Eightly, From the whole proposition in respect of the matter, let it be noted, that besides your implicit fastening on us some things which we own not; and asserting as your own some things which you neither have nor can prove. The whole state of the Question is mistaken by you. You speak of Baptism which is for the constitution of Churches, whereas the Question is, What Baptism is to be used amongst us, who are a Church (or Churches) constituted already? We grant that to the first constituting of Churches amongst Jews or Infidels, which were never a Christian people, a Profession of repentance, faith or obedience must be made by men upon the preaching of the Gospel, that they and their children may be accepted into Covenant and baptised. As Abraham professed his faith before that he and his family were circumcised, but after that his children were circumcised, without requiring of actual faith and repentance from them, as precedaneous to Circumcision. They that will constitute new Churches amongst Infidels, aught as we judge, first to require actual faith and repentance of that people before they admit them and their seed as members of the Church. But whatsoever you think of us, we Christians in England know that we were through God's grace a Church constituted long ago, whose defects and corruptions, though many, yet have not been inconsistent with the being of a Church; neither (such hath been the indulgence of our Lord Jesus Christ, the head and King of the Church) were we ever unchurched. If you will go and preach among Jews, Turks and infidels, and make it appear that you have a commission for it; we will not gainsay your constituting of Churches amongst them, and baptising Professors of faith. But in the mean space let me advise you to take heed, lest whiles you talk of constituting Churches amongst God's people, 
Act. 1●. 3. 2 Tim. 3.6. Tit, 1. 11.  Satan use you as his instrument to overthrow Churches, by subverting souls, and whole houses, through speaking things you ought not for filthy lucre sake; as he did those noted in the margin.  
Ninthly, Let it be also observed, in the form of your propounding the whole state of the Question, that you which would be accounted great disputers and discussers of the truth, laying down a negative Proposition (as is evident to any that can discern a negation from an affirmation) in propounding it say we affirm— when indeed you deny. Will not these so gross mistakes, in the parts and the whole, the matter and manner of this main question stated by you, give just cause to judge that you are such men as those of whom the Apostle speaks in these words, 
1 Tim, 1.5, 6, 7.  Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, a good conscience and faith unfeigned, from which some having swerved, have turned aside to vain jangling, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm?  
Whereas you say, 
H. H J.B.  If it be, we desire you to prove it by plain Scriptures.  
Ans. We have nothing to do to prove that which we never affirmed; but you falsely father upon us (as it may seem) that you may fight with your own shadow. But we shall by God's assistance prove, upon solid Scripture grounds, That the Infants of Christians, which are members of a constituted Church (or Churches) have right to the Covenant of grace, and so to Baptism the seal of entrance into the Covenant; and that it is agreeable to God's word that constituted Churches should be continued by baptising of children that are members thereof.  
But first let us hear what you say for your way. You proceed thus,  
That the Baptism of believing men and women by us practised, 
H.H. J.B.  is the Baptism of Christ, we prove by these Scriptures.  
Ans. For the answering of your Scripture-proofs, taken from Christ's command and the Apostles practice; I will first propound some things in general to be considered, secondly make answer to the several Scriptures.  
1. I answer therefore, That neither any nor all these Scriptures do prove plainly, positively, immediately and directly, without consequence or syllogism (which I take to be your meaning when you call for plain and positive Scripture) which I have heard that some of your way abhor and protest against, that the Baptism practised by you is the Baptism of Jesus Christ. In none of these Scriptures it is expressly said," The dipping of believing men and women, practised by Henry Huggar and James Brown, is the Baptism of Jesus Christ. Nor do we read in the Evangelists, Go Henry Huggar and Ja. Brown, teach all Nations and baptise, etc. Nor do we read that Christ gave a command to you two to preach the Gospel to every creature: Nor do we find in the Acts of the Apostles, that H.H. and J.B. said to the Jews, Repent and be baptised; or that the Samaritans heard you two preaching; or that the Eunuch went down with you to the water; or that the Jailor or Crispus the Ruler of the Synagogue were baptised by you or either of you. If you have any plain positive Scriptures mentioning yourselves, you may produce them. Neither have you cause to take it ill to be urged thus: Seeing that you call for plain and positive Scripture without syllogism or consequence, to prove that children or infants by name should be baptised or sprinkled, why may not we require of you, plain and positive Scripture without syllogism or consequence, that H.H. and J. Br. should dip men and women? When you show us express Scripture for the one, we will for the other.  
2." But it may be you will say, It will follow by good consequence from these Scriptures, that your Baptism is the Baptism of Christ.  
Ans. 1. It is well if you be not afraid of syllogisms, consequences and argumentation. 2. Yet you have drawn no syllogisms nor arguments hence, and until we see them we cannot answer them. 3. If you take liberty to use reasonings and consequences, you cannot rationally deny to us the like liberty. 4. If you will have these Scriptures brought home by any just consequence, for the proving of your Baptism to be the Baptism of Christ, you must undertake an hard task; for beside your skill in Logic, etc. you must either prove yourselves Apostles or Evangelists, for to such were these commands given, and of such were these histories; 
Mat. 2●, 19, 20.  and that you have power and authority to preach to the whole world, power to speak with strange tongues to any Nation whatsoever, and to work miracles, and that you ought to preach to none, 
Mat. 16.15, 16, 17. Act. 2. & 8. Rom. 16. 15●.  but (or at lest principally) to Jews and infidels, not building on others foundations, for these things belonged to those first founders of Churches: Or else at least you must prove that you are Pastors or Teachers (whom God hath appointed to succeed those extraordinary primitive Ministers, who were employed in founding and constituting Churches,) 
Ephes. 4, 11, 12, 13, 14.  which are to build on the Apostles foundation, for perfecting of the Saints, set apart for the work of the Ministry, and for edification of the mystical body of Christ. And if so, you must make it appear, that upon due trial and examination of your gifts, 
Act 14 23. 1 Tim. ●, ●, 2, 3, 4, 5. 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.14. & 5 22. Tit. 1.7, 8, 9 Act. ●0. 28 1 Tim. ●●3, 14, 15.  and fitness in point of knowledge and holiness, you have been set apart to that Office, by the approbation or imposition of hands of the Presbytery, for that is the Gospel-order. You must make it appear also that you have a Flock to oversee and watch over, and that you give yourselves wholly to reading, meditation and study, and that you fully discharge your Ministry in the Flock of Christ; if you will with any comfort to yourselves, and satisfaction to others that are godly and judicious; apply the Scriptures which you have cited to yourselves. Besides, if you be Apostles, why do you build on others foundations? If Pastors, what talk you of constituting Churches, as if that were your work?  
3. The reason is not in all things the same of a Church to be constituted, and of a Church constituted already, as I have showed before in the example of Abraham: when his family was to be made a Church, under the dispensation of the Covenant sealed by Circumcision, upon his professed faith and repentance, he was circumcised with his whole family; and after this his Domestical Church grew up into a National; his posterity being acknowledged members of the Church by Circumcision in Infancy, were not to stay for Circumcision until they actually believed, after Abraham's example. The same course was taken with Proselytes, 
Exod. 12.48, 49.  they at first were to profess faith, and afterwards their children to be circumcised in Infancy. In like manner in the New Testament, when Governors of families were baptised, 
Act. 16.14, 15. & 31, 32, 33, 34  their whole families were baptised with them; of which hereafter. When men are infidels, they and their seed are aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel; and therefore must actually repent and believe before they and their children be admitted to the Covenant: But having by faith laid hold on the Covenant for themselves and theirs, their children are interested therein, at least externally, so far as to have right to the seal of entrance. There is not the same reason of the foundation and superstruction in all things, nor of planting trees and their growing up and nourishing. Indeed at the first planting of a Park, Vineyard or Orchyard, there must be a rooting or fastening of the first stock, stem or branch immediately in that ground or grafting stock, but afterward it is not necessary or fit that every sprig that sprouts forth thence should be cut off, and immediately rooted in the earth; this course would hinder growth and fruitfulness. So the first receivers of the Gospel being planted into Christ, his Covenant and Church by faith, do successively convey (according to the tenor of the Covenant of grace) the blessing to their children (whiles succeeding parents, the offspring of those first Believers continue in the faith,) so far forth, as that their Infants have right to the Covenant (and seal of entrance) which runs thus, 
Gen. 17 7.  I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee. Thus it was unquestionably from Abraham's unto Christ's time; the Apostle using the like similitude tells us that some of the Jews were broken off from the Olive tree by unbelief for a time, 
Rum. 11.17.  else they might with their seed still have partaked of the root and fatness of the Olive tree as before, which privilege doubtless those that were not broken off by unbelief, did retain; and these unbelievers when they shall return to Christ by faith, shall recover; and the believing Gentiles being for the present planted in, in their room, must enjoy. 
Ephes. 3 5.  The same Apostle saith that the believing Gentiles are fellow-heirs and of the same body with believing Jews, and so partakers of the same privileges. It is true some things are common to the constituting and founding of a Church, with its continuance and superstruction, these must be alike observed in both cases: some things are proper to each; and here heed must be taken of confounding these, 
Heb. 6.1, 2,  left if we be always laying the foundation, we never come to perfection.  
4. Whereas your practice is to persuade believing parents to forbear baptising of their children, until they can actually repent and believe; Where do you prove that Christ commanded or his Apostles practised this? I am sure those Scriptures which you set down, mention no such thing. The Apostles according to Christ's command, preached to Jews and infidels, and having converted them, baptised them with their families; but no where bid them keep their children, until they profess their repentance and faith, and then baptise them; this you practise without any Scripture-warrant.  
5. Neither do any or all these Scriptures prove, that it is according to Christ's institution, to baptise or dip those which have been already baptised Into the Name of the Father, Son and holy Ghost (which is your practice) these Scriptures I am sure contain no such command or practice.  
If you say you find a warrant for rebaptising Act. 14.3, 4, 5. I answer, Ob.  
According as the Original will well bear it, Ans. in the History the fourth and fifth verses may be so understood, as to contain but a relation made by Paul (rehearsed by Luke) concerning the nature of John's Baptism, for the satisfying of those twelve Disciples, that whereas they had been baptised by John, that was sufficient in respect of the outward sign; For thus saith Paul, John truly baptised the Baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe in him which was to come, even Jesus Christ: But they which heard him (or the hearers viz. of John) were baptised into the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ; meaning, not only those twelve, but all Johns hearers as they were taught by him to believe in Christ, for they were baptised by him into the Name of Christ; so that we must not judge that in the fifth verse Luke makes relation of what was done at that present time by Paul, to those twelve disciples, but showeth how Paul continues his speech to satisfy them and others present, that the Baptism which they had received of John, was the true Baptism, in the Name of Christ, so that they needed no more external and material Baptism; nor had any cause to scruple the truth of their Baptism. And this reading is confirmed by these considerations, 1. The conjunctions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the beginning of the fourth and fifth verses, argue strongly, that those two verses make up but one complete sentence, and so that it is the continued speech of Paul holding on his discourse concerning John's doctrine and Baptism, as suitable, both of them referring to Christ; the one leading, the other dedicating people to him. 2. Whereas our Translatours render the beginning of the fifth verse, When they heard this, it may be more properly read so, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  according to the Original [But the hearers, or they which had heard, or when they had heard, they were baptised,] the word (this) is not in the Original. 3. This reason also may be added, If John's Baptism was not sufficient, but that they must have a new Baptism, it will follow that John's Baptism was not the same for substance with Christ's and his Disciples, which is not to be granted, seeing Christ was baptised by John: And as our Saviour shown his fellowship with the Jew's Church, by receiving the same Circumcision which they had; so he shown his communion with the Christian Church by receiving the same Baptism for substance with them.  
2. Others understand the fifth and sixth verses to speak of the same things, and hold that these men were indeed baptised again; yet not with water, but with the holy Ghost, 
Mat. 3.11. Act. 2 3, 4. Act. 10.11. & 11, 15, 6. Act. 8 15, 16, 17.  by the laying on of hands, according to that of John, I indeed baptise you with water, but he that cometh after me shall baptise you with the holy Ghost and sire. And agreeably to those relations in the Acts, of the Spirit in the shape of fire descending on persons, according to that prediction; and at other times given by laying on of hands, a good time after Baptism, and thus understood it will make nothing for you.  
3. If we should grant it to be understood of different baptisms with water, it will make nothing for you. For the Learned which hold that, say, that John's Doctrine, 
Mat. 11, 11.  Ministry and Baptism were introductory to Christ's, and though higher than the Ministry of the Priests and Prophets, yet inferior to the full Gospel-Ministry. Now you cannot say that the case is here alike, and that our Ministry is subservient and introductory to yours by God's appointment, as john's was to Christ's.  
4. 
Act. 19●7.  This Scripture will do you no service, if it be granted that those men were baptised again, for they had not so much as heard if there were any holy Ghost: but those whom you rebaptize were baptised into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, and were often instructed in the doctrine of the blessed Trinity. If you reply, Though these whom you dip had heard of the holy Ghost, yet they had never felt the work of the holy Ghost in them. I answer, That indeed is too probable, at least in many of them, that because they have played the hypocrites so long, being destitute of the spirit of sanctification, 
2 Thes. 1, 10, 11, 12. jud. v. 19  and right discerning, through their own fault, they are thus miserably given over to strong delusions, to believe lies, separating themselves from God's humble people, and powerful Ordinances; because they are sensual not having the spirit.  
5. Yea though we should grant that these were baptised again by the Apostle here, it was for this end, that by laying on of Paul's hands, they might receive the gift of the holy Ghost, with speaking strange tongues and prophesying, vers. 6. This you cannot procure for them whom you rebaptize. Therefore plead not this place for your practice.  
Now I come to consider of the particular Scriptures which you bring. First say you, The commands of Christ, Mat. 28.19, 20. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, etc. Mat. 16.15, 16. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel unto every creature, He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned.  
Ans. To these Scriptures I answer three things. 1. They make nothing for your opinion and practice: For 1. These commands were given to the Apostles, 
〈◊〉. 15.21, 22. ● Cor. 10.15, 1ST.  who were to lay the foundation of Christian Religion, where Christ had not been heard of, as is plain in these very Scriptures, and by the example of Paul and other Apostles, acting by virtue of this Commission: But you do not so, but boast in things without your measure, even of other men's labours, and boast in other men's Lines of things made ready to your hands; 
2 Cor. 10, 15, 16.  as the Apostle implies the false teachers at Corinth did. It is well known that you go to them which are by profession Christians already. 2. Though these Scriptures command to make Jews and Gentiles disciples and baptise, or to preach to all creatures and baptise, yet they forbidden not baptising those that are not capable of outward teaching and preaching to for the present. If you gather from the order of the words, that none but those that believe (actually and personally) must be baptised, you may as well gather none but those that are baptised shall be saved; for as in the text, believing goeth before baptising, so baptising goes before saving. Nay, though Christ saith peremptorily, He that believeth not shall be condemned, you will not I think hence conclude that all Infants which you say cannot believe; must necessarily perish in their Infancy; though this might far more probably be concluded from the text, than what you would conclude. The words therefore are not to be taken so generally, as to admit of no restriction, but must be limited according to the subject-matter, viz. that when professed infidels, such as the Apostles were sent to, are preached to, they must be made disciples and believe, and then be baptised, and such as are quite out of Covenant, and have no means of being taken into Covenant but by actual faith of their own, must be condemned if they believe not.  
2. These Scriptures make much against you, for while you urge them for your warrant, you not only use no endeavours to go to the poor Nations and Heathens to preach the Gospel to Jews and Infidels, as these Commissions require, but are altogether unable for such a work. For, let me ask you, Can you speak the tongues of all the people in the world? of Indians, Ethiopians, Turks, Scythians, Jews, etc. Or can you work miracles, which were so necessary for the laying of the foundation of Christianity amongst Infidels, which power Christ promised to his Apostles to whom he directly gave this Commission, and accordingly enabled them thereunto. If you cannot do these, boast no more of these Scriptures.  
3. Yea though you would insinuate that these Scriptures are much against our judgement and practice; yet I hope it will appear anon that they are much for us. Only let me first prevent an objection, which is this; Ob. If these Scriptures make not for the Anabaptists, surely they cannot make for you: The forenamed reasons hold as strongly against yourselves as them, for do you lay new foundations of Churches any more than they? can you speak with all tongues and work miracles? do you go amongst infidels to preach any more than they?  
The difference of our judgement and practice from theirs, Ans. frees us from this objection which must necessarily press them. For 1. Whereas they talk of constituting new Churches, and so would lay a new foundation, as if they were to deal with Jews and other Infidels: We Ministers of Christ in this Nation, and our brethren the Pastors and Teachers of Christian Churches in all other Nations, build still on the old foundation, laid by the Apostles; and labour for the reformation, increase and propagation of those Churches which were constituted by them, or did flow from those first constituted Churches, as branches from a stock, so that we by virtue of these Commissions, preach the word and baptise in all Nations (where God is pleased to continue his truth) not each one severally in all Nations, but all of us distributively in several Churches, and collectively in the whole visible Church, each one looking to his proper charge, and yielding mutual help upon occasion, by which means the whole is provided for, not inchoatively by way of founding or constituting, but successively by way of edifying and propagating. 2. Whereas we require of you to show miracles, speak strange languages, because you profess on these Scripture grounds to constitute new Churches, and lay the foundation of Christian Religion; we have good reason for it, sigh miracles and tongues were necessary for this work to the Apostles; and surely no less necessary for those that will undertake the same work now. But seeing we build on the foundation laid by the Apostles, labouring for the edification and propagation of the Churches constituted by them, or at least, which have by propagation flowed from those which they founded; and seeing those Churches (or that Church) which we labour to edify, were first founded by them which had the gifts of languages and miracles, and we teach a people that already profess Christ, and are convinced of the truth of Christian Religion; miracles are not necessary to us, nor can be rationally required of us. The same I may say of strange tongues, 
1 Cor. 15. 2●.  of which the Apostle saith that they are a sign, not to them ●hat believe, but to them that believe not. We therefore that preach to Christians, Believers, and Church-members, need them not; but you who pretend to constitute Churches, look on those that are not dipped by you, as Heathens, Infidels, and without Christendom, should speak with tongues, that you may convince these Infidels of the truth of your doctrine. 3. You bring these Scriptures as directly, and without deduction or consequence belonging to you; we argue from them, so as to apply them to ourselves, by deduction and consequence. By this it appears how justly we make use of these Scriptures, being Ministers of those Churches, which by a continued flux have been propagated from those founded by the Apostles, and so may humbly boast of, 
Mat. 16.18. Mat. 28.20.  and lay claim unto those promises, Mat. 16.18. On this Rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it And Mat. 28.20. And to I am with you always even to the end of the world; which promises could not belong to the Apostles only (for they continued not unto the end of the world in the work of the Ministry,) but to them and the Churches and Ministers which should succeed them. For Christ promiseth to the Apostles that he will be with them in discipling, baptising, teaching the things which he had commanded them, unto the world's end, which work when the Apostles died, they delivered up to succeeding Ministers.  
I come now to show how these places make for us. 1. In Mat 28.19. That which you read according to our Translation, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Teach, is properly, Make disciples or scholars. Now not only aged persons which are come to discretion, may be made scholars or disciples of Christ, 
Isa. 54.13. jer. 31.34. Deut. 30.6.  but also children. 1. As God hath promised that in his Church where his Gospel and Covenant are dispensed, he will teach his people from the least to the greatest, all the Church's children shall be taught of God. God's Spirit shall not departed from their seed, nor seeds seed, etc. 2. As they are with and by their parents devoted to God, to be brought up in his School, by outward instruction, when capable, and we know that little children, which yet cannot learn, being sent to school are called scholars, 
Deut. 6.7. Eph. 6.4. 2 Tim. 3.15.  because they are in the school and intended for learning, when capacity shall be given. Thus children of Believers are from their infancy devoted to to Christ's School, to be brought in the nurture and information of the Lord, and we know no age is uncapable of Gods teaching. 3. It is said, Act. 15. v. 1. compared with 10. that the false Apostles which urged Christians to be circumcised according to the law of Moses (which we know was, that children should be circumcised at eight days old) did put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, so that they are called disciples on whom they urged Circumcision, but they urged Circumcision not only on grown Christians, but also on their children, Therefore their children are disciples. 4. In Act. 21.4, & 5. verses, Those of Tyre which are called disciples ver. 4. (whereof some were endued with the spirit of Prophecy indeed (but all are not Prophets) and warned Paul of the danger of going to Jerusalem, 
1 Cor. 12.29. ) seem to be comprehended under these three heads, 1. Men, or the husbands and fathers. 2. Women, 3. Their children, who accompanied the Apostle to the seashore, and most likely the Infants in their mother's arms are here intended, who with their parents were taken along, when they went to take their last farewell of the Apostle, as well to express that dear affection and honour that they did owe to him, as to obtain, not only for themselves, but also for their little ones the benefit of the last prayer, wherein they were to join in presence with that faithful Ambassador of Christ: The presence of children and sucklings tending much to move the bowels of parents to crave, and the Apostle to make affectionate prayers for those Saints and their children whom he should never see more. 
Deut. 19.10, 11, 12.  As Moses before his last farewell to the Israelites, would have them stand before God with their little ones, and enter into Covenant with him: So these at their farwell-taking with the Apostle, did present themselves before God with their little ones: And as Ezra in that solemn humiliation sought of God a good way, not only for the aged, but also for the little ones. So it seems these pious parents would have Paul to seek unto God for themselves and their little ones; 
Ezr. 8.21.  they no less belonging to God and being disciples now, then in the time of Moses his law, and therefore they enjoy the privilege of disciples or persons in Covenant, viz. communion with the Apostle and the other Saints in solemn prayer, which undiscipled persons and aliens from the Covenant, Ob. were never admitted to. Ob. But the fathers are evidently distinguished by the names of disciples from their children, therefore the children were not disciples, Ans. seeing the name of disciples is appropriated to the men only. Ans. If this reason were good, the wives should be no disciples or believers, for they are no less distinguished from the men (to whom the name of disciples is appropriated then the children) but no man will deny the wives to be disciples or believers, for this distinction, therefore neither the children. 2. But the children and wives did equally partake in the privilege of disciples, viz. communion in the prayer with the Apostles and Saints as well as the men, Therefore they were disciples as well as the men. 5. They that are so to be received in Christ's Name, that Christ himself is received in them, belong to Christ and are Christ's disciples. For to show kindness or do service to any in Christ's Name, and because they belong to Christ, and because they are disciples, or in the name of disciples, or because they are such as believe in Christ, are all one in Scripture phrase, as may appear by comparing these Scriptures, Mat. 10.42. Mar. 9.41, 42. But the little children of Believers or Church-members are so to be received in Christ's Name, that Christ himself is received in or with them, Mat. 18.5. 
Mat. 18, 5.  Therefore they are Christ's Disciples and belong to him. So much concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and hence I argue thus.  
1. Disciples according to Christ's Commission laid down in Scripture, are to be baptised: But children of the faithful, even whilst Infants, are disciples, Therefore to be baptised.  
2. Whereas it is said, Make disciples all Nations, baptising them; hence I gather, Children are not to be excluded: 1. Because children are a very considerable and essential part of a Nation. 2. As the Jewish Nation had been a Nation of disciples, and an holy people; so now in the time of the Gospel the Christian Nations were to become God's people. But the Jews were so a Nation of disciples, and an holy people, as that their children were taken with them into the Covenant, 
1 Pet. 8.9.  and admitted to the seal of entrance: so should these; for Christians are called an holy Nation now, as the Jews heretofore. Hence I argue, Discipled Nations, or Nations made disciples, and all their members and considerable integral parts, no where excepted, are to be baptised. For the whole comprehends all the parts, and the command that appoints all Nations to be baptised, must needs take in the several parts of those Nations which are not where excepted: But children of believing Nations are members and considerable integral parts of discipled Nations, as being more in number for the most part then grown persons, the hope of posterity, in whom the parents live, and by whom States, Churches and families are continued; being also more free from sin (as uncapable of actual rebellion and provocation against God, 
Num. 14.30, 31.  whom he is pleased sometimes to spare, when he punisheth rebellious and Covenant-breaking parents, and for whose sake sometimes he spareth flagitious parents) neither are children in this Scripture or elsewhere excluded out of Christ's Commission; 
jon. 4.11.  Therefore they are to be baptised.  
3. From the order of Christ's Commission, it may be gathered, That discipling and baptising goeth before teaching. Mat. 28.19, 20. Thus we read, Going therefore, make disciples all Nations, Baptising them into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, teaching them to keep all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Indeed the Gospel was to be offered to Jews and Infidels, and they exhorted to accept Christ and the Covenant of grace, before they were baptised; but Baptism was not to be deferred, nor they rejected as no disciples, until they should have learned the whole Doctrine of Christianity, and all the commands of Christ. But whosoever on the preaching of the Gospel and offer of Christ, should not subbornly refuse him, but (Idolatry being renounced) were dedicated to the worship of God and Christ (whether such as had power to dispose of themselves by themselves professedly consenting; or such as were at the dispose and under the power of others, and by their consent and authority given up to Christ) they were to be admitted into Christ's school, acknowledged his disciples, and baptised into his Name, and afterward to be instructed in his doctrine and commands. Hence I gather thus. If Infants of Believers are not to be baptised, it is because they are not capable of being taught Ministerially in the doctrines and commands of Christ for the present. All the arguments of the Anabaptists may be referred to this head, They say they cannot repent, believe, enter into Covenant, etc. Why? because say they, they are uncapable of being taught; or at least they would gather from Christ's Commission they are uncapable of being preached to and taught; Therefore of being baptised.  
But this is not a sufficient cause why they should not be baptised: For teaching the doctrines and commands of Christ, should go after, not before Baptism, according to the order of Christ's Commission; It's enough that persons be devoted to Christ, upon the tender of the Gospel, by those that have power externally to dedicate them to him, and then they are to be baptised, and as it were, matriculated into his School, and after taught all things that Christ hath commanded them; the contrary course is a preposterous inverting of the order of Christ; Therefore Baptism is not to be denied to the Infants of Believers. But they are by their parents to be dedicated to Christ and then baptised, and afterwards instructed and taught in all the doctrines and commands of Christ, which way is most agreeable to the order of Christ's Commission.  
4. Whereas it is said in Mark 16.16. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned. If you will take these words precisely, as containing a general and complete rule, by which we must judge who must be baptised and saved, who not, without limitation to the first calling of Jews and Gentiles to Christianity. I reason thus against you from this Scripture, Children, even the Infants of Christians, either believe or not. If they believe, 
Deut. 30.6.  having faith though but seminal or virtual comprehended in regeneration or circumcision of the heart, which God promiseth to the seed of the faithful, or maybe said to believe in their parents, who accept of the Covenant for themselves and their seed, than they are to be baptiye● as this Scripture shows, and your own argument against their Baptism yields; this being your great reason against baptising children, because, say you, they cannot believe. But if you say they do not, cannot believe, they are all damned by you, from this Scripture, which saith expressly, Whosoever believes not shall be condemned. Take which you will, If you say the former the cause is yielded by you. If the later, viz. That all the children of Believers, whiles Infants, are condemned, and that there is no hope of salvation if they die before grown years, this being so contrary to the Covenant of God, and his promises, will make you deservedly abhorred, of all those that know God, his Covenant and Scriptures. If you to avoid this dilemma say, this Scripture belongs only to those of grown years, as were those unbelieving Jews and Heathens, to whom the Apostles were immediately sent; and therefore the condemnation of Infants, through want of actual faith cannot be hence concluded; you answer yourselves, and might as easily see, that the exclusion of Infants from Baptism, for want of actual, personal professed faith, cannot hence be gathered, especially seeing these words are far more peremptory and express against the salvation, then against the Baptism of non-beleevers.  
Secondly, You say, What you practise is proved to be the Baptism of Christ, by the practice of the Disciples in obedience to those commands, as Act 2.38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptised every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins, ver. 41. Then they that gladly received the word, were baptised, and the same day added to the Church.  
Ans. You cut off in the citation of this Scripture a very material part, namely, the ground of the Apostles exhortation to them to be baptised, which if you would have considered seriously, might have made you afraid to urge this place for your purpose. It seems you thought it good policy to omit it, lest others should see how little it makes for your purpose, or rather how much against you. The words you omitted are in ver. 39 The Apostle having exhorted them to repent and be baptised in the Name of Christ, for the remission of sin, and that they might receive the gift of the holy Ghost: adds this reason, ver. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that be afar off, so many as the Lord our God shall call. Using this argument to persuade them to be baptised, and to expect the spiritual blessing signified in Baptism, viz. the remission of sins and pouring of the Spirit on them; for the promise (saith he) is to you and your children: and lest we should think that this privilege was peculiar to the Jews, to have their children interested in the promise with their parents; he adds, And to all that be afar off, so many as the Lord your God shall call. Noting that all that shall be called of the remote Gentiles, shall enjoy the like privilege, namely that the promise shall belong, not only to them, but also their children. Whence I reason thus, To whom the promise of remission of sins, and the gift of the holy Ghost belongs, to the same also Baptism, the pledge thereof, belongs; for this is the sum of the Apostles reasoning, to be gathered out of the 38. and 39 verse. But the promise is to the faithful or people of God and their children, whether Jews or Gentiles, 
Deut. 4.2. Mat. 46. compared with Psal. 91.11, 12.  even those that were afar off, whom God shall call; and therefore Baptism belongs to them and their children. You know who forbids to add to or take from the word, and who is the ringleader of that art of curtailing the word.  
2. Whereas it is said, Those that gladly received the word, were baptised; It may be well understood, as they received the word they received Baptism the seal and appendix of the word. But they received the word of promise as it was propounded to them by the Apostles, which was thus, That it belonged to them and their children, Therefore answerably the seal of the word, viz. Baptism, belonging to them and their children, they were baptised and their children.  
3. Whereas you say, They that received the word were added to the Church: The text saith, And the same day there were added to the Church three thousand souls. It is not safe thus to make bold with, and misreport Scripture.  
The next Scripture which you cite is, Act. 8.1. But when they believed, Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, in the Name of Jesus, they were baptised, both men and women. To this I answer.  
1. Who knows not that the words, men and women, are names rather noting the sexes than ages, and are appliable to Infants as well as grown persons? Did not Eve when she had born her first child say, 
Gen. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  I have gotten a man from the Lord? Will you hence gather, that because she calls him a man, therefore he was at perfect age at the day of his birth? When Christ saith that the woman when she is delivered of a child, 
joh. 16.21.  remembered not her anguish for joy that a man is born into the world; doth it follow hence that the newborn child is a fullgrown man? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  No sure, the word notes the species or kind of man distinct from other creatures, without difference of age or sex: So than you cannot from the names of men and women conclude the ripeness and perfection of years.  
2. If you object, But they believed: Remember what is said on Mar. 16.15, 16. and Act. 2.39. and you may gather thence. That when parents become Believers, God accepts their Infant children as Believers, and giveth them right to the Covenant and promise.  
3. But howsoever, enough hath been said in the general considerations to show how little help you can have from this or any other Scripture for your purpose.  
The following proof is in Act. 8.36.37. The Eunuch saith, Lo, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptised? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayst.  
Ans. We grant that they which never lived in a Christian Church, nor were born of Christian parents, nor have interest in the Covenant by their parent's faith (which was the case of the Eunuch) are to be baptised when they believe and not before: But what makes this for your purpose? 2. But what would you gather hence? that none are to be baptised, but they which believe with their whole heart? If so, I answer, 1. Then you will condemn not only us, 
Act. 8.12, 13.21,  but also the same Philip for baptising Simon whose heart was not right in the sight of God, and therefore he believed not with his whole heart: you must condemn many of your own dippings, for doubtless many come to you to be dipped for base ends. You cannot promise to yourselves more dexterity than was in the Apostles and Evangelists to baptise none but upright-hearted ones. 3. If so, you must not baptise any until you see into their hearts, 
1 King 8.9.  that they believe sincerely, and then you must lay down your new trade of dipping; for none but God leeth men's hearts whether they be upright or no.  
Your next Scripture is, Act. 10.47. Then answered Peter, Can any forbid water that these should not be baptised, which have received the holy Ghost as we? and he commanded them to be baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ.  
Ans. 1. It is plain that the Apostle gives this as a reason why they should be baptised, because they had received the gift of the holy Ghost. 
Act. 10.44, 45. and 11.15.  Now you can hence gather immediately no warrant for your baptising, until you can procure by your preaching the effusion of the holy Ghost, in a visible and miraculous manner; as it is evident that that in the text was.  
2. But if you say, Indeed these visible and miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost cease with the Primitive times: But God now pours his Spirit of sanctification ordinarily, and invisibly on people, and such as have received that may be baptised. I grant it, and assume, The gift of the holy Ghost is promised to, and bestowed on Infants in the Church, not only extraordinarily, as in the example of John the Baptist, but ordinarily according to God's promise, Act. 2.38, 39 Isa. 44.3, 4, 5.  
Your following example is, ●ct. 16.32, 33, 34. And they spoke unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptised he and all his straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced that he and all his believed in God.  
Ans. To this I answer, The last words are miscited (And rejoiced that he and all his believed in God.) Our Translators render it, And rejoiced (believing in God with ●ll his house.) Which if the Parenthesis had been observed, and in stead of (believing) they had read (having believed, or after he had believed) had very fully and fitly set forth the emphasis of the Original; which is thus word for word, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  He exceedingly rejoiced (or exulted) with (in o● through) his whole house, after that he had believed in God, or he having believed in God, rejoiced in his whole house. Here it is not said that the whole house believed in God; but the words show that the Jailor when he had believed in God, and he and all his were baptised, he made a feast, and shown his exceeding joy through his whole house, or with his whole house. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  The Syriack Translation reads it thus, And he exulted and all the children of his house, even all of them in the faith of God. Now consider in this History these things. 1. How that when the poor affrighted Jailor saith, What shall I do that I may besaved? Paul and Silas answer, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved and all thine house. They require faith of the Jailor, that he and his family might be admitted into a saving estate. They said not that every one of his family must of necessity actually believe and profess, that so his household might be saved with him; but they tell him If he believe, both he and his household should be saved: 
Gen. 17.5. Luk. 19.9.  As Abraham believed, and all his family, even Infants, were taken into Covenant of salvation. And when Zacheus believed, salvation came to his house, he being made a son of Abraham. So God shows here by his servants that he would deal with the Tailor, not standing for the present on strict terms of actual faith of all in his house. If the Governor believe, it is enough to put the whole family into a saving estate, inchoatively at least in respect of admission into Covenant, neither are any to be excluded, but such as by stubborn refusal of the Gospel offered, deprive themselves of that privilege.  
2. It is said indeed, that they spoke to him and all in his house, vers. 32. the word of the Lord; but whether it be meant of the prisoners in the Prisonhouse, with Paul and Silas, or of those of his household, is not expressed; the former seems very probable rather then the later. 1. Those to whom they spoke the word are said to be All that were in his house, v. 32. Those that were baptised with him are said to be all his: Now prisoners and strangers might be in his house, but those only of his own family were his. 2. Ver. 32. It is said they spoke to all in the house, and yet afterwards it is said, ver. 34. that he brought them into his house; as if they had not been in his dwelling house before.  
3. If it be meant of his family to which they spoke the word, that proves not that there were no Infants in the family, or that the Infants were not taken into Covenant, and baptised with their parents, any more than the exhortation of Moses to that great assembly of the Israelites, mentioned, Deut. 29.9, 10, 11, 12. proves either that there were no little children in that assembly, or that they had no right to the Covenant; both which are expressly contradicted in the context, vers. 9 Keep therefore, saith Moses, the words of this Covenant and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do. Vers. 10. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God, your Captains of your Tribes, your Elders, and your Officers, with all the men of Israel. Vers. 11. Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in the Camp; from the hewer of thy wood to the drawer of thy water. Vers. 12. That thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day, etc. Now as Moses made this exhortation to all Israel, though the little children amongst them were not able to understand it, and be affected with it for the present, and yet were present to be admitted into Covenant, and had right to the seal of entrance thereinto: and this exhortation was for their good, as their parents embracing it, were with their children received into Covenant, and put in mind of their duty, in devoting their children to, and bringing them up for God; and as it might serve for the children's instruction when they should come to age. So Paul and Silas might speak to the whole family, amongst whom might be little ones; who though they understood not the doctrine and exhortation propounded for the present, yet might upon the parents embracing of this doctrine, be received into Covenant with them, and to the seal of entrance thereinto; and afterward by their parents instructed in that doctrine, which for the present they understood not.  
4. It is said that he and all his were baptised straightway. There is no expression or intimation that every one believed and made a profession of his faith for themselves severally: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but when the Jailor had manifested his repentance and faith, he and all his were baptised straightway. It seems that the faith and profession of the head of the family, was sufficient to give right to the members, at least to those that did not express their dissent or refusal of it.  
5. The word (having believed) vers. 34. is of the singular number and masculine gender, and must be referred to the Jailor only, according to the Grammatical construction.  
6. Though it should be granted that he and his whole house may be said to believe (which yet the words of the text prove not) It may be well understood so as Abraham and all his family were believers in Covenant, and circumcised, 
Gen. 18.19.  even those that were Infants: the Head having made profession of his faith and engaged himself to take care of all his family should be instructed in the faith and obedience of God. And this last answer (beside divers of the former general and special) may serve for the last Scripture, viz. Act. 18.8. And Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue believed in the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians believed and were baptised. And indeed how can it be thought probable that such families as the jailors, the Rulers of the Synagogue, and Lydias (whose household was baptised upon her hearing and believing of the word, no mention being made of the rests hearing or believing) should have no children in them? Hence I gather thus,  
If at the first preaching of the Gospel the faithful with their whole families were baptised, so soon as God had opened the hearts of the governor's to receive the word and believe, than now the families and children of those that have long professed the Gospel (at least so many in their family as do not stubbornly reject Jesus Christ) are to be acknowledged within the Covenant, and admitted to Baptism the seal of entrance. But the former is true, Therefore the later.  
Whereas you conclude your first Paper thus: Having proved by positive and plain Scripture what we affirm, we conclude with the doctrine of the Church of England which maintains the same, viz. That repentance and faith is required in persons to be baptised, and that Infants by reason of tender age can neither repent nor believe, which we leave to your consideration, and desire your answer.  
Ans. How positive and plain the Scriptures (cited by you to prove what you affirm and practise) are, we have seen, and leave to the judgement of others.  
2. In your concluding with the doctrine of the Church of England, you might have done well to have told us what you mean by the Church, and in what book or place that doctrine is maintained, and then we should have given answer thereto, if the very citation of the place be not sufficient to answer it, and make you ashamed of your citing of it. But in the mean space you have our consideration and answer to what you bring out of Scripture.  
By me William Cook.   

You Preface to your second Paper thus:  
IN stead of an expected answer in writing, 
H.H. and J.B.  to this our Paper, according to promise, we have received another verbal request from you, viz. That we would give some reasons, why Infants should not be baptised: By which we conclude you can give no reason, why you baptise them; we having so much urged you herein, to prove your practice by Scripture, having given you so large a proof of our practising the contrary, by so many plain truths, wherein you may find reason enough against yours, if you have any mind, without further cavil to answer them.   

Answer.  
1. IT was agreeable to reason and equity; that seeing you had so fully and frequently expressed yourselves against Infant-Baptism, you should give your reasons thereof, especially we having been so long in possession: and being by you charged to want right, it was fit that you should be required to produce the grounds of your charge.  
2. Whereas you conclude so hastily, that we can give no reason of our practice; we see that though you dislike syllogisms, you are pleased with sophistical Enthymems, making a conclusion from so weak a premise.  
3. How much the many plain written truths prove for your own judgement and practice, or against ours, we wish you to review in the foregoing Answer, and you will there find that without cavils we had a mind to answer. You proceed,  
But that you may see how really we intent the discovery of truth, and to satisfy you in every desire that may any way tend thereto, we give you these further in answer. 1. Because Christ hath no where commanded it. And whatsoever is practised as an ordinance of his without institution, is Will-worship and Idolatry.  
Ans. This your reason in its full strength stands thus:  
Whatsoever is practised as an Ordinance of Christ without an institution, is Will-worship and Idolatry; But baptising of Infants is practised as an Ordinance of Christ without any institution, Therefore it is Will-worship and Idolatry. The assumption which would by us be denied, you back thus; It hath no command from Christ, Therefore it is without an institution.  
Ans. In answer to this I desire you to take notice of two distinctions, necessary to remove mistakes. 1. We must distinguish between the essentials of an Ordinance, and the accidentals and circumstantials, in respect of the application of it to such or such persons in such a time, place, or manner: This is necessary to be observed. Christ instituted the Ordinance of the Supper or Communion of the body and blood of Christ; but never expressly commanded that it should be administered to women. It's sufficient that it may be gathered from Scripture. He hath instituted Bapti●● but n●ver expressly commanded that it should be administered to or by Ta 〈…〉 Weavers', Jersey-combers or Cobblers; If from general rules of Scriptu●● 〈…〉 that this Ordinance is to be applied to or by such persons, th●● being found to have such qualifications, as the Scripture requires in these cases, it is sufficient. It is an Ordinance of Christ that his people should read the Scripture, but it's no no where expressly commanded that such as understand not the original, should read it in a translated printed English Bible; it sufficeth, that this may be proved out of Scripture by good consequence.  
The second distinction is this, An Ordinance in respect of circumstantials or applications, may be said to be instituted by Christ, either expressly and immediately, or so as that the institution is to be gathered by consequence; of this later kind is a believing women receiving the Sacrament of the Communion of the body and blood of Christ, and mere English-mens and English-womens' reading the Scripture for spiritual instruction and edification, in a printed English Bible, distinguished into Chapters and Verses. There is no express command for admitting women to the Lords Table; nor for the translating and printing of Scripture, for the help of ignorant people, yet these are not Will-worship and Idolatry. It may be sufficiently proved from Scripture that these are good and warrantable, and that God's people should be greatly wronged, if women should be driven from the Communion; and those that are ignorant of Hebrew and Greek should be debarred from reading the Scripture.  
I answer therefore, 1. By granting the proposition taken in a right sense, viz. That whatsoever is practised as an Ordinance and worship of Christ, without an institution from him; at least in respect of the essentials, yea whose essentials and circumstantials may not be gathered out of the Scripture, either expressly or by good consequence, is at least Will-worship, if not Idolatry; and therefore unlawful to be maintained or practised. But I deny the assumption; for the essentials and substantials of Baptism are expressly commanded in Scripture, Mat. 28.19, 20. Mar. 16.15, 16, etc. The particular application of Baptism to Infants, though not expressly in so many words in Scripture, yet may be gathered therefrom by good consequence, as shall appear hereafter, God assisting. Therefore the assumption being false in that sense wherein the proposition is true, nothing can be concluded.  
I come now to your second argument which is this.  
It cannot be proved that Christ or his Apostles practised Infant-Baptism. Which reason stands in its whole strength thus,  
What cannot be proved that Christ and his Apostles practised, that is unlawful in God's worship. But it cannot be proved that Christ and his Apostles practised Infant-baptism, Therefore it is unlawful.  
Ans. The proposition is not universally ●rue, we may not argue from the practice of Christ and his Apostles universally, either affirmatively or negatively; not affirmatively, for they might do some things as such eminent persons, which it is not the duty of, nor possible for all Ministers or Christians ordinarily to do so. Nor negatively, for there may be some things which are the duties of inferior men, which yet were below Christ and his Apostles. We read not that they practised or submitted to the Office of Pastors, Elders, or Deacons, properly so called; will it follow therefore that these are Will-worship▪ They never (as can be proved) translated Bibles or read the Scripture, 〈…〉 ●●unded the text of a Sermon out of a translated printed Bible; nor took th● notes of Sermons: Are these therefore Will-worship? If they being busied in laying the foundation of Churches, practised not some things which are agreeable to our work, which is for the superstruction; we need not to be troubled, having warrant or institution, either immediate, or to be gathered by consequence.  
Neither is the assumption so clear as to be easily granted, and though it might suffice for the present to deny the main proposition; yet take also this answer to the assumption; Though Christ did not baptise Infants nor any at all in his own person (and therefore if his example is to be followed herein by Ministers, 
joh. 4.2.  or those that may be conceived to have authority to baptise, none at all must be baptised by them,) Yet he did that for Infants, which is at least equivalent to baptising, or layeth sufficient ground to warrant their baptising, he laid his hands on them, blesseth them, pronounceth them to have right to the Kingdom of God or Covenant of the Gospel; and gives command to his Apostles to disciple all Nations, and baptise them. The Apostles acted according to this Commission, held forth the promise, whereof Baptism is a seal or pledge, as belonging to the faithful and their children, and baptised Believers and their whole families; of which more largely, partly before, partly hereafter.  
Your third Argument is this," Because they are uncapable subjects, having neither understanding, reason, nor faith; and whatever is not of faith is sin. Being put into form it stands thus;  
Subjects uncapable of Baptism are not to be baptised: But Infants are subjects uncapable of Baptism, Therefore not to be baptised. The proposition is granted, the assumption denied, you endeavour to prove it thus;  
They that have neither understanding, reason nor faith are subjects uncapable of Baptism; But Infants have neither understanding, reason, nor faith: Therefore subjects uncapable of Baptism.  
1. I answer to the proposition by denying it, if by understanding, reason, and faith, you mean ripe, actual and visibly exercised and professed understanding reason and faith, such as is in persons of ripe years: and I give these two reasons of my denial.  
1. The children of the Jews when they wanted the actual use of understanding which belongs to persons of age, were not uncapable of Circumcision which was of the same use to Jews; 
Gen. 17.7. Rom. 4. 1●. Deut. 30.6.  as Baptism is to us Christians, viz. to be a seal of the Covenant, and of the righteousness of faith, and a sign of renewing and sanctifying the heart.  
2. That they are capable, I prove it by the parts. Reason and even sense and experience shows that they are capable of the outward sign, there being required a mere passion of them, in the Minister's application of water. That they are capable also of the spiritual grace of Baptism, Gods many promises of circumcising the hearts of the faithful seed, and pouring his Spirit upon them, etc. prove; as also the example of Jacob and John the Baptist, whereof the one was beloved of God, the other filled with the holy Ghost, while little ones.  
2. I answer to the assumption by distinction of the first & second act of reason faith. The power or faculty of understanding or reason which we may call the first act, Infants have, else they were bruits and unreasonable creatures, though the actual exercise thereof which is in man they want; so a seminal virtual habitual faith implied in regeneration and the gift of the holy Ghost, they have, not a professed faith of ripe Believers.  
2. If men will needs have actual professed faith for the admission of persons to Baptism, I answer, 
Gen. 17.7. Act. 2.39.  As parents by faith accept the Covenant for themselves and children, according as Scripture propounds the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. Act. 2.39. (which is agreeable to the usual way of contracts and Covenants amongst men, that parents take a Lease for themselves and infant-childrens, and bind themselves and children to the condition) as infant-childrens are parts and adherents of their parents, having no use of power, reason or will, to provide for, or dispose of themselves in their own persons, until they come to years of discretion; so the faith of their parents may be said to be their faith, as the parents act in taking a house, or making a bargain, may be called the child's act, as no less beneficial and obliging to the child then to the parent; at least until he come to the use of reason, where in his own person he may by some voluntary act ratify or disannul it. And here observe a second distinction of faith, namely actual and professed. It is this professed faith may be distinguished into Personal and private, which is required of all persons which are at their own dispose, at their first entrance into Covenant and admission to the seal of entrance: and Common or public faith, which in a common or public person may suffice in the behalf of those that are wholly under his power and at his dispose, as Infants are to their parents. This is sufficient for such to interest them in the Covenant and seal of admittance, as we see in abraham's and the Jewish Infants; and Christian's children which are holy by virtue of their parent's faith, 1 Cor. 7.14. and in this respect they may be said to have actual professed faith, viz. of their parents. If the Jews with their children were broken off by unbelief, as the Apostle affirmeth, Rom 11.29. then by faith they and their posterity had continued implanted, until their posterity should by actual professed unbelief break off themselves and their posterity: The same is the case of the ingraffed Gentiles, and will be of the Jews that are to be reingraffed, vers. 20.23, 24, 25. that by virtue of the faith of the parents, infant-childrens should be in Covenant and believers (even professedly, by the profession of parents,) as it had been with God's people for many generations before Christ; for the Apostle speaks of such a growing up in the Olive tree that the implanted Gentiles and reimplanted Jews must expect, as was that which the Church of the Jews had enjoyed to that time. And sure if the unbelief of professed Infidels, leave their infant-childrens, in the case of professed infidelity and estrangement from the Covenant, until by their own personal individual faith, they embrace that Covenant; no less must the saith of believing parents leave their Infants in the state of professed or known Believers, and persons in Covenant, until by their own wilful voluntary act they reject the Covenant; for God's promises to the faithful and their posterity, are no less full than his curses to the wicked and their posterity, Exod. 20.5, 6.  
3. How ignorantly and impertinently that sentence is added by you (Whatever is not of faith is sin) any one may see. And thus for the answer to your Arguments.  
You prevent an Objection thus, But you will say, 
H. H. and J.B.  Where doth the Scripture forbidden? That your Ministers will say, is an unreasonable and unlearned question, there being no proving negatives; for then where doth the Scripture say, You shall not worship the Pope, go to Mass? you shall not read the Common prayer book, or wear the Surplice? But it doth forbid Idolatry, Will-worship, which is that, if you have no Scripture rule for the same, and teaching for doctrine the commands of men, which is this, being only traditional, and that acknowledged by one of your Ministers lately in this Town, that it was Ecclesiastical and not Apostolical.  
Ans. 
Deut. 4.2. Prov. 30.6. jam 4.11, 17. Rev. 22.8, 9  The Scripture is such a perfect rule to God's people, of faith, worship and holy walking, both affirmatively and negatively, that nothing may be urged as a duty, Divine worship or truth, but what is there commanded or taught; nor charged as a sin, Will-worship or error, but what is there forbidden or condemned, either particularly and expressly, or at least in general, and to be gathered by good consequence.  
2. They are very ignorant and rash, that will condemn worshipping the Pope, going to Mass, etc. and yet cannot find them forbidden in the Scripture▪ yea, they are too great friends to the Pope, Mass, and other superstition, that will say, or but insinuate, that the Scripture doth no where condemn them, or that will match Infant-baptisme with them.  
3. Forbear charging us with Will-worship, Idolatry, and teaching for doctrines the commands of men, until you have heard what Scripture grounds we can bring for our judgement and practice in this particular.  
4. Why do not you name the Minister which acknowledged this traditional and Ecclesiastical, not Apostolical? If there were any such let him answer for himself. The Papists indeed call it a tradition of the Church, to prove the imperfection of the Scripture, and necessity of tradition▪ Our Protestant Writers confute them in this, showing that it is grounded on Scripture, not on tradition. If any whom you call one of our Ministers, speaks as the Papist, against the whole current of Protestant Divines, we are no more bound to stand to his principles, or to defend him therein, or answer for him, than we are bound to do it for you and the Papists which agree with him in that opinion.  
Now before I lay down our Arguments, I must for the clearing of the truth, confirm one thing which I have partly touched already. It's this, That it is not only lawful but necessary to argue from Scripture, by way of consequence or deduction for the finding out of the truth; neither must we always expect express and immediate commands in Scripture for the particular circumstances and applications of the Ordinances of God, or for the justifying of every matter of judgement and practice, in point of Religion. It is sufficient sometimes, and in some cases, that by good consequence we deduce them from Scripture.  
1. 
Mat 22.32, 33  This was very usual with our Saviour and the Apostles. Thus our Saviour proves the doctrine of the Resurrection against the Sadduces by consequence, from that Scripture (I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob) laid together with another principle (God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.) Which doctrine also the Apostle Paul proves by many Arguments and consequences, 
1 Cor. 15.13, to 33.  1 Cor. 15. from vers. 13. to 33. So our Lord Christ argues (for the lawfulness of his disciples pulling ears of corn and eating them on the Sabbath day,) 
Mat. 12.3, 4, 5, 6, 7.  by consequence. 1. From David's eating of the Shewbread. 2. From the Priests sacrificing on the Sabbath: and 3. From that sentence in Hosea, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice. 
H●●. 6. ●.  Which Scripture-examples and testimony do not expressly and immediately say. It is lawful for the disciples, being hungry, to pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath day, and eat them. But by good consequence each of these Scriptures, much more all jointly prove it. So whereas it is said, Luke 24.27. & 44. 
Luk. 24.27. & 44.  That Christ expounded the Scriptures of all the Prophets, showing that they were fulfilled in him, It is not to be understood that those things which were written of Christ in Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms, did expressly, immediately, plainly, and positively say that Jesus the son of Mary, was the Messiah, and must suffer all those things, and then rise again and enter into glory: But by Christ's expounding them and arguing from them, the two disciples were brought to see the truth. So Act. 2.25, 26, etc. the Apostle Peter showeth (to prove the resurrection of Christ from Scripture) that what was contained in Psal. 16.9, 10. was spoken of Christ. It doth not appear immediately and expressly, but by consequence thus; It was to be understood of David himself, or of Christ the seed of David. No: of David, for he had seen corruption, and his Sepulchre was yet extant, as Act. 2.29. Therefore it must be meant of Christ David's seed, vers. 30.31, 32. So the other Apostles, in the Acts, and the Epistles, and the Prophets before them, usually deduce conclusions, by way of reasoning or syllogizing, either from Scriptures or other known principles, or both laid together, as is evident to any that with understanding and care read the Scriptures; so that further to prove this, were to light a candle at noonday, and sure he is miserably blind that cannot see it.  
2. If you deny the use of consequence, you have no warrant or proof for the reading of Scripture in an English translation Printed (and so you must cast away your English Bibles, as well as Infant-baptism, or else fall into Will-worship and Idolatry.) Nor for women's receiving the Communion, nor for the Christian-Sabbath. Overthrow these, and overthrow all Christian Religion. Yea I may confidently say there is no Ordinance of God or religious act can be externally observed, which you can perform, but at least in respect of some accidentals or circumstantials thereof you must be beholden to consequence from Scripture, or else must want warrant for the using of them, and so either forbear them all, and cast off all religious exercise, and become visible Atheists, or run into that which is Will-worship and Idolatry in your conceit, and act against conscience and not in faith, which to do is sin.  
3. Whereas all Scriptures were written for our learning, 
Rom. 15.4. 2 Tim. 3.16.  that we may have patience, comfort and hope, and are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction: All or most of this benefit will be lost unto us, if we reject the use of consequences. The Scripture doth not positively and plainly make particular application to several men that live amongst us by name: this must be done either by public Ministry, or private brotherly instruction and conference, or by our own conscience, which must by reasoning show that the Scripture applied is pertinent and suitable to us, or else we shall get no good by it.  
4. For what use should the Ministry of the word, or preaching and teaching by others serve, 
Pro. 2 2, 3, 4.  or what use is there of studying and diligently searching the Scriptures, as for gold, silver, and hid treasures, if all things therein were so plain and particular to us in them that there were no need of drawing particulars from generals, gathering obscurer truths from plainer Scriptures, and applying them according to exigency? Yea what use should there be of reason itself, if we might not exercise it in this case, which so much concerns God's glory and our own and others edification and salvation? I study shortness, else it might be easily made to appear, that they who deny and abhor syllogisms and consequences in matters of Religion, do not only deny the principal use of the most excellent gift of reason which God hath given to men, for the finding out of the truth; 
Rom. 2.15. Rom. 12.1.  but also must cast off all right use of Conscience, Scripture and Religion, if they stick to that irrational and irreligious conceit. Taking it therefore for granted, that no man who hath the use of reason and the heart of a Christian, will deny us the liberty of reason in drawing out the truth from Scriptures by consequence: I will lay down several Arguments grounded on Scripture (whereof some were touched in the Answer to the former Paper: what I shall here omit which there I touched, the Reader may fetch thence,) for the baptising of Infants.  
Arg. Arg. 1 1. Such persons as have had by God's gracious grant, right to the Covenant of grace and seal of entrance thereinto, in the time of the Old Testament, and from whom this grant was never repealed by God, nor cast off by themselves, are not to be debarred by any man from the privileges of God's Covenant, and the seal of entrance thereinto, whiles the Covenant of grace and a seal of entrance is dispensed to the Church.  
But the children of believing parents, have, by God's gracious grant, had interest in the Covenant of grace, and the seal of entrance thereinto, at least from Abraham's time to Christ's, which grant God did never repeal, neither did the children of Believers cast it off, but God hath continued in his Church the Covenant of grace and seal of entrance thereinto, though in a different manner, yet far more comfortable and glorious,  
Therefore the children of believing parents are not to be debarred from the Covenant or seal of entrance thereinto, which now in the time of the Gospel is Baptism.  
For the clearing of the Proposition let these things be noted:  
1. God's gracious grants of privileges to his people, wherein are also implied engagements to thankfulness and obedience laid on them, are so sacred, that they cannot without high offence to his Majesty, 
Deut. 4.1.  great wrong to God's people, and extreme danger to their own souls, be denied by any to those to whom they belong. God no less forbidding detracting from, then adding to his word; and so much the more dangerous is diminution in this case, as it tends to darken the glorious grace of God in the times of the Gospel, which times he hath reserved for the more full illustration thereof above former times.  
2. That those main privileges which God granted ordinarily to persons in Covenant before Christ, as That their children should be in Covenant, and admitted to the seal of entrance thereinto, should cease in the time of the Gospel, is so unagreeable unto the wisdom and goodness of God, which reserves his greatest and choicest blessings, for the last times, to be bestowed on his people; so contrary to the nature of the Covenant of grace, which under Evangelical dispensation is far more glorious and comfortable to the faithful, then under legal; so contrary to the end of Christ's coming, which was to multiply, increase and ratify, not cut off, diminish or abolish blessings and privileges to his Church; and so contrary to the promises and prophecies concerning the glory of the Church in the times of the Gospel, that he deserves to be abhorred of all that know God, and Christ, and his Covenant, that should tell us of a great fall and diminution of privileges, in Evangelicall times, compared with legal, and yet can bring no pregnant and pertinent Scripture, to prove a repeal of those privileges.  
3. I grant, that where God hath repealed privileges of the Old Testament (which whiles they continued unrepealed, were privileges, yet cease to be so when greater answerable thereto, yet more suitable to the Gospel-dispensation, are vouchsafed in their place in the New Testament,) they, in respect of that old administration, are not to be accounted privileges, neither are privileges in this case properly revoked, but altered and enlarged, when the old administration indeed is abrogated; but the same spiritual blessing is given in a more comfortable manner, under a new dispensation. As when Christians ¹ In stead of the Old Testament Scriptures in the Jews mother tongue (which was the Jews privilege) have both Old and New Testament Scriptures translated into a known tongue. ² In stead of the Jews seventh-day-Sabbath, 
joh. 19.36. 2 Cor. 5.7.  have the first day or Lords-day-Sabbath. ³ In stead of the Passeover, which to the Jews was a Type of Christ to come; have Christ exhibited, and now represented in the blessed Communion. And ⁴ in stead of Circumcision, have Baptism. And ⁵ generally, when Christians in stead of the old Legal dispensation of the Covenant of grace (which the Jews had) have the new Evangelical dispensation of the Covenant: Here the same privileges are continued, with enlargement under a new and different garb or dress.  
4. It's granted also that when men have wilfully rejected privileges, and therefore God hath cast them off; neither they nor theirs lying under that obstinacy, may lay claim to obstinately rejected privileges, as in the case of the body of the Jews and their seed at this day.  
To the Minor, 1. 
Gen 17.7. Exod, 12.48. Ezek. 16.10, 21. Mat. 2.15. Act. 3.25.  It's plain that from Abraham's time and so forward to the last of the Prophets, yea to the time of our Saviour Christ (unto which time Circumcision of children was in force,) the faithful had interest in this privilege, that their children were in Covenant and had the seal of admission.  
2. It's plain also, 
Gen. 17 10, 11, 12, 13. Rom. 4.11. Rom 3.1, 2. Phil. 3.5.  that this was a great privilege or prerogative to the people of God and their children, that they were in Covenant, and had Circumcision, which is called the sign of the Covenant; yea the Covenant and the seal of the righteousness of faith. As to be an Hebrew and Israelite was a great privilege before Christ's coming, so to be circumcised.  
3. That God hath not recalled this grant of Believers children having right to the Covenant and seal of entrance, it is evident; for neither the Scriptures of Old or New Testament speak any such thing, but rather the contrary, heightening the privileges of the Gospel above those of the Law, but never depressing them.  
Obj. But Circumcision is repealed and abrogated. Ans. 1. True, Ob. in regard of the outward ceremony, Ans. 1 so the former dispensation of the Covenant of grace, in regard of the Legal manner of administration; Doth the Covenant itself therefore, and duties and privileges therefore which are essential and perpetual cease? women's going up to Jerusalem to the sacrifices and Passeover ceaseth; Must not they therefore come to, and partake of the Lords Supper? The Church of the Jews, which understood the Scriptures of the Old Testament without translation is cast off, Must not Gods people now have the Scriptures in their mother language by translation, because there is no direct express Scripture for that purpose? The Jews Sabbath being the seventh day of the week, with us called Saturday, is abolished; Must we not therefore have a Christian Sabbath or Lords day? Nay rather, we may well gather from the Jewish-beleeving women's privilege to partake of the Passeover and sacrifices in the Old Testament, the privilege of Christian women, to come to the Lords Table, and from Jewish Believers liberty to have the Scriptures in a known tongue, we may gather against the Papists, the privilege of Christian common people, of the like nature, though in a different way; they by the Original writing, we by Translation: and from the Jews Sabbath of the seventh day, that being appointed by the moral Law, we may gather our Christian Sabbath; and so from the Jewish infants privilege to have the seal of initiation into the Covenant and Church, we may gather the like privilege to belong to Christians Infants, though in a different ceremony; if we compare those privileges of the Jews in the Old Testament, with what is spoken in the New Testament concerning Gospel-priviledges, that are analogical and succedaneous to these legal privileges, and lay together other common grounds warranting unto them these privileges, though there be not express immediate particular command, for women's partaking at the Lord's Table, nor for the common people's enjoying vernaculous translations of the Scripture, nor for the Christian Sabbath, nor for the baptising of Infants.  
2. I answer to this objection; If it had been the pleasure of God and Christ that children should in the time of the Gospel lose their former interest in the Covenant and seal thereof, and their privilege of Church-membership, as well as he would have Circumcision abolished, he would have no less revealed that in the Scripture than this. But he hath no where revealed either expressly or to be gathered by consequence, that whereas until Christ's time Infants of Believers were in Covenant, God's children, Church-members, and signed with the seal of the Covenant; now in the time of the Gospel they have no interest in God, his Covenant, or the seal thereof, or Church-membership, but are quite cast out from these privileges.  
4. Infants of believing parents never did cast off this privilege, so that by any act of theirs all Infants should be deprived of it. For to cast off Covenant-priviledges, imports actually to rebel against the Covenant, which children cannot do; neither can any child's (suppose him capable of actual rebellion and rejection of the Covenant,) or aged persons actual rebellion, deprive all Infants of this privilege, unless he be the root, head and fountain of all Believers Infants, which is not supposable. Anabaptists may cast themselves and their children out of Covenant, but they cannot cast out the children of other Christian parents, otherwise then by seducing the parents into the same error and impiety with themselves or worse; which oft falls out, that those that compass land and sea to make proselytes, 
Mat. 23.15.  help to make them twofold more the children of hell than themselves.  
5. Yea the Scriptures of the New Testament are so fare from repealing the privileges of Believers Infants that they strongly confirm and advance them, as expressly telling us that to such belongs the Kingdom of God: Gospel-promises belong to them, they are holy, Mark 10.14. Act. 2.39. 1 Cor. 7.14, etc. of which hereafter.  
6. That now the same Covenant of grace for substance remains amongst Christians as that which the Jews were under, that there is instituted a seal of entrance into this Covenant, now in the time of the Gospel, viz. Baptism. That Baptism the seal of entrance into the new, is come in the place of Circumcision the seal of entrance into the old (as the new dispensation itself succeeds the old) and is of the same use for the main; 
Col. 24, 12. 2 Cor. 3.6, 7, 8 9, etc. Heb. 8 8, 9, 10  and that the privileges of the Gospel-dispensation are more glorious and comfortable than those of the legal were, are truths so clear, that he is very ignorant of Scripture (I had almost said scarce worthy to be called a Christian) that questions them, much more that denies them.  
But for the clearing of this truth out of Genesis 17.7. 
a In my answer to A. R.  I have written elsewhere, and may further if it be thought needful, communicate 
b In answer to M.T.  some things I have by me for vindication thereof.  
Arg. 2. Those persons to whom Christ is so loving and gracious, Arg. 2 that he would have them come or be brought to him, and by no means kept from him, have right to Baptism the sign and pledge of admission to Christ:  
But our Lord Jesus Christ was, 
Mat. 19.14. Mar. 10.14. Luk. 18.15, 16.  and is so loving to children of believing parents, that he would have them come, or be brought to him, and cannot endure that they should be forbidden or hindered from him,  
Therefore the children of believing parents, have right to Baptism the sign and pledge of admission to Christ; and so are to be baptised.  
For the clearing and confirming of the Proposition, I will propound some few things, which I desire may be considered. 1. That Christ refused commerce with, or admittance of any persons to him with kind entertainment, but such as were in Covenant, at least externally or in a way thereto, by their attentive harkening to his word and receiving his doctrine. 
Mat. 15.23, 24 25, 28.  He tells the woman of Canaan that he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and that the children's bread was not to be given to dogs; implying that the Canaanites out of Covenant were as dogs, and not to be entertained by him; neither doth he give any comfortable answer to that woman, until she had discovered by her faith, that she had right to Christ and the Covenant. 
joh. 4.15, 19  The woman of Samaria indeed was received by Christ as ready to hear his doctrine and be humbled. Pilate and Herod, he would hardly or not at all answer, much less, familiarly and kindly invite to him. Therefore whom Christ so kindly invites, he looks on, not as aliens to the Covenant, but as having some interest in himself, and the sign of admission to himself and the Covenant.  
2. We are said in Baptism to put on Christ, 
Rom. 6 3, ●. Gal. 3.27. Col 2.12. joh. 5.40.  be baptised into Christ and his death, and to be buried with him, which is for substance as much as to come to him, and by coming unto him to be partakers of him and have Communion with him.  
3. There is now no visible way for children to come to Christ, since his ascension ordinarily, but by Baptism, that being the first visible way of admission to Christ (and that this coming of children was not confined to those children, o● that time of his humiliation, will appear by the reason, for theirs is the Kingdom of God, but the Kingdom of God is dispensed since Christ's ascension, Therefore children must come; of which anon.) Of coming to Christ in hearing the word, prayer, the Lords Supper, they are uncapable; of inward invisible coming to or being united to Christ, we speak not now, neither doth Christ here speak of it. But by Baptism now, as heretofore by Circumcision, Infants may be brought to Christ and the Covenant in a visible manner.  
For the illustration and strengthening of the assumption, let these things be considered. 1. These were properly little children or Infants which Christ would have brought to him and not hindered; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as may appear, 1. By their titles, Little children, Young children, Infants. 2. By Christ's manner of receiving them, viz. in his arms, which is proper to babes.  
2. They were children of believing parents in Covenant: 1. It's out of question they were children of Jews, at least, by outward profession of Religion, which then were the peculiar people of God. 2. They which brought them, whether parents or other appointed by them, had a reverend persuasion concerning Christ, and believed that his blessing might profit the children. 3. Our Saviour approves the act of them that brought them, which he would not, if it had not been done in faith. 
Heb. 7.6.   
3. That Christ speaks not only of those children that were then brought to him, but generally of the children of Believers (or all parents that are willing to bring their children to Christ) is plain, in that he saith not Suffer those or these (individual) children to come unto me, but Suffer little children, generally or indefinitely.  
4. And moreover, that these words of Christ are not to be restrained to those children only, or their manner of coming only, or to the time of Christ's being on earth; may be gathered, 1. In that all the three Evangelists so carefully and fully set down that History with all its circumstances, and holding forth Christ's gracious expressions of his love to little children, which is doubtless to show what is his affection to the Infants of the faithful at all times; otherwise what profit or comfort were it for Christians to know that Christ was indeed so loving to those Infants at that time, but would never show afterwards, when in glory, any more respect to Infants of Christians (whiles such) then to the Infants of Infidels? 2. But the reason given by Christ puts the matter out of question, that this expression of his affection to Infants, is not to be restrained to those particular Infants, that manner of coming, and that time of his visible abode on the earth: For of such, saith he, is the Kingdom of God, or of heaven; implying that so long as God hath a Kingdom of grace on earth, in the administration of the Gospel, and affords ordinary means of bringing people to the Kingdom of glory, so long the children of the faithful are to come or be brought to Christ in such a way, as they may be acknowledged subjects of this Kingdom, which is by admission to the sign or seal of entrance thereinto.  
5. That it is the will and pleasure of Christ that little children in the time of the Gospel, should be brought to him, appears in the text, in three particulars, worthy to be distinctly observed. 1. In that he was much displeased and moved with high indignation against his disciples, which rebuked and discouraged the bringers of the children. 
Mat. 11.29. Ma●, 12.29.  Now Christ which was so admirably meek and gentle, would not have been so much moved, if it had not been a great fault in his disciples to hinder Infants from coming to him (It is doubtless a wrong to poor Infants that cannot plead for themselves, and to pious parents to be checked in so good a work, and to the Church of God to have these young members cut therefrom, and especially to God and Christ and the Gospel, to seek to cast out Infants from the privilege of the Covenant of grace, wherein they had been interested in the time of the Law.) Though in the disciples it was more excusable by ignorance, because likely before this time they had heard nothing expressly from Christ's mouth; to hold forth the privileges of Infants in the time of the Gospel (howbeit they might have gathered enough out of the Old Testament, if they would have heeded it to have prevented this miscarriage, else Christ would not have been so angry with them, if it had been out of invincible ignorance.) Now if Christ was so offended with this first failing of his disciples through ignorance, what may they expect that after this warning continue clamouring against and reproaching the bringing of Infants to Christ?  
2. Christ gives an express command to suffer little children to come to him, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  let not any that profess obedience to Christ, and acknowledge his sovereignty over them, dare to violate this command, in not suffering children to come to Christ.  
3. Christ adds, Forbidden them not, which charge, by way of addition, doth not only show our Lord Christ's earnestness in this point, and confirm the former precept; But also sufficiently warns all under pain of his displeasure, that neither by word nor action, policy nor power, they dare to do any thing to hinder the Infants of Believers from Christ.  
My third argument I will draw from the same Scripture, which is this.  
Arg. 3. Arg. 3 To whom the Kingdom of God (or heaven) belongs now in the time of the Gospel, to them also Baptism, which is the seal of entrance thereinto, belongs.  
But to the children of believing parents, the Kingdom of God or heaven belongs now in the time of the Gospel, Mat. 19.14. Mar. 10 14. Luk. 18.16.  
Therefore Baptism, which now in the times of the Gospel is the seal of entrance into this Kingdom, belongs to the children of believing parents.  
For the clearing and confirming of the proposition, let these things be noted.  
1. That whether by the Kingdom of God (or heaven) be meant a state of grace and professed subjection to Christ the King of the Church in this life, and the state of the Church Militant under Christ, already exhibited in the flesh, as the word is very frequently 
a Mat. 3.2. Mat 14.17. Mat 1●. 24, 32, 24, 47. Mat. 21.41. Mat. 25. ●, 14.  used: or the Kingdom of glory and state of the Church Triumphant, as it is sometime 
b 2 Tim. 4.18.  used: It is all one for our purpose, and that argument holds most clearly in the former, and most strongly in the later sense.  
2. That Baptism is the sign, pledge, or seal of entrance into a Gospel state, or Christian Church, is I think out of question on all sides, and if need were might easily be proved by these and such like Scriptures, Mat. 3.2.6, Mat. 28.18, 19 Act. 2.38.40. Act. 8. & 9 etc.  
3. Though some may have right to this Kingdom, and yet want Baptism, as the penitent thief, and some may have Baptism that have no internal right to the Kingdom of God, and spiritual blessing signified; yet those that have right to the Kingdom of God, holden forth in the Gospel, have right to Baptism; and those that are acknowledged according to the rules of God's word to have right to this Kingdom, must also be acknowledged to have right to the seal of entrance thereinto.  
4. Though only internal right to God's Kingdom and the privileges thereof, argue right to, or possession of the inward seal of the spirit; yet external professed, or known right to this Kingdom, and the outward privileges thereof, so as that persons are according to the Scriptures, acknowledged members and subjects thereof, is sufficient to give Ecclesiastical and external right to the seal of entrance thereinto; as the Jews, whiles they were not actually discovenanted, were the children of the Kingdom; though so wicked as that they were shortly cut off. Therefore let none object, If all the children of Believers have right to the Kingdom of God they shall be all saved, But they are not all saved, Therefore all have not right. This is answered by distinction of external right, which gives interest to the external privileges of the visible Kingdom, and internal right which gives interest in, or implies possession of internal, spiritual and eternal privileges: The former right all Infants of Believers have (and of this we speak now) the later only some peculiar sanctified ones, according to the election of grace, as it is in the case of visible professors and sincere Believers.  
5. That to whom the Kingdom belongs, to them the seal or sign of entrance belongs, right reason will yield, from the nature of correlatives, there being a clear relation between the thing signified or sealed, and the sign or seal; and the whole current of Scripture speaking of Baptism historically, or doctrinally, showeth that so soon as any were acknowledged to have right to the benefit signified or sealed, they had right to the sign or seal.  
The Assumption is expressly in the text, Mat. 19.14. Of such is the Kingdom of heaven. Mat. 10.14. Of such is the Kingdom of God. So Luk. 18.16. speaking of little children; yea ver. 17. Christ with a serious asseveration asserts, That whosoever receives not the Kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no wise enter thereinto. And that this is meant, not only of those particular children that were brought to Christ, is plain; 1. From what was said before to the former Argument. 2. From the very words of Christ, he saith not of these little children, as excluding all other, but of such, that is, the children of parents believing and in Covenant, as those were, which only the disciples and other men that are not able to see the hearts can judge to be such.  
Ob. Ob. Here one objecteth, This reason is grounded on a great mistake of the sense of the text; A. R. for the words are not, To such belongs the Kingdom, but Of such is the Kingdom, that is, of none else but such, as the next words which do follow in this text, do manifestly declare, for in Luk. 18.17. Mar. 10.15. in both places; where Christ had said, Suffer little children to come to me, for of such is the Kingdom of God; he presently confirms it in the next words thus, Verily I say, Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter therein: As also, Mat. 18.34. Christ speaking to his disciples saith, Except ye be couverted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven: Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the Kingdom of heaven; his meaning is not of them, or such as them in age nor understanding, 1 Cor. 14.20. but of such as them in humility and like qualifications.  
Ans. Ans. We neither by mistake say nor judge this place is to be rendered, Unto them belongs the Kingdom: But the words are, Of such is (or to such belongs) the Kingdom, etc. which makes more for our cause then if it had been said, To them belongs, etc. two ways. 1. Hence it is clear that our Saviour speaks not of those individual Infants only, but of all such as they. Notwithstanding the Disciples through ignorance (as before the Ascension they had many mistakes about Christ's Kingdom) thought (possibly) that such Infants were unfit subjects for the Kingdom of heaven; he peremptorily affirms, that Of such is the Kingdom of heaven, indefinitely speaking of such, that their nonage cannot debar them from this heavenly and spiritual Kingdom. Whereas if Christ had said (of them) it might have been thought that those children brought to Christ, had by extraordinary privilege or miracle, right to Christ's Kingdom: Whereas by our Saviour's expression (such) it appears to be the common and ordinary privilege of the children of the faithful. 2. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Whereas Christ saith, Of such is the Kingdom (though our Translators render it, To such belongeth, because the idiom of our Language will not so well bear the other phrase) it implies, that such are already in the Kingdom of God or visible Church, as subjects and members thereof. Whereas if Christ had said, Belongs to them, It might have been understood for the future in a remote possibility (as the inheritance belongs to the Infant-heir, though he be not in present possession,) viz. That when they should come to riper years they might be externally called, and so brought within the Church; whereas this expression of our Saviour shows that such are already within Christ's Kingdom.  
2. Though we should mistake this place, as the objector chargeth us, in that we would gather hence that children are to be admitted to Christ, and have the Seal of spiritual blessings. Whereas he would make it the scope of this place, not that they or such as they in age or understanding have right to the Kingdom of heaven, but such as they in humility and like qualifications; yet it's not like that they which brought the children to Christ should be mistaken in their ends (seeing none of the Evangelists speak of them as mistaken, but rather mention their act by way of approbation) which were for prayer and imposition of hands, to confer and signify spiritual blessings, which are the peculiar privileges of God's Kingdom. Or if they should so far mistake themselves as to come for Christ's blessing for their children, though uncapable, it is not probable but Christ would have reproved them for their error before he admitted them, and have told them, that he would receive them to him only that they might be patterns of humility and such like qualifications to his Disciples; but not so, as if the Kingdom of heaven did belong to them or such as they were in age and understanding, lest he should harden them in their error. But if Christ should have forborn to tell them of their error, and make use of it that he might set before his hearers a pattern of humility and such qualifications; yet surely Christ himself would not so far mistake, as to lay his hands on, and bless them that were uncapable of his blessing, as they must needs be if the Kingdom of heaven belonged not to them, nor any such for age; for Christ's blessing of persons, so solemnly represented and signified or sealed with imposition of hands, are doubtless the privileges of his Kingdom: so that this charge of mistake which the Objector makes, must lie on the Objector himself or Christ.  
3. It cannot be proved that these words, Whosoever receives not, etc. are brought as a reason of that saying, Of such is the Kingdom: It is not joined to the former sentence by a causal particle. But rather it is brought as a second reason why they are to be brought and admitted to Christ, because they are not only fit subjects of the Kingdom of heaven, but also may be patterns to the more ripe and aged.  
4. That place, Mat. 18.34. nothing pertains to this History, for it speaks of Christ's teaching his Disciples humility (of which doctrine he took occasion from his Disciples pride and emulation, which discovered itself in that question, Who is greatest in the Kingdom?) by setting in the midst of them (there's no mention of taking in his arms) a little child; and therefore though this sentence may somewhat illustrate the later of these reasons in Mark and Luke, yet it belongs not to this History or doctrine that is principally and purposely handled therein.  
5. But to make it evident, that Christ when he saith, Of such is the Kingdom, means it of these very children and such as they in respect of age, take these reasons.  
1. The Question was not, Whether such as were endued with humility and like qualifications, might come to Christ? but Whether those Infants, and such as they for age might? The parents or whosoever brought them (whose piety is here approved) desired not that those that had such qualifications only as their children, but that those very babes might be admitted to Christ for prayer and laying on of his hands. The Disciples rebuked them for bringing (not humble persons of ripe years and otherwise qualified as children, but) those babes: Christ is angry with them for hindering those very children, pleads for the children and the bringers of them, commandeth that the children should be permitted to come to him (not such as them in humility and like qualifications at this time) and gives this reason, For of such is the Kingdom of heaven. Now how were this speech and reason of Christ pertinent or convincing, if when the question was about little ones, he should speak only of those which were endued with humility and such qualifications, yet of ripe years?  
2. The word such is taken most usually in Scripture (if not always) for the same persons or things of which mention was made immediately before, and those that are of the same nature and kind, not those of different kind of form, that only agree in some remote unquestioned, unmentioned qualifications; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as may appear by these and such like Scriptures, Joh 4.23. But the hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 1 Cor 5.5. To deliver such an one to Satan; this is meant of the incestuous man (of whom the Apostle had spoken before,) and of those that were guilty of the same or like sins as he: so 2 Cor. 12.2. Such an one taken up into the third heaven. vers. 3. I know such a man. ver. 5. Concerning such a man I will glory. It's plain that this is spoken of the man that had Visions and Revelations of God, whether in the body or out of the body he knew not; and that Paul would glory of that very man or such others, for whom God had done such things, as none of the false Apostles could glory of the like. The same may be observed, Gal. 5.21. Heb. 7.26. and Heb. 13.16. By which examples it is plain, that though the word (such) in the English tongue often signifies but similitude, yet in the Original it notes entity, both specifical and numerical, and consequently here are not meant those who were only like babes in humility and such qualifications, but those very Infants that were brought, and other such Infants, viz. of the Church.  
3. If therefore only Christ admitted children, took them in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them, because of their humility and such qualifications, wherein these that will enter into the Kingdom of God must resemble them; not because they themselves had interest in the Kingdom of God, and were capable of spiritual blessings; than it will follow that it had been lawful and commendable, for men to have brought to Christ Sheep, Doves or Serpents, Salt, Lights or Vine-branches, good Wheat, o● good Fish, 
Mat 5.13, 14. Mat. 10 16. joh. 10, 14. Mat. 13. joh. 13.1, etc.  to have him put his hands upon them and prayed for them, and that Christ would have taken these all, or any of them, into his arms or hands, laid his hands on them and blessed them, for the Godly are resembled to these, and we required to be like unto them in some qualifications, as we will be saved; and where the same or like cause is, the same or like effect will, follow: But the consequent is absurd and ridiculous (if not blasphemous) Therefore the antecedent is false. I come now to the third Argument taken from this History, and it is my fourth Argument in order.  
Arg. 4. Arg. 4 Those and such as those to whom Christ hath vouchsafed his dear embraces, prayers, blessing, and imposition of hands, as a sign or pledge of his blessing, are doubtless in Covenant, and have right to the sign or pledge of entrance thereinto, which is Baptism now in time of the Gospel:  
But Christ hath vouchsafed the little children of the faithful his dear embraces, prayed for them, blessed them, 
Mat. 10 13.15 Mat. 10.16.  and laid his hands on them as a sign or pledge of his blessing;  
Therefore the children of the faithful are in Covenant, and have right to the seal of entrance thereinto, which is Baptism.  
To the clearing of the Proposition let it be remembered, 1. The tender embraces of Christ and ready entertainments of persons, argue those to be in Covenant and in his favour whom he so entertaineth. For he that forbade his Disciples to go to the Gentiles and Samaritans, 
Mat. 10.5. Mat. 15.24. Luk 7.29. Luk 15.1, 2, 3.  was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, would not have eaten with publicans and sinners, but as they had been lost sheep and prodigal sons, yet sheep and sons found again, which had been humbed by John's Ministry; would not doubtless tenderly embrace any young or old, that were without God, hope, Christ or Covenant.  
2. These whom Christ prayeth for are not of the world, and therefore called out of the world to the Church and Covenant, Joh. 17.9.  
3. Christ's laying on of his hands being a sign or seal of spiritual blessing (for we read not that these children were brought to be cured of any corporal malady; but Christ's saying, Of such is the Kingdom of God, sufficiently implieth, that the blessings which he bestowed and confirmed to them, 
Rom. 14.17.  by laying on of hands, were blessings of his Kingdom, which are principally not corporal but spiritual) was of the same nature or equivalent to, or at least implied right in Baptism: For we never read that God or Christ, or any by Divine appointment, communicated imposition of hands as a sign of the blessings of his Kingdom to unbelievers and persons out of Covenant, and so uninterested in the seal of entrance into Covenant.  
4. Hence follows, each of these favours of Christ, much more all laid together, prove, that those to whom they are vouchsafed, are in Covenant, and so have title to the pledge of admission thereto.  
As to the Assumption, let it be noted, 1. That it is in the very words of the text. 2. That though this privilege of corporal or visible embracing, and laying on of hands, and vocal or audible prayer, and blessing from Christ, was peculiar to those Infants that were then brought to him; yet that the same blessings for substance invisibly and spiritually to be conferred by Christ, and what is equivalent to these outward signs, belong still to children of Believers under the Gospel, may be gathered from the whole context, is partly cleared in the handling of the two former Arguments, and might be further proved if need were, and intended brevity would suffer.  
Arg. 5. Arg. 5 If all Nations were by the Apostles to be made disciples and baptised, than the children of those in the Nations, by whom the Gospel is received; for children are a very great and considerable part of a Nation, and capable of being made disciples; as was showed in answer to the former Paper:  
But all Nations were to be made disciples and baptised by the Apostles, according to the command of Jesus Christ, Mat. 28.19, 20.  
Therefore the children of believing parents in those Nations, were and still are to be baptised.  
For the clearing of this ARgument I might suffice myself in referring the Reader to what I have written heretofore, 
In Answer to A. R. In Answer to the first Paper.  for the vindicating of this Scripture, Mat. 28.19 which is the ground of this Argument. Yet briefly for the strengthening and clearing of the antecedent or Assumption contained in the text, I shall propound these considerations to be remembered, though some of them were touched before.  
1. That children are a very considerable part of Nations, therefore comprehended under this command of discipling and baptising Nations: Especially considering,  
2. That no acception is made of them; neither doth this or any other Scripture show that they must be excluded out of this Commission. Did ever Christ say or intimate thus much, Though the children of Believers have heretofore been in Covenant and admitted to the sign of entrance thereto, yet now in the time of the Gospel they are to be left out of Covenant, and kept from the seals thereof, as Infidels and Pagans, till they profess their faith?  
3. They are not uncapable of being made disciples and baptised, as hath been said.  
4. That one Nation of the Jews, which unto the time of Christ's giving this Commission to his Disciples, 
Gen. 17.7. Exod. 12.42.  had been in Covenant and enjoyed the seals thereof, as his peculiar people, had their children taken into Covenant with them, and admitted to the seal of entrance; which privilege also Proselytes of other Nations had in common with the Jews.  
5. Not only among the Jews, but also in all Nations Infant-childrens were always devoted to the same God and religion as their parents, and often (if not always) by some solemn sign of initiation, the devil (not unfitly called God's ape) would have children with their parents dedicated to him, Leu. 18.21. compared with 24, 25, 26. and it is so universal, that children, while Infants, are still reputed to belong to the same religion and God with their parents; as that the children of Papists, Jews, Turks and Indians, etc. are accounted from their mother's womb, Papist, Jews, Turks and Indians, etc. until by the use of reason and freewill they make defection from their father's religion; so that it seems to be of the very dictate of reason and law of nature, that Infants should be esteemed to belong to the same God and religion as their parents, whether true or false.  
6. The children of subjects and bondslaves, are accounted the subjects and bondslaves to their Parents Sovereigns and Masters, until by some act of their own they cast off their yoke: Now all Christians are subjects and servants to Christ their King and Lord, therefore their children also are subjects and servants to God and Christ, whiles Infants, Leu. 25.41, 42. Psal. 116.16.  
7. Hence it cannot be rationally conceived that the Apostles did understand the Commission of discipling all Nations, otherwise then so as to take in the children with their believing parents.  
Arg. 6. Arg. 6 If all the Nations of the earth shall be blessed by Christ the seed of Abraham, after his coming in the flesh, as much or more than the Nation of the Jews were before the coming of Christ, then surely the children of converted Nations must be in Covenant, and have right to the seal of entrance thereinto, for this was a great privilege of the Jewish Nation before Christ's coming. It would be an horrible eclipsing of the blessedness of the converted Gentiles, and of the Jews when they shall be converted, to have their children cut off from the Covenant and the seal thereof:  
But the Nations of believing Gentiles shall be blessed as much or more in the time of the Gospel by Christ, than the Jews were before his coming, Gen. 22.18. Gal. 3.8. 2 Cor. 3.7, 8, 9 Heb. 8.6, 7.  
Therefore the children of believing Gentiles have right to the Covenant and seal of admittance thereinto, which is Baptism.  
For the fuller discovery of the strength of this Argument consider 4 things.  
1. What is said on the foregoing Argument, is of use here also, for the clearing of the extent and comprehensiveness of the word Nation.  
2. Consider the several confirmations of the Proposition, tending to clear the consequence. 1. The Jews (as hath been said) had interest in the Covenant and seal of admission for their children in the Old Testament, before Christ's coming, and this was in itself and their account doubtless a glorious privilege; Therefore Christians after Christ's coming must have the same privilege, seeing no less but rather greater privileges are promised to the believing Gentiles then the Jews had. 2. Especially considering that now in the time of the Gospel this would be in itself, and in the apprehension and desire of all godly parents, accounted a most glorious privilege now, that their children should be in Covenant and admitted to the seal thereof, and the contrary a fearful loss. I appeal to all that esteem the Covenant of God, whether next to their own salvation they would not esteem their children's being admitted to the Covenant of God and its seal an eminent privilege (what those that through the spirit of error have cast off God, his Covenant and truth, judge, we weigh not, considering they are given over to a reprobate judgement.) It being unconceivable how those that ever tasted the goodness of God, the privileges of the Covenant, and made right improvement of the seal thereof, should not earnestly desire the same for their children, whom nature and grace teacheth dearly to love. Neither can any reason be given, why this should be so great a privilege before Christ, and not remain a most desirable privilege since Christ's coming, for parents to have their children in God's Covenant and under his seal. 3. Hence follows, that it would be a sad eclipsing of the blessedness, comfort and glory of believing Gentiles, if their children should be dashed o●● from the privileges of the Covenant, which the Jews children had. How could that of the Apostle be true (Rom. 3.29. Is he the God of Jews only, is he not also of the Gentiles? yea of the Gentiles also,) if God have not as well taken the Gentiles with their children into Covenant, as well as heretofore the Jews with their children. How should the converted Gentiles rejoice with God's people and praise him, as well as the Jews, according to the Prophecy cited by the Apostle, Rom. 15.10, 15. if they should be deprived of so grand a privilege of God's people, which had been so long possessed by them, and their Infants left out of Covenant and debarred the seal? 4. What a lamentable fall and abatement of the believing Jews comfort and glory, would befall them by the coming of Christ, contrary to the Prophetical predictions, Evangelical Proclamations, and all the faithfuls expectation; if whereas before Christ's coming their little ones were in Covenant, had God for their God, and were sealed with the sign of the Covenant; now upon this embracing of Christ, whether on the first offer of the Gospel to them by the Apostles as in Act. 
Act. 2.37, 38, 39, 40, etc. Rom. 7 26, 27  2. or at their conversion in the latter end of the world, Rom. 11. their Infant-childrens should be left out of the Covenant, in Satan's Kingdom.  
3. I will answer one Objection (once for all) which may seem to have some force to take away those untheological and unevangelical absurdities that these men fall into, which here and elsewhere it's showed their opinion leads them to: it's this.  
Obj. In the Old Testament indeed the Church had many external visible privileges, consisting in Rites and Ceremonies, and therefore they were circumcised and their children; but now in the Gospel the privileges are more spiritual and invisible, and therefore it will not follow, If some of those visible privileges be withdrawn, that the Gospel-dispensation is not more excellent than the Legal, and so if Baptism be denied to Christians children, that their state is worse than the state of the Jews.  
Ans. This Objection which would seem to take off the former absurdities, will appear anon to bring in other absurdities as great or greater, or leave the force of the former Arguments untouched. For though it be true that amongst the Jews was a worldly Sanctuary and carnal ordinances, Heb. 9.1.10. which are now abolished and no visible ordinance left to Christians in the place thereof: Yet generally to say that Jews privileges consisted in Rites and Ceremonies, and Christians are spiritual and invisible, is to deny spiritual privileges to the Jews, and the outward profession of religion to Christians, which is equally to overthrow the power of godliness and truth of religion in both, than which what more dangerous or absurd?  
2. But if they will leave generals and come to the point in hand, they must either deny that there is any such outward ordinance as Baptism left to the Church of the New Testament, being of the same use for the main, and in the place of Circumcision, Col. 2.11, 12. which to do were to contradict plain Scripture, or if they grant it, their shifting distinction of visible and spiritual privileges cannot help them, for here by their own concession it cannot take place, seeing that they yield that in this case a visible privilege is afforded alike to both Churches, Jewish and Christian.  
3. This Objection should be acknowledged to say something to the purpose, if it could be proved, 1. That the Jews were only under an external Covenant, without spiritual graces. 2. That their privileges were only external. 3. That Christians have now only spiritual blessings bestowed on them. 4. That ordinarily God now gives his Covenant and spiritual blessings thereof without any visible means or external way of dispensing the same. All or any of which to assert were very false and wicked. But when it is acknowledged, or at least may by plentiful Scripture be proved, 1. That the Jews and their children had interest in spiritual blessings of the Covenant, as truly as we, though in a different manner and measure. 2. That we Christians are under a visible dispensation, as well as they. 3. That both dispensations have had alike each a visible sign, seal or pledge of admission into Covenant. 4. That to enjoy these signs and seals, have been and still are a great benefit to them that have them according to God's appointment. 5. That now Believers have need of the seals of the Covenant to them and their children to confirm their faith in God's mercy to them and theirs, and engage and incite them to obedience, as well as the believing Jews.  
That for themselves Believers need a seal or pledge, is granted by all parties that acknowledge that God (who institutes nothing needless or superstuous in his Church) hath instituted Baptism as a standing Ordinance for Christians. And that for their children they need a seal, as well as the Jews for their children, or Christian Professors for themselves, may appear thus: 1. Have not Christians children souls capable of salvation as well as the Jews? 2. Is it not for God's glory to be visibly known the God of Christians children as well as of the Jews? 3. A●e Christian parents better able to believe Gods fatherly federal love to their children, and devote them to his worship, without his applying a seal unto them, than they can believe his love to themselves, and devote themselves to God without a seal or pledge? If they can sufficiently believe in God for their children, and devote them to Christ without the seal for a pledge or engagement, surely they might as well have believed and obeyed without a seal for themselves, if so, no seal had been instituted at all; for God will make no superfluous institutions. But a seal is instituted, therefore they needed it, if for themselves then for their children. 4. Are Christian parents more careless of their children's salvation or Gods being glorified by their children then the Jews were? that none may say: Then sure they no less need to see them sealed into the Covenant wherein they may be engaged to glorify God, and God to save their souls. Or 5. have Christians more obscure and sparing discovery by promise and precept concerning their own privileges and duties, that they should need the seal and pledge of Baptism for themselves; but more full and clearer promises and commands concerning their children's privileges and duties, then either the Jews had for their children or Christian Professors have for themselves, that in the case of Christians children there should be no use of a seal and pledge, though the Jews children did and Christian Professors do need a seal? I think none will say this. 6. That no Scripture or reason can be given to prove that Believers children in the time of the Gospel are debarred from the Covenant and seal thereof (of which the believing Jews children had been long in possession) and some more eminent privilege bestowed on Christians children, which the Jews children never had, to compensate that loss, of being driven from the Covenant and seal; when (I say) these six things are at the least for the greater part acknowledged, and the other may be easily proved, at least so many as are necessary for this purpose; it must needs be a very contradictory thing, to say That the Gospel-dispensation is more glorious and comfortable than the Legal, and believing Gentiles as much or more blessed then the Jews, and yet Christians children driven from the Covenant of grace and seal thereof, which the Jews children were under.  
4. Having first propounded something in general for the clearing of the whole Argument; secondly, confirmed the Proposition by some particulars: thirdly, Answered an Objection: fourthly, I come to the fourth thing which I promised, which is to speak of the Assumption; concerning which I need say no more, then that it is plainly and fully proved in the Scriptures mentioned in the proposal of the Assumption, and divers others setting forth the glory of Gospel-times.  
Arg. Arg. 7 7. To whom the promise of the spiritual blessing represented and sealed in Baptism belongs, 
Act. 2.38, 39  to them the outward sign of Baptism itself belongs; so the Apostle reasons, and the sign and thing signified being correlatives, must go together:  
But the promise of God's Spirit, 
Act. 2.39. Isa. 44.3.  signified in Baptism (and so of Regeneration, Sanctification and Adoption) belongs to the faithful and their children;  
Therefore Baptism itself belongs to them.  
Arg. Arg. 8 8. If in the time of the Apostles, when the governors of families believed, their whole families thereupon were baptised with them: Now also the children of believing parents, being parts of their families, are to be baptised:  
But where the Apostles had drawn, by the Ministry of the word, governor's of families to the faith, they baptised with them their whole family, Act. 16.14, 15. & 33, 34.  
Therefore the children of believing parents are to be baptised.  
For the clearing of the two last Arguments, to avoid tediousness (having been more large in the former than I intended) I refer the Reader to what I have said in the Answer to the former Paper, in the vindicating of those Scriptures, Act. 2. & 16. cited by the other party.  
Arg. Arg. 9 9 They that are holy or Saints, are to be baptised:  
Children of believing parents are holy or Saints, 1 Cor. 7.14.  
Therefore to be baptised.  
See this Argument cleared in my first Book, in Answer to A.R. and hereafter more may come forth for vindicating of that Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.14. from exceptions.  
Arg. Arg. 10 10. They that are members of the Church have right to Baptism, for Baptism is a solemn sign or pledge of admittance into the Church, 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. Eph. 5.25, 26.  
But the children of the faithful are members of the Church. 1. So they were amongst the Israelites and never yet dismembered. 2. Such promises are made to them as none without the Church have right unto. 3. Else they have no interest in Christ's love, no benefit by his death, no purification and sanctification by his blood, nor is there any hope that (if they die Infants) they shall be presented holy and spotless, glorious and unblamable before God, all which are the peculiar privileges of the Church, not communicable to any but members thereof, Eph. 4.25, 26, 27. So that if the children of Believers be not members of the Church, they are without, Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, without hope, without God, whiles children, which to affirm, is most blasphemous to God's grace, Covenant and nature.  
Therefore the children of Believers have right to Baptism.  
Arg. Arg. 11 11. If the duties of the Covenant no less belong to Christian parents and their children in the time of the Gospel, than they did to Jewish parents and their children under the Law: It will follow that the Covenant itself and the privileges and seal thereof, do no less belong to them and their children, than they did to the Jews and their children:  
But the duties of the Covenant lie no less on Christian parents, to teach and instruct their children, 
Eph. 6.4.  and on their children to learn the fear and nurture of the Lord, now in the time of the Gospel, than they lay on Jewish parents and children;  
Therefore the Covenant, its privileges, and the seal of admission no less belongs to Christian parents and their children, than they did belong to Jewish parents and their children.  
For the strengthening of the Proposition let these things be considered,  
1. Ordinarily and in the usual dispensation of the Covenant, where God requires like duties, he affords like privileges: I speak not of what God may do out of his prerogative or in some extraordinary case, setting aside his dealing with men by way of command, promise and threatening, which is his way of transaction in Covenant.  
2. If there be any difference in the Christian Church compared with the Jewish, and later dispensation of the Covenant compared with the former, there is rather an increase of privileges, and lessening of burdens and duties, than an increase of burdens and duties and lessening of privileges.  
3. If you say otherwise, Might not Christian parents, if urged to the Religious education of their children by you, answer, By your judgement they are dogs and swine, as being out of Covenant? how can we offer holy instruction to them, or exercise any Christian discipline over them, bring them to public assemblies, or pray for them, any otherwise then as Infidels? were no: this to cast Pearls to swine, and give holy things to dogs? 
Mat. 7.6. 1 Cor. 5.12.  What have we to do to pray with or exercise Discipline and Censure over those that are without? What poor encouragements do you give us to bring them up for God, when you tell us that they have no right to the Covenant of God? Is not your practice in denying us the privilege of the Covenant for our children, and yet requiring the duties thereof, worse than that of the false Apostles, in putting a yoke on the Disciples necks, which neither their fathers nor they were able to bear? They indeed urged duties, but allowed privileges (according to their apprehension, and what had formerly been indeed a privilege,) you urge duty, but deny privileges, which do greatly ease burdens and facilitate duties. But if you say, that you do not urge the duty of Christian education of children, etc. as I fear practice speaks too loud: What is this but to profess an intention to overthrow both the duties and privileges of the Covenant, and so bring in Atheism, which if it take place in families, will soon overspread the whole Church, and particular persons.  
4. The Jews indeed were bound to circumcise their children, and observe all those laws, Ceremonial and Moral, concerning them which were appointed by Moses; but they had this ease and encouragement, their children were in Covenant and had the seal thereof, and they might expect the privileges and blessings of the Covenant on their children, by virtue of God's promises, Covenant and seal. Now no such privileges are allowed to Christian parents in behalf of their children, if these men's opinion stand and the Proposition hold not.  
Obj. But if parents by their care bring them to actual faith, and so under the Covenant, than they shall enjoy the privileges of the Covenant, and seal thereof.  
Ans. 1. If that be all, then by your opinion if they die before actual faith (as thousands of the children of the faithful do in their infancy) they perish as Aliens to the Covenant. 2. The only way revealed in Scripture for parents first bringing their children under the Covenant, is by faith to accept the Covenant for themselves and their children, Gen. 17.7. They that hold out a new way must show some Scripture for the abolishing of the Old, and establishing the New, or must expect no regard from those that are not willing to be deluded. 3. Show the ground of this distinction; Jewish children were to be educated for God as being under Covenant and seal, but the children of Christians only that they may be brought under the Covenant and seal, when they come to actual faith, professed in their own person. What Scripture or reason puts such a vast difference between them, that those should be brought up Religiously, as actually in Covenant and sealed, these only as in a remote possibility to be brought to the Covenant and seal?  
5. The fifth consideration will not only strengthen the Proposition, but also further answer the foregoing objection: It's this, If the children of the faithful be not already actually in Covenant, from their infancy, and so interested in the privileges of the Covenant, not only parents may be afraid to instruct them in Scripture, Catechise and pray with them, require their presence in the Congregation and family duties, and their sanctification of the Lords day (which are both duties and privileges of the Covenant) lest they should cast Pearls to swine, and judge them that are without; But also the children, if urged hereunto, may demand of their parents, What have you to do to require of us any Christian duties, or to correct us for the neglect thereof, or for the commission of any sin against the Gospel, as profanation of the Lords day, blaspheming Christ, Christian Religion, or the Scripture, etc. Might not they plead liberty of conscience, and say, What have you to do to judge us that are without? we are to choose, our Religion, and as free to worship Mahomet as Christ. The Jews indeed had authority to bring up their children in the Jewish Religion, as being devoted thereto from their infancy, by the Covenant and seal thereof, under which they were: but now we children of Christians are under no such privileges nor engagements. Which practice, I fear, will be the genuine fruit of this opinion, argued against and swallowed down as no absurdity, by those that are poisoned with anabaptistical fancies; but must needs be detested by all that prise the Covenant of God, and love Christ sincerely, or their own and children's souls spiritually.  
To clear the Assumption, let these things be considered: 
Gen. 18.19. Exod. 12.26, 27. Iosh 24.15. Psal. 78.5, 6. Prov. ●. 3, 4, 5. 2 Tim. 3.15.   
1. How can it be doubted but that all those moral duties that lay upon Abraham and his children, and the Israelites and their children, enjoining the one party to teach, and the other to learn the way and commandments of God, lie now upon Christian parents and their children.  
2. Paul greatly commends Timothy's happiness, and his parents care in that he had been brought up from his infancy in holy Scripture, which he would not have done, if either Timothy had not been in Covenant from his infancy (for what have those to do with the tables of the Covenant, that are strangers or aliens to the Covenant?) or that example had not been of moral equity to be imitated by Christian parents and their children, in the time of the Gospel.  
3. That Scripture cited to prove the Assumption, contains a full express charge which lies on all Christian parents to teach, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and children to learn the fear and information of the Lord, Eph. 6.4. which argues also that children of the faithful are disciples of the Lord, to be trained up in his school, being dedicated to his discipline and nurture.  
4. Were not this so, that moral Law, which the Apostle in special manner above all the rest, urgeth upon Christians children, would be abrogated, or greatly weakened as to the children of Christian parents, at least until they come to actual faith. Children (saith he) obey your parents in the Lord. 
Eph 6.1, 2.  And Honour thy father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise. For how can they obey them in the Lord, when the parents have no authority to command them any thing in the name of the Lord, they not being under his yoke and Covenant? How can parents challenge honour from their children by virtue of God's command, when they bring not up their children for God and to his honour? Or how can children Religiously and Christianly honour their parents, that have left them in the state of Infidels? Especially considering this commandment, Honour thy father, etc. as it was given to the Israelites, supposed their children to be in Covenant with their parents, and to have the like interest with their parents in the Covenant and its seal, and the like engagement to the duties thereof, in respect of outward dispensation, which is denied now to the children of Christians, unless the Assumption, yea and the main point in controversy be granted.  
Twelfthly, I argue thus: Arg. 12 Children of believing parents must either be baptised, while children, or while able to profess the faith, or not at all. 1. This last your practice shows you will not hold; and it were unreasonable to think that their being born of believing parents should deprive them of this privilege, seeing in the Old Testament this procured to children the seal of entrance. 2. That they should be kept without Baptism until they be able to make a profession of faith, is not where commanded, neither can any Scripture-example, or good reason be given for it. 1. Not commanded, for the command which was given for baptising of professors of faith and repentance, did expressly and immediately belong to those Jews and Gentiles which had not been born of Christian parents. 2. Neither is there Scripture-example for it, for the examples we read of were according to Commission, none (as we read in Scripture) that were born after their parents were Christians, were baptised, when grown; Scripture speaks only of those that had been Jews and Infidels children that were baptised by the Apostles. 3. Neither stands it with right reason, that Believers children should be left (until they profess their faith) in the same state with Jews, Turks and Infidels, considering Gods promises and Covenant:  
Therefore it remains that they must be baptised while Infants; this being most agreeable, 1. To Gods dealing with Abraham the father of the faithful, that children, while Infants, should be admitted with their believing parents, and that Covenant and seal thereof. 2. To the nature of this Sacrament, which is to be administered the first opportunity, to persons known to be in Covenant, and members of the Church. 3. To all those commands and examples of baptising new converted Jews and Infidels; for as their conversion did put them into the Covenant of grace, whereupon they had right to the seal of entrance: So these Infants being born of Christian parents, doth inright them to the Covenant, whereupon they have right to the seal of entrance.  
Arg. Arg. 13 13. That doctrine and practice is to be abhorred, which puts the Infants of Christians into the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels, leaves them in the visible kingdom of the devil, as no visible members of the Church, denies to them reasonable souls, and cuts them off from all hopes of salvation, whiles they are Infants: This doctrine and practice, I say, is to be abhorred, as most contrary to the Covenant of God set forth in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, contrary to the hopes, prayers, and comforts of Christian parents concerning their children, while Infants, and contrary to reasons and nature's light, which shows that Infants are reasonable creatures.  
But the doctrine and practice of these Anabaptists, leaves Christian's children in the same condition with the children of Turks and Infidels, as casting them out of God's Covenant and Christ's Kingdom, which is the Church, and denying to them the seal of admittance thereto, and so leaving them in the visible kingdom of the devil, denying to them faith, without which they must certainly perish; and reason, without which they are bruits, and so cut off from all hopes of salvation.  
Therefore their doctrine and practice is to be abhorred.  
Thus you have seen our Arguments, or at least some of them.  
Now before I conclude I will Answer two or three Questions or Objections.  
Obj. 1. But if children of Believers have right to the Covenant, Christ, the promises, and gift of the holy Ghost, How can we know this? Men of years if they believe and repent, can make profession; but how can children make profession in the Covenant, that we may have sufficient warrant to baptise them?  
Ans. It's true they cannot make profession of their interest in the Covenant and promises, but that is done sufficiently for them, by God the Father, Son and holy Ghost, speaking in Scripture, as Gen. 17.7. Exod. 20.6. Psal. 102.28. and 103.17, 18. Psal. 112.2. and 127.3, 4, 5. Es. 44.3. Mar. 10.14. Act. 2.39. 1 Cor. 2.14, etc. These and many other Testimonies are given in Scripture by God himself, concerning the right of the faithfuls children to the Covenant, promise and Kingdom of God, which I wish the Reader to turn over unto and observe: Surely this testimony of God for children, is not less than the testimony of men of years for themselves. So that if parents when they bring their children to Baptism, make a due profession of their repentance, faith and resolution to walk with God in Covenant, and both to accept God's Covenant for themselves and their children, and give up themselves and theirs to God in Covenant, the Ministers and Congregations may have satisfaction concerning their children's right to the Covenant and promise (by virtue of these Scriptures) and so to Baptism.  
Obj. 2. If children of believing parents have title to the Covenant and promises, either all have this title or some only: If some only, how will you distinguish them, that those only may be baptised? If all, how is it that many prove wicked, which were baptised in infancy? Do you hold falling away from grace?  
Ans. The promises and Covenant belong to all the faithfuls children in regard of outward station in Covenant, and right to the seal of entrance (which is the thing now in question) the inward efficacy we leave to the good pleasure of God. The whole body of Israelites aged and children, 
1 Cor. 10.5.  were God's people by Covenant, and under the promise; Yet with many of them God was not well pleased. The Churches of the New Testament are called Saints, said to be in Christ, and yet many persons therein proved wicked and erroneous; as may appear in those Epistles that are written to them, giving them the title of Saints. The Covenant and promises as they are outwardly dispensed are conditional, neither doth God therein any further bind himself to his people, then as the condition of regeneration, holiness, repentance, faith or obedience, are found in them or performed by them. Indeed the inward working of regeneration, drawing to and giving Communion with Christ, giving a new heart and spirit, faith etc. are absolutely bestowed according to God's good pleasure, upon what number of these persons externally in Covenant he seethe good, according to the election of grace, agreeably to those Scriptures, Rom. 9.15, 16, 18.  
2. Here is no more necessity than possibility of distinguishing between Elect and non-elect Infants; their being members of the visible Church, gives them right to the privilege of new admitted members.  
3. Neither do we hold falling from the inward efficacy of grace, 
joh. 13. ●. 2 Per. 2.1. Rev. 3.1, 7. Heb. 6.4.5, 6.  as from true solid Sanctification, Justification and Adoption, though we grant men may fall from the outward dispensation of the Covenant of grace and turn Apostates; or continue under the outward dispensation, and yet fall short of the saving efficacy of grace. 
Mat 25.29.  Yea moreover that those which have seemed to themselves and others to be Justified, Sanctified and Adopted, may fall from what they seemed to have, and utterly perish.  
4. The Objection will hold as strongly against the baptising of the professors of faith, for not all those whom the Apostles or any others baptised upon their profession have held our, many proved wicked and reprobate, none can certainly distinguish among professors, which are elect and which not, Must they not therefore be baptised?  
To conclude therefore, They that by their own profession, or God's profession for them, are discovered to have right to the outward dispensation of the Covenant, let them enjoy it without gainsaying; and let us leave the inward efficacy of the Covenant to God, to whom alone it belongs.  
Obj. 3. But what need you writ so much in answering so little? It seems your cause is not good you take so much pains about it: Why did not you Answer as briefly as the other party Propounded?  
Ans. 1. The truth oft lies deeep and will not easily be found out: as it is more precious than gold and silver, 
Pro. 3 13, 14.  so it requires more diligent search. Gold Mines are not obvious to every eye, much skill and labour are requisite to find them out, and bring the gold to light.  
2. Though the other party have but briefly propounded their judgement, and grounds thereof in their now-Answered Papers; yet it is known what large discourses they have made amongst the people, and how many Treatises are written on this subject.  
3. It is not an argument of a bad cause to be somewhat large in clearing it; the better the cause is, the more it deserves diligence in handling of it, lest we should wrong God, his people and truth by sleightinesse. A cup of poison may be prepared, drunk down and dispersed into the body in an hour, which the wisest Physician can hardly expel out of the body, with all his skill and pains in many months. A desperate cutthroat may give a wound or stab in a moment, which the most dexterous Chirurgeon cannot heal in a short time. An incendiary may set an whole Town on fire suddenly, which cannot be built up by many Carpenters and Masons in few years. Yet the cause and work of the later is much better than of the former. I have been willing therefore to be somewhat large, as my poor ability, small leisure, time allowed, and others importunity would permit.  
You conclude your Paper thus. 
H. H. J. Br.  If you therefore or your Ministers have any thing to say or write herein, we desire you, for the truth and your promise sake, to do the same, else we must necessarily conclude, that neither you nor they have any thing to gainsay it, but by your silence justify both our principle and practice.  
You see I hope by this time, that we have something to say and write herein, and for the truths and our promise sake have done the same in part, and are ready by the grace of Jesus Christ, to do more when duly called thereunto, therefore you have no cause to conclude that we have nothing to gainsay, or that by silence we do justify your principle or practice, against which we have born witness in love to the truth.  
And now Sirs, you which have subscribed the Papers here answered, let me entreat you seriously to peruse what hath been here returned to you in Answer, and acknowledge what is of God and agreeable to his truth; and if you find any thing dissonant thereto, discover it and spare not, and let me have a punctual and particular reply to the several parts of this answer, and till then forbear your high confidence, in promoting your opinions and practising answerably, then will you give us good ground of persuasion, that your profession of desire to have the truth discussed is real. But if you shall be unable to answer this (as I am persuaded you will not be able with any show of truth) and yet proceed in your opinions and practice; let me tell you, God will be certainly avenged of those which abuse his people, ordinances and truth, speaking evil of the things they know not; if not with visible and temporal, yet certainly with invisible spiritual and eternal punishments: Read I pray 2 Tim. the third Chapter. 2 Pet. 2. and the Epistle of Judas.  
As for you, dear Brethren, that mourn for what you cannot amend, and endeavour to contend for the common salvation once delivered to the Saints, and not to be as children, carried about with every wind of vain doctrine, I exhort that you will hold fast the truth which you have received, 
Rev. 2.25. and 3.10.  keep the word of Christ's patience, that he may keep you in this hour of temptation that is befallen the whole world to try them that dwell on the earth. Be sure that you receive the truth in love, knowing that many for want of this are given over to strong delusions to believe lies that they may be damned, because they had pleasure in unrighteousness. Remember the counsel of Christ and his Apostles in these following Scriptures, Mat. 7.15, 16. Rom. 16.17, 18. Gal. 5.1. 2 Tim. 3.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. 2 Pet. 3.1, 2. and 17.18. 1 Joh. 4.1, 2. Judas 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.  
Thus I have answered these Papers, hoping that I shall be ready by God's assistance, to give a reason of my faith and hope herein, either by word or writing so far as I may have a good call thereto, may do it with safety, and may deal with men that will hear and speak reason and Scripture pertinently applied, and may observe those rules of the Apostle, 2 Tim. 2.16.23. Tit. 3.9, 10.  
Thus desiring that the God of truth will more and more clear his truth, and subdue thereto or break in pieces all the ignorant and wilful opposers thereof, I end,   
William Cook.  
FINIS.