THE BAPTISING OF INFANTS REVIEWED and DEFENDED from the Exceptions OF Mr. TOMBS, In his three last CHAPTERS of his Book Entitled ANTIPEDOBAPTISME.  
By H. Hammond, D. D.  
LONDON, Printed by J. Flesher, for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy lane. 1655.   

THE BAPTISING OF INFANTS Reviewed and Defended.  
The Introduction.  
HAving, by God's help, passed through many stadia in these agones, and therein paid some degree of obedience to the precept of Christ, Mat. 5.41. and withal to S. Peter's directions of rendering an account of the Faith which is in us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even to him that most unnecessarily requires it; There is yet remaining one matter of discourse, wherein some seeming engagement lies upon me, occasioned by the Resolution of the 4th Quaere, concerning Infant Baptism; For to this Mr. Jo: Tombs hath offered some answers in the three last Chapters of his Book entitled Antipaedobaptism.  
What I have thought meet to return to these, might, I supposed, have been not unfitly annexed by way of appendage to that of Festivals; the treatises of Festivals and Infant Baptism being so nearly conjoined in the first draught or monogramme, that the defence of them (which may in some degree pass for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) ought incongruity to be contrived into the same table also. But the length of this Answer hath dissuaded that, and the desire that the Reader may have no tasks imposed on him but by his own choice, hath advised the publishing this by itself, with some hope that this may conclude his trouble, and that this new year may not bring me so many occasions of such contests, as the last hath done.  

CHAP. I. Of Baptism among the Jews.  

Sect. I. Probations more and less perfect. The use of Circumcision to this question of Paedobaptism. As also of Christ's reception of children. children's coming and believing, Mat. 18. Children sinners.  
THe foundation of Mr. Tombes' returns to me he is pleased to lay in some words, which he hath recited out of §. 23. of my Resolution of the 4th Quaere, where I say, that there is no need of laying much weight on this, or any the like more imperfect ways of probation, the whole fabric being sufficiently supported and built on this basis (the customary baptisms among the Jews) and that discernible to be so, if we consider it first negatively, then positively.  
To this he begins his Reply with these words, I like the Doctor's ingenuity in his waving the imperfect ways of proving Infant Baptism, viz. the example of circumcision, Gen. 17. of baptising a whole household, Act. 16.33. Christ's reception of little children, Mat. 19.14. Mar. 10.16. and doubt not to show his own to be no better than those he relinquisheth.  
To this introduction of his I shall make some Reply in a general reflection on the Treatise which he undertakes to answer, and begin with disclaiming his good words and approbation of my ingenuity, assuring him that he is wholly mistaken in these his first lines and that I do in no wise relinquish those ways of probation by him taken notice of, nor shall so far despise the authority and aides of the ancient Church writers, who have made use of them, as wholly to neglect the force and virtue of them. And I thought it had been to him visible, that I have made my advantage of every one of them §. 20, 21, 22. though I do verily think the foundation of this practice is more fitly laid in that other of Jewish Baptism, which belonged to all, both Jews, and proselytes children, females as well as males, whereas circumcision belonging to males only, was in that and some other respects a less perfect basis of it.  
Meanwhile, for the clearing of this whole matter, it must be remembered that probations are of two sorts, either less or more perfect, those I call less perfect, which though they have full force in them, as far as they are used, yet are not of so large an extent as to conclude the whole matter in debate, which others that are more perfect may be able to do.  
I shall apply this to the matter before us. The instituting of the Sacrament of circumcision among the Jews, and the express command of God that the children of eight days old should by this rite be received into Covenant, is an irrefragable evidence that those may be capable of receiving a Sacrament, who have not attained to years of understanding the nature of it, that children may be received into Covenant with God though they are not personally able to undertake or perform the condition of it, and then that argument will so far be applicable to Paedobaptism, as to evidence the lawfulness and fitness of it among Christians, by this analogy with God's institution among the Jews, and so certainly invalidate all the arguments of the Antipaedobaptist (i e. of Mr. Tombs) drawn from the incapacity of Infants, from the pretended necessity that preaching should go before baptising, from the qualifications required of those that are baptised, etc. For all these objections lying and being equally in force against circumcising of Infants, it is yet evident to be the appointment of God that every Infant of 8. days old should be circumcised, Gen. 17.12. and the threatening of God denounced against them as transgressors in case it be neglected, The uncircumcised manchild shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my covenant, v. 14. And this the rather, because the Apostle compares baptism of Christians with circumcision, Col. 2.11.12. In whom ye are circumcised— buried with Christ in baptism, Isidor Pelusiote, l. 1. Ep. 125. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Jews used circumcision in stead of baptism, whereupon S. Epiphanius styles Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great circumcision, and S. Augustine to them that require a divine authority, whereby to prove the baptism of Infants, renders this of the 
* De Bapt. contr: Donat: l. 4. c. 23.  Jewish circumcision, ex quâ veraciter conjiciatur quid valeret in parvulis Sacramentum Baptismi, whereby true judgement may be made what force the Sacrament of Baptism may have in Infants. And in like manner Isidore l. 1. Ep. 125. whereupon consideration of the Angel coming, to kill Moses because of the childs not being circumcised, he concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let us make haste to baptise our children.  
Yet because what is thus evidenced to be lawful, and agreeable to divine appointment in the old Testament, is not thereby presently proved necessary under the New (Christ might otherwise have ordained, if he had pleased, and from his ordinance only, as that was understood by his Apostles and by them delivered to the Church, the necessity of our obedience, and so of Baptising Infants, is completely deduced) therefore it is, that I mentioned this, as a more imperfect way of probation, in respect of the entire conclusion, which I undertook to make, viz. not only the lawfulness, but the duty and obligation, that lies upon us to bring our Infants to Baptism; which by the way, was much more than was necessary (the showing the lawfulness being sufficient, and the example of circumcision being competent) for the disproving the pretensions of the Antipaedobaptist, and so, ex abundanti, an act of Supererogatory probation, in relation to Mr. T.  
The same is appliable in some degree to the other ways of probation, which he supposeth to be relinquished by me, especially to that of Christ's behaviour to little children, commanding to suffer them to come unto him (who yet were no otherwise able to come then as they were brought, and as now they come to the font for baptism) and embracing and laying on his hands and blessing them: But this is competently set down, and the force of it, how far 'tis argumentative, § 22.  
Only I now add, that that other place of Mat. 18.6. where Jesus speaking of little children, useth these words, who so offendeth one of these little ones that believe in me, it were good for him that a Millstone etc. may tend much to give us the full importance and signification both of their coming to Christ, and of his commanding not to forbid them (such as will nearly concern every Antipaedobaptist to take notice of) For as in other places of the New Testament, the coming unto God and Christ, is believing on him, seeking to receive benefit from him (as, He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and Come unto me all ye that are weary, and If any man thirst let him come unto me and drink) so, it seems, by this place, that that coming of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little Infants (for so they are called in the Parallel place Luk. 9.47.) which they were capable of by the help of their parents or friends, is styled by Christ the children's believing, and so far imputed to them, as that upon that account the sentence is very severe upon those that shall scandalise them, repulse or discourage, or any way hinder them in this their progress to Christ, though it be but in the arms of other men.  
How fitly this is applicable to the state of Infants, in respect of the guilt of original sin, under which they are born, and for the remission of which (and not only for the entering into the Kingdom of Heaven) the Fathers defined against the Pelagians, that baptism was necessary for them, I shall not need here to enlarge, having formerly spoken to that head. Only it may not be amiss here to advert, that it was as reasonable for the children to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believers, who yet had no faith of their own, but only of their parents etc. to bring them to Christ, as for the same children to be accounted sinners (as undoubtedly they are) which yet never committed any act of sin, which made S. Augustine De verb: Apost: Serm: 4. say, Absit ut ego dicam non credentes infants, God forbid that I should say that Infants are not believers, Credit in altero, qui peccavit in altero, He believes by another who sinned by another, dicitur, Credit, & valet, & inter fideles baptizatos computatur, the Susceptors say he believes, and so he is reputed among the baptised believers. And this reputative faith the more reasonably accepted by the Church, it being moreover evident by the baptism of Simon Magus, and of all hypocrites, that 'tis the profession of faith, and not the possession of it, which is required as the qualification which authorises the Church to admit them to baptism; and that being performed by the Infant's proxies in his name, the Church after the forementioned example of Christ, may very lawfully accept it of those, who can perform no other, in lieu of a personal profession.  
Meanwhile this passage of Christ concerning children, though it be a certain evidence again against the Antipaedobaptist, as hath been showed, and I need no more than this one proof, if I were destitute of all others, to refute his pretensions, yet because it contains no relation of Christ's, or his Apostles baptising infants, therefore I put it in the rank of the more imperfect probations (in comparison with that other way of probation, which I conceive, deduceth and concludeth the whole matter more entirely) though, as 'tis evident §. 22. this was neither waved nor relinquished by me.  
To this if I shall now add, that it was my design in that resolution of the Quaere to insist more largely on that way of probation, which I discerned to be less considered or insisted on by others, and yet to have perfect evidence in it, if it were duly explained and improved as it was capable, and on the same account thought I might spare to multiply words, where others had often enlarged, and therefore said but little of those common arguments or heads of probation, and yet sufficient to testify my neither waving nor relinquishing them, It will then abundantly appear, how little I deserved Mr. T. his good words, and how justly I renounce that title to ingenuity which he bestows upon me, being better pleased with his animadversions on my dotages, as he after phraseth it, than these, his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his liberalities to me by which he designed advantage to himself.   

Sect. 2. The necessity of Paedobaptism depending on the positive part of the probation. The several sorts of Anabaptists. Testimonies the only proof of Institutions.  
BEfore I proceed I must desire the Reader to consider two things, 1. That the Jewish baptism is not by me set up as the competent proof, but only as the ground or foundation (which taken by its self is always very imperfect in respect of the whole fabric or building,) 2. That the perfect proof being set down to consist of two parts, a negative and a positive, the first only showing the no incongruity or unlawfulness of baptising Infants, and the second adding thereto duty and obligation, these two must in all reason remain conjoined in our discourse, and not be so severed, or considered asunder, as if I thought the former way of negative probation sufficient to do the whole work without the assistance of the latter; This I needed not have said in relation to Mr. T. For the bare negative consideration (that there is nothing in the pattern whence Christ's baptism is copied out, nothing in the copy itself, as far as Christ's words in the Gospel, or the Apostles practice extend, etc.) is perfectly sufficient to refute an antipaedobaptist (such as he professeth to be) who undertakes to show the baptising of Infants to be unlawful, but cannot pretend to show it by any other way, but by producing some either law or practice of Christ or his Apostles to the contrary, which he must be concluded unable to do, if my Negative stand inviolate▪ But I thus interpose (and do it thus early) because the positive part, being indeed the principal, especially when it is also added to the negative, doth not only demonstrate it lawful, but duty, to offer and receive our Infants to baptism, the judgement and practice of the Universal Church for 1600 years, (received, as the Fathers with one consent testify, from the Apostles, as the will of Christ himself) having this force and authority over every meek son of the Church, that he may not without incurring God's displeasure, oppugn or contemn it.  
And so by this means there is much more performed than was needful, if Mr. T. had been the only adversary foreseen, even that which may convince all sorts of opposers and disputers in this matter, from 
* See G. Cassan. in Praes. ad Duc. Jul. Cliv. ex Nichol. Blusdick de Orig Sect. Anabapt.  Peter de Bruce and Henry his Scholar, and the Petrobusiani and Henriciani that sprang from them, to Nicholas Storck and John Munzer, Melchior Rinck, Balthasar Habmaier, Michael Satelar the Swissers, and so on to Michael Hoffman the skinner in the Low Countries, to Vbbo and Menno of Friesland, and Theodorick Vbbo's son, and all their followers, which either then lived, and set up in Germany, or are now revived, or copied out among us; This one deduction of this practice (of baptising Infants) from the Apostles, if it be solid, being abundantly sufficient to make an end of all controversies of this kind, It being highly unreasonable that an institution of Christ's, such as each Sacrament is, should be judged of by any other rule (whether the fancies or reasons of men) but either the words wherein the institution is set down, or (when they, as they are recorded in the Scripture, come not home to the deciding of the controversy) by the records of the practice, whether of Christ, or (because he baptised not himself) of the Apostles, however conserved or made known unto us.  
In a word then, the customary baptism among the Jews being first laid only as the basis and foundation (which, as I said, must be observed to differ from the whole building, being indeed only, the first and most imperfect part of it) and evidently brought home and applied to every branch of the Christian baptism, I desire Mr. T. will permit the baptism of our infants to deduce and evidence itself from the considerations, which are thereunto annexed, both negative and positive, and then make trial how he shall be able to demolish that structure which is thus founded and supported; Meanwhile I shall now consider the severals of his exceptions, having premised thus much in general.   

Sect. 3. The Jews Baptism of natives as well as proselytes. Testimonies of their writers in proof thereof. Baptism among the heathens taken from the Jews. Among both from Noah's flood. The derivation of Christian from Jewish Baptism how manifested. Christ's answer to Nicodemus. Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the deluge. Gr. Nazianzen's and Macarius' testimonies. The Father's meaning in affirming the Christians baptism to be in stead of Circumcision. The Lord's Supper founded in the Jew's Postcoenium, yet in stead of their Passeover.  
AND first he will abbreviate and give the Reader the substance of my proof, which he conceives to be this, that the Jews were wont when they admitted proselytes to baptise them and their children. Here again at the entrance I must interpose, that his Epitome hath done some injury to the Book, left out one considerable, if not principal part, viz. that which concerned the Native Jewish children, who were baptised as solemnly, as the Proselytes and their children.  
This must be here taken notice of, because Mr. T. makes haste to assume the contrary, that the Jews baptised not jews by nature, p. 306. that after the baptism Exo. 19.10. the jews did not baptise jews but only proselytes, p. 307. and so makes a shift to conclude, that by my arguing, the children of those that were baptised in infancy ought not to be baptised, and so that no infant of Christian race, or descended from Christian ancestors, is now to be baptised, p. 308. no infants but at the first conversion of the parent, p. 309. And this I was many months before the publication of his book, warned to expect from Mr. T. as an irresistible answer to my way of defending infant baptism, mentioned by him in the pulpit, as ready to be published, that by deducing the baptism of Christians from the Jewish custom of baptising of proselytes I had excluded all the children of Christian ancestors from our baptism.  
But as this was then a great surprise to me, who knew that I had cleared that judaical baptism to belong to the children of all native jews, as well as of proselytes, so now I could not but wonder to find there was so perfect truth in that relation, which I had received, and have no more to say, but to desire the Reader to cast his eyes upon that Treatise, and inform himself whether I have not as punctually deduced from the jewish writers the customary baptism of native jewish infants, as I have done the baptism of proselytes and their children, and indeed mentioned the former as the original from which the latter was to be transcribed, and so as the foundation and groundwork of that other.  
'tis unreasonable to recite here what is there so visible, yet because I see it is not taken notice of, but the contrary assumed for granted, and the chief weight of his 24th Chapter laid upon that supposition, there is nothing left me to do in this matter, but to transcribe my words from that 6th §. which are expressly these:  
First then, Baptism or washing of the whole body was a jewish solemnity, by which the native jews were entered into the covenant of God made with them by Moses, so saith the Talmud tr: Repud: Israel or the Israelites do not enter into covenant but by these three things, by circumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by baptising, and by peace offering. So in Gemara ad tit. Cherithoth, c. 2. your fathers, i. e. the jews of old time did not enter into the covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by circumcision and baptism, and in jabimoth, c. 4. Rabbi joshua said, we find of our mother that they were baptised (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and not circumcised, so Maimonides tit: Isuribia, c. 13. By three things the Israelites entered into the covenant, by circumcision, baptism and sacrifice, and soon after, what was done to you, to the jews in universum, ye were initiated into the Covenant by circumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and baptism and sacrifice. All these Testimonies there thus set down, and then how could I conclude less than there I do, that nothing can be more clearly affirmed by them, i. e. by the Jewish writings of the greatest authority among them, the Talmud, Gemara, and Maimonides?  
If this were not sufficient, then follows § 11. as a third thing observable in this baptism among the Jews, that the baptism of the natives was the pattern, by which the baptism of proselytes was regulated, and wherein it was founded, and this made evident by the arguing, and determining the question, in the Gemara, tit: Jabimoth, c. 4. after this manner, Of him that was circumcised and not baptised Rabbi Eliezer said that he was a Proselyte, because, said he, we find of our Fathers (Abraham Isaac—) that they were circumcised but not baptised; And of him that was baptised and not circumcised Rabbi Josua said, he was a proselyte, because said he, we find of our mothers that they were baptised and not circumcised: But the wise men pronounced that till he were baptised and circumcised he was not a proselyte, where the example of the Jews is the rule by which the obligation of the proselytes is measured.  
And the same is evident by the reason rendered by the Jewish writers of their baptising the proselytes, which is generally taken by them from that command, Numb. 15.15. One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger (i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the proselyte) that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations, as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord, one law and one manner (i. e, one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 1.6. one Law for moral duties, and one ordinance for rituals or ceremonies) shall be for you and for the stranger that sojourneth with you. Thus the Gemara tit: Cherithoth, c. 2. foundeth the circumcising and baptising of proselytes, upon those words, As to you, so shall it be to the proselyte. So Maimonides tit: Isuri bia, c. 13. In like manner through all ages as oft as a Gentile will enter into the Covenant, and receive the yoke of the Law upon him, it was necessary that circumcision and baptism should be used for him, beside sprinkling of the sacrifice, and if it were a woman, baptism and sacrifice, According as it is said (Numb. 15.15.) as to you, so also to the proselytes.  
And yet farther, as to the original of this baptism among the jews themselves, the 12. §. out of their writers deduceth it from the time of giving the Law in Mount Sinai, Exo. 19.10. when God, to prepare them for the receiving it, commands Moses, Go to the people and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes. So saith Maimonides Isuri bia, c. 13. But baptism was in the desert before the giving of the Law, according as it is said, Thou shalt sanctify them— And that agreeable to what we read of Jacob to his household, Gen. 35.2. Put away the strange Gods that are among you, and be clean and change your garments (where being clean is answerable to being sanctified or baptised, and changing to washing their garments) so that as the covenant made with Abraham was sealed by circumcision, so the giving of the Law which was the Covenant made by God with all the people, was thought to be sealed by baptism, and that the washing, if not of the whole, yet of some parts of the body (ordinarily called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications) and the washing (or wearing clean) garments also.  
And now I may, I hope, assume, that not only there is perfect truth in what I now affirm, that baptism among the jews belonged to their natives as well as to proselytes (even to all that entered into the Covenant, and those evidently were the jewish children as well as men) but also that this had before been evidenced in that Resol: of the 4th Quaere, which here Mr. T. hath been pleased to examine, and consequently that it was no small injustice, and unkindness in him both to the reader, and to me, that he would omit to take notice of it, but assume and build on it as a thing yielded and granted him by my discourse that the proselytes only, and not the native Jews were partakers of that Jewish baptism.  
This sure was a strange infirmity in an answer, and that which must needs have a special influence upon it, in any impartial weighing, even such an one, as will make it very unnecessary for me to consider any of his other considerations which he hath offered in that matter, which must certainly have no force in them, when that which is such a principal part of my arguing is so perfectly omitted, and the contrary supposed by him.  
However I shall not refuse to attend him in all his motions, and inquire whether there be any particular pitched on by him, which may deserve our farther consideration, in order to the point in hand, that of Infant baptism among Christians.  
And 1. saith he, Baptism, it seems, was a custom of all nations as well as the Jews, citing Grotius for it on Mat. 3.6. and Mat. 28.19.  
Of the truth of this observation I shall raise no question, only I wonder what he could fancy from thence to conclude for his advantage. Certainly he will not hope by that argument to evince the negative, that it was not used among the Jews, for how can the Gentiles, using it conclude, against all other evidence, that the Jews did not use it? Nor can he pretend that Christ transcribed it from those Gentiles, and not from the Jews: for Christ preaching, as he was sent, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to them first, Act. 3.26. and if not to them only, yet in a far more eminent manner to them then to any others, and accordingly adapting his Reformation to the jewish Religion, and lightly deducing so many other customs from the jews, and none from the Gentiles, can with no probability be conceived to deduce this from the Gentiles, rather than from the jews, especially when (as Clement observes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the heathens borrowed or stole both their learning, and their custom from the jews, so) it is very obvious to imagine, that this of baptism, purgations and lustrations might by those heathens be borrowed from the jews, at least by both of them be derived from the same common fountain, the sons of Noah, in remembrance of the deluge, according to that famous verse among the Greeks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sea sweeps away all the evils of men, to which S. Peter alludes in making baptism the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Noah's stood (as he hath himself cited it out of Grotius,) and so in like manner some of the Fathers, as Athanasius, in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tom. 2. p. 426. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The first baptism is that of the deluge for the excision of sins.  
And if neither of these be hence deducible, that it matters little what else he can design to infer from it. And so sure there was some want of answers, when this (so nothing to the matter on either side) was thought fit to march in the front of them.  
Under this head of answer, he presently adds, that he doth not know that Dr. H. or any other hath alleged one passage in Scripture, or any of the Fathers, that might evince that the custom of baptising, or baptising infants was derived from the jews initiating proselytes by baptism.  
To this I answer, 1. By ask Mr. T. whether he be ready to pay that reverence to the authority of the Fathers, as to be concluded by their affirmations? If he be, I wonder why the uniform consent of them, that infants are to be baptised, should not prevail with him: If he be not, why doth he mention this as useful in this matter?  
But then 2dly. It must be adverted, that this one containing two quaestions in it, 1. Whether this of initiating into the Covenant by baptism were a Jewish custom? 2. Whether from thence Christ derived this rite of baptising of Christians? The former of these was that which alone required proving the latter being of itself evident, without farther probation, supposing only that the Fathers testified that to be Christ's institution of baptism, which we find to have been thus agreeable to the practice customary among the Jews.  
As for example, if it were made matter of doubt or question, whether Christ derived the Censures of his Church from the Jews, It will sure be a sufficient answer to the question, if we shall first find in the Jewish writers their customs of Excommunication, and then from the Christian writers find the like records of the Christian custom, from the institution of Christ, and the practice of his Apostles 〈◊〉 down unto us; For those two things being done, what need we any Father's assistance or guidance, to secure us, that Christ derived, and lightly changed this custom of Ecclesiastical censures in his Church, from what he found in the Jewish Sanhedrim?  
In this matter 'tis easy and obvious to object (as M. T. here doth about baptism) that excommunication was a custom among other nations, as well as the Jews, the description of it among the Druids in Cesar's Commentaries being so famous and notorious to every man: which yet will not sure prevail with any reasonable man, or make it necessary to produce the testimonies whether of Scriptures or Fathers, that Christ took it not from the Druids but the Jews. The like might be instanced again in the institution of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in the Jews postcoenium, from which it is by light change deduced.  
And so it is in this matter of baptism, the Jewish custom of baptising (not only proselytes and their children, but the Jewish natives) I thought necessary to clear from the most competent witnesses of their customs, the Talmud, Gemara, and Maimonides, the soberest of their writers; And so likewise in the second place, the practice of the Christian Church, as it is from Christ and his Apostles deduced, and applied particularly to the Resolution of our Quaere, to the baptising of Infants, I have cleared also from some footsteps of it in the Scripture itself, and from the concordant testimony of the Fathers of the Church. And having cleared these two particulars, wherein all the difficulty consisted, I need not sure inquire of the opinion of antiquity for the dependence betwixt these two, or the derivation of one of them from the other, the very lineaments and features acknowledging and owning this progeny to have come forth from that stock, this stream to have been derived from that fountain, without any testimonials to certify it.  
And yet 3dly. After all this, I demand whether Christ's words to Nicodemus, Joh. 3. mentioned §. 18. be not an evidence from Scripture itself of this very matter, the derivation of the Christian from the Jewish baptism; when upon Christ's discourse on that subject, that except a man be regenerate of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, and on occasion of Nicodemus' objection against this v. 9 jesus answered, Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things? discernibly intimating that this his institution of baptism was so agreeable to the jewish customs of initiating, and receiving into the Covenant by baptism, that a Rabbi among the jews could not reasonably be imagined to be ignorant of it.  
And if the baptism of the jews had (as Mr. T. citys it out of Grotius) its first original from the memory of the deluge purging away the sins of the world, then sure that place of S. Peter which affirms the Christian baptism to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the antitype or transcript of Noah's deluge, is an express testimony of it also. And this I hope might be a competent account of this matter.  
And yet after all this, it is also clear, that the Fathers in their discourses of baptism do ordinarily lay the foundation of it in Moses, or the baptism of the jews; witness Gregory Nazianzen Or. 39 Seeing, saith he, it is the feast of Christ's baptism, let us philosophise, discourse exactly of the difference of baptisms, then after this preface entering on the discourse, he thus begins, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Moses, saith he, baptised but in water, and before this in the cloud and in the sea, And then making that (with S. Paul) a type of the Christian baptism, he proceeds to John's baptism, which, saith he, differed from the Mosaical, in that it added Repentance to water, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, john also baptised, but not judaically.  
So before him, Macarius Hom. 32. having mentioned the circumcision which was under the Law foresignifying the true circumcision of the heart, annexes thereto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the baptism of the Law, which saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a figure of true things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for there that washed the body, but here the baptism of the holy Ghost and of fire purgeth and washeth the polluted mind, and so goes on to the parallel betwixt the legal Priest and Christ, making the same accord betwixt the one and the other pair, So Hom. 47. p. 509. speaking of things under the Law, he first mentions the glory of Moses face, a type of the true glory under the Gospel. 2. Circumcision, a type of that of the heart; 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, among them there is baptism cleansing or sanctifying the flesh, but with us the baptism of the holy Spirit and of fire, that which John preached— The same is intimated again, but not so explicitly set down Hom. 26. p. 349. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Peter succeeded Moses, having the New Church of Christ and the true Priesthood committed to him, for now is the baptism of fire and the Spirit, and a kind of circumcision placed in the heart, where it seems the jewish baptism was the figure of the Christian, as the Jewish priesthood of the Christian, and the Jewish circumcision of the circumcision in the heart.  
So in Athanasius' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: cue: 103. 
* Tom. 2. p. 426.  numbering up seven sorts of Baptism, the first even now mentioned, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that of the flood for the cutting off of sin, the second that of Moses, in passing the Red sea, which he calls, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, figurative; the third is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the legal baptism, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Hebrews had, whereby every unclean person (so is every one by nature) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was baptised in water, had his garments washed, and so entered into the camp, this it seems the ceremony of his admission. And then follows the baptism of John and Christ. Other examples I doubt not the Reader may observe in the Father's writings on this subject, these few may serve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And therefore when Mr. T. adds that some passages of the Fathers show rather, that they took it as in stead of circumcision, the answer also is very obvious, that the Jews custom being to initiate by circumcision and baptism both, and the former of these being laid aside by Christ's reformation, and only the second continued, and that so improved by Christ, as to have more than the whole virtue of both, and to be the only initial Sacrament, the Fathers might well learn of S. Paul to make this comparison or parallel betwixt the Jewish, and the Christian Sacrament, and so betwixt baptism and circumcision, and indeed could not properly say that the Christian baptism was in stead of the Jewish baptism being rather the continuance of it, adding some ceremonies and virtue to that which was formerly among them, not substituting somewhat else (as for circumcision it did) in stead of it.  
This is evident enough, and yet if it were not we should have little reason to be moved with this suggestion, knowing that in the other Sacrament which Christ visibly instituted in the Jewish postcoenium, and imitated it in the delivering the portions of bread and wine, the Fathers generally lay the comparison betwixt the Paschal Lamb and that, and not without the authority of S. Paul himself, saying that Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us, the plain meaning of it being this, that the Jewish Passeover being abolished, we have now the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ (the true immaculate lamb of God) substituted in the stead of it, but that copied out not from the Jewish manner of eating the Lamb of Passeover (for Christ did not eat it at that time, being put to death before the hour in which it was to be eaten) but of the postcoenium or close of the jewish Supper, after which he took bread etc. consecrating this ordinary custom of theirs into an higher mystery, then formerly it had in it.   

Sect. 4. The conceits of Pe: Alfunsus and Schickard of the jewish baptism. Raf: Alphus: Mr. T. his conclusion not inferred. The original of the jewish Baptism (the only doubt) vindicated. Iacob's injunction to his family. Sanctifications Exod. 19.10. differ from washing garments.  
WHat he next adds from Mr. Selden, of some that conceived the jewish baptism in initiating of proselytes was in imitation of Christ's example (and so not Christ's of theirs) and of Schickard that conceives they added baptism to circumcision, to difference them from Samaritans, is too vain to deserve any other reply, than what he himself hath annexed concerning the former, viz. that Mr. Selden (naming only Pet. Alfansus for this) doth not give any credit to him in it (but indeed disproves it, and adds antidotes to that poison, that without them I should not have thought likely to have wrought on any man.) And indeed so he doth also in plain terms concerning the latter, the Syxed: l. 1. c. 3. fateor me nondum illud aut eâ de re quicquam alibi legisse, 
p. 41.  he never read that or any thing of that matter any where else.  
To which I add, that if the place in Schickard be examined, it will acknowledge it to be a singular conceit and invention of his, and nothing else.  
In his 5t. Chap. de Reg. jud. he hath these words, ad differentiam Samaritanorum addiderunt baptismum quendam de quo Raf. Alphes Tom. 2. p. 26. & ipse Talmud Mass. Jefamos fol. 47. citing the words at large in Hebrew. But in those words, though they are by Schickard applied indefinitely, as if they were the testification of the whole foregoing proposition, yet the reader shall find no syllable to that purpose of differencing from Samaritans, more than from all other men, but only that when a proselyte is received he must be circumcised, and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he is cured, they shall baptise him in the presence of two wise men, saying, Behold he is as an Israelite in all things, or if she be a woman, the women lead her to the waters etc. A plain testimony (to the sense of those which we formerly produced) of baptising both Jews and proselytes (for else how could the proselyte, upon receiving this, be said to be a Israelite in all things?) but no lest intimation, that this was designed to distinguish them from Samaritans peculiarly, but as that which was always customary among the Jews, at their entering into Covenant with God.  
And then the premises being so groundless and frivolous, I shall not sure be concerned in any conclusion that Mr. T. shall infer from them, which it seems, is to be this, that notwithstanding the Doctor's supposition that the whole fabric of baptism is discernible to be built on that basis, the customary practice among the Jews, yet many will conceive it needs more proof than the bare recital of passages out of jewish writers.  
But Mr. T. would be much put to it, to show in what mode and figure it is, that this conclusion is drawn out of these premises: Certainly none that my Logic hath afforded me, for that hath no engine first to draw many out of two; nor 2. to infer that those that had mistaken for want of knowledge (as Alphunsus) or adverting (as Schickard) of the jewish customs, would need any more than the recitation of clear testimonies out of the soberest jewish writers, to disabuse him: or 3. that they that either through prejudice, or any other principle of obstinacy shall resist this degree of light thus offered them, will be convinced by any other sort of testimonies, whether out of the Fathers, or Scripture itself, being so well fortified and provided with inclinations, at least if not with artifices, to reject one, or misinterpret the other.  
But, it seems, after all this, and to evidence to how little purpose he hath said thus much, Mr. T. is well enough satisfied, at least as far as to baptising of proselytes, that there was such a custom among the latter jews afore Christ's incarnation; All the difficulty, saith he, is concerning the original of it among them, For that either it should begin from Jacob's injunction to his household, Gen. 35.2. or from God's command Exo. 19 10. for the Israelites to wash their clothes afore the giving of the law, he cannot conceive, those places speaking of washing Jews by nature, not proselytes, whereas the Jews baptised not Jews by nature (as Mr. Selden saith) but by profession.  
Here are many weak parts in these few words; For 1. The original of the custom among the Jews is but an accessary, wholly extrinsical to the matter in hand, and in no respect necessary to be defined by us: If the custom be acknowleged, we need ask no more, and Mr. T. having acknowleged the custom, grants all that in that matter we require of him, for on that, and not on that particular original of it, it is that we superstruct our whole fabric, as far as belong; to infant baptism, which is very fitly founded in the Jewish custom of baptising, from whence soever that custom was derived to them, And so that one thing supersedes and answers that whole difficulty, if indeed there were any such in this matter.  
But then 2dly. for the two originals here set down and both rejected by him, it is a little strange that he should think fit to do so, and not to substitute any third in the place of them; For 'tis certain that every custom received universally into a Church or society of men, must have some original or other, and consequently this custom being by Mr. T. acknowleged, must not in any reason be left 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without Father, without Mother, without any original; and therefore those two that are alleged for it by the jewish writers, being by him so fastidiously rejected, it was very fit that he should assign some other, and annex his reasons of giving it the deference, upon which it should be preferred before them.  
And when he shall do so, I shall not doubt to embrace it, and make the same advantage of it which hitherto I have done of either of these. But he is here pleased to be reserved, and gives not the least intimation of any other reason, which is more suitable with his conceptions. 'tis true indeed he did before out of Grotius, mention Noah's flood, in memory of which this custom arose among other nations, but besides that this original of it was not by him deemed sufficient to appropriate it to the jews, but leaves it common to them with other nations, those other two, Jacob's injunction, and Gods command before receiving the Law (either one or both) are perfectly reconcileable with that, and the memory of the deluge being the more remote and first original, these may be the nearer and more immediate, and so are not prejudged by his pretending, or my yielding of that.  
3dly. For Jacob's injunction to his household, Gen. 35.2. it is no where vouched by me as the original of this custom among the jews, 
See §. 12.  but only an intimation given, that that other, the command of God before the giving the Law, was agreeable to what we read of jacob to his household, and so certainly it is, for as in the one the ceremony prescribed them to use at the putting away strange Gods, was this, to be clean and change their garments; so in the other they are enjoined to sanctify themselves and wash their clothes, which is in other words directly the same thing: washing themselves and having clean garments being among the jews joined together, and the witness of their garments prescribed in baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith the Gloss on Gemara Babylon, tit▪ jabimoth) to receive the presence of the divine Majesty (just as in the Christian Church the Dominica in albis, white or Whitsunday was a special day for administration of baptism▪ and the persons baptised wore rhetorically styled sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stars rising out of the waters, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bright lilies of the font, as they are joined together in Proclus Orat: 12. p. 384. and in S. chrysostom, new lilies planted from the font, Hom. 6. the resurr: and accordingly on Constantine's great coin, stamped in memory of his baptism, was engraven (on one side) a pool of water with a lily grown out of it; (see Jos: Scal: in Opusc:) and all these but figurative expressions of what chrysostom more plainly sets down by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their putting on white garments at the receiving of baptism, Tract. de S. Pent. for which Jobius in Photius hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only.)  
And then as Jacob vowed a vow to the Lord to give him the tenth of all, and accordingly God after instituted the tithes for the Levites portion, and so the latter of these was agreeable to the former, but yet the latter, viz. God's institution, the original of the custom of tithing among the Jews; so jacob might enjoin his household that ceremony of washing or baptism, and after that God enjoin it in giving the Law, and one of these be agreeable to the other, and yet the custom of baptism among the jews be derived only from the latter, as from the peculiar original of it.  
4thly. The command of God, Exod. 19.10. in which baptism is said to be founded by the jews, is not (as Mr. T. suggests) the command to the Israelites to wash their clothes (nothing but the custom of changing their garments can be founded in that) but the command to Moses to sanctify them (Go unto the people and sanctify them to day and to morrow) in the Hebr●w notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sanctifications, for washing, either the whole, or some parts of the body, as is showed at large, §. 35.  
And if in stead of this of sanctifying, i. e. baptising them, Mr. T. did unwittingly substitute washing their garments, than I hope, he may now be advised to reform that mistake, and see more reason than hitherto he hath done, to assign that command of Gods, as the most agreeable original of this custom, and no longer imagine that it was a custom of the latter jews, taken up by themselves without any ground of Scripture; But if formerly he saw this, and was willing to disguise it, and, on purpose to misguide the reader, left out the mention of Moses' sanctifying or baptising them, and only set down the washing of their garments (which was not at all proper for the turn) to be the original of baptism, wherein, as Paulinus tells us, they were rendered nivei, white as snow, corpore as well as babitu, in body as well as garment, I shall not then hope that even this length of words will be sufficient for his conviction.  
Lastly, For his reason against deducing the baptism of proselytes from this original [because the jews baptised not jews by nature but by profession, whereas those places speak of washing jews by nature, not proselytes] it will presently appear to be very vain; for 1. The jews baptised jews by nature, and not proselytes only, as hath been both there and here showed at large, out of the most creditable of the jewish writers; 2dly. Their baptising of proselytes was founded in their precedent custom of baptising of jews, as hath been evidenced also from the Rabbins explication of Num. 15.15. One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation of Israel, and also for the stranger or proselyte. And so 'tis evident that of Exod. 19.10. being the original of baptising native jews, may, and must be the original of baptising the proselytes.  
And this in each part being thus manifest, Mr. Selden's authority (if it should be, as is pretended) can be of no force against those evidences which I have here produced, the best he offers us at any time, to prove any thing concerning the jewish customs. And I shall now appeal to the Reader, whether Mr. T. could well have been expected to have made more misadventures in so few words.   

Sect. 5. Mr. Selden's notion of the Sea. The defence of my notion of it. Learned men's affirmations to be judged of by their testimonies. Christ's baptising of jews as well as Gentiles, no argument. Christ's vouching john's baptism to be from heaven, no argument. No more, the pretended no intimations of it. The no conformity. The proselytes children baptised, continually, not only at the first conversion. The baptism of a woman with child, serving for the child also, not argumentative. The Canon of Neocaesarea about it.  
NExt he proceeds to consider the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10.1. of our Fathers being baptised into Moses (as in the cloud, so) in the Sea. Where 1. He tells me that he doth not conceive Mr. Seldens exposition, that the sea was some vessel of waters— but the red sea] And I that am as little of Mr. Seldens mind, but expressly interpreted it, of the Red sea, §. 7. and rejected Mr. Seldens interpretation §. 8. (although I omitted to name the author of it) am not, he knows, concerned in that, but have from his rejecting Mr. Seldens authority, when 'tis not for his turn, his example for my not thinking myself bound up by it at other times, either in that newly passed, where he vouched his name as his only proof, that the Jews did not baptise Jew's by nature, or in other particulars which I find afterwards vouched from him, the truth of which I as little conceive, as Mr. T. doth this of the sea not signifying the Red sea, which I acknowledge to be unconceivable.  
But then 2. he doth not think my exposition right neither (though I interpret it of the Israelites passing through the Red sea, as he acknowledges to do) But what is my interpretation? why, that their being baptised into Moses in the Red sea (as also in the cloud) signifieth their being initiated into God's covenant under the conduct of Moses, as since they are wont to be initiated by baptism. And why doth he dislike this interpretation? why, because when it is said, our fathers were baptised, it is not meant were baptised as since proselytes were baptised among the Jews, but as Christians were baptised.  
But certainly this is no reason of exception to my interpretation; For 1. I compare not this baptism of out fathers in the sea with the baptism of proselytes among the Jews, but annex it immediately to the baptising of the native Jews, §. 6. before I proceed §. 9 to the baptism of proselytes. And 2. I do not lay the comparison of the Apostle betwixt the baptising in the sea, and the Jewish custom of baptising, but acknowledge it to be betwixt the baptism of the Fathers under the Law, and the baptism since Christ among Christians, All the use I make of the words of the Apostle, was to show that baptism among the Jews was a ceremony of initiating into the covenant, and that upon that supposal it was, that the Apostle used the phrase of the Israelites that came out of Egypt, and entered into Covenant with him, under the conduct of Moses, God giving them an essay of his receiving them under his wings (the phrase to signify reception into the covenant) by environing them with the sea. This I thought had been before intelligibly enough set down, I hope now he will no longer misunderstand it.  
What he adds out of Mr. S. that after Exo. 19.10. the Jews did not baptise Jew's but only proselytes, hath already been evidenced at large to have no truth in it, the custom of baptism continuing to all their posterity, as well as that of circumcision. And whereas this is said to be set down thus out of Maimonides and other Jewish Rabbins, the Reader, if he will consult the place in Mr. Selden de Synedr: l. 1. c. 3. will find there is no such matter; That Mr. S. himself so affirms p. 23▪ I willingly acknowledge, but in a matter of ancient story, such as this is, neither he nor any else must be believed farther than the testimonies produced by him out of their writers exact, especially against express testimonies to the contrary. And such he there produceth more than one, p. 34. out of Gemara 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What did our Fathers? truly they entered not into Covenant without circumcision and baptism and sprinkling of blood, and again p. 35. our mothers were baptised and not circumcised, and p. 26. out of Victoria Porchetus, that our mothers (though not as he saith, Sara and Rebecca, referring the custom to a greater antiquity then that of the time of giving the Law) were baptised and not circumcised, and p. 38. out of Maimonides, that the Israelites entered into covenant by a threefold rite or ceremony, by circumcision, baptism, and oblation. And again, p. 39 What was done to you? ye entered into covenant by circumcision, baptism, and he sprinkling of the sacrifice, and therefore the proselyte— the custom of baptising the proselytes founded in that of baptising the native Jews. All these clear testimonies are by him produced directly to the proof of my position, that the native Jews (indifferently) were baptised, and not a word in any other parts of the testimonies to give reason to suspect, that after that one time of Exo. 19 the Jews did not baptise. What he hath done in his other book de Jure Nat. ac Gent. I need not apprehend (and have not commodity to inquire or examine) supposing that if there he had undertaken the proof of it, he would here, where he affirms it without proof, and against express testimonies produced by him, have referred (according to custom) to that place.  
And now what force against any pretention of ours is there in Mr. T. his observation that Christ and his Apostles baptised Jews as well as Gentiles?] For 1. so certainly they might, and yet derive their baptism from the custom formerly in use among the Jews, for they, we know, baptised native jews: nay 2. so they might, though the jews had baptised none but proselytes, for to that it would bear just proportion, that they should baptise both jews and Gentiles, in case both came in as proselytes to Christ. For it were a fallacy a little too gross to deceive any man of common understanding, to argue thus, The custom was to baptise proselytes, and not natives; therefore Christ, if he observed that custom, was not to baptise native jews; The answer being so obvious, by distinguishing of proselytes, that they are either such as come in to the jewish religion, or such as came in to Christ, and that Christ was to baptise all that were proselytes to him, and that the native jews as many as believed on him, were such, and as believers, i. e. as proselytes to Christ, not as native jews were baptised by him.  
Other reasons he hath chosen to annex for confirmation of his negative, that Christ baptism was not in imitation of, or in conformity with the jewish custom; for 2. saith he, Christ would not have avouched the baptism of john to be from heaven and not from men, if it had been in imitation of the jewish custom. But I wonder what appearance of concludencie there is in that reason? May not any thing be from heaven or by God's appointment, which is derived from a jewish custom? may not God in heaven give commission to john Baptist to preach repentance, after the same manner that others before him, Noah and jonah etc. had preached repentance, and to receive all that came in on his preaching, by the ceremony of baptising ordinarily used, and known, to initiate men into covenant with God, among the jews? I see not the least incongruity in this, or that any obligation of reason can be pretended, why God may not appoint a ceremony known among men to be used in his service: such sure was imposition of hands, usual among the jews in benedictions, which now is made use of by the Apostles of Christ, in ordaining Bishops over the Church. And so it may well be in this matter of John's or Christ's baptism, which though it were unquestionably from heaven in respect of the Commission given to them by God, appointing them to do what they did, yet might the ceremony of washing used by them be derived from the customs that were already familiar among them.  
'twere easy to instance in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the power of the Keys (and many the like) which though brought into the Church of Christians by Christ, and so from heaven, were yet derived and lightly changed from Jewish observances, and in that respect from men also.  
His 3d reason, that it is likely some where or other some intimation would have been given of that custom, as the directory for Christians in the use of baptism] is too frivolous to require reply; for beside that the negative argument were of no force, if it were as is pretended, It already appears that there are in the jewish writers, more than intimations of this custom, and some indications of it even in the Scripture itself, as John 3.5.10. and for any plainer affirmations, what need could there be of them, when both the matter itself speaketh it so plainly, that there was no need of words, to those that knew the jewish customs, as the first writers and readers of the New Testament did, and when Christ's sole authority, and practice of his Apostles were sufficient Directory for the Christians in the use of baptism?  
Fourthly he adds, that the institution and practice would have been comformable to it; And so I say, and have made clear that it was, as far as to the controversy in hand we are or can be concerned in it: But saith Mr. T. the contrary appears, adding one main instance of the inconformity, and 14. lesser disparities, The main disparity, saith he, is in their baptising no infants of the Gentiles at their first conversions, whereas the Jews baptised only the Gentiles Infants at their first proselyting, not the infants of those who were baptised in infancy.  
For the former of these he offers no manner of proof beyond his own affirmation, and therefore it is sufficient to deny it, as he knows we do, and evidently begs the question in assuming and not offering any proof for the contrary.  
For the second, that of the Jewish practice, he pretends no more than what he had before cited by reference (but now sets down in words) viz. the affirmation of Mr. Selden.  
But I have already showed how groundless that affirmation of Mr. S. was, as to the native Jew's children, who were still baptised after the giving of the Law. And the same I now add for the children of those proselytes who had been baptised in infancy, there appears not the least proof of this from the Jewish writers, who are the only competent witnesses in it, but for the contrary I propose these two testimonies taken notice of by Mr. S. himself de Synedr. c. 3. out of Gemara Babylon: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He wants the rite of a proselyte for ever, unless he be baptised and circumcised. Here baptism and circumcision are joined together, as equally necessary to a proselyte, and that for ever. And circumcision there is no doubt was to be received by every male, not only at their first coming to the Church of the Jews, at their first proselytisme, but through all posterities, every child of a proselyte that was not circumcised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 became straightways no proselyte: And then sure this conjunction of baptism with circumcision on these terms of equality, both of perpetual necessity to all proselytes, must needs extend the baptism as well as the circumcision beyond the first proselytes and their immediate children, to all their posterity that shall come from them afterwards, for to all those belonged circumcision.  
So again in the same place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and if he be not baptised, he remains a Pagan or Gentile; Here I shall ask, whether the child of a proselyte who had been baptised in his infancy, were to be a Pagan for ever? I suppose it will be answered, no; And then by the force of that testimony of Gemara I conclude, therefore it must be supposed that he was baptised, for else he would be a pagan for ever.  
Besides this, two things I farther add, to remove all possible force of this suggestion; 1. That if it were granted in the full latitude wherein it is proposed, that the jews baptised no other infants of proselytes, but those whom they had at their first conversion; yet this would nothing profit Mr. T. For it were then obvious to affirm, that Christ who imitated the jews in that, and so baptised the children of Christian proselytes, did make some light change in this, and farther than the pattern before him afforded, baptised all the posterity that should succeed them, and were born in the Church in their infancy also, the reason though not the pattern belonging equally to them as to the children of the first proselytes, and the jewish custom of baptising their natives infants, being fully home to it.  
2dly. That it being by all parts granted, that the children which the proselytes had at their first proselytisme were baptised among the jews, this is as evident a confutation of the Antipaedobaptist, and so of Mr. T. as it would if all their infants to all posterity were baptised: For by that very baptising of the infants at their first proselytisme, it appears that infants may be baptised, for I hope those proselytes infants are infants; And if any infants may, and aught to be baptised, then are all their pretensions destroyed, whose only interest it is to evince, that no infants must or may be baptised. And I hope this will be of some use to Mr. T. when he shall have considered it.  
The only way M. T. hath to confirm this of the jews not baptising any infants of proselytes born after their first conversion and baptism, is the resolution of the Jews, that if a woman great with child became a proselyte and were baptised, her child needs not baptism when 'tis born. And this I had cited, §. 109. out of the Rabbins, and so indeed I find it in Maimonides, tit. Isuri bia. c. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I cannot think that (whether true or false) a sufficient proof to infer the conclusion; For the jewish Doctors might probably thus resolve upon this other ground, because the mother and the child in her womb being esteemed as one person, the woman great with child being baptised, they might deem the child baptised as well as the woman, and not account it needful to repeat it after the birth, which yet (by the way) it seems they would have done, if they had not deemed the child all one with the mother, and consequently they must be supposed to baptise those children which were begotten to the proselyte after the time of his or her first conversion and baptism. And accordingly the Christian Doctors in the Council of Neocaesarea Can. 6. having resolved the contrary to that Jewish hypothesis, viz. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the mother that bears the child differs from the child, or is not all one with it, and her confession in baptism is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proper or particular to herself, and belongs not to the child in her womb, give the (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the woman that is with child, and is then converted to the faith, leave to be baptised, when she pleases, supposing that the child which then she carries, shall, notwithstanding her baptism then, be itself baptised after its birth.  
Which as it is a clear answer to the argument deduced from the resolution of the Jews in that point, so 'tis moreover an evidence how little of proof Mr. T. had either from his own observation or Mr. Seldens testimonies, from all which he can produce no other but this, which in the sound is so far from affirming what he would have, and upon examination is found to conclude the contrary.   

Sect. 6. Lesser inconformities no prejudice. Yet they do not all hold. Prayer the Christian sacrifice. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The rule of judging in this matter. Baptising in the name of the Father etc. prescribed by Christ. So dipping or sprinkling. The Pract▪ Cat. misreported. Mr. Marshals covenanting.  
THis grand disparity then being cleared to be Mr. T. his mistake, I shall not need to attend his other instances of disparity, this accord which hath been already mentioned and vindicated, being sufficient to my pretensions, and no concernment of mine obliging me to believe or affirm, that the parallel holds any farther than Christ was pleased it should hold, and of that we are to judge by what the Scriptures, or ancient Church tells us was the practice of him, or his Apostles; For 1. the Jews I doubt not, brought in many things of their own devising into this, as into other institutions of God's, and the latter Jews more, as of the proselytes being so born again in baptism, that lying with his natural sister was no incest, and the like: And 2. Christ, I doubt not, changed the Jewish oeconomy in many things, as in laying aside circumcision, in commissionating his disciples to baptise (and they leaving it in the hands of the Bishop, and those to whom he should commit it, 
E●: ad Smyrn: Edit: Voss: p. 6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is not lawful to baptise without the Bishop, saith Ignatius) whereas it was not among the Jews any part of the Priest's office, any more than circumcision was; And so in many other particulars.  
But what prejudice is that to my pretensions, who affirm no more of the accordance betwixt the Jewish and Christian practice, than eiher by some indications in the Scripture itself, or by the Christian Fathers deductions from the Apostles times, appears to be meant by Christ, and practised by the Apostles; and then by the Jewish writers is as evident to have been in use among them.  
And this is all the return I need make to his 14 lesser disparities, and all that he hath at large endeavoured to infer from them, supposing and granting them all to be such.  
But yet it is evident that some of them are not such, As when 1. he saith, the baptism of males must be with circumcision and an offering, 'tis clear that, though 1. circumcision be laid aside by Christ, and 2. when it was used it had nothing to do with baptism, yet as to the adjoining of offering, or sacrifice, the parallel still holds, the prayers of the Church being the Christian sacrifice, and those in the Christian Church solemnly attendant on the administration of baptism.  
So parallel to the court of three Israelites, by the confession or profession of whom (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Maimonides) the infant was baptised, we have now not only the whole Church, in the presence of whom 'tis publicly administered, and when more privately, yet in the presence of some Christians, who are afterwards, if there be any doubt, to testify their knowledge to the Church, but more particularly the Godfathers, and Godmothers, being themselves formerly baptised, do represent the Church of which they are members, meaning thereby the people of the Church, and the Minister commissionated thereto by the Bishop, represents the Church also, meaning the Governors thereof.  
But I shall not proceed to such superfluous considerations, and so I have no need of adding one word more of reply to his 24 Chap. (as far as I am concerned in it) unless it be to tell him that the Bishop's Canons are not the rule by which I undertake to define, wherein the Jewish custom must be the pattern, wherein not; but (as he cannot but know, if he had read the resolution of the 4th Quaere) the practice of the Apostles of Christ, by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known unto us, to which as I have reason to yield all authority, so I find the Canons and rituals as of this, so of all other Churches in the world (no one excepted) to bear perfect accoordance therewith, in this particular of infant baptism (though in other lesser particulars they differ many among themselves, and all from the Jewish pattern) And this I hope is a competent ground of my action, and such as may justify it to any Christian artist to be according to rules of right reason, of meekness, and sound doctrine, and no work of passion or prejudice or singularity, or (as Mr. T. suggests) of the Doctors own pleasure, as if that were the mutable principle of all these variations from the Jewish pattern.  
Of this score 'tis somewhat strange, which he thinks fit to add concerning the form of baptism, In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, In this one thing, saith he, which Christ did not prescribe, nor did the Apostles, that we find, so conceive it, yet, saith the Doctor Christ's prescription must be indisspensably used.  
In reply to this I shall not spend much time to evidence this form to be Christ's prescription; If the express words at his parting from the world, Mat. 28. Go ye therefore, and teach, or receive to discipleship, all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be not a prescription of Christ's, and if the universal doctrine and continual practice of the whole Church through all times, be not testimony sufficient of the Apostles conceiving it thus, and a competent ground of the indispensable tinuing the use of it, I shall not hope to persuade with him, only I shall mind him of the words of S. Athanasius in his Epistle to Serapion Tom. 1. p. 204. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that is not baptised in the name of all three, receives nothing, remains empty and imperfect, For perfection is in the Trinity, no baptism perfect, it seems, but that. And if this will not yet suffice, I shall then only demand, whether he can produce so express grounds from Christ, or the Apostles, or the Universal Church of God through all ages, or from any one ancient Father, for his denying baptism to infants.  
What in this place he adds farther from me, out of the Practical Catechism, that I confess that by Christ's appointment the baptised was to be dipped in water, i. e. according to the Primitive ancient custom to be put under water, is a strange misreporting of my words, 
l. 6. §. 2.  I wonder Mr. T. would be guilty of it. The words in the Pract. Cat. are visibly these, By Christ's appointment whosoever should be thus received into his family should be received with this ceremony of water, therein to be dipped (i. e. according to the Primitive anetint custom to be put under water) three times, or in stead of that to be sprinkled with it— where 1. All that Christ's appointment is affixed to, is, the receiving all that should be received into Christ's family, with this ceremony of Water; 2. For the manner of that reception by water, 'tis set down disjunctively, therein to be dipped three times, or in stead of that to be sprinkled with it. These are evidently my words; no way affirming either the dipping or sprinkling (one exclusively to the other, to be appointed by Christ, but only the ceremony of water, whether it be by dipping in it or sprinkling with it, either of which may be signified by the word used from Christ by S. Matthew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, baptise ye.  
What ground the Church of Christ hath had to disuse immersion, and in stead of putting the whole body under water, only to dip the face, or sprinkle it with water, I shall not now discourse, all that I have to do in this place being to vindicate myself, that I have no way affirmed the putting under water (used by the Primitive Church) to be appointed by Christ, exclusively to sprinkling, and that I hope I have already done by the exact reciting of my words, which had been so much misreported by him.  
And so I have done with his 24th Chapter. For as to the objection against Mr. M. drawn from his covenanting to perform the worship of God, according to God's word, and admiring that ever mortal man should dare in God's worship to meddle any jot farther than the Lord hath commanded, and yet in point of infant baptism following the Talmud, I that am far from Mr. M. his persuasions, as well as practices, am not sure bound to give answer for him, Aetatem habet, let him answer for himself; and when he doth so, 'twere not amiss he would consider, whether Episcopal government stand not on as firm a basis in the Church of God, as Infant baptism is by him vouched to do.    

CHAP. II. Of Christ's words, Mat. 28.19.  

Sect. 1. The Doctor's pretended concessions examined. Christ's institution of baptism not set down Mat. 28. but necessarily before that time.  
HIS 25. Chapter is a view of my interpretation of Mat. 28.19. which lies thus, Go and disciple (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make disciples, receive into discipleship) all nations, baptising them in the name etc. teaching them &c. thereby evidencing that the making or receiving disciples, not supposing any precedent instruction, but looking wholly on it as subsequent, can no way exclude the Christians infants from baptism, when they are thus brought to the Church to be entered into the School of Christ, and undertaken for that they shall learn when they come to years.  
And to this a long proemial answer he hath of many lines, which begins thus, Though I conceive Dr. H. to ascribe more power to the Canons of the Prelates about the Sacraments, then is meet, being one who hath written in defence of the Common prayer Book, yet by this allegation of Mat. 28.19. he seems tacitly to yield, that if the words there include not infants under the discipled, then there is something in the New Testament which excludes infants from baptism, although he say § 96. I do not believe or pretend that that precept of Christ doth necessarily infer (though it do as little deny) that infants are to be baptised.  
Before I proceed to that which follows, 'tis not amiss to view in passing, how many incongruities are here amassed together in these few words.  
For whereas my having written in defence of the Common Prayer Book is made use of as an evidence to infer that I ascribe more to the Canons of Prelates, then is meet, it is certain 1. that the Common Prayer book stands not by the Canons of the Prelates, but by Act of Parliament, and consequently if I had been guilty of a confessed partiality to the Common Prayer book, yet were this no evidence of my ascribing any thing (therefore sure not more than is meet or too much) to the Canons of Prelates.  
2dly. It never yet appeared, that by writing in defence of the Common Prayer book, I offended at all (therefore surely not about either, much less against both the Sacraments.)  
3ly. The making my defence of the Common Prayer book, written long ago, a proof that I offend now in somewhat else; viz. in attributing too much to the Canons of the Bishop, is 1 the connecting together things that are most disparate, concluding quidlibet ex quolibet; and 2dly a plain begging of the question, for such certainly it is in respect of him, with whom he disputes, and so must be, till he shall offer proof that I have erred in that defence, The same, as if he should conclude, that he who hath once written the truth, were obliged the next time to swerve from it.  
So when he mentions my allegation of Mat. 28.19. the word allegation must signify that I produce and so allege that text as a proof of my position: But this he knows I do not; But only suppose the Antipaedobaptist to found his plea in it, and all that I have to do, is to show how useless it is like to prove to him; confessing also that to me it is as useless, and so never attempting to draw any argument from it.  
So again, when upon a supposition by him specified he assumes me to grant that which he acknowledgeth me expressly to deny, this sure is very incongruous: 'tis visible from the words by me produced §. 96. that I deny that that text of Mat. 28.19. can prejudice the baptism of infants, and the only design I had in considering this text at all in this place, was to evidence the second branch of the negative part of my undertaking, that there appeared nothing in Christ's institution of baptism, or commission to his Apostles, which was exclusive of infants: How then can it be suggested with any show of truth, that I seem tacitly to yield, that if the words include not infants under the discipled, there is then something in the New Testament which excludes infants from baptism.  
'tis evident from whence it is that I infer, and positively define Christ's Commission for baptism to belong to infants, not from these words of Christ (which as I said, I never proposed to that end to prove my position from them, but only to answer the Antipaedobaptists objection founded in them) but from the practice of the Apostles signifying their sense and persuasion of Christ's meaning in his institution of baptism, which institution we know from John 4.1. had long preceded the delivering of these words Matth: 28.  
So that whatsoever were the notion of discipling there, yet could not I deem infants thereby excluded from baptism, whom by another medium, viz. the Apostolical practice, I supposed to be admitted to it by Christ's institution.  
The short is, Infants I suppose may be received into discipleship when their parents bring them, and if so, than they are or may be included in the words Mat. 28. but if they might not, and so were supposed not to be comprehended in these words of Christ, Mat. 28. yet that which is not included, is not presently excluded, he that saith a man is a living creature, doth not thereby deny an angel to be so also: when Christ gives his disciples power to heal diseases, Mat. 10.1. he cannot be deemed to withhold from them power of raising the dead, for that we see comprehended in their commission v. 8. and so I could no way be enforced to yield that they were excluded from baptism, as long as from any other medium I were assured they were admitted to it.  
And so still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, here is not the least appearance of truth in this discourse.  
He proceeds then to some other attempts of proving it necessary for me if I will stand to my words elsewhere, to acknowledge infants excluded by that text, To which end he hath been very diligent in putting together several scattered passages in my writings, in hope to find some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to raise some show of argument out of my own words, and so from my temerity or inconstancy (for want of solid proofs) to conclude that if this precept of Christ doth not necessarily infer infant baptism, then by manifest consequence it doth deny it.  
The passages he gathers up are these, The Doctor saith, §. 55. that Christ's institution makes dipping or sprinkling with water a Sacrament, which institution is Mat. 28.19. and therefore the Doctor will have the words there indispensably used in baptism, and §. 92. he saith baptism is a Sacrament, that Sacrament an institution of Christ's, that institution not founded in any reason of immutable truth, but only in the positive will of Christ, and so that there is nothing considerable in this question (or any of this nature) but how it was delivered by Christ, And §. 94. that which was done by the Apostles, if it were not a rule for ever, yet was an effect of such a rule formerly given by Christ, and interpretable by this practice to be so. And Pract. Cat. l. 6. §. 2. he expounding Christ's institution, saith that the words import that the person baptised acknowledgeth, maketh profession of believing in three, delivers him to three as authors of his faith, and to be ruled by the directions of his Master, and this he will have to be meant by baptising into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost.  
These are the passages, whence, saith he, I infer that if baptism be a Sacrament, and made so by Christ's institution, and that institution founded only in his positive will, and the will of Christ be, that baptism be in the name of the Trinity, and this is when the baptised makes profession of believing in three, to be ruled by them, and the Apostles practice interprets Christ's rule, no infant that doth not profess faith, is baptised into the name of the Trinity, nor was appointed to be baptised by Christ, nor did the Apostles baptise them, and therefore they are not baptised according to Christ's institution, and so no Sacrament to them.  
Here is a very subtle fabric▪ and great pains taken to pro● me to affirm tacitly what I expressly deny: But herein though his pains be great, he hath much failed of the success, it were too long to show it at large, yet the reader that will be at pains to survey his process, will certainly acknowledge it, if he shall but remember these two things.  
1. That Christ's institution of baptism was not (nor is ever affirmed by me to be) set down in those words of Mat. 28. that having been long before instituted and practised, as appears by plain words Joh. 4.1, 2. Secondly, That though Christ's will and institution for baptising infants be not so manifestly expressed in those words Mat. 28.19. as shall be able by the bare force of the words to convince any gainsayer, without any other way of evidence or proof added to it, yet by the Apostles practice of baptising infants (appearing to us by other means) it is most evident that they who certainly did not mistake Christ's meaning, did thus understand and extend his institution and commission. The truth of this is there made evident §. 30. etc. I shall not here repeat it.  
2dly. That the infant when he is to be baptised, doth, though not by his own voice personally, yet by his lawful proxies, which the Church accepteth in his stead, profess the believing in three, the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, deliver himself up to three, etc.  
By this clue the reader will easily extricate himself out of the Labyrinth there provided for him, if such it appear to be, and discern a perfect accordance in all the passages, which with such hope of advantage were so diligently collected by him.  
But this is not all, he will yet drive the business somewhat higher in these words, Yea, if the positive will of Christ, be the reason of baptism, they usurp upon Christ's prerogative who baptise otherwise then Christ hath appointed, and then if the precept of Christ doth not necessarily infer infant baptism (which the Doctor ingenuously acknowledgeth) it doth by manifest consequence deny it, sith he forbids that to be done otherwise then he hath appointed when he hath determined how it should be done. The Doctor when he saith above, the words, [I baptise into the name of the Father etc.] must be indispensably used, me thinks by the same reason should conceive Christ's institution should be unalterably used in baptising those only whom he hath appointed to be baptised.  
To this the grounds of answer have been already laid also, viz. that they that baptise infants, baptise no otherwise than Christ appointed, and the Apostles appear to have understood his appointment. By Christ's appointment, not meaning particularly his words Mat. 28 but his will otherwise made known to his disciples, when and in what words soever it was that he instituted baptism, which must be long before this, even before his Apostles took upon them to baptise any, which yet they did in great abundance Joh. 4.1. And of this appointment or institution of batisme by Christ, it is most true, that if that precept of Christ, whereby he first instituted baptism, did not indeed comprehend and so necessarily infer infant baptism, and was so understood to do by the Apostles, it shall consequently be deemed to deny it. But then herein lies a great fallacy, when from another appointment of Christ's, viz. that Mat. 28. which I acknowledge not to infer infant baptism necessarily, he assumes in universum, and reports it as my confession, that Christ's precept (indefinitely taken, and so extending to all Christ's precepts at any time) doth not necessarily infer infant baptism. Which is that grand illogical fault in discourse, of inferring an indefinite or universal conclusion from particular premises.  
As for the comparison which he makes betwixt the indispensable use of the words of baptism Mat. 28. and the as unalterable observation of Christ's institution, in respect of the persons to be baptised, I willingly grant it, on the condition praemised, that he mistake not the text, Mat. 28. to be the words of that institution, wherein Christ defined, who are the persons to be baptised.  
Those words are a commission to the Apostles to go preach to, or disciple all nations, and thus far extends to point out the persons, viz. that they should (as disciple so) baptise Gentiles as well as Jews, and again, they are express for the form of baptism, that it should be in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but they are not any kind of direction to that other matter of receiving, and admitting infants or not infants.  
That I suppose sufficiently notified to them before both by the common practice of their ancestors in the Jewish religion, by the vulgar notion of baptism, whilst it was familiarly used among the Jews, both to their own and their proselytes children, and also by Christ's special direction (though the Gospels, which express not at all the words of the first institution of baptism, do not set that down) in the time of his preaching among them, some while before that passage of story related, Joh. 4.1. etc.  
From both of these, I suppose, the Apostles learned it (and not from Mat. 28.) and we learn it only from the Apostles, as shall hereafter appear. And so much for his prooemial reasoning.   

Sect. 2. Making disciples all one with receiving into discipleship. Baptising the act of the Baptist. Instruction subsequent to discipling. The pretended parallel between Mat. 28. and Mar. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John's discipling by preaching excludes not infants. No more the Apostles, Mat. 10.5. The notation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mat. 13.52. Act. 14.21. Infants both said to come and to believe. Instruction subsequent to baptism.  
AFter this praelusorie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he next proceeds to consider, what shift (as he calls it) the Doctor makes to elude the force of Christ's institution, Mat. 28.19. But I have already made it evident that that Commission for preaching to, or discipling all nations (as for the baptising them, and the particularity of the form to be used in baptism, etc.) was not the institution of baptism, nor any intimation on either side, whether infants should be baptised or not; and so 'tis manifest how little need I had to use any shift, or artifice to elude the force of it.  
However in his view of my discourse some exceptions he must find; And the first is, that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well rendered, make disciples, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not well paraphrased by, receiving into discipleship, baptising them, making this form of baptism the ceremony of receiving them. For by this, saith he, the making disciples is made the same with receiving them, and baptism the ceremony of receivers into discipleship, which is as truly an act of the baptised professing, or avouching his discipleship.  
Here is another subtlety of a refined nature, making a difference betwixt making disciples, and receiving into discipleship, or receiving disciples; As if these two were not perfectly synonymous, and by me evidently used, as such. I shall not dispute of words, when the matter is clear, and when it is equally to my purpose which phrase is used, whether making or receiving disciples.  
2dly. When he affirms of baptism, which I make the ceremony of the Apostles receiving them, that 'tis as truly the act of the baptised, this is no subtlety, but gross and visible enough; For certainly baptism in the active sense (as it is plain I understand it in that place, where I paraphrase, go and make disciples and baptise) is not the act of the baptised, but of the baptist; The coming to baptism indeed, and the undertaking the vow, and making the profession, is the act of the baptised, either personally, or by his proxy, which in reputation of Law, and in acceptation of the Church, is his also, but still baptism, or (to remove all possible mistake) baptising, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mat. 28.19. is an act of the baptizer only, and so the ceremony of receiving into discipleship, whomsoever they thus duly baptise. I hope I need say no more of this.  
His 2d branch of exception is to those words of mine wherein I say that the making or receiving disciples, supposeth not any precedent instruction, but looks wholly on it as subsequent. This I there concluded not from the bare negative, because there was no precedent mention of such instruction, where discipling and baptising, were both mentioned, but because in that place, on which the Antipaedobaptist so much relies, Mat. 28.19. the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching] is expressly mentioned after discipling and baptising, and so is in reason to be deemed, and looked on, as subsequent to both, and so the receiving ad discipulatum refer to that then future instruction.  
And to this sense I there made it manifest, that the definition of baptism 1 Pet. 3.21. did refer that, baptism is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seeking to God, as to the oracle to inquire for the whole future life, no way prerequiring actual instruction, but coming to Christ and the Church to receive it, and obey it for the future (and that done in some sort by those that are brought, when they are not able to come, and by the charity of the Church received there) And this farther illustrated as by the manner of children brought by parents to School, without either knowledge of letters, or choice, or so much as wish of instruction, so by the manner of Christ's disciples being received by him, particularly of Philip, Joh. 1.44. who was called, and received into discipleship, as soon as ever Christ met with him, i. e. before he was at all instructed by him, and so also by the story of the Jews, Exo. 19.8. who undertook to obey all the Commandments of God, which he should give them, which yet were not then, but after given them, v. 20. and so lastly by the nature of proselytisme, which as it is all one with entering into God's covenant and (in the Christian sense) with coming to Christ and being received to discipleship, so 'tis that which children are known to be capable of, not only by that text, Deut. 29.10. but by the custom of baptising infant proselytes among the Jews, and by Christ's command to suffer them to come unto him, whensoever they were thus brought.  
Now to this thus evidenced (and much more largely in that place, §. 26. etc.) he is pleased to annex some reasons of his dissent, For, 1. saith he, that which is expressed in Matthew by, Go ye therefore and make disciples all nations, is in Mark, Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, which shows how they should disciple all nations; Now they who are made disciples by preaching the Gospel are made disciples by precedent instruction, Ergo, the making or receiving disciples Mat. 28.19. supposeth precedent instruction.  
But to this I answer, 1. That the words in Mark are no otherwise parallel to those in Matthew, then as an Epitome is parallel to a larger discourse, such we know S. Marks for the most part is, an abbreviation of S. Matthews Gospel, as in many others, so in this particular, some passages indeed there are in S. Mark in this place, which are not in S. Matthew, as shall a non be showed, but in the particular now before us, S. Mark is, according to wont, more concise; there is no mention in him of baptising in the name of the Father and of the Son & of the holy Ghost, nor consequently of discipling, of which that was the ceremony, as in S. Matthew there is.  
2dly. That Christ's appointment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to preach the Gospel, in S. Mark, doth no way infer the precedent instruction of every single person that was received to baptism: The phrase signifies to proclaim or promulgate the happy tidings brought into the world by Christ, grace, and mercy, and eternal felicity to all that should come into him and take his yoke upon them, and learn of him; And upon the publishing of this to all the world, to every creature, i. e. to the Gentiles universally, as well as the Jews, I suppose 'tis very possible, that many of them should make all speed to come unto Christ, and come out at the Apostles preaching, they and their whole households together (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the oracle commanded in Homer) and to bring their infant children with them, as they used to do, that became proselytes to the Jews and then the Apostles, knowing their Master's mind for the receiving of Infants, and that (as from the institution I suppose them fore-instructed) to baptism, receive them all, and (as many as interposed no voluntary hindrance) baptise them, and having taken them into the School of Christ make good provision for the future instruction of them, as soon as ever they should be capable of it.  
That thus it was I pretend not (still) to deduce from these words, Mat. 28. but to infer from another medium, the practice of the Apostles, otherwise notified to us: All that I am now to manifest, is, that this passage hath nothing contrary to our hypothesis, but is perfectly reconcileable with it, and this is done by the scheme thus laid: And so 'tis most visible how no force there is in this first reason of exception.  
The 2d follows, that such as the making disciples was Jo. 4.1. such is the making disciples Mat. 28.19. For by the Doctor's confession they are all one. But that was by preaching, as is plain concerning John, Mat. 3.1, 2, 5, 6. and concerning the Apostles. Mat. 10.5, 6, 7. Ergo.  
To this I answer, that the account last given is fully satisfactory to this exception also; For supposing the Apostles to publish whithersoever they came, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the good news that was come into the world by Christ, and the hearers not only to come in themselves, but to bring their whole families, and so their infant children with them, there is no difficulty to imagine, that they that had thus made proclamation, received all, and made all disciples, young and old, that either came or were brought, and so it being granted that they made disciples by preaching, preaching being the instrument to draw the parents themselves, and to move them to bring their children to discipleship, it is still very visible how children should be discipled, and consequently baptised by them, baptism being the constant ceremony of discipling. And though I am not able to affirm, how it was actually in John's baptism, yet this I may say, that as far as can be discerned or inferred from the phrase in either place, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) thus it very possibly might be both in john's and in the Apostles baptising.  
First for John, 'tis true indeed that his baptism attended his preaching, yet doth it not thence necessarily follow that none were baptised by him but those who particularly heard and obeyed his preaching; For 1. Why might not those that heard it, divulge it to others, and bring them before they heard him, to desire to be baptised, and upon their confessing their sins, and professing amendment, he baptise them? 2. Why might not those that heard it, or heard of it, give that heed of it, as to bring all that were dear to them of what age soever, by that means to secure them from the wrath to come; when Noah preached repentance to the old world, and upon the decree of sending the flood upon the world of the ungodly, called all to come into the Ark to him to escape the deluge, suppose others besides Noah's family had harkened to his preaching, or suppose he and his sons had had infant children, can we imagine they would have left their infants to that certain ruin, and not have taken them into the ark with them?  
And John's baptism was answerable to that ark, in respect of that approaching ruin on the Jews, styled the kingdom of heaven v. 1. and that evidenced to be a bloody kingdom, explicated by casting into the fire v. 10. And can we imagine the Jews that believed John and came to his baptism, did not bring their children with them to save them from the praedicted evils, And then I profess not to see any reason to render it incredible that John Baptist should thus receive and baptise those infants (though the Scripture affirming nothing of it, and tradition, as far as I know, as little, I shall neither affirm nor believe any thing in it) This only is certain, that among the Jews of that time infant Children were known to be capable of entering into covenant with God after this manner, and of being partakers of the benefit of the Covenant by that means.  
And one thing more I may add, that Christ himself, who was by his sinlesness, as unqualified for the Repentance which John preached, as the infants were by their incapacities, did yet come and was received to John's baptism, v. 13. and then in c●se infants were brought, why might not they be received also?  
Then 2. for as much as concerned the Apostles Mat. 10. First, 'tis there evident that they were sent to the lost sheep indefinitely, and sure that phrase comprehends the Lambs also, the infant children being lost in Adam as well as the grown men, by the addition of their actual to original sin: And then why should we doubt but the Apostles mission extended to them also?  
An 2. for their preaching, it is just as john's was, to warn them to beware of the imminent destruction, that vindicative act of God's kingdom v. 7. that all that should give ear and heed to them might hasten to get out of that danger by reformation and new life; and the ruin being impendent to the young as well as old, even the whole nation, why should not the infant children be rescued from that by their parents care in bringing them to baptism, and timely engaging them to fly from the wrath to come, as soon as they should come to understanding, enjoying in the mean time the benefit of others charity?  
Thirdly, After their preaching though there be no mention of baptising (and so it was not so fit to be produced to our present business) yet other things there are appointed to be done, wherein infants were concerned as well as others, as healing of diseases etc. and if being incapable of receiving benefit from preaching should be deemed an obstacle to their being baptised, why should it not to their receiving of cures? Nay I may add, How should the dead in that place (who sure were as uncapable of hearing or understanding as the tenderest infant) be capable of being raised by those Apostles, which yet is there affirmed of them, v. 8.  
And so much for that reason also, and in like manner for the third, which is but repeating the last branch of this second, that the Apostles were to disciple all nations by the same way that they discipled the lost sheep of the house of Israel, which was, saith he, by preaching and therefore supposed precedent instruction.  
In what sense, I have now showed, viz. by preaching, to the nations, and receiving all that came in to the discipleship, whether on their own legs, or in others arms, whole families at once, the parents, and upon their undertaking their infant children also.  
His fourth proof is taken from the use and notation of the word, which is so to teach as that they learn, and so, saith he, is used Mat. 13.52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is rendered, [instructed] by our last translators, and can be no otherwise rendered than [made a disciple by teaching] so Act. 14.21. it is said, Having preached the Gospel to that city, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and having taught or made many disciples.  
For the notation of the word we have formerly said sufficient, that it signifies to receive ad discipulatum, as into a school of Spiritual instruction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make a disciple, and such he is made, who by any motive or means either comes or is brought into the school, this indeed in order to teaching in the Master, and to learning in the scholar, and the one so to teach, as that the other learn, but this subsequent to his being made a disciple, the youth we know enters into the school, is admitted into the College and University, before he learns a word there, the instruction or learning is still looked upon as future, at his entering into discipleship.  
And this is all the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 13.5. only some accidental differences may be observed, 'tis in the passive, and in the Aorist in the preter tense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Scribe which is or hath been entered as a disciple unto the kingdom of heaven, who since his entrance hath been instructed and (as real passives import) received influence, been really affected and changed by discipleship, still no way supposing that he was instructed in the learning or mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, before he was thus admitted a disciple to it; After his admission, there is no doubt but he doth (or aught to) learn, nay being there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Scribe discipled, a grown man and learned among the Jews, before he came to Christ, I doubt not but some knowledge he had of it before he entered himself a disciple (see baptising of infants, p. 199.) but this not by force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for still a disciple he may be before he learns, and is therefore obliged to learn, because he hath assumed and undertaken to do so, either personally, or by others susception, by his coming, or being brought to be a disciple.  
So in the other place Act. 14.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] signifies no more than having received, or initiated, i. e. (I suppose) by this rite of baptism, made and baptised many disciples, which though it be there set down as a consequent of the Apostles preaching the Gospel in that City (for otherwise it were not imaginable that they should receive any disciples there, they must first proclaim admission to all that come, before any can be expected either to come, or be brought to them) yet may it very reasonably be extended to more persons than those that understood their preaching, viz. to the infant children of their proselytes, brought to them by their parents and dedicated to Christ.  
Thus invalid are his attempts from the notation of the word, and by consequence his inference from thence (which is set down as his fifth proof) that thereby it may appear how the Apostles understood the precept of Christ to preach the Gospel to persons and thereby make them disciples. For although the practice of the Apostles be indeed the means by which we may discern how they understood Christ's precept (and those two places cited by Mr. T. from Mat. 13. and Act. 14. do no way belong to that, they tell us not, whether they received infants to baptism, or not) yet I may very well ward myself from any inconvenience, which this use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in other places can threaten, it being already vindicated from all necessity that it should be confined to grown men, and not communicated to infants also.  
His last proof is by returning to the first again, comparing the words in Matthew with the parallel place in Mark, Whereby, saith he, a disciple and believer will appear to be the same, the disciple to be baptised in Mat. being in Mark expressed by the believer, which is put before baptism.  
To this I answer, 1. that that passage in S. Mark, He that believes and is baptised shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned, and so on to the end of the Gospel, is (as even now I intimated) added by that Evangelist, to the words, as they are set down in Matthew and so being an addition, cannot be looked on, as exactly parallel to the words in Matthew, Go, and disciple all nations baptising them— And this we also know is ordinary for one Evangelist to set down more fully, what is omitted or more shortly set down in another, and S. Mark that in other things was willing to abbreviate S. Matthew, doth now visibly in large; And so the comparison cannot regularly be made betwixt these two Evangelists words, something being abbreviated in Mark which was more at large in Matthew, and something more concisely set down in Matthew, and more largely in Mark. And then what necessity is there, that Mark not mentioning discipling but believing: and Matthew mentioning discipling but not believing the discipled and believers should be deemed the same.  
'tis true indeed of grown men, none can in reason be admitted disciples, which are not also believers (the ground of which I have set down in the Resol. of the Quaere p. 199.) but of infant children this is not true, for those, though they cannot come, may yet be brought, and though not upon their own confession, yet by the susception of others, made capable of the Church's charity, and so may be disciples without actual or personal belief.  
Nay 2dly if Mr. T. his argument had power to infer it, 'twere that which I might safely avouch, that infants may be comprehended under the style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they that believe and are baptised; so even now we had it in the express words of Christ, the little ones (and S. Luke specifies them to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little infants) that believe on him: i. e. just as they are said elsewhere to come unto him, when they are as uncapable, for want of bodily strength, of personal coming, as for want of strength of mind or judgement, for personal believing, and yet in respect of others bringing them to Christ (and so to the Church in baptism) they are by Christ himself said to do both of these, to come in one place, and to believe in the other.  
But then 3dly, I willingly acknowledge that the word [believe] in Mark, belongs peculiarly to the grown men and women, who are called by the preaching of the Gospel, of whom though it be said, that believing and being baptised they shall be saved, and not believing they shall be damned, yet it no way follows, that none but such as thus personally believed, should be baptised, or that being baptised they should not be saved, but lose all the benefit of their baptism.  
The later part of the words is considerable; He that believeth not shall be damned, Infidelity is pitched on, as the thing peculiarly, that incurs the certain damnation, i. e. the voluntary resisting the Faith, when it is preached convincingly to them, and of that none are capable, but those that are arrived to years of understanding. Which as it is an indication that that ver. and those that follow in S. Mark of believers casting out devils, etc. v. 17, 18. belong to adulti peculiarly, so it no way hinders but S. Matthews words being different from them, and supposed to be precedent to them in Christ's delivery, may comprehend infants also, as such who are capable of entering into discipleship, and of being brought and presented to the Apostles by believing parents, This being the way whereby the faith of the parents may be signally beneficial to the child, in bringing him thus early into the School, and so to the benediction of Christ, the parents together with the infant children, as among the Jews so among Christians, entering together into covenant with God.  
In this matter Mr. T. is willing to find a difference betwixt Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded them, Mat. 28.20. and the preaching of the Gospel in S. Mark: thinking by that means to avoid the importunity of that text in Matthew, which evidently sets baptism before instructing. But this can avail him nothing, For if by the Gospel in Mark we understand the whole Gospel, as in reason we must, for that is it which must be preached to every creature (the Gentile world) then is that directly all one with teaching them to observe whatsoever he hath commanded; But if by preaching the Gospel we mean no more then, as Mr. T. here saith, that Jesus is the Christ, i. e. the proposing him as a Master, and calling all to come to him as disciples, than this being supposed precedent to men's coming to discipleship, or bringing their infants to it (for without this they cannot be expected to come themselves, or to bring their infants) all the rest is left to follow baptism, and so all particular Christian instruction is subsequent, not precedent to baptism, an effect of their discipleship, attending it, no way necessary to prepare for it, which is the utmost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which from that circumstance of that text I undertook to demonstrate.   

Sect. 3. Discipleship before instruction. What knowledge of the Master is required to discipleship. Two sorts of disciples, Some come, others are brought.  
HIS reasons for the disproving of my interpretation of Mat. 28. being thus evidenced to have no force or validity in them against our pretensions, and so indeed his whole fabric demolished, (that place of S. Mat. being the one main (if not only) ground of Antipaedobaptists structure) I might well spare the advantages of the 26, 27, 28. §§. to which he makes some kind of answer in the remainder of his 25 Chapter: But there is so little weight in his answers that they will be speedily dispatched.  
First then to my 26 §. he saith, that were it all granted me, yet it would no whit avail to prove that an infant may be a disciple appointed by Christ to be baptised. To this I reply, that the 26 §. being most of it spent for the explaining an hard place 1 Pet. 3.21. concerning baptism, and for assigning the due notion to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a question, or address as to an Oracle, for instruction for the future life, I pretended not to conclude infant baptism from thence, nor any more than this, that baptism being the entering of a disciple, and not praerequiring actual instruction, but consisting in coming to Christ and his Church to receive it for the future, 'tis certain that by this account children are capable of baptism, because they may by the care of their parents be thus brought early to Christ, and entered into his school by them, before they themselves have faculties either to desire, or know what is done to them, the proportion holding in this betwixt infants and other scholars that are entered by their parents in any school before they know one letter in the book, or have actual willingness to acquire any knowledge; And this is there illustrated by the example Philip, Joh. 1.44. and of the Jews, Ex. 19.8. which have again been mentioned, and are clear evidences, that those may be received into discipleship which have not yet had precedent instruction.  
Against this all that he hath to pretend is set down by him in these words, Let putting to school be as early as the Doctor will imagine, yet none is put to school till he doth know his teacher, and so none is Christ's disciple in the Scripture language till he know Jesus to be Christ, and take him for his Lord, which infants being not capable of, they are not disciples, nor to be baptised according to Christ's appointment.  
To this I answer, 1. That the example which I had used of children being brought to School by the care of their parents, was designed to show no more than this, that they may be delivered up to be scholars, who as yet know nothing of what they are to learn, nor have actual willingness to acquire knowledge, and consequently that entrance into discipleship refers only to subsequent, supposes not any precedent instruction.  
And this is competently evidenced by that example, though it were supposed of the child that goes to school, that he knows his teacher, this bare knowledge of the person of his teacher, being none of the documents which he comes to school to learn, but the good letters that are professed and taught in the school, nor indeed is it imaginable why a blind child which is brought to school, or put to an instructor, and so cannot be deemed to know the Master, before assuetude hath acquainted him with him, should not yet be said, with as full propriety of speech, to come to school, as he that useth his own eyes as well as feet to direct him thither.  
2dly. It is as true, that children that are brought to School do not always know their Masters before their entrance, no not by the most superficial knowledge; Many are brought to public Schools, who never so much as saw their Masters, till they are by their parents delivered up into their power and discipline; If this be not plain enough, then change the similitude from the Schoolmaster to the parent or guardian, or the very nurse, every one of these are to feed and nourish, and, as he shall be capable, to instruct the child, and so doth Christ in a Spiritual sense, whosoever is entrusted (by being brought) to him in baptism. And we know God and Nature doth thus bring a child to the parent, to the nurse or Guardian, when the child knows none of these, nor understands any more of all these transactions, than the infant doth at the font conceive what is done to it there. And so still this evidenceth the vanity of this answer concerning the child's knowing his teacher.  
But then 3dly. This so imperfect superficial knowledge of the teacher is in no wise worth considering in this matter; For I shall demand, doth such very imperfect knowledge of Christ, as a Schoolboy hath of his teacher, the first hour he comes into the School, qualify him for discipleship to Christ, or no? If it do, than his countrymen and kinsmen, before he revealed himself to be the Messiah, and the Pharisees, which believed not his miracles, were sufficiently qualified, and then 'tis evident that those might be admitted to discipleship, which were not believers, and so all Mr. T. his hypotheses are destroyed, and then infants may be discipled and baptised, though they be not believers.  
As for that which he here interposes [the knowing Jesus to be Christ, and taking him for his Lord] this bears no proportion with the child's bare knowing of his master, but is far above it, equal to his making it his own choice to have this Master, rather than any other, and promising exact obedience to him, which is much more than is to be found in most young scholars, or indeed in any that are brought by their parents or guardians, who alone are the persons who bear proportion with the infants brought by others to baptism.  
So that this reasoning of his is soon salved by distinguishing of disciples, that they are either such as come, or such as are brought to School, proselytes of their own choice, or children under the care of others, of the former sort there are none but such as have some rude imperfect knowledge of Christ, upon which they make this choice, and without it would not probably be expected to make it; But for children which as minors in their guardians hands, have no will of their own, there is no necessity they should have knowledge to move their will, they may very reasonably be acted by the will of others, and by their charity be made partakers of those privileges which are communicated from Christ, in his Church to all true members thereof, and to that end be discipled and, baptised, entered by this ceremony into the Church of God, where instruction is to be had, as soon as they are capable of it, and in the mean while partake of those other advantages, of which their condition is capable.   

Sect. 4. The difference of a disciple and proselyte examined. Christian as well as Jewish proselytes, Privileges of proselytisme, Disciples of the Pharisees. The Holy Ghosts not using the word proselyte of Christians, concludes nothing. Jehovah. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infants qualified for baptism. As for entering into Covenant Deut. 29. God's oath. Infants adjured, Creples capable of Christ's cures.  
TO my 27. and 28. §§. his answer is brief, that what I say is not right; And for proof, though he begins with a [For 1.] and so by his form of branching, promises more reasons than one, yet that first hath never a [Secondly] to follow or back it, and so 'tis all resolved into that one, viz. that it is not true that a disciple and a proselyte are perfectly all one.  
To this therefore I must advert, and consider what nice difference he can spring betwixt a disciple and a proselyte, whereupon to found satisfaction for conscience why infants may be proselytes, and as such, come unto Christ, and yet cannot be made disciples, or received in baptism to discipleship.  
And his reason is, because a proselyte, saith he, notes one that is by birth an alien from the Commonwealth of Israel, and comes to the Israelites to own their God, and be part of their policy, and not to be taught, but enjoy privileges with other Jews, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical.  
But certainly this is no reason of difference, for besides that I, in that §. 27. acknowledged this accidental difference, that a proselyte denotes a coming from some other nation (as a disciple doth not) adding that this difference had no place in this matter, where the disciples are specified to be received from all nations; besides this, I say, it cannot be unknown to Mr. T. that I speak of proselytes in such a notion as is equally compatible to all of what nation soever they are, that enter into Covenant with God.  
Thus do we find a proselyte defined, Heb. 11.6. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that cometh to God, thus doth a Jew when he enters into Covenant of obedience to him, and thus did a Gentile when he undertook the whole law of the Jews, and was therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a proselyte of their covenant, and a proselyte of their righteousness, and such is every one whether Jew or Gentile, that cometh to Christ; and as the two former of these were made partakers of privileges by this means, particularly allowed freely to enter into the congregation, and infants as well as grown men, were thus among them admitted into Covenant; so it is not imaginable why it should not hold of the Christian proselytes also, nor why the Christian infants thus received into Covenant by Christ, after the same manner as Jewish and Gentile Infants were among the ancient people of God, i. e. by baptism, should not as properly be called proselytes of Christ, though they neither come from any other nation, nor ever associate themselves with Israelites according to the flesh.  
And whereas he saith of the proselytes coming to the Israelites, that they came not to be taught, but to enjoy privileges, I cannot divine what motive he had to affirm it, for sure the infant child that was baptised, and so received into the congregation of Israel did come to learn the Jewish religion, into which he was thus early initiated, and that was one special privilege (the rest of the heathen having not knowledge of these laws,) the immediate end of his proselytisme, yet not excluding those other ends of enjoying all other privileges both Civil and Ecclesiastical thereby.  
And when he adds, but a disciple of Christ is one that owns Christ for his teacher and Lord only for spiritual benefits, I might well acknowledge it, and ask, why then an infant, who hath need of those spiritual benefits, assoon as he is born, should not be hastened to a participation of them? But it is farther evident, that spiritual benefits being first and principally designed, other even secular advantages may very lawfully be respected, and reaped by them that are thus early brought in, whether as disciples, or proselytes to Christ.  
Two sage observations he here addeth, 1. That there is no mention of the disciples of the priests, but of the Pharisees and Sadduces, and I can very well grant it, who speak not of any lower kind of disciples, but either of God among the Jews, or of Christ, among us Christians, those being the only discipleships, to which they were admitted by the ceremony of baptism, the disciples of the Pharisees and Sadduces being but a subdivision, and notification of several sects among Jews, as there are different denominations of Christians (the more the pity) which divide unity, but use not new baptisms, to discriminate them, I am sure contradict the Apostle if they do.  
His 2d observation is, that the holy Ghost doth not at any time call Christians Christ's proselytes, but his disciples, that, saith he, we might not confound the notions of these terms; But I answer, 1. that those texts that express the Christians entering into discipleship, by coming unto him (of which there are good store) do in effect call them proselytes, for a proselyte is a Greek noun derived immediately from the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come unto.  
And 2dly that if this word, whether in itself, or in the verb from whence it comes, had never been used in the New Testament, yet would it not thence follow, that we might not confound the notions of proselytes and disciples: The word Jehovah is never used by the Holy Ghost in the New Testament, yet may we not thence conclude, that the notion of Jehovah and God are divers: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the known style of the Nicene Fathers, is never found used by the writers of the Bible, yet sure it no way follows thence, that the notion of that word, and of this phrase [I and my Father are one] are different and may not be confounded. 'tis pity to lose time on such fictions of scruple, and difficulty as these.  
What now is further said by him in this chapter, both concerning little ones coming unto Christ, and of their entering into covenant, Deut. 29.10. is on both sides but a bare denial of that which is competently proved in that 28 §. For 'tis there evident that infant children are and always were accounted capable of proselytisme and so of being entered disciples, and particularly of being entered into covenant with God, and so of being baptised, and there is no reason imaginable, why the infants which were capable of coming to Christ, were blessed by him were affirmed by him to be qualified for the kingdom of heaven, should be denied water to be baptised: The holy Ghost being fallen on the Gentiles that came with Cornelius, Peter durst not deny them baptism; And with what equity can the Christian Church do it to those, who are qualified for the receiving pardon of sin, for being blest by Christ, for being received into Covenant with him, and may afterward be instructed in all things which are needful to be learned, For that still they are unqualified, till by hearing they own Christ as their Master, this is a begging of the question, without any the least tender of proof.  
As for entering into covenant, when by the force of Deut. 29.10. he is forced to yield it compatible to infants, yet he will do his best to escape the conviction which it offers him, 1. by modifying the sense, then by invalidating my inference from it.  
First, though he yield that they may enter into Covenant, yet this, saith he, but in some sense, by their father's act engaging them under a curse or oath to own God as theirs, in which sense the posterity then unborn did enter into covenant, Deut. 29.15.  
But if we examine the place, it will be most clear, 1. that the Covenant is entered into by the infants, just as by the rest of them, the wives and the strangers or proselytes: On their part, Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord, that thou shouldst enter into Covenant with the Lord; and on God's part, that he may establish thee this day for a people.  
2dly Here is in the text no mention of any act of the father's engaging them under a curse or oath, but only of God's oath which he maketh to them. v. 12.  
3dly If they had thus adjured, or laid oath or curse upon their children, yet would this make no difference betwixt their and our entering into Covenant; we by the oath of baptism which is laid on the child (by him to be performed when he comes to ability, unless he will forfeit all the benefits of his baptism) do in like manner adjure our infants, though whilst they remain such, they hear it as little as the Jewish infants did.  
4thly Whereas from v. 15. he citys that the posterity then unborn thus entered into Covenant, there is no such word in the text▪ no mention of [posterity] or of [unborn] but of them only, who were not that day with them, i. e. (I suppose) were at that time of assmbling absent from the Congregation. I wonder why Mr. T. should attempt thus to impose upon the reader.  
As for our inference (which is this, that by parity of reason, infants may be entered into discipleship, and accordingly baptised, as well as they then might be entered into the covenant of God) he simply rejects it, without any farther notice of his reason again, save only this, that in baptism such a discipleship is enjoined as is by preaching the Gospel, and they only are disciples that are believers, and the only are appointed to be baptised, who in their own persons do enter into Covenant and engage themselves to be Christ's followers, and this is again but a pitiful petitio principii, a denying our conclusion when the premises cannot be denied, and so invincibly infer the conclusion, viz. that those may be brought to and received into discipleship, covenant, baptism, which in their own persons are not yet able to come to Christ, as those Cripples may be born by others to Christ, who wanted strength to address themselves, and be as really partakers of his healing miracles, as those who came to him on their own legs. And so much also for the 25th Chapter.    

CHAP. III. Of the Apostolical practice in this matter.  

Sect. 1. The interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.12. vindicated. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sanctification used to denote baptism, the use of it in the Fathers and Scripture. Tertullia's testimony: designati Sanctitatis. Origen. Author Quaest: ad Antiochum. Cyprian. chrysostom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there, infant children, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Epistles. S. Augustine's words examined.  
IN his last Chapter he proceeds to the view of those §§. which set down the positive part of our basis, evidencing the opinion and sense, which the Apostles had of Christ's institution, and of his intention to include, and not to exclude infants from baptism.  
The Apostles sense must be judged by their own usage▪ and practice, and that is testified to us two ways, 1. by one considerable remain and indication of it in S. Paul, 2. By the practice of the first and purest ages of the Church, receiving infants to baptism, and so testifying the Apostolical usage, and farther affirming that they received it by tradition from the Apostles.  
The remain, and indication in S. Paul is in the known place of 1 Cor. 7.12. where speaking of the believers children he saith v. 14▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. but now are they holy, i. e. it is the present practice of the Church (that Apostolical Church in S. Paul's time) to admit to baptism the infant chldrens of parents, of whom one is Christian though not of others.  
That this is the meaning of [holy] is there made evident, as by other arguments, so by this, that the ancient Fathers who knew the sacred dialect, call baptism Sanctification, Eum qui natus est, baptizandum & sanctificandum, in Cyprian, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be sanctified when they have no feeling of it, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let him be sanctified from the infancy, i. e. baptised then, in Gregory Nazianzen.  
To which testimonies, and the rest which is there produced out of the agreement of the Jewish style (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications for baptisms, to which agrees Maecarius' saying of the Jewish baptism, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it sanctifies the flesh, Hom. 47. p. 509.) because the main difficulty of the interpretation consists herein, I sh●ll now add more, one very ancient before any of these (within less than an 100 years after the death of S. John) Tertullian de Animâ, c. 39 where speaking of infants, and saying, ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari, that when either the father or mother is sanctified (i. e. received as a believer by baptism into the Church, the children are holy etc. (clear evidences of the notion of the word) this he there proves by these very words of this Apostle, Caeterum, inquit, immundi nascuntur, else (so caeterum in Tertullian's style is known to be put for alioqui or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) were your children unclean, adding in stead of these other words [but now are they holy] quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis & per hoc etiam salutis, intelligi volens fidelium filios, hereby willing that we should understand that the children of believers are the designed, or the sealed of holiness (in the sense, I conceive, wherein they that are baptised are by the ancients frequently said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be sealed) and thereby of salvation also: And all this, saith he, thus urged by the Apostle, ut hujus spei pignora matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat, patrocinarentur, that this hope might be a pledge to engage the believing wife or husband not to part from the unbeliever, And he yet farther adds (still to the confirming of this interpretation) Alioqui meminerat Dominicae definitionis, Nisi quis nascatur ex aquâ & spiritu, non introibit in regnum Dei, i. e. non erit Sanctus. Otherwise (or if this argument of the Apostle had not been sufficient) he would have mentioned the definition of Christ, that unless one be born of water and the Spirit (i. e. baptised) he shall not enter into the kingdom of God, i. e. shall not be holy, showing still of what holiness he understands the Apostles speech, that which the child of the believer is made partaker of by baptism, concluding, Ita omnis anima usque eo in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur, tamdiu immunda quamdiu recenseatur, Every soul is so long enrolled in Adam till it be enrolled anew in Christ, and is so long unclean till it be thus anew enrolled, which as it supposes every child of Adam to be impure, till he be thus by baptism made a child of Gods, a member of Christ, so it gives a full account of that uncleanness, and that holiness of which the Apostle speaks the former the state of a child of Adam unbaptised, the later of him that by baptism is initiated and matriculated into Christ.  

In Rom. l. 5.  And to this agrees perfectly that of Origen (of the same age, a very few years after Tertullian) speaking of the Apostles (from whom, saith he, the Church received by tradition that infants should be baptised) Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum, quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati, quae per aquam & spiritum ablui deberent, They to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries or Sacraments were committed, knew that there are in all the connatural pollutions of sin, which ought to be washed away by water and the spirit, giving us to understand what uncleanness and holiness it is, that children are capable of, the uncleanness of their birth from Adam, and the cleanness or sanctity of Christian baptism.  
So Athanasius 
* Tom. 2. p. 377. D.  Quaest. ad Antioch. 114. (or whosoever it is under the name of that ancient Father) where the salvation of the baptised infants is concluded by him upon force of those two texts, Suffer little children to come unto me; and, now are your children holy, whereto he there sets parallel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the baptised infants of believers, as the plain paraphrase of the Apostles words.  
To these I farther add another passage of 
* Ep. 59 Edit. Pam. p. 80.  Cyprian, together with the 66. Bishops that were in Council with him in their Epistle to Fidus, where speaking of the baptism of infants and expressly forbidding that any such should be hindered or kept from it, he brings for proof of it the words of S. Peter, that the Lord had said unto him that he should count none common or unclean, where it appears what was that Holy Father's notion of common or unclean, such as might be refused baptism, and consequently they which are not such, but on the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clean or holy (and such saith Paul here are the believers children) are to be admitted thither.  
Upon which words of S. Cyprian 
* Ep. 28. ad Hieron.  S. Augustine speaking saith, he made no new decree, but kept most firm the faith of the Church, & mox natum rite baptizari posse cum suis coepiscopis censuit, and he and his fellow Bishops resolved that a child might duly be baptised as soon as born.  
So 
* Edit. Savil. Tom. 6. p. 854. l. 16.  S. chrysostom in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them that were to be baptised, speaking of the several titles of baptism, applies unto it that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 6.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified: 
* Ibid. l. 19  and again, of those that were baptised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Scripture pronounces them not only made clean but just and holy also.  
So 
* Tom 1. p. 27.31  Gregory Nyssene in like manner, Glaphyr: in Exod. l. 2. speaking of him that defers baptism to old age, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. he is sanctified indeed, i. e. baptised, but brings in no profit to God. And 
* Tom. 2.18. C.  Comm: in Is. l. 1. Or. 1. speaking of baptism again, and the sufficiency to wash away sin, he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— But they are once sanctified, i. e. baptised— But I need no more such like suffrages.  
This I have both there (§§. 34, 35, 36, 37.) and here thus largely deduced, because in this one matter all the difficulty consists, and if it be once granted that this is the meaning of [Now are your children holy] then here is an evidence undeniable of the Apostles practice of baptising infants, and consequently an irrefragable testimony of their sense of Christ's institution, including, not excluding infants.  
And so this is a short and clear way of preventing all Mr. T. his endeavours and pains (so largely taken) to invalidate my conclusion from this place of the Apostle, and I need not now be farther solicitous for my paraphrase on all those 3. verses, wherein he would fain find out some excesses and defects, some insertions and omissions; If such there were (as I doubt not to evidence there are none) it would be little for his advantage, as long as the interpretation of the last words [but now are they (i. e. your children) holy] appears to be this, [but now are your infant children partakers of the privilege of baptism] for this one part of that verse concludes all that I pretend, or he oppugneth: And this I hope is now cleared to be no singular interpretation of mine, but that which (beside the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rational importance of the Context concluding it) the style of Scripture and the uniform attestation of the ancientest writers assign to it, so that there can be no reason for doubting in it.  
Yet because this is one of the exuberancies objected to my paraphrase (and the only one which I can without impertinence take notice of) that the term [young children of Christians—] is more than is in the text, which hath only [your children] which saith he, is not restrained to infancy, I shall briefly remove this exception, 1. By the authority of Tertullian just now produced, who interpreted it of their infant children, as appeared both by the express words [sanctos procreari] and the [caeterum immundi nascerentur] and by the occasion of that discourse in that place, which was the immunda nativitas ethnicorum, the unclean birth of heathens children, and the unlawfulness of baptising them, unless one of the parents were Christian. To which may be added also Nazianzens phrase forementioned, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being sanctified from infancy (for so sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a child before or soon after birth, saith Hesychius, and Aristophanes the Grammarian cited by 
* In Iliad. Basil. Ed. p. 944.  Eustathius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a child new born) which in all probability refers to this place of the Apostle, and so renders, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their children by their infant children.  
2dly. 'tis as manifest by the general doctrine of the Fathers, when they speak of the faith of parents profiting their children, meaning always their infant children, brought to baptism by the faith of their parents, before they are personally capable of having faith themselves.  
3dly. By the inconveniences which must follow in case it be interpreted of any other but infant children. For suposing them come to years of understanding, and capacity, they shall then either be supposed to have received the faith or to remain in infidelity: If they have received the faith & then be baptised, 'tis evident that this benefit comes not to them upon any consideration of the faith of the parent, but upon their own personal profession, and consequently that these cannot be spoken of by the Apostle in that place, where he makes the sanctification or baptism of the children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever, and as Tertullian saith, patropinium, a plea to move the believer not to depart. But if they have lived to years and not received the faith, 'tis then certain that they may not be baptised at all; And so 'tis manifest it must be understood of the infant (uncapable) children, and none else.  
'tis true that Mr. T. also excepteth against the paraphrasing of [holy] by [admitted to baptism] affirming this to be a sense of the word, no where else found. But this I hope I have cleared already, both from the usage of the word among the Jewish and first Christian writers, and might farther do it even by this Apostles dialect, who in his inscriptions of most of his Epistles to the Churches, calls all those to whom he writes, i. e. the baptised Christians of those Churches, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy, Rom. 1.17. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctified, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy, 1 Cor. 1.2. and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy, 2 Cor. 1.1. and Eph. 1.1. Phil. 1.1: Col. 1.1. among whom no doubt there were many who were no otherwise holy or sanctified, then as all baptised Christians are capable of that style. But I shall need add no more of that to what hath been already so largely said.  
And the parts of my interpretation being thus cleared, that their children] were their babes or infants, and their being holy] their being baptised, 'tis sure I cannot be concerned in his conclusion, that he never read or heard any exposition ancient or modern so expounding as this Doctor or Dictator doth, nor do I think he can show any] I hope now he will alter his mind, and acknowledge that it was his own fault, that this interpretation seemed so new and strange to him.  
As for the one place of S. Augustine produced by him (it should be, l. 2. de Pecc. Mer. & remiss. c. 26.) to the seeming prejudice of this interpretation, Ac per hoc & illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus, ad istam de baptismo & peccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omnino non pertinet] it will easily be reconciled to it, if we but mark what question it is, that there he speaks of, even that which he had then in hand, viz. whether baptism were necessary to remission of sins, and entering the kingdom of heaven.  
That this was the question in hand appeareth by the words immediately precedent, which are these sanctificatio, Catechumen● si non fuerit baptizat●●, non ei valet ad in●randum regnum coelorum aut ad peccatorum remissionem, The sanctification of a Catechumenus (what that is he had mentioned before, Catechumenos secundum quendam modum suum per signum Christi & orationem impositionis manuum puto sanctificari, that some kind of sanctification which the unbaptized might have by prayer and imposition of hands, of which we sometimes read in the ancients, as hath elsewhere been showed) profits him not for the entering the kingdom of heaven, or obtaining remission of sins, unless he be baptised. And therefore that sanctification of whatsoever kind it is, viz. if it be without baptism, belongs not, saith he, to the question then in hand concerning baptism and the original and pardon of sin.  
Here than I suppose is Saint Augustine's meaning. The adversaries with whom he disputes (the Pelagians) to maintain the no necessity of baptising infants for the remission of sins, made use of that text, and concluded from it the sanctity of the Christian infant birth, before, and without baptism: To this he answers, without any strict examination of the importance of that text, that whatsoever sanctification it can be imagined to be, that the Apostle speaks of, except it be that of baptism, it cannot avail to the remission of sins, etc. Some improper kind of sanctification, saith he, he may confess, secundum quendam modum, in him that is not yet baptised, but that without baptism non valet ad intrandum, is not of force for entering into the kingdom of heaven, and therefore whatsoever sanctification that is (viz. Whatsoever without baptism) it belongs not to his question then before him, and so the Apostles words can have no force against him.  
This I suppose then to be in brief S. Augustine's meaning in that place, that 'tis not the holiness of the Christian infants birth, but of their baptism, which stands them in stead toward the kingdom of heaven: And then that, as it is no evidence on my side, that he interpreted that place to the Cor. as I interpret it, so it affirms nothing to the contrary, but leaves it in medio, having his advantages other ways against the disputers.  
However for the substance, his accord with us is evident and his conclusion firm both in that place, and l. 3. de Pecc. mer. & Remiss. c. 12. Illud sine dubitatione tenendum, quaecunque illa sanctificatio sit, non valere ad Christianos faciendos, atque ad dimittenda peccata, nisi Christiana atque Ecclesiasticâ institutione & Sacramentis ●ffici 〈◊〉 fidele●. It is to be held without doubting, that whatsoever that sanctification be▪ it avails not to the making them Christians and to the obtaining remission of sins, unless by Christian and Ecclesiastical institution, and by the Sacraments they be made faithful.  
This is all that I can seasonably return for the vindicating of my paraphrase, It would be too immoderate an excursion to take notice of all his pretended objections to the former part of it, which concerns the cohabiting of the believer with the unbeliever, which I assure Mr. T. were easy fully to answer, and show his mistakes in each particular, if the matter of our present dispute did require, or would well bear a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that length, or if I thought it in the least degree useful to the reader, that I should farther explain the grounds of my paraphrase, then as they are already laid before him, Sect. 31. etc.  
Yet because the reasons which I there tendered for the paraphrase taken from the notations of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath been sanctified] and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (not to, but) by the wife] and by the plain consequents, what knowest thou o wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband— are by Mr. T. examined with an endeavour to confute them, and so to overthrow the whole paraphrase, it may perhaps be thought useful that I should take a view of those his endeavours, and therefore that I shall now proceed to do, and shall there meet with by the way what was most material in his former exceptions against my paraphrase.   

Sect. 2. The rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [hath been sanctified] defended. S. Hieromes testimony. Enallages must not be made use of without necessity. No advantage from it here. Feigned instances of Enallage. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
FIrst then, to my first evidence taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath been sanctified] referring to some past known examples and experiences, of this kind (of a wives converting the husband etc.) he hath a double answer, 1. That as my paraphrase expresseth it, it should signify not only that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified, but also that there is hope they will, and so it should note not only some example past, but also some to come, of which there can be a less reasonable account given then of putting it in the present tense in English. 2. That the Enallage or change of tense is frequent, c. 11.14▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the present tense for the future, and here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the next verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the preter for the present, and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, not, hath been, but is sanctified, or if in the preter tense, yet that to be understood of a past thing yet continued, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 3.18. notes an act still continued in force.  
To these two I reply briefly, and first to the former (the same which he had mentioned before, and excepted against as an excess in my paraphrase, but both there and here without the least cause;) For in my paraphrase, I look upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a verb of the preter tense, and as such only adapt the sense to it, referring it not to future hopes but to past experiences or examples; Only because examples are rhetorical syllogisms, and what hath been frequently experimented may also reasonably be hoped, I suppose that the Apostle so meant these examples, as grounds of hoping the like for the future, not making this of the future any part of the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the preter, but explicating the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rational importance (which is somewhat more than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of the Apostles speech, and supposing this conclusion to lie hid under this premisse, as it is ordinary in all discourse to set down the premises distinctly, leaving the conclusion by every one's reason to be drawn from thence, without setting it down explicitly.  
Wherein that I was not mistaken, I had all assurance from v. 16. where the argument is pressed, and the conclusion inferred more explicitly, For what knowest thou, o wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband— and the like mentioned in the Paraphrase from 1 Pet. 3.1.  
And herein I have the authority of S. Hierome; as for my rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the woman (so I find it, per mulierem, in his 7th Epist. ad Laetam, and so Marianus Victorius in his Scholia assures us, all the Copies ancient and printed, read it) so also for this part of my Paraphrase, exemplum refert (saith he on the place) quia saepe contigerit ut lucrifieret vir per mulierem, Vnde & Beatus Petrus ait, ut siquis non credideret verbo, per mulierum conversationem sine verbo lucrifierent, id est, cum viderint eas in melius commutatas, cognoscant omnes Dei legem ita confuetudine inveterata potuisse mutari, He produceth an example because, saith he, it hath often happened that the husband hath been gained by the wife, according to that of S. Peter, that if any man believe not the word, he should without the word be gained by the conversation of the wife, that is, that when they shall see them changed to the better, all may know that the Law of God might have been taken in exchange for so inveterate a custom.  
And so again Ep. 7. ad Laetam, speaking of the like example, Bene, saith he, felicitérque expectavimus; Sancta & fidelis domus virum sanctificat infidelem, we have well and happily expected (i. e. not missed of our expectation) an holy and faithful house sanctifies an unbeliever, adding his conceit, ipsum Jovem, si habuisset talem cognationem, potuisse in Christum credere, that Jupiter himself if he had had such a kindred, might have been brought to the faith of Christ.  
As for his 2d answer, I acknowledge such Enallages to be ordinary in the Hebrew, and sometimes, but more rarely found in the Hebraizing Greeks, or Hellenists, and consequently that where the context will not bear the sense of the tense which is used, there may be place for this Grammatical figure, which yet is not to be made use of unnecessarily.  
Accordingly, if there were any convincing reason offered, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the preter tense] could not be born, I should not then doubt to interpret it by this figure, either in the present or some other tense: But when (as here it is evident) there is no such necessity, than 1. I cannot think fit to do so, ('tis dangerous to forsake the literal sense, when it may be commodiously retained, and fly to either a Rhetorical, or Grammatical figure) and having no motive to do so, I am next to consider, what is the properest importance of that phrase in that tense wherein it is used, and then I could not (I believe) have fallen upon any thing more natural, then that the preter form of speech referred to the past experiences, etc.  
This is a full satisfaction to his answer, yet I may in the 2d place ex abundanti add thus much more, that the utmost that he can pretend to by the enallage (whether of the preter for the present, or of the preter understood of a past thing yet continued) is as commodious for my interpretation, as the preter is: For if it be in the present, than the importance will be, that it is a matter of present daily experience; if in the past continued, then that it is matter both of past and present experience that the unbeliever is thus wrought upon by the believer, and brought into the Church by baptism, and this a just ground of hope, that so it may be again in any particular instance, and so a competent motive that the believing wife should abide with the infidel husband, and not depart as long as he will live peaceably with her, and this sure was S. Hieromes understanding in the words newly cited, exemplum refert, quia saepe contigerit etc. the Apostle makes instance, produceth example, that this hath (and doth) ordinarily come to pass; And to that also exactly agrees the 16th verse, For how knowest thou etc.  
As for Mr. T. his instances of Euallage, though now I may safely yield them all, and rather gain then lose by them, I shall yet in the last place add my sense, that no one of them is any way convincing; that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not, c. 1. l. 24. for his passion was now so near approaching, that it might very fitly be represented as present, and so that be the force of the present tense.  
That of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not pertinent for certainly [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is not for [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was] which is the enallage of tenses, nor is there any necessity it should be for [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] (the enallage of modes) the rendering is proper, else are your children unclean, and exactly all one with else were, the change of the mode not changing the sense in this matter; which was the cause why I followed the English rendering, and made no change in that translation.  
As for his 3d instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15. which he saith is manifestly put in the preter tense for the present, I cannot be convinced of it, The context will well bear the preter tense yet continued [no Law of Christ hath or doth thus enslave her] or the preter tense simply [she by entering the bonds of marriage hath not thus enslaved herself] that she should think herself bound to do any thing contrary to her religion in order to continuing with her husband.  
As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Joh. 3.18. I wonder it could be thought fit to be produced to the prejudice of the preter sense, when the [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, already] which is present, is an evident proof of the preter sense, and if it be continued as well as past (he that hath been condemned remaining still under condemnation) this is still perfectly agreeable to my notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the unbeliever oft hath been, and daily is converted, and brought to baptism by the believer.  
And so much for all the grounds of his first exception, and his two answers to my inference from [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.]   

Sect. 3. The rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the woman] defended, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 1.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. Ireneus no Latin author, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 7. Gal. 1.16. 1 Pet. 1.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Psal. 68 My proof of the interpretation from the context.  
THE 2d concerns the rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I read, [by the woman] but he [to the woman] as [to] is a note of the dative case, and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redundant.  
And the reason, saith he, that he still adheres to his way, is, be- because this seems to him the fairest, easiest, and most congruous sense thus to expound it, The believer may abide with the unbelieving yoke-fellow, For though he be an unbeliever, and in himself unsanctified, yet in or to his wife he is as if he were sanctified, it's all one in respect of conjugal use, as if be were sanctified.  
To this reason I have many things to answer, 1. That the very rendering it, is the begging the question, which is only this (in this matter) whether this be the fairest, easiest, and most congruous sense, and must not be here supposed, when it should be proved.  
2dly. That if it were the fairest sense, yet if the words bear it not, it must not be affixed to them, if it be more capable of another; and whether they will bear it or no, is the question again, on occasion of which this inquiry is made into the use of the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to suppose again that it will signify [to] in the dative sense, before it is proved it will, is a second begging the question, a paralogism in stead of a reason.  
3dly. The fairness of the sense (simply taken) is not attempted to be proved, which yet doth stand in great need of it; For beside the redundance, or unusual sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some other parts of the rendering are none of the fairest, As 1. the believer may abide] as if it were simply free to abide or not abide, whereas in the present case (when the unbeliever is willing to abide with the believer) the believer is by the Apostle counselled at least, if not commanded (and that is more than a liberty, that he may) To him the Apostle saith (and his sayings have sure authority with them) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let him not put away. Nay the interdict of Christ belonging to all, but that one case of fornication, Mat. 5. and Mat. 19 it is evident that by force thereof the believing man must not put away the unbeliever, that is guilty of no more but unbelief; And accordingly the preface, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— But for the rest (or, for the other questions, v. 1.6.8.10.) say I, not the Lord] must be applied not to the immediate consequents, of the believers not putting away the unbeliever, that will stay with him (for that had been determined by Christ in the Negative) but to v. 15. If the unbelieving depart, i. e. if the unbeliever will not dwell with the believer, except the believer forsake his, or her religion, what shall be done then? And to that the Apostles counsel is, that marriage enslaves not the believer so far.  
All which is a competent prejudice to that part of Mr. T. his sense, The believer may abide, For if that be it, even when the unbeliever is willing to abide, than she may also depart, if she rather choose, which will be found contrary to Christ's precept, and so may not be admitted.  
2dly. In this rendering, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is englished (not by is or hath been sanctified, but) by [is as if he were sanctified] which indeed acknowledgeth that he is not truly (in any respect) sanctified, and then sure this will be a strange construction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unbeliever (is not sanctified but) is as if he were sanctified, when yet literally it must be rendered the unbeliever hath been, or (to gratify Mr. T.) is or continues to be sanctified: For what is this but to interpret an affirmative by interposing a negation, he is sanctified, by he is not? for so assuredly he is not, if he only be as if he were.  
With this let any man compare the interpretation I have given, the unbeliever hath been sanctified by the believer, i. e. examples there are of such as have been thus converted from their unbelief, and this sense enforced by the interrogation, v. 16. For what knowest thou, o woman, whether thou shalt save the man etc. and by S. Peter's aphorism of daily observation, 1 Pet. 3.1. the husband that obeys not the word, i. e. the unbeliever, may probably be gained by the conversation of the wife, and then let him impartially pass judgement, which is the fairest and easiest rendering.  
His 2d reason is, because though the Dr. deny it, yet (saith he) I aver, that the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to, as a sign of the dative case, is found more than once in the New Testament.  
The truth of this I must now examine by the proofs offered for the affirmation. And his first proof, is from Mat. 17.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This, saith he, cannot be eluded, because the same speech is Mar. 9.13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rendered by Beza in the former place, fecerunt ei, they did to him, 2. Whereas the Doctor saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon him or against him, It had been meet the Doctor should have given one instance at least of such construction, which, saith he, I do not believe he can do.  
To this I answer, 1. By two ready instances in one verse, Lu. 23.31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; If they do these things (our ordinary English reads in a green tree, but the sense and propriety directs us to) on the green tree, what shall be done on the dry? here is the very phrase that is used in that place of Matthew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then for S. Marks using (in the parallel place) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that proves not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was redundant in S. Matthew, or that it was a bare sign of the dative case, it being free to S. Mark to use any other expression, different from S. Matthew, so he retained the sense, as it is clear in this place he doth, doing injuries to him, being all one in effect with upon or against him, though the phrases are not the same, which no way infers that when the change of the phrase changes the sense, it were lawful so to vary it, as in the place we have in hand (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 'tis on both sides supposed to do.  
A 2d instance which he conceives cannot be eluded, is Col. 1.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was preached to every creature, and this he proves to be the only rendering▪ 1. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach, is commonly with a dative case of the object, and though, 1 Tim. 3.16. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet our translators, and the vulgar, and Beza read it unto the Gentiles, as if there it noted only a dative case, and if it were among the Gentiles, there, yet here Col. 1.23. it cannot be so, because the object is in the singular number, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when it is for among, is joined still with a noun of the plural: and 2. That which, saith he, puts this out of all doubt, is, that the phrase Col. 1. answers Mar. 15.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But to all this the answer is ready, by observing the exact notation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole creation (as we render it Rom. 8.22.) as that signifies the whole, but especially the Gentile world, and accordingly is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 28. and farther explained by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole world, to which in S. Mark they are appointed to go, when they were thus to preach the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to this whole creation. Now of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this notion it is clear, that though it be in the singular number, yet that hath the power of the plural, as the word [world] and the like, which every body knows, is a noun of Multitude, and so is creation, when it is thus taken for the whole created world, meaning this world of men, the nations or people of the world.  
And then there can be no doubt but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is most exactly thus to be rendered, preached in, or among the whole creation, as Gal. 1.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, preach in the nations, or among the Gentiles, and so 1 Tim. 3.16. also, though the sense being no way altered by rendering it unto the whole creation, or every creature, and to the Gentiles, it matters little though it be promiscuously thus rendered in all these places, which yet must not prescribe for other places, where the sense is so much changed by the divers rendering, as in this case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is observable, where therefore the literal rendering being retained, we are not reasonably to conclude any more from it, than that literal rendering will afford us. As for the parallel phrase Mar. 16. that doubtless can prove nothing, 1. Because the places are not, nor can be thought parallel, 2. Because if they were, (as of Mat. 28. and Mar. 16. hath been granted) yet the parallel lying only in the sense, and that being all one, whether they preached to or among the Gentiles, this no way concludes that the phrases are the same, or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one redundant, which is the only thing for the proving of which this parallel is produced, but of that I have formerly spoken.  
His third instance is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 4.12. which he cannot yet conceive, but that it is better rendered, to men, then among men. And his reasons are, 1. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath most regularly and consequently a dative case of the person after it. 2. Because if it had been among men, it had been to be placed after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, other, there is no other name among men, given, but being placed after given, it is to be expounded as referred to given, not to other, and so must be read, to men, not, among men. 3. It seems no good sense, nor true, that Christ was a name given among men, for though he were among men, yet he was given from above. To all which he adds the judgement of Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 12. cited by Beza, and a parallel phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 7.44.  
To these I answer, 1. That 'tis true that when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath any case of the person following and governed by it, that is constantly the dative, but that is no way applicable to this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for there the persons, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are governed by the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
To the 2d. That the construction by among, is very good, placing it after given, there is no other name given among men, i. e. no means of salvation afforded by God, and continued among men.  
To the 3d. That Christ's being given from above, no way prejudges his being given among men, both because the benefit of this gift is as a common donative, distributed among men, and also because this gift is dispensed in form of humane flesh, Christ is become man, and to be found and seen among men.  
And to the last, for the place of Irenaeus, 'tis strange that neither Mr. T. nor Beza whom he transcribed, should remember that Irenaeus wrote Greek, and that as the Latin translation [datum hominibus] is not written by Irenaeus, so there is no question but Irenaeus' Greek was the same with the text in the Acts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then the Translator (barbarous enough through that whole book) is to be reform by the Author, and not the Author judged of by the Translator; Or if he were, and Irenaeus' Greek did really read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as the Translator doth [hominibus] without [in] then I must resolve, that the copy of the Scripture, which he followed, did so read before him [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and if so, then what proof can Mr. T. have from thence that in other places or phrases, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found in all copies, it shall be redundant, and signify no more, then if it were not to be found there?  
As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it must certainly be rendered, among the Fathers, thus, the tabernacle of witness was among our Fathers in the wilderness: 'tis pity the reader should be exercised and detained with such debates as these, with which yet in obedience to Mr. T. I must farther importune him.  
For a 4th instance he again resumes that of Gal. 1.16. and 2 Pet. 1.5. That Gal. 1. where of God the Apostle saith, that he was pleased to reveal his own son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and when I had rendered that by, or through me, to others, This exposition, saith he, makes the Apostle tautologize ineptly.  
This strange undecent expression I wish had been spared, for certainly there was little temptation for it: why, I pray, might not the Apostle without incurring either part of that censure, say, God was pleased through me to reveal his son, and by way of explication, (and withal to denote the designation of that Apostle to his peculiar province, as the Apostle of the uncircumcision) add, that I might preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Certainly every explication of an obscurer or narrower, by a clearer or larger phrase, is not inept tautology, but that which all writers which have desired to speak intelligibly, have always been full of.  
And yet 2dly the latter part here▪ of his preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles (he being peculiarly the Apostle of the Gentiles, as Peter and John were of the Jews wheresoever dispersed) is more than was pretended to be said by my rendering and paraphrasing the former part of it; for in that those others had not been defined, who they were, or limited to the Gentiles.  
This Mr T. adverted not in his objection, I desire he will now take notice of it. For that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I need add no more to what I had before said, that it is most fully rendered thus, unto or over and above your faith superadd virtue, or fortitude.  
Two places, he saith, he had formerly produced out of the old Testament, Deut. 28.60. and 2 Kin. 7.27. and now adds one more, Psal. 68.18. But besides that three only places in the whole old Testament, would never infer that so it must be in this place of the new, there being many more to preponderate for the contrary, and there being no pretence of necessity that thus it must be here, besides this, I say, it will be found, that these three will be of no avail to him.  
Of the two former the 2d is not, there be but 20. vers. in that Chapter, and therefore no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 27th: and for the former we well read it, unto thee, where the 72. reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the ordinary way of acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And lastly, for his new sprung testimony, Psal. 68.18. of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for which saith he the Apostle hath Eph▪ 4.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he takes to be more then enough to refute the Doctor, 'tis presently visible that it hath no manner of force in it; For though those two places are perfectly parallel, as to the matter, yet for the expression 'tis evidently very different, in one [thou hast received] in the other [he hath given] and so [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or among men] must of all necessity differ from [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to men] For how could it be sense to faith, thou hast received gifts to men? yet so it must be, to make good Mr. T. his observation, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to, or is redundant, or the note of a dative case.  
And so he never had a more improper season for his triumphs; never less cause to tell others of taking ad randum, when he himself was so far removed from all appearance of demonstration. And so much for the Grammatical notation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, very unfit to have exercised us thus long, but that Mr. T. would have it so, and words are the means of conveying realities unto us, and mistakes in them (though minute) may be of substantial importance.  
My 3d proof produced for my interpretation of the first part of v. 14. which to me put it out of all doubt, by comparing it with the reason subjoined, For what knowest thou, o wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband; or how knowest thou, o man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?] he comes next to examine, and hath many exceptions against it, all which (without losing time in repeating and viewing them severally) will be soon dispelled by a right understanding of the force of the Apostles argument as there I conceive it to lie, Thus v. 14. It is matter of ordinary observation, that unbelieving husbands have been brought to the faith and baptism by the believing wife, therefore I now exhort and counsel the believer not to depart from the unbeliever, in case the unbeliever be willing to stay, v. 13. for this reason, v. 16. because what hath been so oft, may very probably be hoped again, and consequently upon the premises the believer hath ground to hope, that she may in time gain the husband to the faith, and that, being so fair a reward in her view (the saving or rescuing him from infidelity, to Christ) may well enforce the counsel of the Apostle, not to depart from him, as long as, without sin, she is permitted to stay.  
By which it appears that this v. 16. is not a bare explanation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 14. (on which Mr. T. his exceptions principally depend) but an application of the argument formerly proposed, but now more signally brought home to them, under the form of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what—] by this means to reinforce his conclusion of their not departing for the cause of infidelity: If the reader will but observe what is thus visible, he will want no more help, to get out of the intricacies, and toils, which Mr. T: hath here spread for him in this matter, which is in itself so manifest, as nothing can be added to it, if either the text or my paraphrase may be permitted to speak for itself.   

Sect. 4. Mr. T. his mistake of my sense. The argument à genere ad speciem. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. How the husband is said to be baptised by the wife. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partial washings. The proportion betwixt legal holiness, and baptism. Difference between relative and real sanctification. The testimonies of the ancient, for and against my interpretation.  
HIS exceptions to the former part of my paraphrase being now ended, I must attend what he hath to say against the latter part of it, that which concerns our matter in hand more nearly; The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for else were your children unclean, but now are they holy, i. e. upon that score it is that Christians children are admitted to baptism, viz. because by their living in the family with the Christian parent they probably will (and aught to) be brought up in the faith— and the Church (requiring and receiving promise from the parents) reasonably presumes they will, and so admits them to baptism.  
This argument of the Apostles thus explained in my paraphrase (or if he yet will have it more plainly thus, The Church upon confidence that the believers children will be brought up in the faith, receives them to baptism when they are infants; And upon the same grounds of hope, that your abiding with the unbelieving husband may in time convert him (as by experience it hath oft been found) I advise you not to depart from him, if he will live with you; For what knowest thou whether thou shalt save thy husband, etc.) Mr. T. hath made a shift not to understand, and substituted another way of arguing in my name, in stead of it, p. 331. And having done so I must leave him to combat with the shadow of his own creating, no part of his impression lighting upon that, which alone I profess to be my meaning in it; which I leave him or the reader to see, in the particulars proposed by him, but must not now be so impertinent, as to lose time in the pursuit of them.  
But the reasons produced for my thus interpreting, he next proceeds to examine, and I must take care to vindicate them. My first reason is, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, holy, noting a relative holiness, a setting apart to God, and the lowest degree of that imaginable being the initiating into the Church by baptism, this must in reason be here noted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy, as all visible professors, Ezr. 9.2. are the holy seed, and in the Epistles of the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy.  
To this he answers, that it being all granted, confirms not the Doctor's exposition, because 'tis no good argument à genere ad speciem affirmatiuè, and because infants are not visible professors.  
But sure when the species is such, that he that hath not that, hath not any part of the genus, the argument will thus hold very irrefragably: Suppose that of the Deacon to be the lowest order of officers of the Church, and that without which there is no ascending to any higher degree in the ministry, will not then the argument hold; He hath some degree Ecclesiastical upon him, therefore sure he is a Deacon? Thus sure it is in this matter, the relative holiness belongs to no person, that is not baptised, baptism is the lowest degree of it, and all superior degrees of Apostle, Prophet, etc. in the Christian Church are founded in that, therefore if the infant children be holy, the infant children are baptised. So again, Baptism is the lowest degree of visible profession, therefore if these that are said to be holy, are visible professors, then sure they are baptised; And so there is no force in that whether answer or exception to my first reason.  
My 2d follows from the notation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 10.14. for those that must not be received into the Church, as on the other side God's cleansing is God's reputing him fit to be partaker of this privilege, whereby it appears how fitly, receiving and not receiving to baptism] are expressed by [holy and unclean.]  
To this he answers by acknowledging the conclusion, viz. the fitness of the expression, All his exception is against my promise, the notion of unclean, Act. 10. which, saith he, signifies there not only one out of the Church, but also one that a Jew might not go in to, or eat with. To this I reply, that my conclusion being granted, I may safely part with that, which inferred it, as when I am arrived at my journey's end, I have no farther need, or use of my horse or guide that brought me thither: Let it be remembered, that [holy and unclean] fitly express those that are received, or not received to baptism, and then I am sure I have not offended against the propriety of the words, by concluding from this text, that in the Apostles time the believers children were received to baptism; And if I have as little offended against the rational importance of the words in that place (as I hope hath formerly appeared that I have) than I hope I am perfectly innocent in inducing my conclusion.  
As for the use of the phrase Act. 10. though now I need not contend, yet I may add, that the notion of not entering to, and eating with, containing under it this other of not baptising (for sure he might not baptise those to whom he might not enter) and the baptising Cornelius (and not only entering to him) being the end for which Peter received that vision, I still adhere that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that places signifies one peculiarly that must not be received into the Church by baptism; and the holiness, on the contrary, reception to that privilege.  
My 3d reason being taken from the use of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sanctify, for washing any part of the body, and on occasion of that, mentioning a conjecture that the use of holiness for baptism might perhaps intimate that the primitive baptism were not always immersions, but that sprinkling of some part might be sufficient; he hath a reply to each of these; To the former, that if this reason were good, than the husbands being sanctified by the wife, must signify his being baptised or washed by her; to the latter, that I have in my writings so oft acknowledged the baptism of the Jews and Christians to be immersion of the whole body, that I ought to be ashamed to say the contrary, and that I can hardly believe myself in it.  
To these I answer, first to the former, 1. That I that affirm sanctifications among the Jews to signify washings, do also know that it hath other significations, and that that signification is in each text to be chosen, which seems most agreeable in all those respects which are to be considerable in the pitching on any interpretation; Consequently that the wive's baptising the husband being a thing absurd, and utterly unheard of in the Church of God, whether in the Apostles or succeeding ages, this sense may not reasonably be affixed to it, whereas the baptising of infants by the ancients affirmed to be received from the Apostles, it is most reasonable to understand the words of this, though not of the other (and so to apply the observation (as it is visible I did) to the latter, not former part of that verse.  
And yet 2. if we shall distinguish of the notion of [by] and expound [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the woman] of the persuasion, that the woman hath used to bring her husband to baptism, and not of her mystery in baptising, we may very conveniently so interpret the former part of the verse also, that by the woman, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unbelieving husband hath been brought to baptism, viz. by being brought to faith, to which this privilege belongs.  
As for his 2d exceptions to my conjecture, founded in the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications for partial not total washings, 1. I answer, that I mention it only as a conjecture, with a perhaps, and lay no more weight upon it: 2. That for Christian baptism I no where affirm that it was only by immersion, nor on the other side that it was always by sprinkling, but disjunctively, either by one or the other (as by the words cited by him from Prac: Cat: l. 6. Sect. 2. is clear) supposing indeed that Christ's appointment was not terminated to either, and so satisfied by either.  
My last reason is taken from the effect of the legal uncleanness, contrary to those their sanctifications, viz. removing men from the congregation; agreeable to which it is that those should be called holy, who in the account of God, stood so, that they might be received into the Church; To this he answers, that it is said without proof that the uncleanness excluding from, and sanctification restoring to the tabernacle are proportionable to the notion here given of the children being excluded or included in the Church, ask, why Cornelius should be counted out of the Church, being a devout man.  
But to this I reply, that that which is so manifest needed no farther proof, for what two things can be more proportionable, or answerable the one to the other, than the Jews calling those unclean, and holy, who were excluded from, and restored to the tabernacle, and the Christians calling them unclean, and holy, that were excluded from, and received into the Church, the exclusion and reception being the same on both sides, as also the uncleanness and holiness, and the proportion lying only betwixt the Jewish tabernacle and the Christian Church, which surely are very fit parallels as could have been thought on.  
As for his question of Cornelius, it is most vain, the whole discourse being not of real but relative sanctification, and the difference most visible betwixt that sanctity which was truly in him in respect of his devotion, fearing, praying &c. and that outward privilege of admission into the congregation of the Jews, which alone was the thing which in the account of God, or sober men was denied Cornelius.  
These be pitiful sophisms, and in no reason farther to be insisted on, And therefore it was but necessary that to amuse the reader, he should here add by way of close that Augustine aid disclaim this interpretation, Hierome and Ambrose gave another, and so did Tertullian De Anima, c. 39  
The three former of these we must, it seems, take upon his word, for he citys not the places where they give that other interpretation, nor pretends he that they gave that to which he adheres: But for Tertullian the most ancient of these, by the place here cited, I am assured what credit is due to his citations, having set down the words at large from that c. 39 de Animâ and found it perfectly to accord to my interpretation.  
The like hath appeared of S. Hierome in part (for the former and more difficult part of the verse) the man hath been sanctified, exemplum refert, saith he, quia saepe contigerit, just according to my paraphrase of the place.  
For S. Augustine also, l. 2. de Pecc. Mer. & Remiss. c. 26. (which I suppose the place he means) I have already accounted. And for the Annotations on the Epistles, which go under S. Ambrose's name, as I have not commodity to examine them, so they are known and universally acknowledged to be none of S. Ambrose's writings; And than it is competently evident how little he hath gained by this unseasonable appeal to testimonies.  
The design, I suppose, was to prevent the force of my allegations, For in that place as an appendix to the use of the word, holy, among the Jews, I had added the acception of it among the ancient Christian writers, S. Cyprian, Ep. 59 Eum qui natus est baptizandum, & sanctificandm, and the two places out of Gregory Nazianzen, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being sanctified when they are not (through want of years) sensible of it, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sanctified from infancy. And before he chooses to take notice of these, he brings forth his names of Fathers too; with what success, we have seen, and shall not need farther to consider.  
At length he descends to take notice of my testimonies, and to them he hath two answers, 1. That for the ancients of the third or fourth Century, especially for the Latin Doctors, he thinks the Doctor knows them better than to assert that they knew certainly the sacred Dialect, adding that few of them had skill in Hebrew or Greek. 2. That if those Fathers knew the sacred dialect, than not holy but sanctified, must be as much as baptised, and then the sense is, that the unbelieving husband is baptised by the wife.  
This latter answer was even now satisfied to the full, To the former than I reply, 1. That of the two ancients cited by me, the former was crowned a Martyr within 160 years after the Apostles age, and the latter flourished about 110 years after him, and so that in respect of their time they are no way incompetent to testify what was the sacred language, the writers whereof were so lately gone out of the world.  
2dly. That one of these being a Greek Doctor, and he agreeing exactly with the other (and more of the same kind I have now produced in this rejoinder) there can here be no pretence for Mr. T. either to prejudice the Latin Doctor's skill in this matter, or to say they had no skill in Greek.  
3dly. That the notion that they had of the word, being the very same, that the Hebrews were so lately shown to have had of it, there was as little colour, or temptation from the matter in hand, to except against their skill in Hebrew.  
4thly. That either of these ancient Doctors knew as much (the one much more) of Greek as any of the four whom just now Mr. T. had vouched for the interpreting of the place; and for the Hebrew S. Hierome, who alone was better skilled in that, concurred with me in the main part (and basis) of my interpretation.  
Lastly, The text to the Corinthians being in Greek, certainly Gregory Nazianzen was as great a Master in that language, as any that can be pretended fit to be confronted against him, and with that concurrence, which I have showed he had of Origen, and others, both Greek and Latin, may be thought worthy to be heeded by Mr. T. for a matter of no greater weight than his, the interpretation of word, especially when Mr. T. himself hath so lately joined his suffrage in these plain words, 
p. 333.  I deny not the fitness of the expressing [receiving to baptism] by the term [holy.]  
And so much for those exceptions against the latter part of my paraphrase of that verse, and my reasons for it.    

CHAP. IU. An answer to Mr. Tombes' view of my Conclusion and therein the sense of Antiquity in this Question.  

Sect. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 7. infant children. The Jews practice. Their notion of [holy] Baptism a privilege of believers children, yet is communicated to others whose guardians are believers. The several sorts of holiness all vainly mentioned by Mr. T. His denials of the Conclusion. The place in Tertullian vindicated. S. Hieromes answer to Paulinus. Institutionis disciplina in Tertullian. Candidati Damoniorum. A 3d denial of the Conclusion. The use of baptism to regenerate etc. No prejudice to the founding it in the Jewish practice. His art of diversion to put off answering of testimonies. The way of Testimonies insisted on.  
AFter this examination of my paraphrase of this text to the Corinthians, he proceeds to the conclusion which I deduce from thence, which is no other than my premises, viz. my confirmation of that interpretation, had regularly inferred, that the infants of Christian parents were by the Apostles received to baptism.  
But to this he will object also, not only by referring to his former performances in validating the premises (to which I shall not need to now advert, having refuted his answers, as they were produced) but by denying the consequence in case my interpretation were granted, and that upon these accounts, 1. Because it is not clear that [your children] are [your infants] the Corinthians having (for aught yet hath been showed) other children besides infants, and the Jews baptising proselytes, children females under 12. and males under 13. years old, not according to their will, but of the Father or Court. 2. Because if the Apostle should by [holy] mean a privilege whereupon they were baptised he should conceive otherwise then the Jews did, who conceived all unclean whom they baptised, till by baptism they cleansed them, and made them holy. 3. Because there is no privilege attributed by the Apostle to the Christians infants, which would not belong to the infants of heathen, or if there were yet it might not be baptism.  
To the first of these I have incidentally answered already, by making it evident, not that the Corinthians had no other children beside infants (I have no want of such ridiculous evasions) but that the children which are there spoken of were infant children, as appeared both by the express words of Tertullian, and the Author of Answers ad Antiochum, and the agreeableness of Nazianzen's expressions, by the general doctrine of the Fathers in this matter, and by the inconveniences which were consequent to the interpreting it of any other but infant children, meaning by them such as are either strictly infants, new born, or such as are proportionable to these, having not arrived to maturity of understanding, and capacity of professing personally for themselves. For this I must refer the reader to that place-  
And for the practice of the Jews, which I acknowledge to be as is here suggested, not to baptise any proselytes children by their own wills or professions, till they be, the female at the full age of 12. the male of 13. years, sure it makes nothing against me, for they that thus baptised the proselytes children, all under that age, by the profession of others, did also baptise their infant children in the same manner, and all that I pretend from that place is, that the believers infants were admitted to baptism, if infants they were, not doubting but if they were of greater years they were baptised also, if before they were fit to profess for themselves, then by their parents or the Churches, but if fit to answer for themselves, then by their own profession.  
To the 2d I say, that by [holy] the Apostle means the privilege of admission to baptism, because in baptism they were received into the Church, and so made relatively holy; And the very same was the Jews notion of holiness, when they called baptisms, Sanctifications, and conceived those that were unclean to be made holy by that means, This holiness is the term of the motion in both their usages of the word.  
To the 3d, 1. I suppose it evident by my interpretation, that the holiness which belonged to the believers children was a privilege, and that not common to the unbelievers children, unless they were by the charity of the Church or some member thereof (having power, and assuming to make use of that power, to bring them up in the knowledge of their baptismal vow) brought to baptism, and then those supplied the place of the parents, and the children equally received the same benefit by that charity, as if their own parents had done it for them; and there being no reason here offered to the contrary, but a reference to another place, which I have not commodity to consult or examine, there is nothing that exacts any farther reply from me.  
The same will satisfy the latter part of this last suggestion, for to prove that if there were a privilege, yet it might not be baptism, he produceth this reason, that baptism according to the father's opinion and practice belonged to unbelievers children also, if they were brought: which being willingly granted, & so the matter cleared, that the children of believers were to be admitted to baptism, when the very unbelievers children, if brought & assumed for by others, which were not their parents were to be admitted, It certainly follows not from thence, that the believers children were not admitted, or that their admission was not a privilege of believers children, For so still it was, though by parity of reason, and by the charity of the Church it was communicated to some others: viz. those that were brought by friends or guardians, though not by parents, for so still this privilege belonged not to those unbelievers children, who lived in their parent's power, & were not thus undertaken for by believers.  
The short is, baptism was a privilege of the believers infants undertaken for by their parents, and by analogy communicated to those who were undertaken for by others, whose charity and piety supplied the place of believing parents, but was not communicated simply or indifferently to all children of unbelievers, and herein the privilege consisted.  
As for the other imagined privilege, which he names, belonging to infants, If it be that of real, actual, inward holiness, I discern not Mr. T. hath any kindness to it, (nor can he without destroying his own hypotheses) and therefore it matters not what others imagine; If it be federal external holiness, that I suppose to be the same with baptismal holiness, baptism being the entrance into that Covenant, And for holiness in hope and expectation, 1. that cannot denote actually holy (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here notes) unless by holy we mean in the relative sense, consecration or designation to holiness, and then it is all one with baptism again, the solemnity of that consecration.  
Before he leaves the survey of my conclusion, he will again resume what he had said without all degree of truth in the beginning, and yet doth it with great incitation, First, saith he, it is false that Christ founded his institution in the Jewish practice.  
But this I suppose in Mr. T. to be no other than a mentiris Bellarmine, or that most inartificial thing, the denying a conclusion which had been inferred by competent premises. And for the reason added to his negation, that it would utterly overthrow all baptism after the first conversion of progenitors, that hath been largely answered here, and grounds laid for it in the resolution of the Quare, by the Jewish practice of baptising the children of natives, as well as of proselytes, and so of those that are born never so many ages after the first conversion. And I must not again so often repeat the same thing.  
In the same causeless fit of incitation, he farther goes on, 2dly. saith he, It is false that there is any evidence in the Apostles words, 1. Cor. 7.14. of such a Custom of baptising Christians and their children. But that I humbly conceive, is the denying my conclusion again, having all this while laboured to clear this evidence in the tract, and here vindicated it from all objections, which seemed to have the least force in them: And whereas he here adds no other reason to his negation, but his own not thinking that ever any of the Fathers did interpret the Apostles words as this Doctor doth, adding that Tertullia's words de Anima, c. 39 are not an exact parallel to the Apostles speech (which I must suppose I have now showed it is) that Ambrose and Hierome interpret them of legitimation in birth, Augustine what way soever, not to baptism (of each of which I have spoken already also) all that I shall need add, is only this.  
1. That still if this argument were exactly true, yet it is but a negative argument à testimonio, which never was available in any dispute: 2. That if the Fathers do not fully interpret this place as I now do, yet I have brought some suffrages and other competent grounds out of the Fathers for my way of interpreting it: 3. That what he hath said for the invalidating the Testimony out of Tertullian, hath certainly no force in it, as shall now briefly appear by this view of what he saith.  
It is this, 1. That the terms candidati sanctitatis, or designati sanctitatis, or candidati fidei in Hieroms Epis. 153. to Pauliniu, do note not that they were baptised, but that they were in designation of being believers and baptised, intended to be holy by the parents, to be bred up to the faith and so baptised. 2. That what the Doctor talks of Tertullian as saying they were holy, i. e. baptised, ex seminis praerogatiuâ, it is a manifest mistake, for 1. The holiness he ascribes to believers children was not only by prerogative of birth but also ex institutionis disciplinâ by the discipline of their instruction which is afore baptism. 2. The prerogative of birth the very words of Tertullian show to be no more but this, that believers children were born without those idolatrous superstitions which were used in the birth of infidels children, which he there principally recites.  
To this I answer by degrees, 1. By viewing the place in S. Hierom, to which he refers me for the explication of the phrase, candidati or designati sanctitatis. That Epistle to Paulinus is hastily written in answer to two questions of Paulinus his proposing. To the later, being this, quomodo sancti sint qui de fidelibus, i. e. baptizatis nascantur (which plainly refers the matter to these words of the Apostles, how the children born of believing parents are holy] he gives a very short solution, being taken off by the haste of the post and the multitude of other letters, he had to write. All that he is permitted to say is this. De secundo problemate tuo Tertullianus in libris de monogamiâ disseruit, asserens sanctos dici fidelium filios quòd quasi candidati sint fidei, & nullis Idololatriae sordibus polluantur. Simúlque considera quòd & vasa sacra in tabernaculo legimus, & caetera quae ad ritum ceremoniarum pertinent, cum utique sancta esse non possint nisi ea quae sentiunt & venerantur Deum. Idioma igitur Scripturarum est ut interdum sanctos pro mundis & purificatis & expiatis nominent, sicut & Betsabee sanctificata dicitur ab immunditia sua, & ipsum templum sanctuarium nominatur. Of your second problem Tertullian hath discoursed in his Books de monogamia, affirming the children of believers to be called holy, because they were as it were candidates of Faith, and not polluted with any of the filth of idolatry. Withal consider that also we read that the vessels in the tabernacle are holy, and the other things which belong to the rite of ceremonies, when yet nothing can (really) be holy but what have sense, and worship God. It is therefore an idiom of the Scriptures to use the word holy for those that are clean, and purified and expiated, as Bathseba is said to be sanctified from her uncleanness and the temple is called the Sanctuary. And so he is abruptly broken off, meaning to have said much more on that subject, this, as he solemnly protests (testis est mihi conscientiae meae Deus) being but the procinctus & exordium, the preparation and beginning of his interpretation.  
If he had gone on to have perfected his answer to Paulinus' quaere, he would probably have more perfectly cleared the whole difficulty. As it is, here is nothing in the least wise to our prejudice, nor to the proving that which Mr. T. undertakes, that Tertullia's words de Anima do not affirm the baptising of the believers children.  
For 1. This of Tertullian is not the place that S. Hierome refers to, but some other in his Books de Monog. that one Book which we now have under that title affording us no such discourse on that subject, as S. Hierom mentions.  
2dly. All that S. Hierom citys out of that (not this) place of Tertullian, is very reconcileable with what Tertullian saith in this place, and with his opinion that the infants of Christians were baptised, for, saith he, they were quasi candidati fidei, as it were candidates of faith, Candidates were they that stood for any office qui candida sumptâ veste consulatum▪ praeturam etc. postulabant, who putting on white garments sued for any office, and so candidates of faith, they that sue, for this condition in the Church of God, that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believers, to which by baptism they are assumed, and accordingly were to be brought to the font, like such candidates, in white garments as they that were to be sanctified, i. e. baptised, among the Jews, Exod. 16.10. were also to wash their clothes or put on clean garments.  
Again when he saith of them that they were holy as the vessels of the Temple were holy, though they had no sense, this is the clear laying of a ground, whereby children may be deemed capable of this relative holiness, which is to be had by baptism, though as yet they are not capable (for want of understanding) of inherent holiness.  
Lastly, when he mentions it as an idiom of Scripture to call them holy, who are cleansed, purified, expiated, speaking of those legal lustrations or purifications, this gives an account of S. Paul's using the word in the Christian Church for the Christian lustration, purification, expiation, i. e. for baptism.  
And by the way, it appears by S. Hierome that he useth promiscuously sancti and sanctificati, and so that gives us authority to interpret [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the end of the verse, in the same sense in which [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is used in the beginning, for those that are brought and received to baptism. All which are far enough from serving any of Mr. T. his interests, and might have inclined him to have omitted that testimony of S. Hieromes, if he had more maturely considered of it.  
Nay 3. I must add, that Mr. T. his rendering of candidati and designati sanctitatis, and candidati fidei, by being in designation of being believers and baptised, intended to be holy by the parents, to be bred up to the faith and so baptised, is a most groundless inconvenient interpretation: For if by holiness and faith be meant inherent holiness and faith, than baptism itself is the ceremony of consecrating and designing them to this, and so precedent to that holiness (not subsequent to it, as Mr. T. sets it) and accordingly in the Church writings the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believers, is never bestowed on any, though of mature age and knowledge, till after they be baptised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illuminate and believers being all one, promiscuously used for those that have received baptism, in opposition to catechumeni, those that have not yet attained it: But if holiness and faith be the relative holiness, than infants being as capable of that as vessels in the Temple, they might be presently designed and consecrated to that, and not first bred up in the faith, before they were partakers of it.  
The children of believers, I willingly grant, are presumed to be by them intended to be bred up to the faith, but it that intention of theirs bring forth no present effect, if they do not bring them thus early, and enter them into the Church by baptism, why should that bare intention of the parents give them the style of holy or sanctified, or how should these infant children, which may die before they come to those years, receive any present privilege or benefit, by that which is thus far removed from them?  
Now for the 2d part of this suggestion, that what I say from Tertullian, that they were holy, i. e. baptised in seminis praerogatiuâ, is a mistake, I must answer by viewing of the proofs of his assertion, First, saith he, the holiness was not only by prerogative of birth, but ex institutionis disciplinâ. This sure is a strange proof, It is not so, because it is not only so, 'tis certain that Tertullian saith they are holy ex institutionis disciplina, and as certain that they are as much so by prerogative of their birth, the words are most clear, tam ex seminis praerogatiuâ quam ex institutionis disciplina, and I that never denied the second, could not be mistaken in affirming the first.  
Some difficulty I suppose there may be, what Tertullian (who did not excel in perspicuity of expressions) meant by institutionis disciplina. My opinion (gathered from the observation of his language in other places) is, that he meant the doctrine of baptism instituted by Christ in his Church; for by this it is that baptism was allowed to those that were ex alterutro sexu sanctificato procreati, born of parents of which either of them was Christian.  
Thus in his Book De Bapt. c. 12. he uses a like phrase tingi disciplinâ religionis, to be sprinkled with the discipline of religion, meaning evidently being baptised.  
By this interpretation of that phrase, the whole place will be most clear, in reference to the antecedents, thus, The birth of all men by nature brings impurity into the world with them; the children of heathens have this mightily inhansed to them by the Superstitions that are used before and at, and soon after their birth, inviting the devil to come and take possession of them (who is himself very ready to catch them) and so making them as soon as born, candidatos daemoniorum, candidates of the devils, ambitious to be admitted thus early into their service; Thus every one hath his genius, i. e. his devil assigned him from his birth, and so no birth of any heathen can choose but be polluted, Hinc enim Apostolus— for from hence, saith he, it is that the Apostle affirms that whosoever is born from either parent Christian, is holy both by prerogative of seed, and by discipline of institution, i. e. hath one privilege by nature, by his very seed (by being born of a Christian, not an heathen) that he is not so polluted by their idolatrous ceremonies, and so is in some degree holy, in that respect, not so polluted as heathen children are; another privilege he hath by the orders and rites, which Christ instituted and left in his Church, viz. that of reception to baptism, whereby he is consecrated to God, whereas heathen children are desecrated to devils, and in that respect also they are called holy by the Apostle, citing that place, 1 Cor. 7. Caeterum, inquit, immundi nascerentur, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy, adding that the Apostle in those words means, that the children of believers are designati sanctitatis, that sure must signify that they are initiated into Christ by the Christian rite or sign or ceremony of baptism, as those which had the heathenish ceremonies used upon them, were candidati daemoniorum, candidates of the devils, in the former, thus early admitted and initiated into their sacra.  
How far now this is from intimating any discipline of their instruction (the word their is clearly inserted by Mr. T. and institutio rendered instruction, and so Christ's institution turned into their instruction) I shall not now need farther to declare, nor to add aught concerning his other reason taken from the idolatrous Superstitions, without which they that are born are said to be holy, for how far that hath here place, I have already manifested also.  
In this fit of incitation he yet farther proceeds, 3. Saith he, it is false that the Jewish practice in baptising proselytes and their children, laid the foundation of infant baptism: But as this is like the former, a mere denying of my conclusion, and so against all rules of discourse, in the first place, so is it not attempted to be proved, save only by the negative argument à testimonio, Neither the Scripture, saith he, giveth any hint thereof, nor any of the ancient Christian writers, no nor any of those the Doctor citys, ever derives it from the Jewish practice.  
But certainly this is of no force; for 1. So long as none of all these deny it, to be so derived, and when the matter itself speaks it and the agreement between what we find in the Christian Church with what we find among the Jews, there is no want either of truth or sobriety in my assertion, that Christ's institution of baptism was founded in the Jewish practice of baptising their natives and their proselytes, and that their custom being to baptise infant children, Christ's institution also being by the Apostles understood to belong to the infant children's baptism was in that respect also conformable to the Jewish copy, and so still the Jewish practice the foundation of the Christian.  
What he adds from several ancient testimonies, shortly pointed at, that they show that the Fathers took the baptism of infants not to have foundation in the Jewish practice, but in the conceit they had that baptism did regenerate, give grace and save, and was necessary for them to enter into the kingdom— hath nothing of weight in it, For 1. Their conceiting that baptism had this force from Christ's institution, no way prejudges Christ's founding his institution in the foregoing Jewish practice.  
'tis as if he should thus argue, the Fathers conceived the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be useful for the confirming of our faith, therefore they took that Sacrament not to be sounded in the postcoenium of the Jews. They conceived imposition of hands to confer a Character on those that were thus ordained to holy orders, therefore this was not founded in the Jewish custom of receiving Doctors into the Sanhedrim by laying on of hands. The foundation of the institution is one thing, and the benefits of it being instituted is another, and yet both these are found to belong to the same thing.  
2dly. Their very opinion that baptism did regenerate, and was necessary to enter into the kingdom, as it is taken by the Fathers from the words of Christ to Nicodemus Joh. 3. Except a man be born again, v. 3. and that of water— v. 5. (by baptism) he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, so was that speech of Christ, taken from the customary doctrine of the Jews, among whom baptism was said to regenerate, and to enter into the Church, as that was the portal to the kingdom of God, and accordingly when Nicodemus seems not to understand it, Christ appeals to the Jewish doctrine or tradition, Art thou a Ruler, a Master in Israel and knowest not these things? and therefore again those persuasions of the Fathers are far from unreconcilable with that which I have affirmed of the founding the Christian in the Jewish baptism.  
Nay 4. That the Fathers in their discourses of baptism do ordinarily lay the foundation of it in Moses or the baptism of the Jews (and so might as well found the baptism of Christian infants there, the Jews baptism, as hath appeared, belonging to such) hath formerly been evidenced from Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— and so from others also.  
What he now adds of women's baptising among Papists and the allowance thereof formerly among us, of private baptism, of the use of propounding questions to the infant which he is pleased to style ridiculous, of the sureties answering in the child's behalf, and expressing their desire to be baptised into the faith recited, of the custom of baptising only at Easter and Whitsuntide, of sprinkling or pouring water on the face, of a confession in the Pract. Cat. that all men were instructed anciently before they were baptised, is all amast together, if it might be, to make up one accumulative argument, but is utterly insufficient to do so. All that he concludes from the mention of all these, is but his own resolution not to answer the testimonies which I had alleged from the Fathers, to prove that Infant baptism was an Apostolical tradition. His words are these, upon the mentioning of those particulars▪ [And therefore for the present I shall put by the answering of the stale and rotten allegations out of the Fathers for infant baptism brought by the Doctor, because having said so much.  
Here indeed by his [therefore] I am told the reason why he was willing to mention those other particulars so causelessly and unseasonably, viz. by way of diversion (as dextrous persons are wont to do for the removing of difficulties) to put by the answering of the allegations out of the Fathers.  
But I must not thus far comply with Mr. T. The main issue of the whole dispute must divolve to this, the doctrine of the ancient Church in this matter, For. 1. baptism being instituted by Christ long before his crucifixion, and 2. The form wherein he instituted it being not set down in the Gospels, and so 3. The Apostles practice being our only guide for the resolving such difficulties as these, whether infants were admittable or no to baptism (the foundation thereof among the Jews visibly belonging to infants, but it being still possible that this might be changed in Christ's institution) it is not now imaginable what way should be open to us of this age (1600 years after those times) to discern Christ's institution in this matter, but by the words or actions of (or some kind of intimation from) the Apostles, how they understood Christ's institution.  
Of this one place we have 1 Cor. 7. which comes in incidentally, speaking to another matter, and notifies the Apostles sense by their practice visibly enough, and defines for the baptising of infants in those days; But to them that will not acknowledge this sense of those words, how fair and easy soever, there is but one possible method remaining in this, as in all other questions of fact (as evidently this is, whether in the Apostles times and by their appointment children were received to baptism or no) viz. to appeal to those that could not be ignorant of this matter, who by succession and tradition, the one from the other, had the Apostles practice, the interpreter of their sense of Christ's institution, conveyed and handed down unto them, and are to us, their late posterity, the only competent witnesses of this matter of fact, and so are in all reason to decide the controversy, and give a final conclusion to the debate between us.  
This therefore being the last part of my method in the positive part of the Resolution of that Quaere, I profess to have laid the most weight upon it (according to the grounds set down in the first Quare concerning the deciding of such controversies) and consequently must still insist upon it, and not be put off by Mr. T. his dexterity, and that in this matter I may not fail of giving the Reader some evidence, I shall again resume it, and give him a competent series of testimonies, some formerly mentioned, and now put more into form of evidence, and others added to them, so as to infer an uniform concordant tradition of all the ages of the Church of Christ even since the Apostles times unto this day, for the receiving infants to baptism; and that shall be the last part of this Reply to Mr. T. and the Antipadobaptist whose pretensions are the contrary, that infants must not be thus admitted.   

Sect. 2. A Catalogue of Testimonies of the first ages for Infant baptism, and the Apostolicalness thereof.  
FIrst than I begin with the words of the Apostle so long insisted on, and vindicated from Mr. T. his exceptions, and by so ancient a writer as Tertullian etc. applied to this matter.  
And that first Epistle to the Corinthians being written at the end of his three years stay in Asia Act. 20.31. i e. An. Chr. 54. I shall there place my first testimony.  
In the middle of the first Centurie S. Paul delivered these words, Now are your children holy, i. e. your children newborn (as appears by the context and Tertullian) are sanctified, as that signifies baptised, in the style of the New Testament and the ancient Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are vouchsafed the good things that come by baptism, saith the Author of the Respons: ad Orthod: whether that were Justine the Martyr, who suffered Anno 163. or another very ancient writer under that name; And this of that Apostle is an evidence of the practice of the first, or Apostolical age, soon after Christ, and is not contradicted by any that wrote in that age.  
In the next age after the Apostles flourished S. Irenaeus, said to be martyred at Lions (the seat of his Bishopric) the 5t of Severus, An. Chr. 197. he had been an auditor of Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna (styled by that Church an 
* Ep. Eccl. Smyr. ap. Euseb. l. 4. c. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Apostolical and Prophetical Doctor) and is by 
* Hieron. Ep. 29. Apostolicorum temporum vir.  S. Hierome looked on as a man of the Apostolical times, and by 
* Doctrinarum omnium accuratissimus explorator. Tertul. advers. Valent.  Tertullian as a most accurate searcher of all doctrines, and so is a most competent witness of the Apostolical doctrine and practice; and thus he speaks l. 2. advers. har. c. 38. Omnes venit Christus per semet ipsum salvare, omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, Infants, & parvulos, & pueros, & juvenes, & seniores▪ Christ came to save all by himself, all I say who are born again unto God by him, Infants and little ones, and children, and young men and older men, where it is evidently his affirmation, that infants (expressly) are by Christ regenerate unto God, and that must be in baptism, that laver of regeneration, and so they are not, in his opinion, excluded from baptism. And so this is a testimony of the second Century, not found or pretended to be contradicted by any other of that age.  
Immediately after Irenaeus followed Tertullian in the end of the 2d, and beginning of the 3d Century, a man of great learning, and a diligent observer and recorder of the customs and practices of the most ancient Church. And he lib. de Animâ c. 39 affirms it from the Apostle, ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari, that when either parent is sanctified or believer, i. e. baptised, the children that are born from them are holy, and this tam ex seminis praerogatiuâ, quam ex institutionis disciplinâ, both by prerogative of their seed, and by the discipline of the institution, i. e. (as hath been showed) by baptism, adding from the same Apostle that delivered those words, 1 Cor. 7.4. that his meaning was that the children of believers should be understood to be designati sanctitatis ac per hoc salutis, and evidencing what he means thereby, by the following words, of Christ's definition, Joh. 3. Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God, i. e. non erit sanctus, shall not be holy, where baptism is manifestly the thing by which these children are said to attain that sanctity; and more he adds in the beginning of the next chapter to the same purpose. And so he is a competent witness for the beginning of that third age, and is not found contradicted by any other passage in his works, or by any of his time; But on the contrary,  
Origen, who died at Tyre, An. Chr. 254. hath three most irrefragable testimonies for it; first on Luke Hom. 14. Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum, little ones are baptised into the remission of sins; and quomodo potest ulla lavacri in parvulis ratio subsistere, nisi juxta illum sensum de quo paulò autè diximus, Nullus mundus à sorde etc. How can the account of baptising little ones bold, but according to that which before was said, none is clean from pollution, no not if he be but a day old, and per baptismi sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur, propterea baptizantur & parvuli, by the sacrament of baptism the pollutions of our birth are put off, and therefore little ones are baptised.  
Secondly, on Leviticus Hom. 8. Requiratur quid causae est cum baptisma Ecclesiae in remissionem peccatorum detur, secundum Ecclesiae observantiam etiam parvulis baptismum dari— Let it be considered what the cause is when the baptism of the Church is given for the remission of sins, that baptism should according to the observation (or custom) of the Church be given to little ones.  
Thirdly, on the Epistle to the Romans, l. 5. Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare— the Church hath received tradition from the Apostles to give baptism to little ones also, such little ones still (as by the former words appears) as those of a day old and the like. And so here is a full concord of testimonies both for the practice of the Church, and tradition received from the Apostles for baptising of infants, and so is a farther evidence of the doctrine of the third age, not contradicted by any of that time.  
About the same time, or without question soon after, wrote the Author (under the name of Dionysius Areopagita) de Eccl. Hierarch. For, as by 
* Biblioth lod. 1  Photius it appears, Theodorus Presbyter about the year 420. debated the question, whether that writer were Dionysius mentioned in the Acts or no. And of this no doubt hath been made but that he was a very ancient and learned Author. He therefore in his 
* Edit. Morel. p. 233.  7. chap of Eccles. Hierarch. proposeth the question, as that which may seem to profane persons (i. e. heathens) ridiculous, why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 children which cannot yet understand divine things are made partakers of the sacred birth from God, i. e. 
p. ●19.  evidently of baptism (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the baptising of infants, saith Maximus his Scholiast) adding to the same head also, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, others in their stead pronounce the abrenunoiations and divine confessions, 
p. 234.  And his answer is, 1. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many things which are unknown by us why they are done, have yet causes worthy of God, 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that we affirm of this the same things which our divine officers of the Church, being instructed by divine tradition, have brought down unto us, and again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— our divine guides (i. e. the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Maximus) considering this, appointed that infants should thus be admitted according to the sacred manner, nothing can be more clear than that the Apostolical tradition is by this ancient and elegant writer vouched for the baptising of infants, as a sufficient account of that matter, against the reproaches and scoffs of profane, or heathen men, who deemed it unreasonable. And so there is a most convincing testimony for that time, wherein that author wrote, which must needs be in the fourth Century before Theodorus Presbyters debating the question concerning him, but most probably more ancient, and so to be placed in this third age.  
In the midst of this third age, An. Chr. 248. was S. Cyprian made Bishop of Carthage, and ten years after he suffered martyrdom, i. e. 158 years after the age of the Apostles. In the year 257 he sat in Council with 66 Bishops (see Justellus in his Preface to the African Canons p. 21.) and their decrees by way of Synodical Epistle are to be seen in his Ep. 58. ad Fidum fratrem, which is now among his works. Pamel. Edit. p. 80. The Council was in answer to some questions about baptism, and accordingly▪ he there sets down his own opinion, together with the decrees of that Council of 66 Bishops which were assembled with him; And so this, as it is an ancient, so it is more than a single testimony, that of a whole Council added to it; and yet farther, to increase the authority of it, S. Augustine citys this Epistle 
* Ep. 28. ad Hieron. l. 3 de Pec●. mer. & Remis. c. 6, 7, 8, 9 l. 4. contr. duas Ep. Pelag. c. 3. l. 2. contr. Julian. c. 3.  more than once, and sets it down almost entire, as a testimony of great weight against heretics, and so 'tis cited by S. Hierome also, l. 3. dial. contr: Pelag.  
In this Epistle the question being proposed by Fidus, whether infants might be baptised the 2d or 3d day, or whether, as in circumcision the 8th day were not to be expected, he answers in the name of the Council, Vniversi judicavimus, 'twas the resolution or sentence of all, nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei & gratiam denegandam, that the mercy and grace of God was not to be denied to any humane birth, to my child, though never so young, (by that phrase [mercy and grace of God] evidently meaning baptism, the rite of conveying them to the baptised) adding, that 'tis not to be thought that this grace which is given to the baptised, pro atate accipientium vel minor vel major tribuitur, is given to them in a greater or less degree in respect of the age of the receivers; and that God as he accepts not the person, so nor the age of any, confirming this by the words of S. Peter Act. 10. that none was to be called common or unclean, and that if any were to be kept from baptism, it should rather be those of full age, who have committed the greater sins, and that seeing those when they come to the faith are not prohibited baptism, quanto magis prohiberi non debet infans, qui recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quòd secundum Adam carnaliter natus contagium mortis antiqua primâ nativitate contraxit? qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso faciliùs accedit, quòd illi remittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata, how much more ought not the infant to be forbidden, who being new born, hath no sin upon him, but that which by his birth from Adam he hath contracted as soon as he was born, who therefore should more easily be admitted to pardon, because they are not his own, but others sins which are then remitted to him. Concluding that as none were by the decree of that Council to be refused baptism, tum magis circa infants ipsot & recens natus observandum atque retinendum, so this was the rather to be observed and retained about infants and new born children.  
Thus much and more was the sentence of that ancient Father and that Council, and as the occasion of that determination was not any antipaedobaptist doctrine (there had no such then so much as looked into the Church, that we can hear of) but a conceit of one, that it should be deferred to the 8th day, which was as much infancy as the first (and so both parties were equally contrary to the Antipaedobaptists interests, the condemned, as well as the Judges) so that it was no new doctrine that was then decreed, or peculiar to S. Cyprian (who had one singular opinion in the matter of baptism) appears also both by the concurrence of the whole Council that convened with him, and by the express words of Saint Augustine Ep. 28. ad Hieronym: Beatus Cyprianus non aliquod decretum condens novum sed ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans— mox natum rite baptizari posse cum suis quibusdam coepiscopis censuit, Blessed Cyprian, saith he, not making any new decree, but keeping the faith of the Church most firm, decreed with a set number of his fellow Bishops, that a child newborn might fitly be baptised. Which shows it the resolution of that Father also, that baptising of Infants was the faith of the Church before Cyprians time, not only the opinion, but the Faith, which gives it the authority of Christ and his Apostles.  
In the next or fourth Century, about the year of Christ 370. flourished Gregory Nazianzen, and died in the year 389. who though he be by Mr. T. affirmed to dissuade from it but in case of necessity by reason of apparent danger of death, 
p. 339.  will yet give an evident testimony of the doctrine of the Church of that age in this matter.  
In the 
* Paris Edit. Tom. 1. p. 648.  4th oration written on this subject of Baptism having gone through all the ages of man (to demonstrate a proposition premised by him, 
* p. 647, D.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it belongs to every age and sort of life) he at length comes to the consideration of infancy, in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If thou hast an infant, let not iniquity get time, 
* (Just as Tertullian de Ani. had observed.)  let it be sanctified (certainly baptised) in infancy, let it in the tender age be consecrated to God's spirit, and whereas the heathens use amulets and charms to secure their children, 
* p. 643. C.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do you give it the Trinity (the Fathers the Son and the Holy Ghost in baptism) that great and good phylacterie, or preservative. A plain testimony of the Church's doctrine at that time.  
Afterwards in the 
* p. 658. A.  same oration he returns to this matter again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what, saith he, will you say concerning those that are yet children, and neither know the loss nor are sensible of the grace of baptism, shall we also baptise them? And his answer is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Yes by all means, if any danger press, 'tis better they should be sanctified (baptised) when they have no sense of it, then that they should die unsealed, uninitiated, adding for proof of this the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 circumcision on the eighth day, which was, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an initial seal, and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used to those that had no use of reason, and (in a lower degree) the anointing of the posts, which were insensible also, was yet a means of saving the firstborn.  
After this, 'tis true that he proceeds to consider those children, that are not in any danger of death, and of them he gives his opinion (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the style which S. Paul useth, when he speaks his own sense, as that is other from the revealed will of Christ) that staying about three years, at which time they may be taught to answer somewhat, though they understand it not perfectly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by this means they may be baptised, souls and bodies, by this great Sacrament of initiation.  
But of this, 1. It is is clear that it no way prejudges the doctrine and practice of the Church formerly set down, and approved by him, that infant children, indefinitely considered, might be baptised, and if danger approached, must, how young soever they were; which is as contrary to the Antipaedobaptist, and so to Mr. T. as any thing.  
2dly. That it is but his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or private opinion pretending not so much as to any part of the Church of that, or former ages to authorise it.  
3dly. That the state of children being so weak and uncertain, that 'tis hard to affirm of any that they are not (for the first three years) in any danger, his counesl for deferring will hardly be ever practicable to any.  
4thly. That the deferring, of which Nazianzen speaks, is most probably to be understood of those whose parents are newly converted, and themselves doubt whether they shall be yet baptised or no, for to such he speaks in that place from p. 654. A.  
Lastly, That the deferring till three years old, if it were allowed, would no way satisfy the Antipaedobaptists praetensions, and so still the former passages ought be of force with all, and no heed given to the whispers of Mr. T. and others, as if this holy Father dissuaded baptism in any age unless in case of danger, when he clearly saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let him in the tenderest age be baptised and consecrated to the Spirit.  
In the same Century S. Ambrose must be placed, being a writer about the year 380. he in his 10th Book, Ep. 84. ad Demetriad. Virg. speaking of those that made Adam's sin no otherwise hurtful to posterity, then by the example (exemplo non transitu no●uisse) he presseth it with this principal absurdity, Hinc evacuatio baptismatis parvulorum, this evacuates the baptism of infants, which should then be capable of adoption only, but not of pardon.  
And in like manner on Luke, by Jordan's being driven back, saith he, are signified the mysteries of baptism, per quae in primordia naturae suae qui baptizati fuerint parvuli à malitia reformantur, by which the little ones that are baptised, are reform from their malignity to the first state of their nature.  
In the beginning of the next or fifth age, flourished S. chrysostom, that famous Bishop of Constantinople whose death is placed in the year of Christ 407. he in his homily to the Neophyti hath these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this cause (i. e. because there be so many benefits of baptism, there recited, ten in number) we baptise children, though they have not sins.  
Which words are the more worth remembering, because they had the hap to be made use of by the Pelagians, and consequently vindicated by S. Augustine, The Pelagians urged them in this form, Hac de causa etiam infantes baptiz●mus, cum non sint coinquinati peccato, for this cause we baptise infants, when they are not polluted with sin, understanding it of original sin, but S. Augustine appealing to the Greek, showed that the right rendering was, quamvis peccata non habentes, although they had not sins, i. e. propria, their own or actual sins, of which these infants were not supposed to have any.  
So in his 
* Edit. Eton. Tom. 1. p. 328. l. 5.  4th Homily on Genesis, speaking of baptism as of the Christian circumcision, among other things he affirms of it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it hath no determinate time but 'tis lawful both in the first age (the childhood, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, with him, 
* T. 1. p. 322. l. 11. So again. p. 327. l. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  else where applied to the time of circumcision on the 8th day, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—) and in the middle, and in old age itself, to receive this circumcision made without hands.  
In the same Centurie, very few years after, if not before chrysostom, S. Hierome must be placed, born in the year 342. and deceased in the year 420. And he in Ep. 7. to Laeta telling her that whilst the child was young and not come to Pythagoras' Y. the bivium or two ways, the knowledge of good and evil, tam bona ejus quam mala parentibus imputantur, his good or evil deeds are imputed to the parents, adds that this must needs be acknowledged, nisi forte existimas Christianorum filios, si baptisma non receperint, ipsos tantùm reos esse peccati, & non etiam scelus referri ad eos qui dare noluerint, maximè illo tempore quo contradicere non poterant qui accepturi erant, sicut è regione salus infantum majorum lucrum est. Unless, saith he, you believe that Christians children, if they receive not baptism, are the only persons that are guilty of the sin, and that the offence is not charged on them which would not bring them to baptism, at that time especially, wherein they that were to receive could not contradict, as on the other side the salvation of infants is the gain of the elder, adding that the parent which was thus to prepare his child for the Kings i. e. Christ's embraces, si negligens fuerit, punietur; shall, if he be negligent therein, be punished.  
Words of no very conformable abode to the opposers of Paedobaptism, I wish Mr. T. who thinks fit to make use of S. Hieromes name (it now appears how luckily) would be at leisure to consider them.  
So lib. 3. contr: Pelag. the question being asked by Crito, Quare infantuli baptizentur, why infants are baptised, the answer is made by Atticus, Vt eis peccata in baptismate dimittantur, that their sins may be pardoned in baptism, and again, qui parvulus est, parentis in baptismo vinculo solvitur, the infant is freed in baptism from the band of Adam's sin.  
Paulinus, we know, was his Contemporarie, and from him we have this testimony, Ep. 12. Ind parens sacro ducens de font● sacerdos, Infants niveos corpore, cord, habitu— The Priest brings the infants out of the font white as snow in body, in heart, in habit.  
Next to these succeeds S. Augustine, who died in the 30th year of this 5t age, and was the great champion of the Church against all the invaders of the depositum committed to it. His passages on this subject are to many to be enumerated, and some of them have already been set down in the Resol. of the Quaere p. 217. making it the perpetual doctrine of the whole Church of all ages before him, and expressly including that of the Apostles.  
So the Bap: contra Donat. l. 4. c. 23. Quod traditum tenet universitas Ecclesiae cum parvuli infantes baptizantur, qui certè nondum possunt corde credere ad justitiam, & ore confiteri ad salutem— & tamen nullus Christianorum dixerit eos inaniter baptizari. This is held as tradition by the Universal Church, when little infants are baptised, which are sure yet unable to believe with the heart or to confess with the mouth, and yet no Christian will say that they are baptised to no purpose: (a severe sentence again for the Antipaedobaptist) adding the Ecclesiastical rule by which to judge of Apostolical tradition, and evidencing the benefit of infant baptism by the example of circumcision, that as in Isaac, circumcised the eighth day, the seal of the righteousness of faith preceded, and the righteousness itself followed in his riper age by his imitating his Father's faith, ita & in baptizatis infantibus praecedit regenerationis Sacramentum, & si Christianam tenuerint pietatem, sequitur in cord conversio, cujus mysterium praecessit in corpore, so also in baptised infants the Sacrament of regeneration precedes, and if they hold fast Christian piety, conversion in the heart follows, the mystery whereof had been formerly received in the body.  
So De verb: Apost. Serm. 14. being come to handle this subject of the baptism of infants, he begins thus, sollicitos autem nos facit non ipsa sententia jam olim in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ summâ authoritate fundata, sed disputationes quorundam— The doctrine itself gives us no trouble, being long since founded in the Catholic Church by the highest authority (that sure must be by Christ's and the Apostles) but the dispute of some men— and again, Non enim quaestio est inter nos & ipsos, utrum parvuli baptizandi sint, Baptizandos esse parvulos nemo dubitat, quando nec illi hinc dubitant qui ex alterâ parte contradicunt— the question betwixt them and us is not, whether infants are to be baptised; Let no man make doubt of this, seeing neither do they doubt of this which contradict us in the other question concerning the benefit of it.  
And again, in a farther process with those disputers, Dic mihi, obsecro te, parvulis baptizatis Christus aliquid prodest, an nil prodest? Necesse est ut dicat prodesse, Premitur mole matris Ecclesiae. Doth Christ profit infants that are baptised, or doth he not? He must needs say that he doth profit, he is pressed with the weight of the Church our mother.  
And again, authoritate reprimuntur Ecclesiae, si enim dixerint Christum nihil prodesse baptizatis infantibus, nihil aliud dicunt quam superfluè baptizantur infants. They are repressed by the authority of the Church, for if they say that Christ profits not infants baptised, they plainly affirm that infants are superfluously baptised, but this those very heretics (the Pelagians) dicere non audent, dare not say, and so were fain to secure their hypothesis by another evasion, viz. that they were baptised not for salvation but for the kingdom of heaven.  
And yet farther, Hoc habet authoritas matris ecclesiae, hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet canon, contra hoc robur, contra hunc inexpugnabilem murum quisquis arietat ipse confringitur. Fundata ista res est, ferendus est peccator errans in aliis quaestionibus— non tantum progredi debet, ut & fundamentum ipsum ecclesiae quatere moliatur. This the authority of our mother the Church is possessed of, this the grounded Canon of truth holds fast; against this fort, this invincible wall whosoever makes assault, is broken to pieces. This is a grounded thing: He is to be born with who errs in other questions, but he must not proceed thus far (as the Antipaedobaptist certainly doth) as to endeavour to shake the very foundation of the Church, i. e. certainly a doctrine laid by the first planters of the faith, Christ and the Apostles themselves.  
So Ep. 89. Non est superfluus baptismus parvulorum, ut qui per generationem illi condemnationi obligati sunt, per regenerationem ab eâdem liberentur. The baptism of infants is not superfluous, that they who by their birth are bound to that condemnation which came by Adam, should be freed from it by regeneration, and more to the same purpose in that place.  
So in Enchirid. c. 42. à parvulo recens nato usque ad decrepitum senem, sicut nullus prohibendus est à baptismo, ita nullus est qui non peccato moriatur in baptismo. From the infant new born to the decrepit old age, as none is to be kept from baptism, so there is none who dyeth not to sin in baptism.  
Which words are soon after transcribed by Leo (ad Episc. Aquileg:) who was advanced to the Papacy about the year 440.  
About this time was the Epistle of the Council of Carthage written to Innocentius (made Bishop of Rome about the year 400.) In which these words we find by way of Decree, Quicunque negat parvulos per baptismum Christi à perditione liberari & salutem percipere sempiternam, anathema sit. Whosoever denies that Infants are by the baptism of Christ freed from perdition and receive eternal life, let him be anathema.  
About the same time, whilst Innocentius lived (and to the same purpose) was the Milevitan Canon, at which S. Augustine was present, a Bishop in that Council. This hath been set down in the Resol: of the Quaere, p. 219. and is an evident testimony that this doctrine was such as Ecclesia Catholica ubique diffusa semper intellexit, the Catholic Church every where diffused, always understood and asserted, and so it is that Counsels witness of the Apostolicalness of it.  
To these it were easy to add Theodoret also, and Leo (already cited) soon after him, both falling within the former part of that fifth Centurie, and in every age after this, store enough. But the question is not, and in any reason cannot be extended to those times, the clear definitions through all those first ages, being all that could be required to decide the controversy concerning the matter of fact, whether it were practised or not practised by the Apostles.  
And having so largely deduced them, it is not imaginable what should be now wanting to the completing of the evidence, when I have only added, that there is no one testimony of dissent, either pretended or producible from the writings of all those first ages, nor consequently the least appearance of obstacle, why the receiving of Infants to baptism should not be resolved the doctrine and practice of the first and purest ages of the Church, avouched and testified to be delivered to them by the Apostles of Christ, who could not mistake his meaning in the Institution.  
What artifices the Antepaedobaptist can make use of to cast a mist before our eyes, in the midst of so much light, I can no way divine: sure I am that the prejudices which Mr. T. hath in few words endeavoured to infuse (as that some are counterfeit authors, some suspected, some misinterpreted; that some maintained infant baptism but in case of danger of death, that others which avouched this, avouched either Rebaptisation or Communion of Infants also) are all of them unjust and causeless, and have severally and punctually been prevented in one or both of these discourses, and so there remains not the least scruple of difficulty, that I can foresee in this matter, to add to the bulk of this vindication.  
God assist it with his blessing to the disabusing those that are seduced, and regaining them to the ways of Peace.    
The End.   

ERRATA.  
Page. Line. Read. 13 8 than it 17 21 Alphes 20 32 the whiteness 28 ult. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 32 17 continuing  21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 40 25 of receiving 42 35 in to 44 11 heed to 48 21 of pers: 61 13 So cyril in-  18 they that 64 20 infants 67 15 crediderit 79 36 after infants add being 80 5 ministry 83 3 then this 84 24 now to 91 2 but if 102 34 to be   

The CONTENTS of the several Chapters and Sections contained in this BOOK.  

CHAP. I. OF Baptism among the Jews. page 2 

Sect. 1. Probations more and less perfect. The use of Circumcision to this question of Paedobaptism. As also of Christ's reception of children. children's coming and believing, Mat. 18. Children sinners. page 2  
Sect. 2. The necessity of Paedobaptism depending on the positive part of probation. The several sorts of Anabaptists. Tistimonies the only proof of Institutions. page 6  
Sect. 3. The Jews Baptism of natives as well as Proselytes. Testimonies of their writers in proof thereof. Baptism among the heathens taken from the Jews. Among both from Noah's flood. The derivation of Christian from Jewish Baptism how manifested. Christ's answer to Nicodemus. Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the deluge. Gr. Nazianzen's and Macarius' testimonies. The Father's meaning in affirming the Christians baptism to be in stead of Circumcision. The Lord's Supper founded in the Jew's Postcoenium, yet in stead of their Passeover. page 8  
Sect. 4. The conceits of Pe: Alfunsus and Schickard of the Jewish baptism. Raf: Alphes: Mr. T. his conclusion not inferred. The original of the Jewish Baptism (the only doubt) vindicated. Jacob's injunction to his family. Sanctifications Exod. 19.10. differ from washing garments. page 17  
Sect. 5. Mr. Selden's notion of the Sea. The defence of my notion of it. Learned men's affirmations to be judged of by their testimonies. Christ's baptising of jews as well as Gentiles, no argument. Christ's vouching john's baptism to be from heaven, no argument. No more, the pretended no intimations of it. The no conformity. The proselytes children baptised, continually, not only at the first conversion. The baptism of a woman with child, serving for the child also, not argumentative. The Canon of Neocaesarea about it. page 23  
Sect. 6. Lesser inconformities no prejudice. Yet they do not all hold. Prayer the Christian sacrifice. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The rule of judging in this matter. Baptising in the name of the Father etc. prescribed by Christ. So dipping or sprinkling. The Pract. Cat. misreported. Mr. Marshals covenanting. page 30    
CHAP. II. Of Christ's words. Mat. 28.19. pag. 34 

Sect. 1. The Doctor's pretended concessions examined. Christ's institution of baptism not set down Mat. 28. but necessarily before that time. page 34  
Sect. 2. Making disciples all one with receiving into discipleship. Baptising the act of the Baptist. Instruction subsequent to discipling. The pretended parallel between Mat. 28. and Mar. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. John's discipling by preaching excludes not infants. No more the Apostles, Mat. 10.5. The notation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mat. 13.52. Act. 14.21. Infants both said to come and to believe. Instruction subsequent to baptism. page 40  
Sect. 3. Discipleship before instruction. What knowledge of the Master is required to discipleship. Two sorts of disciples, Some come, others are brought. page 50  
Sect. 4. The difference of a Disciple and Proselyte examined. Christian as well as Jewish proselytes. Privileges of proselytisme. Disciples of the Pharisees. The Holy Ghosts not using the word Proselyte of Christians, concludes nothing. Jehovah. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Infants qualified for baptism. As for entering into Covenant Deut. 29. God's oath. Infants adjured. Cripples capable of Christ's cures. page 53    
CHAP. III. Of the Apostolical practice in this matter. pag. 58 

Sect. 1. The interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.12. vindicated. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sanctification used to denote baptism, the use of it in the Fathers and Scripture. Tertullia's testimony: designati Sanctitatis. Origen. Author Quaest: ad Antiochum. Cyprian. chrysostom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there, infant childs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Epistles. S. Augustine's words examined. page 58  
Sect. 2. The rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [hath been sanctified] defended. S. Hieromes testimony. Enallages must not be made use of without necessity. No advantage from it here. Feigned instances of Enallage. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. page 66  
Sect. 3. The rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the woman] defended, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 1.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. Ireneus no Latin author. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 7. Gal. 1.16. 1 Pet. 1.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Psal. 68 My proof of the interpretation from the context. page 69  
Sect. 4. Mr. T. his mistake of my sense. The argument à genere ad speciem. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. How the husband is said to be baptised by the wife. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partial washings. The proportion betwixt legal holiness, and baptism. Difference between relative and real sanctification. The testimonies of the ancient, for and against my interpretation. page 77    
CHAP. IV. An answer to Mr. Tombes' view of my Conclusion and therein the sense of Antiquity in this Question. pag. 84 

Sect. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 7. infant children. The Jews practice. Their notion of [holy] Baptism a privilege of believers children, yet is communicated to others whose guardians are believers The several sorts of holiness all vainly mentioned by Mr. T. His denials of the Conclusion. The place in Tertullian vindicated. S. Hieromes answer to Paulinus. Institutionis disciplina in Tertullian. Candidati Damoniorum. A 3d denial of the Conclusion. The use of baptism to regenerate etc. No prejudice to the founding it in the Jewish practice. His art of diversion to put off answering of testimonies. The way of Testimonies insisted on. page 84  
Sect. 2. A Catalogue of Testimonies of the first ages for Infant baptism, and the Apostolicalness thereof. page 96      

Books written by H. Hammond D. D.  

A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament by Henry Hammond D. D. in fol.  
2. The Practical Catechism, with all other English Treatises of Henry Hammond D. D. in two volumes in 4ᵒ  
3. Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to Practise, by H. Hammond D. D. in 12ᵒ.   

Several Books of Controversies relating to the present times, by the same Author in two large volumes in 4 to viz.  
1. Dissertationes quatuor, quibus Episcopatus Iura ex S. Scriptures & Primaeva Antiquitate adstruuntur, contra sententiam D. Blondelli & aliorum▪ Authore Henrico Hammond, in 4ᵒ.  
2. A Vindication of the Dissertations concerning Episcopacy from the Exceptions offered against them by the London Ministers in their Ius Divinum Ministerii Evangelici in 4ᵒ.  
3. An Answer to the Animadversions on the Dissertations touching Ignatius Epistles and the Episcopacy in them asserted, subscribed by john Owen servant of Jesus Christ, in 4o.  
4. Of Schism. A Defence of the Church of England, against the Exceptions of the Romanists, in 12ᵒ  
5. A Reply to the Cathol. Gent: Answer to the most material part of the Book of Schism, together with an Account of H. T. His Appendix to his Manual of Controversies etc. 4ᵒ.  
6. A Letter of Resolution of six Queries, in 12ᵒ.  
7. An account of Mr. Cawdreys Triplex Diatrio. concerning Superstition, Will-worship, and Christmas Festival. New.   
THE END.