TRUTH'S PLEA FOR INFANTS, OR, INFANTS RIGHT VINDICATED: In a Reply to Jeremiah Ives, Chees-munger concerning the Baptism of INFANTS.  
By ALEXANDER KELLIE.  Rom. 16.17. Now I beseech you Brethren mark them which cause Divisions and Offences, contrary to the Doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. Phil. 4.9. These things which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do, and the God of peace shall be with you. Prov. 9.13. The Light of the Righteous rejoiceth, but the Candle of the wicked shall be put out. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
LONDON, Printed by T. R. and are to be sold by Nath. Brooks at the Angel in Cornhill, 1656.   

To the READER.  
THe Apostle Paul, 2 Cor. 11.13.14, 15. hath set forth to the life, our Adversaries with whom we have to do, saying, That such are false Apostles, deceitful Workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ; and no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an Angel of Light. Therefore it is no great thing if his Ministers also be transformed, as the Ministers of Righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works. God hath seldom, or never, had in any Age his Truth pleaded by his servants without the contradiction of his Adversaries: as 2 ●im. 3.8. Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so our Anabaptists resist the Truth, men of corrupt minds, false accusers, despisers of those that are good, heady, heigh-minded, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: but we hope their folly shall shortly be made manifest to all men, that they shall proceed no further: They are much like the false Prophet Zedekiah, In the first Book of the Kings the last Chapter, ver. 24. who smote Miicaiah the true Prophet, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me, to speak unto thee: all the dirt of foul aspersions which mine Adversaries hath cast upon the Truth, which I have delivered, have not so defaced it, but that it can sufficiently plead for itself without any further reply, and therefore if I should make no more answer than David did Shimei, or Ezekiah, and the men upon the Walls of Jerusalem to the rail of Rabshakeh, the Lord quickly would appear and plead his own Cause with a witness against his enemies: yet nevertheless, lest mine enemies should be too proud, and brag too much where they have little reason; and that my friends should not be led away with the errors of the wicked, falling from their steadfastness, and losing those things which we have already wrought, wherein there is not one word to my remembrance that ever I spoke in public several years against the Anabaptists, that ever I mind to recall, but if need be to confirm to the end. And therefore I have once more undertaken to contend for the Truth, which I have not only lately made known here in LONDON, amongst them that heard me, but hath also from Abraham's time to Ours been delivered to the Saints. I would not have my Hearers, like many of the Anabaptists, to cast away the Helve after the Hatchet, making shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, some become Quakers, some Ranters, some denying God, some Christ the Lord, against Family duties morning and evening, before and after Meat, slighting Word and Sacraments, from such the Lord deliver us.  
Finally, Gentle Reader, whereas some sentences in this my Book seem to follow impertinently to what went before, blame not me, but my Adversary, whom I am to pursue as a thief, and to ride out of the road way now and then after him with Hue and Cry, over ditch and hedge; whereas otherwise I might have been a great deal more clear and full, and methodical.  
From my House in Giles Cripplegate, Your Friend in Christ, Alexander Kellie.   

An Answer to the Epistle.  
YE are not like the men of Berea, but like the Heretics in all ages, that pretended Scripture for all they said, and there be none more contradictious than you Anabaptists, both to all the godly learned in the world, and likewise to one another, some for the Glass-House, some for Paul's, some for Beechlane, some for Arminians, some against them; and many that frequent one of your places, think it abomination to go to another of them, and many of you are turned Ranters and Quakers. Sure therefore ye are not like Solomon's Wise men, Prov. 14.15. That look well to their go; and where you cast dirt upon the Fathers, you do not show us in what places to find their errors, and if it ●●re true you say of them, yet therein you are more like cursed Ham that made known his father's nakedness, then like blessed Shem and Japhet, who hide their faces from it, and covered it. And whereas you look upon us as such who have only the name of Religion, and of Christians, etc. with us, 1 Cor. 4.3. it is a very small thing that we should be judged of you, who like proud Pharisees despise us as sinful Publicans, and yet I hope we shall go away justified rather than you. You wickedly slander godly learned men, as men minding their profits and credit more than the Truth, whereas there have been, and are, and still will be many hundred thousand for Infant's Baptism, who never had any worldly profits by it; and where you speak of credit, you say true, for a man shall have no credit but shame before God and man to follow you. Next, you bring in your Excentriks and Epicycles, and Phenomina; sure Sir, by your high terms you would make some simple Reader believe that you are some great Professor of the Mathematics, but your Phenomina spoils all, wherein your ignorance of Orthography appears and shows plainly that you know no more what an Eccentricke, Epicycle or Phaenomenon is, than the heel of an old Cheese, Ne sut or ultra crepidam .. And thus let the unpartial Reader Judge justly between you and me. And so I have done with your Epistle, and I come to your Gospel.   

A Reply to JEREMIAH IVES, Cheese-mungers Answer, concerning THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS.  
FIRST, you say, Where our Saviour commanded all Nations to be baptised, he meant, not any Infants for four reasons;  

1. Because they are not then capable of teaching.  
2. All Nations many times do not include Children in Scripture.  
3. Because Infidels, Turks, and Children of Unbelievers are a great part of all Nations.  
4. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is referred to Disciples. To the first I answer three things. 

1. It is no absurdity to preach the Gospel to an Infant, Luke 1.70. and so on.  
2. The Apostles were to teach all that was commanded, and that could not be done in short time, but afterward by degrees as the party baptised was able to receive.  
3. The Apostles teaching can no more keep back Infants from baptism, than Abraham's teaching, Gen. 18. v. 19 could keep back the Infants from Circumcision, Gen. 17: v. 12. To the second I answer, ye cite some Scriptures of all Nations, but therein you are no Noble Beraean, as you would make men believe in the beginning of your Epistle, for you give us not one place set down where to find the Scriptures. Secondly, You bring us Scriptures for what Infants cannot, to prove that they should not have that which according to Scripture they can have; And whereas you say, Infants cannot bless, why is it then said in the 8. Psalm, Out of the mouths of Babes and Sucklings thou wilt perfect praise, and in the ●48 Ps. Praise him all people, old men and babes. Thirdly, I will bring you places of Scripture, where Children are to be reckoned amongst all Nations, which bring them into Baptism, more than your Scriptures of all Nations can keep them out; As ●en. 12. v. 13. Where the Lord promiseth to bless all the Families of the Earth, and their Children are included, and this promise of the blessing brings them into Baptism, more than your Scriptures can hold them out, and withal, this place pronounceth a curse against you Anabaptists, for they that curse Abraham's Gospel way, in setting the token of God's Gospel-Covenant of grace upon Infants, they curse Abraham, and God hath threatened to curse such; so ye Anabaptists are a Generation lying under the wrath, and curse, and vengeance of God.     
The other places of Scripture comprehending Infants amongst all men, and Nations are, Heb. 2. v. 9 Where it is said, Christ tasted death for every one, and consquently for Infants. and 1 John 2. v. 2. Where Christ is a propitiation for the whole World, Infants are understood, and Rom. 5: 18. Which place you grant to be meant of Infants, where it is said, That the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life, and yet ye will not admit Infants into the Ordinance of their first entry into any grace. Thirdly, Where you say, Turks, Insidels, and their Children may as well be baptised as Professors Children; it is false, for the Infants of Believers are the blessed of the Lord, Isa. 65. v. 23. They are Gods Children from the Womb, Ezek. 16. v. 20, 21. They are in Covenant with God, Gen: 17. And to them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven: This is never said of Turks and Infidels; and the Infants of God's people were by God admitted unto the possession of the like Ordinance to Baptism, which God calls the Token of his Covenant, Gen. 17. Paul calls it the Seal of the Righteousness of faith, Rom. 4. and much profitable every way, Rom. 3. and Infants continued in the possession hereof for many hundred years, and the Lord never put them aside from this long possession, no more than he did the aged, and therefore of necessity, when he commands all Nations to be baptised, he commands Infants to be baptised. Lastly, in Matth. 28. you say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be referred to Disciples: Sometimes you speak of Children eight days old, in the Cradle; you can no more than one of them find me in the Greek Text a Substantive of the Maseuline Gender to agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but what do I talk of the Greek Text, when you show your ignorance so gross, as if you had never learned your Accidents, putting a Nominative Casein the Singular Number, for the Accusative in the Plural, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and a Noun of your own devising that was never heard of for a Verb, as many times sequitor for sequitur, and sometimes a Verb for a Noun, as Baptizo for baptasmus, or a Noun again for a Verb, as Aspersia for aspergo.  
Secondly, I proved Infants were Disciples, from Isa. 54. v. 13. Where the Lord promises that Infants shall be taught of God, you answer, that they are not Disciples, who do not learn if they were taught: Herein you and Mr. Tombs, and the rest are fearfully out, for John 6. v 60.66. it i● said, many Disciples said of Christ's Doctrine, This is a hard saying, who can hear it? And they went away from him and would walk no more with him: Here then be Disciples, and yet they did not learn; you would fain make simple people believe that the Moon is made of green Cheese, but the Cheese munger hath never a Taster to make us find it so. Then you bring in Jerem. 32 v. 33. Where it is said, ●od taught ●he●, but they refused to receive instruction: But had not both they and their Infants the Token of God's Covenant? And did ever any of the Prophets speak against it as a sin? And is there not most gracious promises made to the same people in the same Chapter? As that he would never departed from them to do them good, and that he would put his fear in their hearts that they should never departed from him, and that he would plant them assuredly with his whole heart, and with his whole Soul, and yet them you bring in as no Disciples.  
In your sixth page you say, Infan●● in the Cradle are not taught of men, therefore not of God; As if God's power sailed in inward teaching, when man's fail in outward.  
Secondly, You say, if they were all taught of God, than they should be all saved.  
Answ. So you confess with me, that they are saved if they die in their Infancy, but if after their Infancy they should live and prove bad, yet in the time of their Infancy we are to judge charitably, and so you are fain to do with them whom ye dip, who afterward prove stark naught. Therefore where the Lord promiseth that all shall be taught, Infants must be understood, otherwise ye shall leave out a great many of all the Children, for many dye in their Infancy, and are never afterward taught; therefore their teaching must be in their Infancy, or else never, and if so, how shall the promise be true, All shall be taught: But say you in the seventh Page, Why do you teach them to be converted when they come to age. We answer, The work of Conversion is the work of a man's whole life. After Peter had been converted, Christ said to him, When thou art hereafter converted, strengthen thy Brethren Turn yourselves and live, is a Text that may be preached to the best Convert so long as he lives; but than if men become naught (say you) After they have been taught of God. There will be a falling a way from Grace. We answer, When we say, Infants are taught of God, we mean the elect Infants, who are all taught of God sooner or latter; but because we cannot search into God secrets absolutely to determine who are elect, and who not, we are charitably to judge the best of all the Infants of God's people, and if any afterward prove bad, it is but a mistake in our Judgement, and no change in God's Election, and yet according to that outward judgement we are to proceed; for when in John 15. v. 2. our Saviour saith, Every branch in him that bringeth not forth good fruit is out down and cast in the sire: He speaks of Branches that appear so to the judgement of men, and yet he calls them Branches in him, so we may call Infants Disciples taught of God, though we have no certainty of every ones particular Election, but a general ground from the promise for our charitable judgement of all.  
In the eighth page you say, I speak indiffinitely leaving out the word All, I thought you had known that Indisinitum aequipelet Vniversali.  
2. You say, Deut. 11. v. 1.2. The Lord spoke not outwardly to the Children of Israel; What then, cannot he therefore teach Infants inwardly, inspiring them with the seeds of spiritual saving truth and life? how came the Baptisi to leap for joy in his Mother's Womb at the salutation of Mary: And though the Lord spoke not to the Children, yet the Infants had a right to the token of the Covenant that then was: And  
3. Ye confess that Infants are made righteous by Jesus Christ, and yet formerly you said that in the Command Baptise all Nati●ns, such Infants that are made righteous by Jesus Christ, are no more comprehended than Turks or infidels. You are a sweet youth. In the ninth page, that which you call a fiction of my brain without one word in all the Bible; to wit, that Infants are inwardly and effectually taught or else there is no hope of their Salvation. You confessed in the seventh page, that to be inwardly and effectually taught, was to be really and truly regenerated Than I prove what you say cannot be found in the Bible: Except an Infant be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, John 3. v. 5. But except an Infant be taught effectually of God he cannot be born again, for you confessed the new birth to be all one with this teaching, page seventh: Therefore except an Infant be effectually taught he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, neither of Grace nor Glory, for we must judge him so if he be in the outward Kingdom of Grace, and he must be truly so a Child of God, taught of God, if he be either truly in grace here, or glory hereafter. If Christ blessed the Infants, prayed for them, and laid his hands on them, than were they in some measure capable of his blessing and prayer, and the benefit of the laying on of his hands, which could no wise be without regeneration and being taught of God, for without it no entry into Heaven, neither of grace nor glory to any purpose.  
Secondly, I will show it by a Golden Scripture Chain. There is no Salvation but by Christ, Act. 4. v. 12. but there is no coming to Christ but by the Father's drawing, John 6 v. 44. But there is no drawing of the Father without this teaching, verse 45. Therefore without this teaching to Infants no Salvation, Virtue is said to be copulative; so is Grace, so is this, having one Link of the Chain you bring all to you.  
Again in the ninth page, you acknowledge from Matth. 19 v. 14. That they were Infants of whom Christ said, the Kingdom of Heaven was. This is more than ever I knew an. Anabaptist confess, yet the more base you to say, that such have no more right to the command of Baptism than Turks: Where in the tenth page, you say there is eternal life for Infants, without the knowledge of God in Christ, it is as much as if you said, Infants have eternal life without eternal life, for Christ saith, This knowledge is eternal life. Secondly, you say there, that Infants that know not the right hand from the left cannot know Christ. 
Cal. Instit. l. 4.16. sect. 19. ●●r non Deus insantibus in presence exigua scintilla ●●gaitionis 〈…〉? A●●b. saith o● the Baptist, Habuit intelligendi s●nsum qui exult●n 〈◊〉 habuit affectum.  I answer, We are to believe the promises of God though we do not apprehend them by sense, as you seemost of the Articles of our faith; We believe them all by faith, though they be far above our sense. The blind man that knew not white from black, yet knew Christ to be the Messeas, the Son of David, willing to have mercy on him, and able miraculously to cure him: The young Prophets that knew not poison from Potherbs, when they put a Gourd in the Pot, yet they knew much of the Mysteries of Heaven, and they knew the very day when Elias should he taken from Earth to Heaven.  
In the eleventh page you say, they that know God will trust in him, and indeed this saying is convertible, for they that trust in God do know him, but Infants trust in him therefore know him, Psal. ●2. And whereas you say, there appears as much knowledge of God in a Turks Child as in a Christians, it is false, for they have not both the like promise; and the profession of the Parents is a sufficient distinguishing note, and especially the Text we are handling manifesteth more in our Children then in Turks.  
That which you speak of Armenianisme, I have answered already in answering to your seventh page. Next you bring in Heb. 11. where it is said, Without saith it is impossible to please God, here I make an argument against yourself. All they that please God have saith, but Infants please God therefore, etc.  
In the twelfth page you bring in James 2. v. 17. where he saith, Faith without works is dead, that place is meant of them that are of age, in whom faith should appear not only in the bud and flowers of Profession, but in the Fruit of good works; yet this makes nothing against Children, in whom faith may be in the seed and root. If a Tree have neither leaves, nor blossoms, nor fruit in Spring, Summer, nor Harvest, than it is dead, and yet it may be a good Tree though nothing appear in the first of January. The rest that you have in the twelfth page, is nothing upon the matter but what you said, and I have answered before.  
In the thirteenth page you cry out of my miserable blindness, and that I miserably abuse the Scriptures, Isa. 65.20. I am sure you are a miserable bold fellow, and they are miserable blind that follow you for their Guide: If you say, that Infants should live a hundred years before they die a natural death, you make the Scripture false, for Infants do not live so long, if you mean their Estate in glory, that is likewise false, for there they do not die, therefore my sense of the place is better agreeable both to Truth and Text, which speaks both of death and life, and in that sense many such Infants I baptise: But for you Anabaptists, you live so long old Disciples many of you, till ye become more fit for the water to be drowned then to be dipped. Ye come in impertinently with the Midwives sprinkling on the face. Amphora caepit institui currente rota cur Vrseus exit.  
In the fourteenth page my Master Ives brings in his Non sequitor, and in that page you say, Acts 8.37. God hath prescribed believing there to be the time of baptising, it is false: And they that gladly received the word, Act. 2.41. they did not thrust out Infants that should be saved, vers. 47. from being added to the Church by Baptism, wherein God hath not prescribed any day as in Circumcision, to the which Moses and the Israelites were then tied, though the Infants had a right to the token from their birth, by virtue of the Covenant, and if there had been no command at all, yet the Covenant brought Infants to Circumcision, Gen. 17. and still gives them a right to Baptism: And though Females were not circumcised, yet I can give you many Scriptures where Women are reckoned amongst the Circumcised. The word Circumcision includes all the people of God's Children, and Women, as Rom. 3.30. Rom: 4.8, 9.12. Rom. 15.8. Gal. 3.8.9.12. Eph. 2.11. Tit. 1.10. And in Samaria both men and women were baptised Hitherto then it appears that I have not built neither Hay and Stubble, but Truth as Gold, and Pearls upon, Isa. 54.. Now you say you will prove my Arguments to be Clouds without water, and yet the first is such, that all the Anabaptists in England cannot answer, and so are the rest that follow, let us then try an issue.  
God saith, Great shall the children's Peace be whom he teaches. You say page sixteen, like a base fellow, that God makes but a bare promise, but is not so good as his word; and where the Text speaks of conferring of peace, you speak of preaching of peace to Infants, the rest that follows in that page you have it answered in the answer to the seventh page. Whereas you say, the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God: Where the Apostle seems to speak so, he means the flesh only; But in your sense it is false, for many Saints, and holy Kings and Prophets came of Abraham, his Children of the flesh, and yet they were also the precious Children, and we are to look upon all the Children of God's people as such in their Infancy.  
In the seventeenth page, I perceive the Knavery of Hetiticks, they will seem to slight that most which doth indeed pinch them hard, so he calls my reason lighter than If God do not promise effectual teaching to Children, than the promise Isa. 54. is much one with the threatening, Isa. 6. which of all the judgements of the world, is one of the saddest. Though teaching be a mercy as it is tendered to a people, yet it proves a judgement as it is abused.  
In the eighteenth page, my place from John 6. v. 44, 45. is so strong for me against you, and your answer so short, weak, and unworthy, that it doth not deserve a reply.  
In the nineteenth place, the Prophet Jeremias SHALL, hath reference to our Gospel represent, wherein that times now which before was to come, you are an unworthy man therefore to pronounce a curse, for that against me. You fall foul upon my teaching at Giles Cripple gate, and charge them all with folly that pay me a farthing for preaching. I have many loving friends here, and Sir if you had no more for your Cheese, than I have of the Parish for preaching, you would make but a poor Trade of it: You indeed would have all the Ministers of England to beg or starve at your doors, The mercies of the wicked are cruel; yet the Apostle hath ordained that they that preach the Gospel should live by it; our Saviour saith, The labourer is worthy of his wages, and they that labour in the word and doctrine, are worthy of double honour. Whereas you speak of going to America, better men have gone and do go thither, and are like to do God more service there among the Savages than you in London amongst the Anabaptists. But how comes this railing against my preaching in London, because Heb. 8. v. 11. it is said, They shall not teach every man his Neighbour, therefore I should not teach; nay, rather you should not teach who have no Gospel ordination, but like Thiefs and Robbers, ye come not in at the door but as it were through Walls, and over Hedges. The Negative is not absolute but Comparative, for it is men shall not be so much taught of men as of God, and so it is unpertinently brought in against me, you could hit better upon this distinction of Negatives in my house, though you came untowardly to it; for when our neighbour Heath told you that Paul was not sent to Baptise but to Preach, you Answered, he was not so much sent to to Baptise; but before that, you said a man should not Preach except he be sent, but he may Baptise, said you, without Commission, why then do you require a commission for Baptising of Infants, and why do you Preach and are not sent? Let me ask you, how can such as you go to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, sigh the Lord hath forbid such to come to the Passover, Exod. 12. v. 48. Where if he that circumcised not his child might not eat of the Passover, than he that doth not Baptise his child must not eat of the Lords Supper. And if Abraham must not suffer them to live with him that did not Circumcise their Infants, Gen. 17. v, 13. Then Christians if they have a lawful power in their hands, should not suffer Anabaptists to live with them because they refuse to Baptise their Infants. And if the soul was cut off that was not Circumcised, Gen. 17. v. 14. And God sought to kill Moses for the neglect of Circumcision., Exod. 4. v. 24. how much more then damnably dangerous is the wilful neglect of Baptism.  
In the twentieth page I Said, Psal. 22. v. 9 that children trust in God. Ye Answer hereto the words (when I was) are unnecssarily put in, yet otherwise ye cannot make sense of it. And ye say David in his infancy, and so consequently Christ whom the Psalm. chief concerns, did not more hope in God from the mother's breast than unbelievers children; and you say the whole Creation is subjected in hope then by you, the hope of Christ, of David, and the children of God's people is all one with the hope of a Snake or a Toad, O base blalphemy. Lastly, Tremelius that knows the Original better than you Translates the Hebrew word Confidere, which is to trust, and more than the ordinary hope of the creature.  
And to the one and twentieth page, I Answer, the humility of children is Gods inspired Grace which goeth with his inward and effectual teaching, which is more than the innocency of Doves, or wisdom of Serpents, for Matth. 18. v. 4. they that are so humble are said to be the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven, but it is not so with the Doves innocency, or Serpent's wisdom; a man may have the Doves innocency, to do no man wrong, yet go to hell because he doth no man good, Matt. 25. and a man may have the Serpent's wisdom and be damned, and want that wisdom as children do and be saved; but this humility is such, Matth. 18. v 3 that there is no heaven without it, and the greatest happiness of heaven comes by it, v. 4.  
In the two and twentieth page, I Answer, confer Esay 54. v. 13. with 1 Thes. 4. v. 9, 10. In the first you find God's teachings of all his people's children, in the latter, that this teaching is effectual, therefore it will follow, that children's teaching being the teaching of God is effectual.  
To the three and twentieth page I Answer, though some be not called till the last hour, yet we must judge the best of them, according to their outward Church privileges and faederal rights.  
To the four and twentieth page I answer, Profession was as much required of Abraham and the Israelites, and yet that did not debar Infants from Circumcision, nor can it now from Baptism.  
2. You come with a fallicie in the word (name) for in the King's name, may be in the King's Authority, and to show favour in God or Christ's Name, is for God or Christ's sake, but any man sees that to give to a Prophet, in the name of a Prophet, and to a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, and to a child in the name of a Disciple, is to give to them as to Prophets and righteous men as to Disciples.  
To the five and twenty page I answer I do keep me to Infants of Professors, and such were they, Matth. 4.10. for Christ was not sent but to the lost sheep of Israel, who professed themselves the people of God, and whose children had received the token of the Covenant of God.  
To the twenty sixth page I Answer, the unprofitable servant was able to work and would not, but the children cannot, yet God calls them his servants.  
2. If unprofitable servants be not servants, why are they called servants? and if not servants, than none of Christ's Disciples are servants, for when we have done all we can, we are unprofitable servants, the best of us ye have up with your non sequitor, sequetor again.  
Again, you cite the Text which I bring (you say) falsely, to wit, Levit. 21. for 25. v. 41, 42. where any man of the world may see that Infants are understood, whatever you say, for they were not to be left behind as bondslaves, you are fearfully out in saying that such were never at such age servants as appears by Eccles. 2.7. where Solomon had them that were born servants in his house, if born servants then so in the cradle. Now I come to the 15. of the Acts, where Peter calls Infants Disciples, v. 10. where you say, the yoke upon the neck of the Disciples is as a tax upon the Clergy, as it will not follow (say you) all the Clergy are taxed, therefore all that are taxed are Clergy men, so than your Disciples that can answer for themselves are your Clergy men, for whom only the Apostle pleads, say you; then if believers Infants be they that have this tax upon them, which is the yoke of Circumcision, and if the Apostle speak nothing for them as being none of your Clergy Disciples, than it will follow that believers Infants must still be Circumcised, why then do not you circumcise your children for they are none of the Clergy Disciples, for whose freedom only you would have the Apostle plead. Then ye give a touch to the Doctrine that was taught the Brethren, as if that had been the only yoke which is apparently false, for it is clear when the Apostles opposed Circumcision, they opposed not only the false Doctrine of it, but also the continuance of the practice of Circumcision itself: And you say you can read, Read then the first verse of the Chapter, where you find Circumcision after the manner of Moses, and all know that was the Circumcision of Infants; this the Apostle calls a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples. Therefore Infants are disciples; or thus, they for whose freedom Peter pleads, ver. 10. are disciples; But Peter pleads for Infants therefore they are disciples; I prove Peter pleads for them, because he pleads for the same for whom Paul pleads; but Paul pleads for the children, Acts 21. v. 21. therefore Peter also here pleads for them  
In the twenty eight page, What I speak of Infant's ignorance, I speak concessione fiduciaria, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you know my meaning, for you Sir are no praevaricaor, but a Clergyy Disciple, and may commence Doctor when ye will.  
2. I say the command of Infant's Circumcsion includes them in the command of Baptism, for if by God's Covenant and command they were in the long possession of an Ordinance aequivolent to Baptism, and never afterward put from Baptism, they must needs be included in the Command, and so the question is not begged, he that begs at your door shall find poor relief. Again, the faith of Parents professing suffices to bring in the children.  
In the twenty ninth page, I say that Babes sprinkled feel the water as truly as Peter felt the washing, and when Christ washed, Christ said, Peter, knew not what he did, yea, he knew no more the end and use of it at that time than an Infant; yea, he opposed it more than an Infant could have done, for at the first he would not suffer Christ to do it, yet then said Christ it must be done; and it was sufficient that Peter might know it thereafter, and so it is with Infant's Baptism: and whereas you say, that Peter was ignorant but of a circumstance, ye are fare out, for Christ said that he was ignorant of the work: which Christ wrought, and you say he was ignorant of the end and use of it, and is the work, the end, and the use nothing but a circumstance; and why do you deny children being ignorant of such a circumstance.  
In the thirtieth page, you come impertinently in with baptising of Bells and going a Pilgrimage, and Circumcising the sixth or fourth day, and giving the Sacrament of Bread and Wine to Infants, saying that such things are not forbidden: For I Answer, though such things were never forbidden in Scripture, yet the like was never commanded but for children as Baptism is not forbidden them, so the like Ordinance was commanded them.  
In the one and thirtieth page, You say the Eunuch believed, therefore Infants should not be Baptised, what poor stuff here is? I shall Answer the 16. of Mark hereafter. Again, I say the excluding of not understanding disciples puts not children more aside from Baptism then 2 Thes. 3. v. 10. The excluding of them that do not work puts children aside from the Breast: And then in the two and thirtieth page you say, If children will not work they must not eat. I wonder what great will any Infant hath to work and yet if need be aught to be relieved of the Church's charity, and there lieth as great a charge upon Parents to Baptise their children as to feed them.  
In the thirtieth third page, Ye say, when all Nations shall be separated good from bad, you say Infants are not understood there, because it cannot be said to them, When I was hungry ye feed me, etc. then by your Opinion they are not to be separated from the Goats, but must go to hell with them, and yet you said before they were all saved. That which you talk of knowing right hand and left is answered already, ye make a woeful Text of that 25. of Matth. against Infants, as ye begin to apply it, for they neither feed, nor visit, nor cloth more than the Goats; but the truth of the Text is, the Infants are reckoned with the Parents, what the Parants do, it is as if the Infants had done it. When the wicked world was drowned, the Parent and the Infants were drowned, so when Sodom was burnt, and so when Pharaoh and his host were drowned; and when Israel was saved, they and their little ones were saved.  
I come to the thirty fourth page, where ye deny my whole argument, And I say, that he who denies what that Argument contains, be he who he will, had never the fear of God in his heart, for he that fears God dare not deny Infant's Baptism, knowing that God had given them a right to a privilege of an Ordinance equivalent, and though he take away the Ordinance, yet he never took away the privileges, whereof this is one, that they should have some token of his Covenant and we know none now for first admission but Baptism.  
2. They that had a right to Circumcision have a right to Baptism, that follows it, for the people of God are not put aside from keeping our Sunday for the Sabbath day, because the Saturday which they were to keep before is taken away; and the Apostle saith, Ephess. 6. v. 2, 3. the fifth Command is a command with Promise of a blessing in the Land where ever obedient children lives, though now the Land of Canaan which in the Command was promised be in the Turks Possession, even so the taking away of Circumcision puts children rather in the possession of Baptism than takes it from them; what ye writ of Duke, Hamilton, and the like shows your vanity, whereas you speak of umbelieving Jews they are not to be compared to believing Christians, for in the Romans God hath cut them and their children off from being his branches in the Olive.  
I am now come to your absurdities in the thirty sixth p. in one place you speak of a descent from Abraham, where any one but a Blockhead may know that the word comes from d●scendo, and not from discendo; Circumcision was a yoke in the cutting off the flesh, and tying people to a keeping of the whole Law, but the advantage of it, for Infants is still continued in Baptism, though the Printiship of Circumcision be gone, yet the advantage remains. Ye give a stout hallenge to me and to all the world to show one Text, threatening Parents for not Baptising their Infants. I have showed you that the Lord met Moses to kill him for not Circumcising his Infant, Exo. 4. v. 24. And Gen. 17. the Lord commands to cut off the uncircumcised Infants, And our Saviour saith, joh. 3. v. 5. Except we be borne again of water, we cannot enter into heaven; and Heb. 2. v. 23. The Apostle saith, That we cannot escape if we neglect so great salvation, and Heb. 10. v. 28, 29. He that despised Moses Law died without mercy, of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he is sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace, as now Anabaptists do, in neglicting, slighting, mocking and opposing Infant's Baptism; and Paul saith, 2 Thes. 16. v. 8. That Christ shall appear in flaming fire, taking vengeance of such as you that do not obey the Gospel of our Lord, And our Saviour was much displeased for keeping Infants from him.  
In the thirty seven page, I say, whereas our Saviour saith, That the Pharisees were of their Father the Devil, and they that offered up their children to the devil, Psal. 106. v. 37. were no better; and they in Ezek. 16. v. 20. were such, yet God call their children his, and they had his token which Rom. 3. v. 3. advantaged much every way, and now ye will have children have no token advantageous any way, therefore ye make them worse now than the children of the devils servants were then.  
In the thirty eight page, Jer. 30. v. 20. Prophesieth, that children in Gospel times shall have all Gospel Privilledges, whereof the token of his Covenant is one as much as ever before, though the legality of Circumcision be taken away. And Mich. 7. last, and Luk 1.71, 72. The truth which God swear to Abraham and the Fathers, and which Christ came to fulfil, belonged to the Parents and their Infants, and was sealed to both of them by Circumcision, and to us and ours by Baptism.  
To the thirty ninth page, God commands our Infants to be Baptised, when he saith, Baptise all Nations, Matth. 28. And when Peter, saith, Be Baptised every one, for the Promise is made to your children, and Gen. 17. When God saith, My token shall be upon your children.  
To the forty page, I say, the children of the Jews and Pagans were not all one; we desire but the favour the Heathen had, who when they confessed their Lord to be their God had God's Seal upon their Infants. I have answered already all in the one and forty page, only where ye say, that Baptism is not a Seal, therein ye make it worse than Circumcision, which the Apostle calls, Rom. 4. the Seal of Righteousness.  
To the forty third page, you said Baptism was the Ordinance profitable every way; and Paul saith that Circumcision is such therefore upon the matter you made Baptism and Circumcision all one, and yet ye contradicted yourself in saying afterwards they were no wise parallel; Sir, there were no gentlemen in my house that favour your Error for all your Logic, except the Anabaptists whom ye brought along with you.  
To the forty four page, I say God himself makes it an Argument from his Covenant, Gen. 17. to the token upon the children, as it appers by the word therefore, in the 9 v. God gives us not such an Argument for Will-Worship. Ye say, if I look Deut. I. v. 39 where I looked I found no Covenant at all. The place is Deut. 29. v. 1. And the Covenant the Lord made when they came out of Egypt is the same with this in Deut. when they were to enter into the Land of Canaan, it was the same in substance, but differing in circumstances. In Deut. it was made to the children when they were to enter in to the Land of Canaan, In Exod. it was made with the Parents forty years before when they came out of Egypt, the Covenant than was the same in the matter of it, but it differed in the time place, and persons with whom it was made.  
2. Ye say, that the Covenant in Deut. is another, besides that when they came out of Egypt, when the Lord gave them the Law, in the ten Commandments. There can be but two Covenants, viz: of Works, or of Grace. But what ever you may think that they were two Covenants differing essentially, yet in truth they were both of Grace, for when the people came out of Egypt, the Lord was a Husband to them in that Covenant, therefore it was a Covenant of Grace, Jer. 31. v. 32: And the Covenant in Deut. The Apostle calls it the righteousness of Faith, therefore the Covenant of Grace also.  
Craftily ye bid compare the 10 and 12. Verses of the 29. Chapter of Deuteronomy leaving out the 11. between them, because it is full against you and the Covenant of Grace is one and the same though it be many times renewed.  
Next we come to the forty fifth page, In handling the Covenant you show yourself grossly ignorant, and know not what ye say, yet ye would have m● believe whatever ye say, but when your Nose is Cheese the Cats shall eat it. In these times and places wherein we live, God hath done wonderful things, yet we have been so unthankful and unfruitful, that we have not yet had hearts to perceive, nor eyes to see to this day, and yet we are not Infidels, so it was with the Israelites in such a case, they still believed the Lord to be their God. Paul in Rom. 11. v. 8. doth not allude to Deut. 29. v. 4. but to Esa. 29. v. 10. that sin was growing upon the people in Moses and Isaiahs' time, but it came not to a full ripeness till the Apostles time, for before they were looked upon as branches in the Olive, but then cut off. The worst Parents whose children I Baptise are sounder in the faith then the best Anabaptiste with you, so you are rotten Heriticks. The very same men whom you call unbelievers, Deut. 29. v. 4. Moses, Deut. 30. v. 14. saith, The word was very nigh unto them in their mouth, and in their heart that they might do it.  
2. This word being in the heart of the Parents to believe it, and in their mouth to confess it entered the little ones into Covenant with God, Deut. 29. v. 11, 12. This way the Apostle calls the righteousness of faith, Rom. 10. v. 6. and this he Preached v. 8. Therefore the Father's faith and Confession must still enter the children in Covenant with God, which cannot now be without Baptism, which is the initiating token of the Covenant. Sir, It is one thing to be in Covenant, which I proved first, and another thing yet consequently following to have the token of the Covenant which the females were not capable of in Circumcision, as now in Baptism, as Acts 8. v. 12. And God's Argument is sufficient for Infants right to the token from the Covenant, and though then he prefixed a certain time, yet it was still in their infancy, and so still now in Infancy where we have no prefixed time.  
Thus to your forty seven page; but before I come to the forty eight, I must remember some good stuff in the forty sixth, where you say you are relieved from despairing of me by a Latin Sentence, which is Opere in longo, etc. and it speaks of sleep, and you of despare: O brave Clerk, you understand your Latin well, and apply it better, but do not sleep yet, up run Robin the Ram is in the Rye: the Prophecy in Ezek. 37.25. is to children, and to children's children, and that for ever; and the Lord saith, He will set his tabernacle amongst them, which must be his out ward Ordinance, now children can have no outward Ordinance if Baptism be denied. Where you bring in Noah, it is to no purpose. Where ye say I may as well say a child is Christ as Baptise it; if you mean Christ personally ye speak blasphemy, if ye mean Christ collectively with his members, Christ then is so taken in Scripture as I Cor. 12.12. Gal. 3.16.  
Ye have abundance of Non sense in the forty nine page, to which I Answer, Baptism was never ordained for Angels as for Infants, and the Apostles being once received to the Church needed not to be twice Baptised, and so be Anabaptists.  
In the fifty page, Ye say no man denies that they were Infants whom Christ blessed when he took them in his Arms. I never knew an Anabaptist confess it before, and these Infants had that from Christ which was better than all you can make of your dipping, and yet they believed and understood and confessed as little, being, as you say, Infants, as they do now at Baptism; and here we find that Christ laid his hands upon them, but no where they received the Supper: and what ye speak of teaching, I have Answered already, and if you were ingenuous, where one Reason doth not seem to give you satisfaction, take in my other reasons with it, and then a threefold cord is not easily broken, Nam quae quod non prosunt singula multa juvent, where you say, Jesus Baptised none, john 4. v. 1. it appeared he did Baptise. Christ is said to do what the Apostles did by his Command, as Peter may be said to have Baptised Corneliousses house, though the Text only saith, Acts 10. v. 48. that he commanded them to Baptised. Infants have a right to all the privileges of the Church, and to the Kingdom of heaven, but that right is as by reversion, but they have a right to Baptism in their Infant enjoyment.  
To the fifty second p. As the Jews were cut off, the Gentles were engrafted, but the Jews when they stood, or were cut off, or shall be restored, both they and their children were so, and so it is with the Gentiles.  
To the fifty third page, I say all that are of the flesh, are not truly begotten of God, and yet many after the flesh were after the Spirit also, nevertheless all of them in out ward Church privileges, and though a great many of them be cast into out ward darknese, yet are to be looked upon as the children of the Kingdom, Mat. 8. v. 12. All that had the token of God's Covenant were reckoned as Abraham's seed in Covenant, but such were not only the children of the flesh in outward privileges, but the Infants also of the Proselytes after the flesh, and consequently our Infants being God's people by Nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Gal. 2. v. 15. but Gal. 3. v. 16. the Apostle calls this seed Christ, therefore members of Christ, therefore ver. 27. fit to have Christ put on them by Baptism.  
To the fifty fourth page, The wife's sanctification, and the holiness of the child differ; the child is holy faederally by the Covenant with the believing Parent, but the unbelieving wife is set apart for the sanctified cohabitation of the believing husband with her. Unbelievers being married, their marriage is lawful but not sanctified, Tit. 1. 15. but if the one be a believer, though the other be not, yet the marriage is sanctified to the believer, and lawful to both, so she is but sanctified, as the Apostle speaks 1 Tim. 4. v. 4, 5. As for Gal. 2.15. I do not so much mistake the place, as I perceive ye donot understand it. Antiochus Epiphanes did according to Dan. 8.24. destroy the Infants which were a part of the holy people, ye reason wildly when you say they could not be destroyed with the holy people, because they could not be said to have power with them, vid. 1. Mac. 6. v. 1.  
To the fifty five page, Repent is a command of the future Tense, which they that were Baptised then, were to perform afterward, as John Baptised to Repentance.  
2. The children are brought in in the Promise besides them that were charged to repent. And why not the Infants of the cradle under Christ's wings? ye believe your Infants are not under God's protection. What a mad Argument had this been of the Apostle, to say ye have good reason to be Baptised, for now it is a great deal worse with your children then it was before, for before the Lord was their God, wherein all the precious Promises that may be are contained, but now they have none, before they had a token but none now, therefore you have good hearting to be Baptised; here had been fearful mad motives to encourage them. The Jews said, Christ's blood be upon us and ours; this blood Peter so applied it, that it melted the hearts of his Hearers; now to comfort them again, he saith, The Promise is made to you and your children. This had been but cold comfort to say you prayed that Christ's blood might be on your Infants, and now I tell you the Promise doth not belong to them. By children, Acts 2. Infants are understood first, because the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which most usually signifieth Infants: Secondly, the children are set down besides them that understood what he spoke, and besides them that were called, or to be called a fare of, and and if Infants be not in the Promise, what becomes of them when they die, or what are they better than than Infidels children? And the Apostle speaks indefinitely of all, leaving out no Infants.  
To the fifty sixth page, The Fathers were Baptised, not in Moses name but in God's name, yet to Moses as their guide before them, and as the water in Jordan was Sacramental water only to them that were Baptised by john and his Disciples in it, but not to the Cattles that went thorough it; so the Baptism in the red Sea was Baptism to the Fathers, and not to the beasts, though you make it alike to both.  
To the fifty seven page, Your contumelious reproaches against me, are more fit for such a fellow as you to utter then me to answer. I take a Prevaricator to be he that handles a good cause badly, and then though I handle it badly, yet ye are base to oppose a good cause; and what you mocked, I say it again and again. That what was commanded by Christ was taught and practised by the Apostles: it was practised, for they were not like the Pharisees that taught one thing and did another. And what was commanded was taught by them, Matth. 28. else they should prove worse than the Centurion's servants who obeyed their Master. Now Christ commanded that they should suffer little ones to come to him that they might fully every way have as much done to them as Baptism comes to; therefore the Apostles in their practice could never scruple Infant's Baptism; ye talk like an Ass in bringing in the instance of an Ass. It was necessary that that of the Ass should be once done to fulfil the Prophecy, Zach. 9 ver. 9 but this of Infants hath a reason of perpetual standing for the continuance of it, which is because to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.  
To the fifty eight page, Some receiving of the Word, doth not exclude Infants from Baptism, for by men and women, males, and females are understood taking in Infants in the number, so our Saviour calls a new born child a man, joh. 16. v. 21. Cornelius and Lydia were such as seared the true God, and though Gentiles borne, yet when their houses were Baptised the privileges of a Proselyte belonged to them and their Infants, to be in Covenant with God, and to have the token upon both, and therefore whether there were Infants in their houses or not, it matters not, but upon that account if there had been a thousand, they had all been Baptised.  
In the fifty ninth page, It is a foolish reason for you to say Infants in stephan's house could not administer to the Saints, therefore they should not be Baptised, Acts 16. 33. Luke speaks of the Jailor's house, according to their capacity: when he speaks of all hearing and believing the Word, he means such as were able, and when he speaks of Baptism, he means likewise such as are able to receive it, which Infants are; Lydia might have children for aught as you know, and might have a husband then also, for all you can bring to the contrary.  
In the sixty first page, I do instance women at the Lords Supper, intending to deny no thing I have said, but it is argumentum ad hominem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and quisque may be where there is no woman, therefore they do not prove women at the Lords Supper from 1 Cor. 11.28.  
In the fixty second page, The Apostle, Col. 2.11, 12. to stop the mouths of false Apostles that were for Circumcision, saith, We are Circumcised in Baptism, now if Baptism did not reach Infants as well as Circumcision did, than the loss in regard of Infants is more by the want of Circumcision than our gain is by having of Baptism, and so the false Apostles might have said our losses are not fully made up by Baptism, and so Baptism cannot give us satisfaction for our loss. And where you say Infant's Circumcision did not signify the heart's Circumcision; it is false, for it was a token that the Lord was the Infant's God, which containeth all God's Promises, whereof this is one, Deut. 29. I will Circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy children.  
In the sixty third page, You complain that my Arguments have not water enough to sprinkle a child: it is no matter if they be weighty, though they be not watery. I grant yours are watery enough to plunge over head and ears, and you and all your Arguments like Reuben light as water, as water put it in a round glass it is round, put it in a square glass it is square, put it in a green, blue, or yellow glass, it's like the glass, so you conform to the times, some times Quaquers, or Seekers, Antinomians, Arminians, Socinians, Anabaptists, or what ye will.  
These men whom I name, page fifty three, could do little good upon the obstinacy that were in the Times and Places where they lived Therefore I have little hopes to do good upon you. The Authors I name are for the Word, and you like an erroneous fellow are against it.  
In the sixty four page, you come to your proof of believers Baptism; but who denies it, you should have proved that they that were Baptised in their infancy must be Baptised again, when they can make you a confession with understanding, and you have no show for that, but Acts 19 where the Disciples were not Baptised again of Paul, but only Paul tells how they had been Baptised of john.  
In the sixty fifth page, You bring in Mark 16.16. which place is no rule to us for Baptism, for it speaks of saving faith, and such as was accompanied with miracles, but such faith we cannot now find out in any; the Text only shows who then were in the way of salvation. John preached Baptism unto Repentance, Matth. 3.11. which after ward was to follow and so suits Infants. The Word We doth include and not exclude Infants, Rom. 6.4. neither doth the confession of aged, Mat. 3.6. hinder the Baptism of Infants.  
In the sixty sixth page, You come to prove Dipping, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I sinned forty times in the four Gospels, and twenty times in the Acts, and above half a score of times in Paul's Epistles, besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I find twenty six times in the New Testament, yet in all these places the word cannot appear once to signify Dipping over Head and Ears. But I confess I know not where Baptizo signifies Aspersio, for the one is a Verb, and the other is a Noun, but my man knows not a Verb from a Noun, yet I can show where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are put for aspersiones, as Heb 9.10. compared with these same Verses in the same Chapter, to wit, 13, 19, 21. And all Grace is signified by sprinkling, as Ezek. 36.25. &c where sprinkling with clean water signifies cleansing from all filthiness, and a new heart, and a new spirit, and a putting of God's Spirit in that new heart and spirit, causing it to walk in, and to keep and do all God's Commandments, and to save it from all future uncleaness; what can the heart of man desire more than is here signified by the sprinkling of water, and in Heb. 10.22. by sprinkling is meant the hearts through cleansing; So Heb. 12.24. Christ's blood is called the blood of sprinkling, which is no less than 1 joh. 1.7. than a cleansing from all sin. You cite for Christ's Baptism over head and ears, Matth. 16 3. where we have nothing but a foul weather morning, as your Pamphlet is full of dirt and mire and blustering weather; the place is Matth. 3.16. where the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the water, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the water, then Mark 1.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in, is put for with or by, Mat. 6.29.11.21. Chap. 16.27. Chap. 25.31. joh 1. v. 4.2 Cor. 13.4. Ephe. 3.13.2 Tim. 1.13. and so makes nothing to your purpose. Next you say john was Baptised in Aenon; it is more than ever I read or heard any man of the world say before you that will say any thing, yet ye cite for it, joh. 2.23. where there is never a word of John's Baptism, nor of no bodies else; the place you mean is 3.23. where it is to be observed that Aenon is a Brook that you may step over with your foot, therefore though it had much water for sprinkling, it had not enough for dipping; and when Philip and the Eunuch went down from the Chariot and upper ground to the water below them, it is not said they went over head and ears, without which they might come both from and out of the water.  
In the old Testament the Hebrew for Dipping it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sometime signifieth dying with colours, as Ezek. 23.15. and sometimes drowning, as Exod. 15.4. This the Anabaptists will not like, though it sets forth an outward conformity to the death and burial of Christ more than dipping, and yet they urge a necessity of dipping rather then sprinkling, because of this outward conformity; and sometimes I confess the Hebrew word doth signify Dipping, but not a whole Plunging of the thing dipped, as Levit. 14.6. where the living Bird, the Cedar Wood, and the Scarlot, were all of them dipped in the blood of one little Bird, which could not be by plunging all in so little a quantity of blood; and in the 15. and 16. verses of the same Chapter. the Priest was commanded to dip his right singer in the Oil that was poured in the palm of his left hand, which could be no more than the top of his finger; and Iosh. 3.13. it is said only the soles of the Priests feet were in the water when they dipped in Jordan, v. 15. and Ruth is said to dip her Bread in the Vinegar, Ruth 2.14. though she put but a little in it; and Jonathan, 1 Sam. 14 is said to dip his Rod, when he put forth only the end of it into the Honey Comb. Therefore I conclude, that neither the Hebrew word for dipping in the Old, nor the Greek in the New will signify a plunging of the whole necessarily.  
Now let  men judge how little all this makes for dipping. Next ye bring in Socrates Historicus, whom you call Scholasticus relating the Baptism of Constantine the great. I Answer, it is a Question whether ever Constantine, was Baptised at all. As for most of your Church History Writers, it is well known to the Learned how false and fabulous they are. Carolus Sigonius lib. 5. de Occidentis Imperio ad An. 350 saith, Co●stantinus & Constants utrumne sacro fonte abluti vita excesserint parum compertum. Your Catechumenists were either such as were Gentiles children, who were to be taught before Baptism, as we are to teach Blackemores before Baptism, yet this makes nothing against our Infant's Baptism; or else your Catechumenists were of such as were grossly tainted with the error of the Novatians, mistaking the sense of the Scripture, Heb. 6.4. etc. And that the Ancients did sprinkle in Baptism, it is evident to me by their clinici, which were they that were Baptised in their Beds near the time of their death, which could not be by dipping, but sprinkling. Now that there were such clinici, Cyprian shows in his 76. Epistle written ad Magnum; this may be seen likewise in other ancient Fathers, as Epiphanius and Basilius, besides the Counsels, all cited by Vossius in his fift Thesis of the twelfth Disputation of Baptism. That Constantine and Theodosius, and Nectarius, and Gregory Nazianzen, and chrysostom, and the like deferred their Baptism, it was not because they were Anabaptists denying Infants Baptism, but because they were rather Novatians, conceiting that if they sinned after Baptism, they could not be saved, and therefore delayed Baptism as long as they could, which sin of delaying Baptism Tertullian li. de peniten. c. 6: saith is delinquendi commeatum faceri; and Nazianzen Orat. 40. pag. 643. Edit. morel. saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for Grotius though he was learneder than you, yet he was erroneous as you, more fit to live amongst the Transylvanians, who deny the Trinity, the Deity of Christ and Infant's Baptism, then to be amongst Orthodox Divines. Grotius is well known to incline too much to Socinians, Arminians, Anabaptists, and any thing that is naught.  
Lastly, Where you say, there is no antiquity in the first three hundred years after Christ for Infant's Baptism; let us try it out a little: but first, where some said that Pigius was against Infant's Baptism. Pelagius denies it, and was ashamed of it, though you be not; as in his Epistle ad Innocentium, and Augustinus in that clears him, Cap. 17. de peccat. originis. But now we shall show Infant's Baptism before Pelagius his time I pass by Dionysius Areopagita, supposed he, Act. 17. last, in his last Chapter Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae, because I suspect him spurious. Hyginus lived in Polycarps time, who was the Apostle John's disciple, and was for the Baptism of Infants, who is said to be the first that appointed for Infants in Baptism Patrimos, and Patrimas. Lactantius who is said to live about two hundred years of Christ, he is for us, Instit. l. 4. c. 4. and Cyprian who lived within two hundred years of Christ is for us, for he heard Tertullian (saith Helvicus) being Bishop of Carthage. Anno 247. He in his Epist. 59 ad Fidum, together with a whole Council in his time, is for Infant's Baptism: the Council consisted of sixty six Bishops, where the Question was, Whether Infants might be Baptised before they were eight days old; Cyprian, and the Council held that Infants might be Baptised before they were eight days old; their Adversaries held that they might not till the eight days were expired. The place in Cyprian is cited to be in his Epistle, ad Fidum, 3. li. 8. Epist. Irenaeus also is cited for Infants, li. 2. c. 39 and he lived in Polycarpus time. Likewise Origen, who lived within two hundred and thirty years of Christ, in the 5. l. c. 6. Tom. 2. pag. 543. edit. Basil. saith, Ecclesia traditionem ab Apostolis suscepit, etiam parvulis dare Baptismum etc. which is, the Church hath reccived it from the Apostles, even to give Baptism to Infants. The like he hath in the eight Book, and eight Hom. upon Levit. And Ambrose, who lived not much above three hundred years after Christ. l. 2. c. 11. De Abraham Patriarcha, saith, Nec senex proselytus, nec infans vernaculus excipitur, quia omnis aetas peccato obnoxia, & ideo omnis aetas Sacramento idonea; and a little after, Nullum excipit, non infantem; of the same mind is Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus Catech. Mystag. 1. & Basilius exhortat. ad Bapt. And chrysostom Hom. ad Neophytos.  
The Christians who were converted by Thomas the Apostle in Crangonore in the East Indies, they have to this day continued the Baptising of Infants, witness Osorius, 3. l. de rebus gestis Emanuelis, though for the most part they delay it till the children be forty days old. Tertullian (saith Helvicus) wrote his Book of Prescriptions, about the year 195. some ninty seven years after the Apostle John's death, at which time he was at least between thirty and forty years old, and so borne some sixty years after the Apostles death, he (lib. de Baptis. c. 18.) though he gives some frivolous reasons why Infants should not be Baptised, yet therein he clearly shows that the people did Baptise their Infants. Moreover Tertullian was for the necessity of Baptism to salvation, and for the salvation of Infants, and therefore could not be altogether against Infant's Baptism: but within four or five hundred years of Christ, for Infants we find Jerome Epist. ad Laetam, and towards the end of his third Book against the Pelagians, where he brings in the Authority of Cyprian and his Colleagues. We find also Innocentius, Epist. 26. to the Milevitan Council. And Augustinus, Epist. 28 & de peccat. orig. cap. 40. & 2. li. de nuptiis & concup. cap. 20. & lib. 3. de peccat. mer. & remissi. cap. 9 & 2. lib. contra Jul. & 4. li. de Bapt. contra Donatist. cap. 24.  
And we find Paulinus for Infants in vita Ambrosii; & Theodoret Epitome divinorum dogmat. cap. de Baptismo; & Leo Magnus, Epist. 84. aliis 86 ad Episc. Aquileiens. And the Writer de vocat. gentium lib. 2. cap. 8. And Gennadius de Eccl. Dogm. cap. 31. All these for Infant's Baptism lived within the first five hundred years after Christ; yea whole Counsels besides, that in Cyprians time were for them, as the Council of Carthage called the Milevitan held Anno 418. in the 2. Canon thus, Quicunque parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum Baptizandos negat, aut dicit in remissionem quidem peccatorum eos Baptizari, sed nihil ex Adam trahere originalis peccati quod regenerationis lavacro expietur, Anathema sit: And the Council at Gerund held Anno 517. in the fift Canon is to the same purpose, and likewise the second Council at Bracara in the seventh Canon; lastly, the Council at Vienna.  
I will here close with some places of Augustine. And first, De Genesi ad litter am l. 10. cap. 23: Consuetudo (inquit) matris Ecclesiae in Baptizandis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est, neque ullo modo superflua deputanda, nec omnino tradenda nisi Apostolicae esset traditio, where he means traditionem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as appears lib. 4. de Baptis. cap. 24. where he proves it by Scripture against the Donatifis: his words likewise li. 1. de peccat mer. & remissi. cap. 26. are; parvulos Baptizandos esse Pelagiani concedunt, qui contra authoritatem universae Ecclesiae proculdubio per Dominum & Apostolos traditam venire non: possunt & Ser. 10. de verbis Apostoli. Ne, more inquit, vohis susurret doctrinas alienas: hoc Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit, hoc a majorum fide accepit, hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit. Idem lib. 2. contra Caelest. & Pelag. saith, that Caelestin. himself in a Book set forth at Rome, confessed Infants Baptizari in remissionem peccatorum secundum regulam Vniversae Ecclesiae & secundum Evang lu sertentiam. To this same purpose, Aug. de peccat. Orig ca 17. And de Baptis. contra Donatist. l. 4. c. 23. If any man ask Divine Authority on this matter, although we most rightly believe, saith he, that what the Universal Church holdeth, and was not instituted by Counsels, but hath been ever held, was not delivered but by Apostolical Authority, yet may we truly conjecture what the Sacrament of Baptism performeth to Infants by Circumcision, which the former people did receive; & de pec. Merit. & remis. lib. 2. cap. 5. All Antiquity hath firmly held, that believers Infants do receive remission of original sin by Baptism. Origen. Hom. 8. in Levit. quid causae est cum Baptismus Ecclesiae in remissionem peccatorum detur, secundum Ecclesiae observantiam etiam parvulis Baptismus detur? Ita Hom. 14. in Luc. & lib. 5. in cap. 6. ad Rom.  
Justine Martyr lived in the Apostle John's time, and saith, women ought to look▪ to their children, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; And Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 40. pag. 658. which was concerning holy Baptism, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Finally, Where you close with your service, I know no service of yours, except it be wherein you are more fit to serve than I to suffer; nevertheless to pray for your conversion, and to do you good I am yours,  
Alexander Kellie.   

Postscript.  
THe Anabaptists think and say, that there is no command for Infant's Baptism, being such as do not understand, nor make confession of faith or sins, and yet we give them Scripture commands, many and full, though nothing will satisfy them, no not when they have good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over; as Gen. 17. there is not only a command for Infants that cannot confess, but a reason that still holds, to wit, that the Lord is their God, and God threatens the disobedient, and this command in the substantials was never abrogated. Therefore here is the first Command, with a full perpetual reason, and with a threatening, and a command of a continual standing, and is the very same with Baptism in the essentials  
2. When Christ commands Infants to be brought to him, to bless them, to pray for them, to lay his hands on them, therein he commands as much and more than Baptism comes to: So here is a second command, running over with the wrath of Christ to them that oppose it.  
3. Matth. 28. Baptise all Nations, is a command likewise of a full measure running over, for it doth not only reach Infants, but all Nations.  
4. Acts 2. Peter commands every one to be Baptised, with a reason reaching Infants, for theirs is the Promise, and here again you have both Precept, and Promise: and yet the Anabaptist saith, there is no command. What is it to set the Word of God at naught, and to cast his Commandments behind our back, if this be none? Let such therefore take heed lest the Lord come and tear them in pieces, while there shall be none to deliver. Remember John Leydan and such fellows.  
Infants have all the graces set forth and sealed in Baptism, therefore are to be Baptised, they are justified sanctified, regenerated, clothed with Christ, planted with him, added to the Church, incorporate in his body, entitled in the Covenant to have the Lord for their God, dead, buried, and risen again with him, and had by God's command for many hundreth years a right to an Ordinance equivalent to Baptism, being then profitable every way, and the seal of the righteousness of Faith, and were never since put aside from Baptism, but by that woeful generation of Anabaptists here of late since the beginning of Luther's opposing the Pope; since which time the Lord hath fearfully blasted that wicked sort of people in many Nations. And therefore I conclude, that children in their Infancy have an undoubted, full and clear right from Scripture for their Baptism still to this day, and shall have till the last day, when the Anabaptists shall be judged and convinced to purpose of all the ungodly deeds and speeches which they have done and spoken against Christ's Truth. And as for the particular graces that I have named, as Justification of Infants, sanctification, etc. I shall, God willing, if I be put unto it, easily prove all these graces to belong to Infants in our dutiful and charitable judgement against any Anabaptist in England whosoever he be.  
I could wish with all my heart that the Anabaptists would weigh well and consider what I writ without prejudice, remembering that it is no shame for them to forsake their error, but rather their honour and happiness to turn to the Truth, and stand for it, and it is both their shame and sin to be hardened in their hearts against it. Better than they have forsaken this error and closed with us, Zuinglius who far excelled all the Anabaptists in the world both for grace and learning; Mr. Baxter, who may be a pattern for holiness and reading to most of his time, he hath not only forsaken the Anabaptists, but opposed them, that they are not all able to answer him. There be many English Books of learned men against the Anabaptists, as namely Doctor Featly, Mr. Martial, Mr. Gerce, Mr. Church, Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Cook, Mr: Blake, Mr. Fuller. Mr. Sidenham; besides many other excellent men, who have written in Latin, as Vossius, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, and all our best Lights in the Christian world, both Ancient and Modern.  
These five sheets do not, and cannot contain the hundreth part of what I have delivered to my Hearers, for the space almost of three years, for Infants, and against Anabaptists, and much more may be said.   
FINIS