Anti-paedobaptism, OR THE SECOND PART Of the full Review of the Dispute Concerning INFANT-BAPTISM: In which the invalidity of Arguments inferring a Duty from a positive Rite of the Old Testament concerning a positive Rite of the New, by reason of Analogy between them, is showed; and the Argument against Infant-baptism, from Christ's institution, Matth. 28. 19 the sayings and practice in the New Testament is made good against the Writings of Mr. Stephen Martial, Mr. Richard Baxter, Mr. Thomas Blake, Mr. Thomas Cobbet, Mr. John Cotton, Dr. Nathaniel Homes, Mr. Robert Bailee, Dr. Daniel Featley, Mr. John Brinsley, Mr. Cuthbert Sydenham, Dr. Henry Hammond, Mr. Thomas Fuller, and others.  
By John Tombs, B. D.  
But speaking the truth in love, we may grow up into him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ.  Ephes. 4. 15. 
LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, and are to be sold at his House at the Sign of Sir John Oldcastle in Py-corner. MDCLIV.   

To the Right Honourable the Lord PRESIDENT and COUNCIL to his Highness the Lord PROTECTOR.  
I Presume to present to your Honours a Continuation of the full Review of a Dispute of which the first part was presented to his Highness more than a year ago. To which Writing I take myself many ways obliged, not only because of my own engagements, but also, and that chiefly, by reason of the important concernment that the truth be preserved. I am sensible that the increase of Books is thought a grievance by many, and that none are more unwelcome, than such as are about Controversies, specially when they tend to unsettle men in what they have received, and in no point more than in this. Few have ability to discern in Disputes which part preponderates: Few are willing to bestow pains in such unpleasant studies: Few can digest a truth which exposeth to reproach and loss. These and other considerations had kept me from this adventure, if my allegiance to Christ had not bound me to vindicate his truth, and charity to men tied me to endeavour their undeceiving. Wisdom must be justified by her children: nor can he give a good account to Christ at his appearing, who shall, out of undue respects, leave to spoil the truth with which he is entrusted. Polemick Writing are to few delightful, yet necessary; it being unlikely that practice of piey should flourish when Doctrines of Faith and Worship are corrupted. They that decline studying and meddling with Controversies, if they be not sluggish, yet are likely unwary, not heeding that thereby the wall is unrepaired, which should keep out Seducers from perverting the Churches. Peace is indeed very desirable, but Truth is put first, Zech. 8. 19 Were men better tempered than commonly they are, dissenters might ventilate things in question with less offence; I mention it with rejoicing, as a sign of God's presence with us, in hope that the same Spirit of unanimity will diffuse itself among our Christian brethren throughout the Nation. That Dissenters and Contenders in writing, and otherwise, in this and other points, for their several judgements, have acted hitherto in the business of approving public Preachers with much harmony of mind, and agreement of votes; Surely the work of Christ would be much advanced by a firm consociation in order to the work of Christ so far as we agree, though there should remain, as no doubt there will, diversities of opinions in things disputable. Nor do I despair that Disputes will be managed with more sweetness of spirit, candour, and tenderness towards dissenters than formerly they have been.  
In this hope my intention is (with God's assistence) to prosecute the Dispute begun, a part whereof I now tender to your Honours, being desirous that myself, and the cause I manage should stand right in your eyes, who are the eyes of the Commonwealth. For whom I beg light from Heaven toguide you in your way, and help from him, who hath been hitherto your strength, and who will be with you, while you be with him, and remain,  
London, June 1. 1654. Your Honour's humble and devoted Servant in the Lord, John Tombs.   

The Contents.  

SEct. 1. Of the reason and purport of this writing.  
Sect. 2. That no good argument can be drawn from positive rites of the Old Testament to prove a Divine appointment in positive rites of the New, nor is it true which Mr. Baxter saith that infant's admission into the Church is fully determined in the Old Testament.  
Sect. 3. Mr. Blakes plea for arguments from analogy in mere positive rites of the Old Testament, and Mr. Baxters' speech about infant admission as determined in it, are refelled.  
Sect. 4. Mr. Baxter's speech about the little said for Antipaedobaptism is vain, and his speech about the antiquity of infant-baptism, is very inconsiderate; and his speech about the difficulty and importance of the point in question▪ is examined.  
Sect. 5. The first argument against infant-baptism from the institution Mat. 19 28. Mark 16. 16. and the practice in the New Testament is urged.  
Sect. 6. Mr. Blakes exception, against the major, that such institution or example as I require for inifant-baptism is unnecessary, is refelled.  
Sect. 7. Mr. Marshals exceptions that Matth. 28. 19 is not the institution of baptism, that only Disciples are not appointed to be baptised, that this was a rule only for a Church to be constituted, are refelled.  
Sect. 8. The exceptions of Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Blake etc. against the arguing from the order of teaching afore baptising, of Mr. Marshal, Mr. Hussey, etc. that baptising is discipling, are refelled.  
Sect. 9 The exception of Mr. Marshal, Mr. Blake, Mr. Cobbet, that nations are appointed to be baptised Matth. 28. 19 and so infants, is refelled.  
Sect. 10. That infants of believers are not Disciples appointed to be baptised, Matth. 28. 19  
Sect. 11. Mr. Cottons allegations in his Dialogue ch. 1. to prove infants Disciples, are showed to be insufficient.  
Sect. 12. Mr. Baxter's allegation of Acts 15. 10. to prove infants Disciples, is fully answered, and his arguments retorted.  
Sect. 13. The arguments are vindicated which are brought to prove infants not meant by Disciples Acts 15. 10.  
Sect. 14. Infant's discipleship is not proved by Mr. Baxter from Leu. 25 41, 42. which speaks of the Israelites being God's servants.  
Sect. 15. That infants are not proved to be Christ's Disciples from being subjects to Christ, Christians, belonging to Christ, Luke 9 47, 48. Matth. 18. 5. Mark 9 41.  
Sect 16. Dr. featly and Mr. Stephen's arguments from John 3 5. for infant-baptism, are answered, and baptism showed not to be a cause of regeneration, and Mr. Cranfords' words are considered.  
Sect. 17. The 31. Cap. of Mr. Baxters' plain Scripture-proof, etc. is answered, and Mark 10. 13, 14, 15, 16. is showed to make nothing for infants visible Church-membership and baptism, and his description of visible Church-membership is considered and his argument from Deut. 29. 10. showed to be insufficient.  
Sect. 18. The 41. Chap. of Mr. Blakes Vindic. Foeder: about Christ's speech of little children Matth. 19 14. is answered, and my sayings in my Postscript vindicated.  
Sect. 19 Animadversions on Mr. Cobbets. Just Vindic. part. 1. ch. 4. and the arguings of Dr. Homes, Mr. Bailee, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Sidenham from the words and actions of Christ to little ones are answered.  
Sect. 20. The practice of infant-baptism is not proved, Acts 16. 15. by baptising an household, against Mr. Martial, Dr. Homes Mr. Bailee, Mr. Cook, Mr. Sidenham, Mr. Fuller.  
Sect. 21. That 1 Cor. 10. 2. proves not the practice of infant-baptism against Mr. Bailee, Mr. Cobbet, etc.  
Sect. 22. Mr. Blakes argument from Gal. 4. 29. is answered.  
Sect. 23. Mr. Brinsley and Dr. Homes their conjecture from Heb. 6. 2. to prove infant-baptism, is refelled.  
Sect. 24. Dr. Hammond his way of proving infant-baptism from the Jews baptising Proselytes children, is showed to be vain.  
Sect. 25. Dr. Hammonds elusion of Matth. 28. 19 alleged against infant-baptism▪ is refelled.  
Sect. 26. Dr. Hammond neither from 1 Cor. 7. 14▪ nor from sayings of ancients proves the Apostles to have baptised infants.    

Anti-Paedobaptism, OR A Full Review of the Dispute concerning INFANT-BAPTISM.  
SECT. I.  
Of the Reason and Purport of this writing,  
HAving by my Postscript, Antidote, Addition to the Apology, Praecursor, and Ample disquisition of the meaning of the engraffing, Rom. 11. 17 The promise, Acts 2. 39 The holiness of Children, 1. Cor. 7. 14. formerly printed, endeavoured to vindicate myself, and the doctrine of Anti Paedobaptism, which I assert, from the objections which have been published to hinder the entertainment of it; I now proceed with the divine assistance to review the dispute about Infant Baptism, which was made public by the Printing of my Exercitation and Examen of Mr. Marshal's Sermon in the year 1645. which is become the more laborious and tedious to me by reason of the many Antagonists, and their several writings since published, notwithstanding the equal and serious motion I made in the Epilogue of my Examen, that I might see some one writing, either of the Assemblies, or of their Committees, or the London Ministers (who in their attestation ceasured my Positions as erroneous and pernicious) in which the whole strength of the proofs for Infant-baptism might be put together, and Readers with myself eased of the trouble and charge of buying and perusing so many several writings, which some disclaim, and others magnify. But this motion which would have quickly brought the matter to an issue, and made a shorter dispatch of the dispute than is now likely to be, being so far from meeting with a ready acceptance, that thereby an occasion was taken to misrepresent me as a braving challenger, and one that minds self-ost●ntation more than the truth of God (which is an artifice unworthy the users) and an opposite course taken to bear me down with a flood of injurious calumnies, and impetuous rather than considerate Antagonists, I am put to this choice, either to weary myself by answering so many several writings, or else give advantage to them who are ready to take all advantages how indirectly soever (as appears by master baxter's dealing with me about the dispute at Bewdly, master Simon Ford of Reading his dealing with me about the passages in the Act at Oxford 1652.) to possess people with prejudices against me▪, and of the unanswerableness of what is brought for Infant-baptism, if they can but pretend that it is declined, though it be neglected only for the futility and feebleness of it. But the former being more eligible for the truth's sake, I conceive myself engaged to proceed in the Review of the Dispute. The writings which with mine own I am to review, are either such as are directly written against me, or such as at least for the truth's sake I conceive meet to examine, whether they meddle with my writings or not; of the former sort are Master Stephen Marshals defence of his Sermon, Master John Gerees Vindiciae paedobaptismi, and Vindiciae Vindiciarum, Doctor Nathanael Homes his Animadversions on my Exercitation, Master Thomas Blake his Answer to my Letter, and a great part of his Vindiciae foederis, and most of all Mr. Richard Baxter his plain Scripture proof of Infants Church-membership and Baptism▪ and together with these, what Mr. Thomas Cobbet of New England, in his just vindication hath thought fit to oppose against my Examen, sent in a manuscript to New England, and delivered to him to examine, as Mr. Cotton informed me by his letter, though I be not named in Mr. Cobbets book Others there are, which though they do not expressly oppose me, yet Mr. M. Mr. B. or some other, do direct me to them, as Mr. Cottons Dialogue, Vossius his Theses, Mr. Baillees Anabaptism, Mr. Drew, Mr. Church, Mr. Stephens, Dr. Featly, Mr. Lyford, Doctor Hammond, etc. Mr. Rutherfurd is one, to whose writing Mr. Baxter pag. 211. directs me, but I have not yet met with ●ame other thing which he hath written about this argument, than what I find in his Temperate plea, chap. 11, 12. yet when any other thing of his, or any other Authors, occurrs, which suggests any thing considerable, besides what others before have published, and is already answered, I do intend to take it into the Review, and to deal impartially, as one that seeks truth, and is sensible that he is accountable to the Lord about writing as well as speaking; nevertheless, in handling thereof, I shall not tie myself, any further than I see necessary, to set down each Author's words at large, but so much of them as I conceive requisite, and according to their meaning, and the force of their arguments, as rightly as I can. The method I once intended to use in this Review was according to the order of my Examen, but I shall now use such an arbitrary method as I shall judge most clear and comprehensive, beginning with Mr. Richard Baxter his three first chapters of the first part of his book forenamed.   

SECT. II.  
That no good argument can be drawn from the positive Rites of the old Testament, to prove a divine appointment in positive Rites of the new; nor is it true as Mr B. saith, that Infant's admission into the Church is fully determined in the old Testament.  
MAster B. begins the dispute, pag. 1. with a preface tending to move affections, otherwise than pleaders before the Aropagites were to do, and was desired of Mr. B. that Logic might be used, and Rhetoric for born; but however the preface is framed, and takes with many, yet so many mistakes in it are showed in my Praecursor, as might deter readers from blinding their eyes by the dust raised in it. He than tells us he must needs lay down several positions that must necessarily be well understood before they could understand the point in hand, and these are no fewer than ten, which if they had been all omitted, I see not but that the point might have been as well understood as now it is. I do not remember where master B. makes any use of them for clearing the point, and therefore I judge them, with his three propositions, chap. 2. to serve only to forestall men's minds, if they be not used to dull the Readers attention ere he come to the point, as the Turks use their Asapi to blunt the Christians swords by killing them afore their Janissaries fall on. But what ever the intent was, there are sundry passages that require animadversions; His first position is, That the holy Ghost speaks of somethings in scripture more fully, and of others more sparingly, which I grant to be true; but I like not his instance when he saith, that the scripture speaks little concerning the heathen that never heard the Gospel, whether any of them be saved? or upon what terms he dealeth with them for life or death? Far is it [saith he,] from my reach, to discover the Holy Ghosts mind in this: whereas me thinks the Scripture speaketh much of this, Ephes. 2. 1, 2, 3, 12. Rom. 1. & 2. & 3. & 11. Chapters. And to be doubtful, whether they that never heard the Gospel were saved, and upon what terms God dealt with them for life or death, is in my apprehension to be unresolved whether there be not another way of salvation than by Christ; whether a man living and dying a professed Idolater without repentance, may not be saved by his moral demeanour; and whether Pelagianism be not true, that by nature without grace men may be saved. Vedelius in his book de deo synagogae charged Barlet the Arminian with a dangerous position in writing in verses before a book of Manasseh Ben Israel the Jew, that the God of jews and Christians was one, and intimating that jews remaining in denial of Christ might have God for their God, contrary to john 8. 24. and 14. ●6. Act. 4 12. 1 john 2. 23. and 5. 12. 2. john 9 How much more dangerous a conceit must this be, much lessening the grace of God in Christ, tending to Pelagianism, and to make Idolatry a venial sin, to imagine that men that never had the Gospel nor the Prophets, but were such, even the best of them, as are described Rom. 1. 21. etc. that they should be saved, when the Scripture so plainly tells us, Revel. 21. 8. 27. & 22. 15. that all Idolaters shall be without? But I leave master B. to Doctor Prideaux his lecture de salute Ethnicorum to resolve him in this point.  
And whereas he saith the Scripture speaketh sparingly of Infants, it seems then some at least of his texts he brings for Infant's discipleship and visible Church-membership are impertinent, sith they are so many; and whereas he instanceth in the case of Insant-Baptism among such things as are not plainly determined in Scripture, he doth thereby gainsay the title of his book, which he calls plain Scripture proof of Infant's baptism; nor is he relieved by what he replies in his praefestinant is morator, where nothing is brought out of his words, before or after, which shows I have not rightly alleged his words in my Praecursor, Sect. 2. And his words pag. 9 [the grounds of it are very easy and plain, though to many it be difficult to discern how it is from those grounds inferred] do confirm my observation, that he contradicted his title, sith the inference which is the proof, is in them confessed to be difficult. But what he saith in the words following, pag. 3, 4. is more exactly to be scanned, as touching the main Basis of Paedo-Baptism. The new Testament (saith Mr. B.) speaks more sparingly of that which is more fully discovered in the old, what need the same thing be so done twice, except men had questioned the authority of the old? the whole Scripture is the perfect word and law of God; & if he should reveal all his mind in one part, what use should we make of the other? How silent is the N. T. concerning Christian magistracy? which made the Anabaptists of old deny it; Where find you a Christian in the new Testament that exercised the place of a King, a Parliament-man, or Justice of Peace, or the like? so of an oath before a Magistrate, of war, of the Sabbath, etc. how sparing is the new Testament? and why? but because there was enough said of them before in the old; This also is the very case in the question in hand. The main question is not, by what sign members are to be admitted into the Church? or whether by a sign or without? But at what age they are to be admitted members? now this is as fully determined in the old Testament, as most things in the Bible, and therefore what need any more?  
Answ. Mr. B. here asserts in the question about Infant baptism, that it is as fully determined in the old Testament as most things in the Bible, at what age persons should be admitted members into the Church, and therefore what need any more? which if true, Mr. B. had done well to have spared the allegation of Mat. 28. 19 Acts 15. 10. Luk. 9 42. 48. Mat. 18. 5. Mark 9 41. Rom. 11. 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26. Mat. 23. 37, 38, 39 Rom. 4. 11. 1. Cor. 7. 14, Mark 9 36, 37. and 10. 13, 14, 15, 16. and others the allegation of Act. 2. 38 39 and 16. 15. 1. Cor. 10 1, 2. for Infant-baptism, not troubling the Reader with more, when, if he speak true, the proof might have been made by fewer texts; Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora. And indeed when Paedobaptists speak not like wranglers, but ingenuously confess the naked truth, they acknowledge there is no express precept or example for Infantbaptism in the new Testament, but they must fly to the old, Master Marshal in his sermon of baptising Infants, pag. 34. Doctor Young in the passage cited in my Praecursor, Sect. 22. Eton and Taylor, defence, pag. 57 Do not you conclude Infants must be baptised, not because the new Testament expressly saith so, but because you find it in the old; the Jews children were circumcised, therefore Christian's children must be baptised. The assembly at Westminster answer to the dissenting Brethren touching Ordination, pag. 186. If par ratio will not serve turn to prove an ordinance of Christ, or at least to warrant a practice, how will our brethren prove baptising of infants? Which confessions me thinks should deter Paedobaptists from alleging precept and practice of it out of the new Testament; or at least readers and hearers should learn more wit than to be cheated thereby, when their own confessions do show that they are brought only to fill up books, and to deceive the poor simple readers. But let us view Mr. B. words better.  
He saith, the main question is not by what sign members are to be admitted into the Church, or whether by a sign or without, but at what age they are to be admitted members? now this is as fully determined in the old Testament as most things in the Bible. Mr. M. in his defence, pag. 195. saith thus; First, for the point of will worship I shall desire you to prove this Conclusion, That all things belonging to Christian worship, even in the circumstances of it, even the ages and sexes of the persons to whom the ordinances are to be applied, must expressly be set down in the new Testament; if you prove not this, you say nothing to the purpose, for this is our very case, pag. 205. This about Infantbaptism touches but a circumstance of age.  
Answ. 'tis true, the main question is, whether infants are to be baptised? But they that deny it, do so, not merely because of their age, but because 
Collings vindic. minist. Evan. pag. 67. It is a rotten distinction to distinguish of substantial and circumstantial acts in businesses relating to God's worship, in which we must have an eye to every tittle of institution. Cawdrey Sab. Rediu. part. 2. ch.  they appear not ordinarily to be disciples of Christ, or believers, or capable of these in act. Their admission by baptism is questioned because of their nondiscipleship, not precisely by reason of their age. Mr. B. in his Appendix to his plain scripture proof etc. pag. 302. And that in so material a thing as Infantbaptism, and so about the proper subject of so great an ordinance; and if you judge Infantbaptism a mere circumstance, you 
7▪ pag. 277. The subject or material thing is the substance of a command.  are much mistaken. If the question about Infantbaptism touch but a circumstance of age, than the question about Infant-communion toucheth but a circumstance of age, and if men may without precept or example in the new Testament of Infant baptism be acquitted from willworship, because it toucheth but a circumstance of age, by the same reason they may be acquitted from willworship, who give Infants the Communion, because it toucheth but a circumstance of age. Our Lord Christ and his Apostles having determined who are to be baptised, it is manifest willworship or humane Invention to baptise others than he and they have appointed; and it is so much the worse, because it is not only about the proper subject of so great an ordinance, but also the main end and use of baptism, by altering of which the ordinance is quite changed into another thing, and the Church of God exceedingly corrupted. But letting that pass, admission of Infants into the Church (Mr. B. saith) is fully determined in the old Testament; if he mean not the Christian visible Church, he speaks ambiguously, and if his words be meant of the Christion visible Churah (of which only is the question) than it is as fully determined in the old Testament, that Infants should be admitted into the visible Church Christian as most things in the Bible, as that God made heaven and earth, idols are vanities, fornication a sin, etc. But surely none will believe Mr. B. in this, but he that is so simple as to believe every word. Me thinks he should not have said such a word at Bewdly, where he saith in his History, were many ancient stayed Christians, that would not as children be t●st up and down, and carried too and fro with every wind of doctrine, except he presumed they would take what he said, as true, without trial. Formerly this was the received doctrine, that Baptism was the sacrament of admission into the Christian Church, that Baptism and the Lords supper were the sacraments of the new Testament, instituted by Christ himself, that Circumcision. and the Passeover, and the whole Jewish Church policy are abrogated, which if true, it is very bold to say, that Infants are to be admitted into the visible Church Christian, is as fully determined in the old Testament, as most things in the Bible, when there is not a word in all the old Testament about the age, or way of admission into the visible Church Christian. But where doth Mr. B. find this admission so fully determined in the old Testament? In the dispute at Bewdly he denied the precept of Circumcision to be the ordinance of visible church-membership, And in my Praecursor, Sect. 6 I say, as yet I can fi●d no such law or ordinance for Infants visible Churchmembership save what is enjoined concerning Circumcision. To with he replies in his Praefestinantis morator, What not yet? And yet dare you boast so confidently of your prepared confutation? yet can you find no law that made women Church-members? nor the uncircumcised males in the wilderness? O the power of prejudice! Whereto I say, though I boast not of my prepared confutation, but speak of it modestly, yet I find no cause to be less confident of my prepared confutation, because of these frivolous interogations of Mr. B. It is not the power of prejudice which is the reason why I find not a law or ordinance for Infants visible Church-membership, but because I do not see or read of law or ordinance for Infants visible Church-membership besides that of Circumcision, either upon my own search, or Mr. Bs. or others showing; I asked once a Preacher at Bewdley where it was? he told me it was Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12, 13. I told him I find a relation of a fact, of a thing that was done, but not a word of any law, ordinance precept or command, determining thus it shall be, this shall be done▪ etc. or any other form of speech that imports a law, ordinance, precept, statute or command to make female infants visible Churchmembers; much less do I find an appointment, law, ordinance, that some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church (which Mr. B. should have proved to be unrepealed, according to his assertion, cap. 5. 26.) except the law of Circumcising infants. And therefore my confutation of Mr. Bs. argument, cap. 5. might be sufficient, if I only denied such an ordinance or appointment, till it be showed. I do confess my weakness in my answering at Bewdley, in that I permitted Mr. B. to run on in the proof of an ordinance unrepealed, afore he had showed me where that ordinance is, but I perceived therein what I feared still, that I should not in a verbal dispute observe what was necessary to be heeded. But I may say with truth Mr. B. either understands not what is meant by a law, ordinance, appointment liable to repeal, or still binding, or loves to pervert words from the genuine sense, as he did the word [accuse;] or else he is unwilling to speak plainly, who being provoked to show in what text of Scripture that pretended law, ordinance, appointment is, doth not yet show it. And for his assertion here, it exceeds all faith, that infant admission into the Church (meaning the visible Church Christian) should be as fully determined in the old Testament, at most things in the Bible.,  
But wherever, Mr. B. imagines it is fully determined in the old Testament, the Assembly at Westminster in their Confession of faith, chap. 25. Art. 4. allege but one text out of the old Testament, viz. Gen. 17. 7. 9 for admission of Infants by Baptism into the visible Church, and if Mr. M. their Champion in this Point express their minds, they deduce Infant-baptism from this principle, All God's Commands and Institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, and were not accidental to them. Which how false it is, how contrary to the Tenet of Divines former and later, is showed in my Examen, part▪ 3. Sect. 12. to which I may add the Assemblies confession of faith, chap. 19 Art. 3. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament. And if all of them be abrogated, how can it be true that the law about circumcising Infants still binds? But Mr. M. in his Defence pag. 195. conceives his argument from the analogy of the Ceremonial law of Circumcision, which he calls his Analogical argument, pag. 201. good; on the contrary I deny any argument from analogy of the Ceremonial law good in mere positive ceremonies to prove thus it was in the old Testament, therefore it must be so in the new. And thus I argue,  
1. Arguments from Analogy in mere positive Rites of the old Testament to make rules for observing mere positive Ceremonies of the new without institution gathered by precept or apostolical example or other declaration in the new Testament, do suppose that without Institution there may be par ratio, a like reason of the use of the one Ceremony as the other. But this is not true; For in positive Rites there is no reason for the use of this & not another thing in this manner to this end, 

Cawdrey Sab▪ Rediu. Part. 2. Chap. 6. pag. 226. A steer positive law which is special to some person or nation is of no force under the Gospel, unless it be ratified by the Gospel.  
Baxter plain scripture proofs pag. 341. Nature telleth us nothing of mere positives   by, or to persons, but the will of the appointer. For there is not any thing natural or moral in them, they have no general equity, they are supposed to be merely not mixtly positive. Therefore where there is not the like Institution, there is not a like reason; and therefore this opinion of Analogy in positive Rites from a parity of reason without Institution in the new Testament is a mere fancy, and no good ground for an argument. To apply it to the 
Mr. Collings caveat for Proph. pag. 77. The equity of the ceremomonial law is a dark notion to me, Christ is she equity of it. The Apostle calls it a shadow; the equity then of it is the substance of a shadow, and what that is I cannot divine besides Christ whose shadow it was. I always understood by the ceremonial laws those laws that concerned the worship of God in that time, which were wholly ceremonial and abolished being fulfilled in Christ.  case in hand, Circumcision and Baptism are merely positive ordinances; Mr. B. calls them, p. 9 Positives about worship. Generally Sacraments by Divines are reckoned among mere positives; Chamier. Panstr. Cath. Tom. 4. l. 2. c. 12. Sect. 20. nulla vera ratio Sacramentorum potest consistere absque institutione. l. 7. c. 10. Sect. 1. nullum Sacramentum est à natura sua, itaque prorsus ab institutione. The places are innumerable in Protestant writers and others to prove this; were it not that I find my Antagonists often forget what is elsewhere yielded by them, I should not say so much, the thing being so plain, that there is nothing natural or moral in them, because till they were appointed (which was thousands of years after the creation) they were not used, nor taken for signs of that which they signified. The reason▪ then of Baptism and Circumcision is merely Institution; if then there be not the like Institution, there is not the like reason. This argument is confirmed by Mr. M●. grant, Defence, pag. 92. 182. the formal reason of the jews being circumcised was the Command of God▪ therefore there is not the like reason of Infant-baptism as of Infant-circumcision without the like command of God. But there is no express command for Infant-baptism as Mr. M. confesseth, therefore there is not par ratio, like reason of the one as the other.  
2. I thus argue, If all the Laws and Commands about the Sacraments, positive Rites and Ceremonies of the Jews, be now abrogated, than no argument upon supposed analogy or parity of reason from the institution of those abrogated Rites can prove a binding rule to us about a mere positive Rite of the new Testament. For how can that make a binding rule to us about another mere positive Rite without any other Institution, which itself is abrogated? that which binds not at all, binds not about another thing, v. g. Baptism. But all the Laws and Commands about the Sacraments, positive Rites and Ceremonies of the Jews, are now abrogated, as is proved in my Examen, part. 3. sect. 12. and confessed by the Assembly Conf. of faith, chap. 19 art. 3. ergo none of them bind, This argument is confirmed by the words of Mr Cawdrey Sabbat. Rediu. part. 2. chap. 7. sect. 7. pag. 263. No ceremonial commandment can infer a moral commandment. The reason of our assertion is this, because partial commandments given to some Nation or persons (as the Ceremonial precepts were) cannot infer a general to oblige others, even all the world. Again, Sect. 10. pag. 276. First it is so in all other like special and ceremonial Commandments concerning days, whensoever the particular day was abrogated, the whole Commandment concerning that day was utterly abolished, the Law of Circumcision and of the Passeover is expired as well as the sacramental and ceremonial actions commanded by that law.  
This Mr. M. conceived he had prevented by supposing that in some commands about the Sacraments of the jews, are some things that belong to the substance of the Covenant, and limiting his assertion to those. And when in my Examen pag. 115. I argued, that in no good sense it can be true that some of the commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews contained things belonging to the substance of the Covenant, he tells us pag. 198, 199. of his Defence, that our Sacraments have the same substance with theirs, the same general nature, end, and use; which he makes in these things, theirs were seals of the Covenant, so ours, etc. But none of all these are to the purpose, his allegations tending only to prove that our Sacraments and the Jews have the same general nature, which he calls substance, but not a word to show that any command about them belonged to the substance of the Covenant, but as if he were angry, or did disdain a man should question his dictates, only recites his meaning, and a passage or two of Protestant Authors, and never answers a word to my objection, Exam. pag. 115. that in no good sense could it be true that some commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews did contain things belonging to the substance of the Covenant. Yea when I animadverted on that saying in his Sermon, the manner of administration of this Covenant was first by types, shadows and sacrifices, etc. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision, that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant: I reply, saith he, in his Defence, pag. 99 this is a very small quarrel, I added, etc. which supplies both Circumcision and other things. Which words in the plain construction of them do note, that Circumcision is comprehended in his etc. as belonging to the manner of administration, not to the substance of the Covenant. And yet pag. 187. he hath these words, I have already proved (that is no where, no not so much as in attempt) that Circumcision though a part of their administration did yet belong to the substance (meaning of the Covenant of grace) belong to it, I say, not as a part of it, but as a means of applying it. So uncertain and enterferring one another are his speeches about this thing. And yet this salve he adds is not true in any sense in which the word [substance] may be taken. For if he mean by [applying the Covenant] the signifying Christ to come, or the spiritual part promised, so Circumcision was a Type or shadow, and therefore according to his doctrine belonging to the administration that then was, not to the substance of the Covenant; if he mean by [applying the Conant] sealing or assuring the righteousness of faith to men's consciences, neither doth this make it of the substance of the Covenant, the Covenant being made before, and though Circumcision had never thus applied it, the substance of the Covenant had been the same, yea the Covenant was the same in substance, according to his own doctrine, 2000 years before Circumcision did apply it to any; now I do not conceive any thing is to be said of the substance of a thing, when the thing may be entire without it; so that in this point I deprehend in Mr. M. speeches nothing but dictates; and those very uncertain and confused.  
Secondly, saith he, pag. 198. When I say that Gods Commands about their Sacraments bind us, my meaning never was to assert, that the ritual part of their Sacraments do remain in the leas● particle, or that we are tied to practise any of those things, but only that there is a general and analogical nature, wherein the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament do agree, which he thus a little before expresseth, my meaning being plainly this, that all God's Commands and Institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews as touching their general nature of being Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant, and as touching their use and end, do bind us in our Sacraments, because they are the same; whereto I reply, that Mr. M. supposeth the Commands of God are about the general nature of being Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant: which is a most vain conceit, there being no such Command or Institution, there's no such Command that Sacraments should have the general nature of Sacraments, or be Seals of the Covenant, or that they should signify Christ and seal spiritual grace: these things they have from their nature, as he saith, which is the same without any Institution. The natures, essences and quiddities of things are eternal, invariable, and so come not under Command, which reacheth only to things contingent, that may be done, or not be done. Did ever any wise man command to men that man should be a reasonable living body, or whiteness a visible quality, or fatherhood a relation? And to say that God commands Sacraments to seal the Covenant, what is this but to say that God commands himself? For he alone by the Sacraments seals to us the Covenant or Promise of Christ, or grace by him. All Commands of God are concerning what the persons commanded should do, and they must needs be of particulars, not of generals, for actio est singularium, action is of singular persons and things. Though God may command man to think or acknowledge Sacraments to be Seals of the Covenant, yet it were a most vain thing for God to command that Sacraments should be Seals of the Covenant, or to have this general end or use, to seal or signify Christ, and spititual grace, to us, which belongs only to himself to do by his declaration of his meaning in them. Such Commands as Mr. M. imagines, are a mere Chimaera, or dream of his brain. Secondly, the like is to be said concerning his conceit, that such Commands bind us in our Sacraments; For to bind us is to determine what is to be done, or not to be done by us; But such imagined Commands do not determine what is to be done or not to be done by us, and therefore cannot bind at all. Thirdly, when Mr. M. confesseth we are not tied to the least particle of the ritual part or any practice of those things, he doth thereby acknowledge that all the Commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews, which were all about rituals, are quite abrogated. For all Sacraments are Rites or Ceremonies, and to imagine a Command about a Sacrament, and not about a ritual part or Ceremony, is to imagine a Command about a Sacrament, which is not a Sacrament, Chamier. Panstr. Cathol. Tom. 4. lib. 1. chap. 8. Sect. 9 arguing against Suarez the Jesuit, that dreamt of a Sacrament appointed in the law of nature for remedy of original sin, yet had no determined Ceremony, speaks thus; Sacramentum aliquod institutum à Deo, Ceremonia nulla determinata à Deo, quis capiat? Sacramentum institui et Ceremoniam non determinari? Aequè dixerit locutum esse deum, et tamen vocem nullam protulisse, nam aequè Sacramenti genus est Ceremonia et Vox loqisutionis. Fourthly, were it supposed that there were some Commands about the general nature of Sacraments, binding us, though every particle and practice of the ritual part be abrogated, yet this would not reach Mr. M. intent, which is to prove the Command of sealing Infants with the initial seal in force, binds. But to seal Infants with the initial seal in force is not of the general nature of Sacraments (for then it should belong to the after seal as well as the initiating) but after his own dictates of the special nature of the initial seal, and so Mr. M. principle serves not for his purpose.  
Thirdly, I argued thus, Examen. part. 2. sect. 8. If we may frame an addition to God's worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us between two ordinances, whereof one is quite taken away, without any Institution gathered by precept or Apostolical example, than a certain rule may be set down from God's word how far a man may go in his conceived parity of reason equity or analogy, and where he must stay; For to use the words of the Author, whose book is entitled Grall●, if Christians must measure their worship according to the Institution and Ceremonies of the Jews, it is needful that either they imitate them in all things, or else that some O Oedipus resolve this riddle hitherto not resolved, to wit, what is moral and imitable in those Ceremonies, and what not. But out of God's word no rule can be framed to resolve us how far we must or may not go in this conceived parity of reason, equity, or analogy, Ergo. The major is evinced from the perfection of God's word, and the providence of God to have the consciences of his people rightly guided. The minor is proved by provoking those analogists that determine from the Commands about the Mosaical Rites and usages what must be done or may not be done about the mere positive worship and Church-order of the New Testament, to set down this rule out of God's word. This argument is confirmed by experience in the controversy between Presbyterians and Independents, jarring about the extent of Infant-baptism, the Elders in new England, Mr. Hooker, (besides Mr. ●irmin) Mr. Bartlet, etc. restraining it to the Infants of members joined in a Church gathered after the congregational way as it is called. Mr. Cawdrey, Mr. Blake, Mr. Rutherfurd and others extend it farther, master B. Plain scripture proof, etc. chap. 29. part 1. pag. 101. to all whosoever they be, if they be at a believers dispose. And both sides pretend analogy, which being uncertain, Mr. Ball after much debate about this difference, as distrusting analogy, determines thus in his reply to the answer of the new England Elders to the 9 posit. posit. 3. and 4 pag. 38. But in whatsoever Circumcision and Baptism do agree or differ (which is as much as to say, whatsoever their analogy or resemblance be) we must look to the Institution (therefore the Institution of each Sacrament must be our rule in the use of them, not analogy, and analogy is not sufficient to guide us without Institution, and to show that analogy serves not turn of itself to determine who are to be baptised, he adds) and neither stretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it, for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure, and it is our part to learn of him, both to whom, how, and for what end the Sacraments are to be administered, how they agree, and wherein they differ, in all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us, and as he hath taught us. Which how they cut the sinews of the argument from Circumcision to Baptism, without wrong to master Ball, is showed in my Apology, Sect. 13. pag. 57  
Mr. M. in his defence, pag. 83. Mr. Blake pag. 74, 75. of his answer to my letter, seem to deny, that Paedobaptists do frame an addition to God's worship from such analogy, the contrary whereof is manifest from the passages cited before. But Mr. Blake over and above, pag. 75. sets down three cautions, which being observed, than this kind of arguing from analogy and proportion is without any such pretended danger. The insufficieny of which cautions being showed in my Postscript to the Apology, Sect 17 pag. 143. I conceive it unnecessary to repeat my words, which the Reader may here find, and the vindication of them from what Mr. Blake opposeth in his vindiciae foederis, chap 42. follows in the nex: Section.  
4. I argued, that if this way of making rules binding men consciences in mere positive worship from analogy of the ceremonies or rites of the Old Testament, without institution in the New, be valid, than our Christian liberty from the Ceremonial Law is made void. For by this way of determining things as of God's appointment, by our conceived analogy, all or a great part of the Ceremonial Law may be put on our necks under pretence of analogy, and so the fruit of Christ's purchase of Christian liberty lost, and we in vain exhorted to stand fast in the liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free. For as Chillingworth once told Knot the Jesuit, if the Pope be made sole Judge of Centroversies, & infallible Expositor of Scripture, it will be in effect all one, as if he were allowed to make a new Scripture and Articles of faith; and tyranny may be introduced as well by arbitrary expounding, as well as by arbitrary making of laws: so in this case the bondage of Moses his law may be put on our necks, not only by those that say, it binds in the letter, but also by those that say, God's commands about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us in the analogy and proportion.  
5. This argument hath strength from the sad experience the Church hath formerly and of late had in yielding to these reasonings from analogy, in the many Canons of Popes and Prelates, heavily loading God's Church with rites and decrees about them, imposed from analogy of the Ceremonial Laws of Moses. The Constitutions of Popes, and Canons of Prelates, and the books of the maintainers of them expounding and defending their rituals, and liturgies, are full of them, to wit, rites about Priests, their Orders, Garments, Deuce, Festivals, Sacraments, Votaries, Religious houses, and such like, drawn from Mosaical Laws. It is a common complaint of Protestants and Antiprelatists, that in imitation of the Jews, under pretence of analogy, a new named judaism hath been brought into the Christian Church, and the reforming of them like Hercules his labour in cleansing Augias' his stable Some I have named in my Examen, part. 3. s. 9 more I might. In the Augustan Confession among the Articles of abuses, in the chapter of the Ecclesiastic power, it's the general complaint, that Popish writers made a worship in the New Testament, like the Levitical. I may use Mr. Bs' words in his Appendix to plain Scripture-proof, etc. pag. 302. And indeed if all that is not contrary to Scripture customs, and that man's vain wit can find reasonable from Scripture, must be admitted, and that upon equal authority with Scripture, if they do but take it for a tradition Apostolical, Then 1. it will set man's wit a work to make God a worship, or judge of the currantness of it, according to his reason; and one man will think it reasonable and another not. 2. And what a multitude of Ceremonies will this admit into the Church, to the burdening of men's consciences, and the polluting of God's worship? Is not this the door that the body of Popish trash came in at? and the Argument that hardeneth them in it, and hindereth their reformation to this day? And if you open this Gap, what a multitude of fopperies will rush in? Certainly by this means the Gospel hath been shadowed and repressed; no stint either hath been or could be put to the inundation of such impositions, as long as liberty hath been given under pretence of analogy with Jewish rites to add to the worship and discipline of the new Testament: but it hath happened according to Augustine's Complaint, Epist. 119. to januarius, that the state of the Jewish Church under Divine precepts hath been more tolerable, than the Christian burdened with humane presumptions. Ames Bell. enerv. tom. 3. lib. 1. cap. 8. th'. 15. Romanenses in suis ceremoniis partim imitati sunt Gentes, partim judaeos. th'. 17. Ceremoniae hujusmodi tollunt discrimen illud quod Deus voluit esse inter judaeos & Christianos, quia paedagogiam Iudaicae similem habent.  
6. If such Arguments from Analogy of Jewish rites abrogated may be valid to impose on men's consciences things about the worship of God, than Popes and Prelates are not only unblamable and justifiable in so doing, but also Protestants and Non-conformists will be unjustifiable in no yielding to them, but opposing them.  
Mr. Church Divine warrant of Infant-bapt. pag. 49. in answer to these three latter reasons, speaks thus. Arguing from the Jewish types for the Substance of those shadows, tends neither to an introducement of Judaisme, nor yet to a justification of the Quisquilian toys of the Papists: for it is neither arguing for the Ceremonies of the Jewish Church, nor for the fooleries of the Popish Synagogue, but for privileges which the faithful may expect by Christ, of which those ceremonis were prenunciative, and are ceased, not because they were evil, but because we have the substance and truth of them, which is much better, non quia damnata, sed quia in melius mutata, August.  
Answ. The objection was, Arguing from Circumcision for Baptism of infants, is the way to introduce Judaisme, and to subject the Church again to the whole burden of Jewish Ceremonies: Mr. Church's answer is, Arguing from the jewish types for the substance of those shadows, etc. Which answer is either merely impertinent, or else he conceives arguing from Circumcision for Baptism of infants to be arguing from the Jewish type for the substance of the shadow. Which if he stand to, than he must make Circumcision the type, and Baptism of infants the substance of Circumcision, which sure is not according to Scripture, which makes Christ the body, of which the ceremonies, and among them Circumcision, was a shadow, Col. 2. 17. Nor doth Mr. Church prove any thing that he saith, but vainly dictate, when he makes arguing for infant Baptism from Circumcision to be arguing for privileges which the faithful may expect by Christ, and makes Circumcision a ceremony prenunciative of infant Baptism; against which, and the whole way of arguing from the use of Jewish rites to Christian from analogy without other institution, I further reason.  
7. Protestant Divines do frequently deny the Jewish Sacraments to be types or figures of ours, Ames. Bellarm. ener. tom. 3. lib. 1. cap. 3. th'. 11. Sacramenta externa sunt figurae: figuras figurarum non instituit Deus, that they figured or represented Christ and his grace, not other Sacraments▪ Cap. 4. th'. 13. Absque ulla ratione asseritur circumcisionem fuisse figuram baptismi: sacramentum non est signum visibilis sacramenti, sed invisibilis gratiae. Therefore no right arguing by analogy from a Jewish rite to a Christian, which must suppose one to be a sign of the other, which is denied by them. Mr. Church his speech is vain, That the Apostle argues from the Sacrifices in the jewish Church, Rom. 12. 2. Heb. 13. 15. the offering of ourselves, and the sacrificing of praises, which he calls the calves of the lips, etc. For 1. the Apostle doth not argue at all, but only allusively calls the presenting of our bodies, and giving thanks, a sacrifice, and the calves of our lips, by reason of some resemblance: which if it be arguing In the use of every Metaphor there is arguing. 2. Were it arguing, yet it is not to the purpose, sith it is not any arguing from the use of one rite to another by analogy, but from a rite to a moral duty, to wit, devotion and thanksgiving. And when he adds, And from sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament to infants of God's people aforetime, may the sealing of the promise by the initial Sacrament to infants of Christians in this Dispensation be rightly argued; sealing the promise, being the substance of Circumcision and benefit intended by it: and such arguing hath no colour of setting up judaism, for arguing for the thing signified tends not to the introducement of antiquated Ceremonies, he doth but write at random. For if the reason of his assertion be pettinent, than he must hold, that sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament to infants of Christians in this Dispensation is the substance of circumcision and benefit intended by it. But it is either unintelligible to me in what sense the sealing of the promise by baptism to infants of Christians can be the substance of circumcision, and the benefit intended by it, or else it is very absurd.  
For than it will plainly follow, 1. That till infantbaptism of Christians, Circumcision was without its substance, and the benefit intended by it. 2. He makes infant baptism the thing signified by circumcision, and the substance of circumcision, and so one ceremony signifies, and is the substance of another. But however we judge of his unintelligible or absurd arguing, it appears not by his answer but that the way of arguing by analogy from circumcision to baptism, that is from the regulating our practice in a rite of the New Testament by a rite of the Old, as obliging our consciences, may and doth introduce Judaisme, and other evils, as was objected.  
Mr. Blake answer to my Letter, pag. 97. seems to put by this arguing of mine, by advising me to read over Bellermine, and tell him then whether his arguments to lay the Sacraments of the jews as low as types, and to extol the Sacraments of Christians as their antitypes, be not the self same that I and my party make use of to make so large a difference between circumcision and baptism. Protestants deny them indeed to be types, because they affirm they are in substance the same, our doctrine keeps us at a distance from Bellarmine, when you are in this reconciled to him, making the same differences as he doth between Circumcision and Baptism.  
Answ. Had M. Blake directed me to the place in Bellarmine, he would have me seriously read over, I should have done it. But now not well knowing what place in Bellarmine he would have me read, and the reading him all over, and that seriously, being a very tedious task, I do not gratify M. Blake in his request: But to what he saith, I reply, I put sundry differences between Circumcision and Baptism in my Examen, part 3. sect. 9 which Mr. M. his Defence doth not show to be false. If they, or any other I make, be the same with Bellarmine's, and yet true, Mr. Blake doth causelessly except against me for agreeing with Bellarmine; sure it is no matter of blame to agree with the Devil himself in the truth, it is no evil to believe there is one God, because the Devils do so, James 2. 19 But how this should reconcile me to Bellarmine in that which I except against him, that he makes the Jews Sacraments Types of ours, is to me unintelligible. 2. Dr. Ames his words show, that therefore he denied that Circumcision was the figure or type of Baptism, because a Sacrament is not a sign of a visible Sacrament, but of invisible grace, and that God hath not appointed figures of figures, or types of types, but types of some body or substance. The reason M. Blake gives why they are not types, because they are in substance the same, I know not what Protestants do give, whoever they be that do say so, in my apprehension, either they speak nonsense, or false. Sacraments being nothing but actions used to some ends, according to appointment, what substance they should have, but the actions and the use, I understand not. Now that the actions are not the same, it is manifest, cutting off a little skin, killing, roasting▪ eating a lamb, being not the same with washing the body with water, and breaking and eating bread, and drinking wine; and for their end and use it is certain, however they may agree in some things, yet those being generals, and accompanied with more differences in their end and use both general and particular, it may be with greater reason denied, that they are the same in substance, than averred that they are: And arguments drawn from the one to the other concerning their use, are from things unlike, as much as like, yea denied by the users to be types, figures or signs, the one of the other, and therefore cannot infer a parity in the thing questioned, without institution.  
8. The ceremonies of the Jews are now not only mortal, but dead, buried, and deadly, according to the received Doctrine; yea, some condemn not only the use of them formally, but also materally; Rutherford Divine right of Church-Government, Introd. sect. 1. pag. 8. saith, It is a false ground of the Prelates, that Circumcision, a Passeover Lamb, and all the Jewish ceremonies, though with another endand intention than to shadow forth Christ to come in the flesh, are indifferent. Riu. on Exod, 20. Walaeus are cited by Mr. Cawdrey, Sab. Red. part. 4. c. 1. pag. 527. to the same purpose; therefore not to be revived, no not in Effigy by following any rule about them, as by Analogy, or proportion between them and ours, without like institution binding us.  
9 Arguments from Analogy in positive rites, without institution in the New Testament, except God declare either by general rule, or particular example he allows such Arguments, are but humane inventions, as not being from the Spirit of God, (for that speaks only in the word about Doctrines, but from man's reason: But such are the Arguments drawn from a positive rite of the Old Testament now abrogated, to regulate our practice in the Sacraments of the New, as obliging our consciences. Therefore they are against the second Commandment in the Decalogue, our Saviour's words Mat. 15. 9 In vaiu do they worship me, teaching for Doctrines men's Precepts; it is tyranny and usurpation in them that impose them, and violation of their liberty, forbidden by the Apostle, Col. 2. 20. in them that submit to them. Davenant exhort. to brotherly commuunion, ch. 1. tells us, that Luther wisely admonisheth us, that in matters surmounting the capacity of humane reason, we beware of Etymologies, Analogies, Consequences and Examples.  
10. Arguments from conceived Analogy, are but Arguments from that which is like, not the same: But such are but weak things. Proportions are weak probations, said M. Rutherford, Due right of Presbyt. ch. 2. sect. 2. pag. 37. Chamier Panstr. Cath. tom. 1. lib. 9 c. 10. s. 47. Deinde sunt hujus generis conclusiones magis verisimiles quam necessariae nisi nitantur Diser to Dei verbo. Oxford Convocat. reasons against the Covenant, pag. 27. The Arguments à minore and à majore are subject to many fallacies, and inless there be a parity of reason in every requisite respect between he things compared, will not hold good: They do illustrate rather than prove; and therefore they that assert that Poedobaptism si fully determined in the old Testament, where they have nothing but analogy from Circumcision, and the Jewish Church state, what ever their confidence be, do but show their weakness. I shall now examine what Master Blake saith in answer to my Arguments, and then what Mr. B. brings for his speech above recited.   

SECT. III.  
Mr. Blakes plea for arguments from analogy in mere positive rites of the old Testament, and Mr. Bs. speech about infantadmission as determined in it, are refelled.  
MAster Blake Vindic. Foederis ch. 42. sect. 2. speaking of me saith. And to this end he sets himself, First to dispute down all Arguments à pari, all whatsoever that are grounded on parity of reason, or analogy and proportion. This he speaks to in his Examen pag. 28. And I may here fitly refer the Reader to that which I have written chap. 10. sect. 4. of my answer to M. T. only in a few words viudicate it from his exceptions against it in his Apology, page 140.  
And page 308. he saith, The Reader will hereafter find me reasoning with my full strength against the force of all Arguments à pari.  
Answ. It is not true, That I set myself to dispute down all arguments à pari, all whatsoever that are grounded on parity of reason, or analogy and proportion. For 1 in the place cited Examen pag. 28, 29. I do expressly levelly my arguing against arguments from analogy only in positive instituted worship consisting in outward rites, such as Circumcision, Baptism, and the Lords Supper are, which have nothing moral or natural in them, but are in whole and part cetemonial. 2. I do dispute against all such arguments, not as brought to illustrate or confirm a thing otherwise proved from institution, but when they are brought to infer Divine institutions and commands obligatory of men's consciences. I had said Exam. part. 2. s. 8. pag. 29. To me it is a dangerous principle upon which they go that so argue, to wit, that in mere positive things (such as Circumcision and Baptism are) we may frame an addition to God's worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us between two ordinances, whereof one is quite taken away, without institution gathered by precept or Apostolical example. Mr. Blake answer to my letter pag. 74 asks who those be? I told him that he did Birth-privilege pag. 15. (I should have said 14) and I mean those words, upon this ground (the Covenant) Infants under the Law were Circumcised, and upon the same ground Infants are now to be Baptised: by the grounds of both Circumcision and Baptism we enforce the Baptism of Infants: what is objected against one concludes against both: Circumcision and Baptism are therefore by the Apostle promiscuously taken; there being the same principal and main end of both. But he saith now Vindic. foederis pag. 373. In my whole discourse I did studiously avoid arguments drawn barely from analogy, so that we may see how willing Mr. T. is to quarrel, and how loath to speak truth.  
Answ. There was nothing but truth and fair arguing in my Apology pag. 142. For though Mr. B. denies his argument to be barely from the analogy between Circumcision and Baptism, by which he hid enforce the Baptism of Infants, yet his arguing from the grounds of both, without institution gathered by precept, or Apostolical example, is barely from analogy. Analogy or proportion I neither did imagine nor conceive Mr. B. made in the likeness, resemblance, or evenness in the ritual part of Circumcision and Baptism, that is the cutting off the skin, or the washing the body, as if he did argue, Infants had a skin cut off, therefore Infants are to be washed with water: But the analogy I conceive made by him between them, is in the supposed parity of reason, taken from (as he calls them) the grounds of both, secluding institution, as my words show, Examen pag. 29. and postscript pag. 142. now this Mr. B. doth in the words cited, arguing from the Covenant, the same principal and main end of both, and thence dictating what is objected against one concludes against both, and asserting (though falsely) that Circumcision and Baptism are therefore by the Apostle promiscuously taken, and mentions not the distinct institution of Infant-baptism from Infantcircumcision, but as if he counted them the same, yea as if he meant them all one, imposeth on the Apostle as if he took Baptism and Circumcision promiscuously: wherein he argues from bare analogy (if not identity) between them without institution. And therefore I do still charge him with arguing according to that principle, which he saith, is as dangerous to him as to me. But he hath yet another shift.  
In case, saith he, I had by analogy with Circumcision made proof of Infant's title to Baptism, it would not have freed him from calumny, seeing it is no addition to worship, Baptism is worship as Circumcision was, this is but a demonstration of the latitude and extent of it.  
Answ. There is no calumny in it. For he adds to God's worship who doth make something worship of God, which he hath not appointed, as Non-Conformists did argue in their Negative argument against the Bishop's Ceremonies from Deut. 4. 2. and though the Conformists did allow some addition to God's worship in indifferent ceremonies, yet they agreed that to make any such addition as necessary binding the conscience, or part of God's worship, specially when it is in things determined by institution, was unlawful. Now God hath appointed expressly disciples or believers in Christ to be baptised, Mat. 28. 19 Mark 16. 16. and no other, and this is his instituted worship; he then who baptizeth Infants who are not disciples or believers, and doth this as God's worship, doth add to the worship having no institution gathered by precept or Apostolical example: nor doth he demonstrate, but devise a latitude and extent of the worship of his own head, or worship's God after the precepts of men. As for the words, it is no addition to worship, Baptism i● worship as Circumcision was, they seems to intimate, if there be any reason in them, than Infantbaptism is no addition to worship, because Baptism is worship as Circmcision was, which imports, that there could be no addition to worship in adding to Baptism, because it is worship as Circumcision was, whereas the reason is better to the contrary, that it being not commanded Infant baptism is addition to worship, because Baptism is worship as circumcision was.  
Mr. Blake goes on. It runs in Mr. T. his head that we go about to find not a Baptism-institution, but an Infant-baptism-institution, and that barely by analogy from Circumcision. This I confess were a wild undertaking.  
Answ. 'tis true, I did think Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 44. when he said, Baptism was instituted long before (that command Mat. 28. 19) to be the seal of the Covenant, had sought its institution from Gen. 17: and in his Defence I find not that which might take me off from that conceit. And it still runs in my head that Mr. Blake must either find not only a Baptism-institution, but also an Infant-baptism-institution, or else we must yield Infant-baptism a corruption of that ordinance, whether it be called will-worship, or profaning it, or what other sin that corruption be termed. As he that will acquit prayer to Saints, or for the dead, from corruption, must find not only an institution of prayer, but also of prayer to Saints and for the dead; he that will acquit Infant-communion, Bell-baptism, etc. from corruption, must find not only an institution of the Communion and Baptism, but also of Infant-communion and Bell-baptism. I agree, that it were a wild undertaking to go about to find an institution of Infant-baptism, especially Gen. 17. because it is not to be found there, or in any other part of holy Scripture, and yet I think Paedobaptists do go about to find an institution of Infant-baptism, and that barely by analogy from Circumcision, as I show before, and therefore by Mr. Blakes own censure their attempt is a wild undertaking.  
He adds. Neither I nor Mr. T. to help me, can find an Infant-circumcision-institution. If he instances Gen. 17. 12. He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every manchild in your generations; I say that is no institution of Circumcision, but a subsequent directory for the particular day (according to the Pedagogy of those times) when the person was to be circumcised. The institution we find not with restriction to infancy, but in that latitude as to comprise males of any age, v. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy s●●d after thee, every manchild among you shall be circumcised. Mr. T. knows very well, that by manchild only the s●x and not the growth is distinguished, omnis mas, as Junius and Tremellius, every male, as Anisworth reads it; If that after directory had not followed, they might have circumcised (as we baptise) infants upon any day at our best conveniences. This is plain in the text, and may be further cleared; if the institution itself be with that limit of time to the eighth day, than it had been their sin (according to Mr. Tombs, the sin of will-worship) in case that time through negligence had slipped, to have circumcised them another day, as it was for a man unclean, or in a journey on the 14th day of the first month (the time appointed for the passover) to observe it any other day, till God appointed the 14th day of the second month for such occasions, Num. 9 6, 7, 8. But that they had their liberty by virtue of the institution to circumcise any other day, when that was over, is clear in the text, and may be farther made plain, that Abraham so understood it by his circumcising of Ishmael at 13 years, which had been without warrant, had there been an institution only for children of eight days; when God was displeased at Moses his neglect of the Circumcision of his Son, Exod. 4. 24. yet he was pleased that he was after circumcised v. 26. So that as there was an institution in Old-Testament-times, for all males in Covenant without difference of age; so there is in New-Testament times an institution of Baptism for all in Covenant without difference of age or sex.  
Answ. Mr. Blake saith, neither he nor I to help him can find an Infant-circumcision-institution, and yet he himself finds, Gen. 17. 10. an institution in that latitude, as to comprise males of any age: if there be an institution to circumcise males of any age, than there is an institution to circumcise male infants, who are of some age. And therefore it seems to me a wild speech of Mr. B. to deny the finding of an institution of Infant-circumcision, when he himself sets down the institution of it within a few lines of those words. But he conceives it no institution of circumcision Gen. 12. 10. To which I say, Be it subsequent directory, or what ever else he will call it, Mr. Blake might easily perceive by my words, Examen pag. 28, 29. and elsewhere, I take the word institution for any appointment by precept, command or example approved, either express, or gathered by good consequence; if any of these ways an institution of Infant-baptism can be showed out of the New Testament without the analogy of Circumcision, I should not make any doubt of it, and therefore it is but unnecessary wrangling which he useth about the word [institution]. Let him show any subsequent directory for Infant-baptism, as is for Infant-circumcision without the analogy of Circumcision▪ and I am satisfied. Yet to show the vanity of his speeches and arguings I shall a little scan them, He denies an institution of Infant-circumcision, Gent. 17. 10. he saith, it is but asubsequent directory for the particular day.  
Answ. Ausonius Popma de differ. verborum l. 3. Institutines sunt praecepia, quibus docentur homines atque instituuntur. In this general acception a directory is an institution. But were it taken strictly for a command establishing that ●ite, surely v. 12. not only the particular day was appointed, but the person also, to wit, the Infant of eight days old among Abraham's people, and all the verses 10 11, 12, 13, 14. together are termed sanctio circumcisionis, by Pareus in his Commentary. But we find not the institution with restriction to Infancy, saith Mr. Blake. Ans. True, nor did I ever say the institution was restrained to Infancy, or that there was an institution only for children of eight days, nor do I deny that the precept Gen. 17. 10. was more general than that it should be restrained to the eighth day: yet v. 12. the circumcising of infants was limited to the eighth day. Mr. Cawdrey Sabb. rediu. part. 1. pag. 135. For some particular occasions of worship, God was pleased of old to determine some time exclusively, as the eighth day from the birth of a child for Circumcision, and the eighth day for the sacrificing of the firstling males of cattle, neither sooner nor later. Nor do there want those among Protestant Divines, who make it unlawful to do it before or after but will-worship, except in cases of necessity, as in the wilderness, etc. in which case the rule holds, God will have mercy and not sacrifice, and the thing might be done afterwards, as in the circumcision of those who were born in time of their travel in the wilderness. But to have altered the time of a man's own motion, without such necessity, had been will-worship, as it was charged on Jeroboam 1 Kings 12. 33. that he sacrificed in the month he had devised of his own heart. What Mr. Blake saith, there is in the New-Testament-times an institution of baptism for all in Covenant, without difference of age or sex, is false, except by being in Covenant he understand, not being in Covenant by Gods promise only, or others faith, or undertaking for them, but by their own act of Covenanting, that is engaging themselves in their own persons by their, own act to be Christ's Disciples or believers in him, there being no institution in the New Testament times of baptising any other than Disciples or Believers in Christ. Mr. Blake adds. I instanced in the Apostles argument from analogy for Minister's maintenance, 1 Cor. 9 9 1 Tim. 5. 18. Mr. Tombs answers, The Apostle doth not by bare analogy conclude Ministers maintenance, but from the Lords ordinance; He does conclude it then (by his confession) from analogy, though not barely from analogy. Neither have any one of Mr. 'tis Antagonists concluded Infant baptism barely from analogy of Circumcision. There are other arguments which wait for his answer, so that this instance stands.  
Answ. My Confession was not, that the Apostle argued from any such analogy as Paedobaptists conclude Infants-baptism from, to wit, the 
To Mr. Fisher, urging 1 Cor. 9 10. for an equity of the Geremonial Law to prove Christmas, Mr. Collings Caveat p. 77. saith. The Apostle indeed 1 Cor. 9 10. urgeth the equity of that piece of the Law, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox, &c▪ but I never took that for a piece of the Ceremonial, but for a piece of the Judicial Law.  rule of Circumcision, thus, Circumcision was appointed to Infants in Covenant, therefore Baptism is appointed to Infants in Covenant, they having the same main and principle end to seal the Covenant of grace (which is Mr. Blakes own arguing) which is from a ceremonial rite of the Old Testament to a ceremonial rite of the New, without precept or example of Christ or his Apostles. For 1. The Apostles argument 1 Cor. 9 9 seems not to me to be from analogy, but a testimony explained. So Mr. Dicson in his Com. Arg. 3. a testimonto legis de pabulo bovi trituranti dando: quod ostendit dictum esse in gratiam omnium laborantium in aliorum usum, potissimum in ministerio. Diodati, The end of God's Law is not to show how cattle should be fed, but to command equity to be used in just rewarding of those who labour for us. Mr. Blake himself vindic▪ foederis pag. 406. Thirdly he argues from the command of the Law: 2. If it be from any analogy, it is in things that have a parity of equity, and so it is in moral things, which are perpetual, not in mere positive rites. 3. It is an analogy which the Apostle delivered to us, not analogy made by men not guided by an infallible spirit, as is the inference of Paedobaptism from Circumcision, and therefore is not of force to oblige men's consciences▪ I have showed before that the Paedobaptists main argument is barely from such analogy, and for other arguments waiting for mine answer, either they are answered before sufficiently, o● God assisting, will have answer in this Review. Mr. Blakes arguments vindic. foede. ch. 43. sect. 1. require no longer answer. The first is the same with Mr. Bs. second. And the Major is to be denied, if by [unless order be given to the contrary] be meant of order given to the contrary in formal positive terms, such as this, Thou shalt nor baptise Infants. If it be meant of order given to the contrary, either in express formal prohibitive terms, or equipollent, the Minor is to be denied.  
In the second the Major is to be denied, and in like manner the third, distinguishing the term [holy] In the fourth both the Major and the Minor, and so likewise the fifth, explaining the term [church privileges▪] In the sixth the Major is to be denied if understood of the invisible Kingdom of God only, if of the visible, the Minor is to be denied: In the other two additionals, the Major if universal is to be denied, and the Minor is true of infants of unbelievers as well as believers.  
And for the last Argument the matter is as easily answered as the form. For the Major, Those that are to be saved are to be added to the Church by baptism, Act▪ 2. 47. is to be limited by the text v. 41. thus [when they willingly receive the word] If no larger answer be given Mr. B. to these arguments, yet this will be enough to show they are without much difficulty answerable. Mr. Bs. proofs likewise, God assisting, shall have fuller answer than they deserve, though were it not for his own and others conceits of his writings for infant-baptism, I should think it lost time to bestow it in an exact examination of his inconsiderable dictates.  
As for the present instance of M. B. of the Apostles arguing from analogy, he may see it now fallen, and so likewise the next, of which he speaks thus.  
I instanced in the Apostles arguing 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. he makes it good that partaking together of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, we are made one Ecclesiastical body, by way of Analogy with the like in the sacrifices of the Jews, yea in the sacrifices of the Gentiles; to which Mr. T. says, this argument is to prove, that they which profess Christ may not partake of the things of Idols. From this general truth, that they which join in the service of any God, they hold Communion with that God, and are one with those that worship that God; this the Apostle proves by instances in the Christian and Jewish services. So that this argument is from a genoral truth proved by induction of instances. Mr. T. mistakes, the Apostle takes no such general truth for granted, but affirms that we are one body at the Lords table, which he first proves by analogy in the instances mentioned, and then concludes thence against communion with Idols; That which the Apostle disputes he l●ies down, but we have not these words in the text.  
Answ. There is no mistake in my Analysis of the Apostles words. He had v. 14. warned them of Idolatry, to wit in going with the Infidels to their Idol feasts, and to make them more heedful of what he said he prefaceth, v. 19 And then argues: not thus, they that partake of the Lords Supper are made one Ecclesiastical body by way of analogy with the like in the sacrifices of the Jews, yea in the sacrifices of the Gentiles; For then the conclusion to be proved should be, we are one body Ecclesiastical at the Lords table, and the sacrifices of the Gentiles should be the medium to prove it, which had been ursi for such a proof, nor in any passage of the Apostle is used to that end. For how inept an Argument had this been, the Gentiles in their sacrifices had communion with the Idol, therefore they that partake of the Lords Supper are made one body Ecclesiastical? Nor would the proof be much otherwise if it were thus (as Mr. Blake makes it) we are one body Ecclesiastical who partake of the Lords Supper, therefore in Gentile sacrifices we communicate with Idols. And me thinks there is a circle in this proof, by the Gentiles sacrifices to prove we are one body Ecclesiastical in the Lord's Supper, and thence to prove we communicate with Idols in Gentile sacrifices. But the scope of the Apostle appears by the words, v. 14. and v. 19, 20, 21. evidently to be the dissuading them from the Idol-feasts on their sacrifices, because they had therein fellowship with the Idol, did partake of its cup and table, and so with Devils v. 20, 21. which had been an argument in concludent, were it not thus made, To have fellowship with the Idol is evil to be avoided by Christians, as being Communion with Devils. But to partake of the thing offered to Idols is to have fellowship with the Idol. Ergo, The Minor, which alone is proved, rests on this general maxim, They have fellowship with a true or supposed Deity, who partake of his service, and this the Apostle proves to be true by the instances of the Christians and the Israelites, v. 16, 17, 18. I know sundry Protestant Expositors make the argument to be thus, Ye may not partake of the Idol banquets, because ye are partakers of the Lords supper. But I conceive this not right: For v. 16, 17. the Apostles medium is not from the matter of fact what they did, or duty what they were to do, but from the tendence of their action in common construction and interpretation of the end and use of such actions, which did show they had Communion in the body of Christ. Which is clearly proved from v. 18. where the Apostle allegeth the Israelites partaking of their altar to the same purpose to which he had used the former, v. 16, 17. now the Christians neither did nor were to partake then of the Jewish altar, and it is not a reason from their fact or duty▪ but only from that wherein Christians breaking bread, Jews and Gentiles eating of their sacrifices did agree, that these actions testified their fellowship with that Lord for whom these services were performed. And therefore by Piscator, Dicson, and others, the argument is thus framed, Israelites by eating of the sacrifices testified they were professors and partakers of the Jewish religion, therefore they that eat of Idol sacrifices, they testify that they Communicate with Idolaters in their idolatry: Yea Mr. Blake himself in his answer to my Letter pag. 74. doth plainly acknowledge the Apostles argument to be from a general maxim common to all religious service, when he saith, yea he further makes it good (that which he concluded before) in the words following, even from the Heathen, it is of the nature of religious worship, whether true or false, to make those of one body (as I may say) religious that partake of them. Whence it is apparent that it is not an argument to prove any duty in a Christian rite of the New Testament from the ceremonial law, sith it is by his own confession even from the Gentiles sactifices, which sure by analogy or resemblance being altogether forbidden, cannot make us a rule in Christian mere positive worship, and therefore there is no such argument in the Apostles speech from analogy, as I oppugn.  
Mr. Blake yet adds. I instanced in Christ's defence of his disciples from the charge of the Pharisees, Mat. 12. 3, 4. by analogy and proportion of the like in David. Mr. T. answers, that is only an instance to prove that sacrifice must give place to mercy, a ceremonial to a moral duty, not an argument from mere analogy or resemblance of things different. He proves that truth then by analogy, if not by mere analogy, and he tells us of no other thing that is joined to help it out, and make it an argument complete. To these, abundance more might be added.  
Answ. It is enough to show this instance impertinent, in that it is not from such analogy as is used to prove Infant-baptism by Infant-circumcision; Thus it was in a rite in the old Testament upon this ground, Ergo, it must be so in a rite of the New Testament, because the same pretended ground remains other than God's command or institution: which I called mere analogy in mere positives without a distinct command about each rite. As for my exposition it was right, that Christ allegeth David's fact as an instance, that ceremonials give place to morals, and sacrifice to mercy, as appears by v. 7. And hence in giving rules about exposition of the Decalogue usually from this passage a rule is drawn, that ceremonials give place to morals, sacrifice to mercy. Sure I am, neither here, nor any where else in Scripture is there found such an argument as this, Thus it was in a ceremony of Moses Law, therefore thus is must be in a rite or ceremony of the New Testament.  
Mr. Blake proceeds thus. Upon Mr. T. his desire of rules how far we may go in this parity of reason, and himself allowing this way of reasoning in morals, which in many cases might be singularly useful and very helpful in this particular; he is yet silent, we may then keep our way of reasoning without rules, as well as he his; I yet gave in mine, which he epitomizes, and gives in to the Reader by the halves. To whom in the first place I might apply that of the Poet, Carpere vel noli nostra, vel ede tua.  
Answ. There was no reason I should set down rules about reasoning from analogy in morals, how useful soever they might be. For 1. though I said in my Examen pag. 28. for that which is natural or moral in worship an institution or command in the old Testament is allowed as obligatory to Christians, yet I did not say, that in morals a man may reason as Paedobaptists reason in ceremonials, This was a duty or sin in the Old Testament, therefore another thing is a duty or sin in the New Testament (which was not in the old also) by imagined parity of reason, as my words Postscript sect. 17. import. 2 Neither is it necessary to set down any other rules than what either Logicians set down in the Topics about arguments à comparatis, or Divines give in the expounding the Decalogue. 3. If any more were requisite, yet it would have been to draw me into a dispute on the by, to fall on that point in that place. 4. If it had been fit for me to do it, yet at that time I had no leisure, the Postscript being written when my Apology was almost printed, as I say in the Postscript sect. 1. which is also a reason why I did not set down all his words about his rules in my Postscript sect. 17. which he calls epitomizing of them, and giving in to the Reader by halves, when the rules were as fully delivered by me as himself, and only the applications and amplifications omitted, nor doth he show wherein I have omitted any thing of the strength of them. But whereas Mr. Blake saith, he may keep up his way of reasoning without rules, as well as I mine, he doth untruly suggest that I keep up any way of reasoning without rules; my way of reasoning is such as the Apostle used 1 Cor. 11. 23. and best Divines court certain, to take that only as of God's appointment in mere positive ceremonies of the New Testament, which is gathered by Christ or the Apostles, precept or example, in the New Testament. Pareus Comment▪ in Mat. 26. 26. quicquid igitur Dominus Jesus hic instituit atque praecepit necessariò est observandum, nec omittendum, quicquid non instituit nec praecepit non est quasi necessarium huic sacramento ob●rudendum sed rejiciendum. Hinc videam illi qui fractionem panis à Domino institutam omittunt vel damnans. Which doubtless is as true concerning Baptism, Mat. 28. 19 Jus Divinum Eccl. regiminis by London Ministers, part▪ 2. ch. 10. pag. 99 The power of Church government is not natural but positive. Therefore all such power claimed or exercised without such positive grant is merely fine ti●ulo, & ipso facto null and void. And for his way of reasoning without rules, to wit, to argue thus, It was so in a mere positive ceremony of the old Testament now abolished upon this conceived reason, Ergo, it must be in like sort in another ceremony of the new Testament, which is conceived to have in part the same use, if he kept it up, it will condemn the reformation of many Popish and Prelatical ceremonies, and justify the retaining of them.  
The thing I required in my Examen pag. 29. was this, I desire any learned man to set me down a rule from God's Word, how far I may go in my conceived parity of reason, equity or analogy (to wit, in mere positive things to frame an addition to God's worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us between two ordinances, whereof one is taken away, without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolical example) and where I must stay; when it will be superstition and will-worship, when not, when my conscience may be satisfied, when not.  
Mr. Blake, Vindic. foed. pag. 375. says of me. Take them as he lays them down Apolog. pag. 142. 1. When parity of reason or analogy doth not institute any piece of worship, or the least part of the service of God, but only help to a right understanding of the nature, use and extent of that which is instituted. 2. When in our reasoning from analogy for the right understanding of any institution or ordinance, we do not rest solely on the analogy with other commands, but have our further reason for confirmation. 3. When the analogy holds full proportion in that for which it is brought, so that nothing can fairly be brought against the one, but may be also concluded against the other. Against these rules he takes three exceptions, 1. That never a one of these rules is brought out of God's Word, for there is neither declaration of such rule, nor example to prove it. The first rule I thus illustrated, Ainsw. pag. 76. You find nothing in Scripture for excommunication of women, yet we find in the old Testament Miriam shut out of the Camp, Num. 12. 14. and in all penalties for transgression, in Scriptures we find no regard had of distinction of sex, and by consequence it is not to be denied, that women offending are within this censure. Mr. T. magisterially answers, The proving of excommunicating of women from Miriams' shutting out of the Camp, Num. 12. 14. is not a Scripture Collection, but a mere device of men. If there be no such thing as excommunication in the New Testament (as Mr. T. says pag. 92. and unsaies pag. 93.) then I confess what he says, but if there be such an institution (which here is not a time to examine, as I am sure there is of Baptism) than it may be evinced from that place that it reacheth to both sexes. Mr. T. would have us to proceed by alterable rules of prudence. This prudence as may be inferred, is to reach to both sexes.  
Answ. My answer notwithstanding this reply stands good. For 1. He brings not any declaration or example where the Holy Ghost argues thus, Excommunication extends to women, because Miriam was shut out of the Camp, Num. 12. 14. It is true, the Anti-Erastians, as Rutherfurd Divine right of Church-government, c. 7. q. 3. attempt to prove that separating from the congregregation for leprosy typified Christian excommunication, and thence Mr. Blake would prove Excommunication of women. But neither is any other than an humane device, it cannot be proved, that only scandalous sin answers to leprosy; original sin or sins of thoughts may as well be conceived to be signified by it, and separating from the congregation may as well typify exclusion from heaven, as removal from the visible Church, yea more agreeable to the end, sith putting out of the Camp was not for amendment as excommunication was. That excommunication which the Scripture in the New Testament mentions as belonging to Christians, I grant is to be of women as well as men, but we need not run to the Old Testament to prove it, 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. 2 Thess. 3. 6. 14. 2 Tim 3. 5. prove it. If that Rev. 2. 20, belong to excommunication, a woman is in express terms made liable to it. I agree with Mr. Blake, In all penalties for transgression in Scripture we find no regard had of distinction of sex, and by consequence it is not to be denied, that women offending are within this censure: so that by his own grant we need not run to analogy from ejecting the L●per, to prove excommunicating of women▪ It is not true, that 〈…〉 d unsay: my words are plain, distinguishing juridical Excommunication of superious from social, granting this latter, though demurring about the former. I have showed my meaning plainly in the Addition of my Apology sect. 17. 19 in my letter to Mr. Robert Baillee of Scotland; what Mr. Blake holds in this point I cannot well tell. Some conference I had with him in London made me doubtful whether he were not somewhat of Erastus his judgement in this point; here he doth not say there is an institution of Excommunication as he is sure there is of Baptism. But I deny if there be an institution of excommunition that it may be evinced from Num. 12. 14. that it reacheth both sexes, much less that any precept may be thence gathered as obliging Christians in the use of excommunication: If there were a rule thence obliging, it would follow that excommunication is to be but seven days, and then the excommunicate to be received in again. What I said of ordering things by alterable rules of prudence is expressly meant of things concerning which we have not precise direction from God's Word, which I suppose Mr. Blake will not deny to be true, though he is pleased to mention it, as if it were mine and not his tenant.  
He saith further. I brought an instance not for a proof of itself, but illustration of another proof from Divines arguing against nonresidence from Ezek. 44. 8. This (he says) is good after other arguments, but of itself is not convincing. Such arguments than are of validity when aright placed and marshaled orderly, I hope this of mine then is of force, it is not in the van but brings up the rear.  
Answ. What I acknowledged, that the argument was good after other arguments, I mean to illustrate, not to prove, nor would I deny an argument from Circumcision of infants good to illustrate Baptism of infants, if it were before proved from precept or Apostolical example, manifested in express assertion, or deduced by good consequences. But the most of Paedobaptists make the argument from Circumcision their Achilles, and by their texts, and confession of a Committee of them, it was the main, if not the only argument in the Assembly. Mr. Bs arguments he puts in the van are no better, as is briefly showed, Postscript, sect. 2. etc. Yet for the text Ezek. 44. 8. upon better consideration it seems not fit to illustrate a proof against nonresidence, sith the sin there charged was not leaving the Temple themselves, but admitting at the will of the Prince other than of the Tribe of Levi to be in God's sanctuary, Num. 18. 4. yea even the uncircumcised, and thereby God's holy things were profaned, and idolatry brought in. And therefore the observation of the New Annot. of the second edition is, that unlawful Ministers, false in doctrine, soul in life, are not to be admitted but ejected. But for Mr. Blakes rule, there is no one text brought out of God's Word to prove it, that we may argue from analogy, so as to infer a duty from an use in mere positive worship of the Old Testament now abolished in the use of a rite of the New, without any other precept in the New Testament, when we do not institute thence any piece of worship, or the least part of the service of God, but only make it a help to a right understanding of the nature, use and extent of that which is instituted. Yea this rule seems to me to speak inconsistencies, For he supposeth that analogy may not institute any piece of worship, or the least part of the service of God, yet allows direction from analogy in the nature, extent and use of that which is instituted; whereas the nature, use and extent being the chief part, or the very service itself, and are determined in the institution Mat. 28. 19 if we may take direction from our conceived analogy in them, we may not only institute a piece of worship, or the least part of the service of God (which Mr. Blake denies) but also the main part, yea the very service itself, which hath no greater parts than the nature, use and extent. So that Mr. Blakes first rule, denying the use of analogy in the least part of God's service, yet allowing it in the nature, use and extent of that which is instituted, is but a rule destroying in one part, what is built up in the other.  
He adds further. The second and third rules he says are not set down from any declaration or example in the Scripture. I desire him at his leisure to look again, and he may see the second rule confirmed from the Apostles way of thus arguing, 1 Cor. 9 and the Lord Christ's Mat. 12. The third is confirmed by that reasoning of Christ with the Pharisees before mentioned, compared with our reasoning with Antipaedobaptists.  
Answ. I have looked again, and I say still these are impertinently alleged by Mr. B. as being not one of them from such analogy as Mr. B. maintains and I deny, as I have before showed, and for Antipaedobaptists reasonings, they are the fairest that can be, keeping close to the confessed institution of Christ, and practice of the Apostles, and there is this objection which is fairly brought against Infant-baptism, that there is no command or example for it in Scripture, which cannot be brought against Infant circumcision, and for the hypotheses of Paedobaptists from the Covenant, seal, succession to circumcision, etc. there is not one of them true, as God willing shall be showed in the process of this Review.  
Mr. Blake goes on, His second exception is, These are very uncertain. For no reason is given, why they may not make a new worship, who may by their analogy extend it beyond the institution in the New Testament. This very well answers Mr. T. his ingenuity, to which I may reply by way of retortion, why may not Mr. T. as well deny an institution and destroy it, as well as curtail that which is instituted? we shall be able to make it good, that he curtails Christ's institution in the New Testament, cutting off many Churchmembers in Covenant; he shall never be able to prove that we extend it by analogy or otherwise beyond the institution.  
Answ. That exception of mine did very well agree with ingenuity, and it might have stood better with Mr. Bs. ingenuity, to have taken the exception as sufficient to invalidate his rule, than to have made this taunting reply. The answer had no fault, but that it was a little more modest than might have stood with truth. For 1. I might have said truly, not only that no reason is given, but also that no reason can be given, why they may not make a new worship, who may by their analogy extend it beyond the institution in the New Testament. For their analogy being a mere humane invention, if they have authority to enlarge the ordinance, they have authority to make a new worship; the Papists if they have authority to appoint Baptising of bells, they have authority to appoint the Sign of the Cross, for the same end for which baptism was; the same authority which serves for the one, serves for the other. Yea, if the analogy direct in the nature, use and extent of an instituted worship, what doth it else but make a new worship? And that it may be seen how dangerous it is to follow Mr. Blakes rule, I would have it considered how we shall avoid justifying the Popish mass, if we stick to it. He allows analogy in the understanding of the nature or use of an instituted worship, the Lords Supper is an instituted worship, and it is conceived it succeeds the Passeover, as Baptism Circumcision; if then by the analogy of Circumcision we may gather the use of Baptism, we may in like manner from the analogy of the Passeover, gather the use of the Lords Supper. It is certain from he Apostles words, 1 Cor. 5. 7. For Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us, that the Passeover was a sacrifice and such a sacrifice as resembled Christ, and therefore propitiatory▪ and then by analogy the use of the Lords Supper is so too, which is the chief point whereby the popish mass is established. The very self same rule will prove the Ministers of the Gospel, who succeed the Priests of the Law, and by analogy from whom, according to Mr. Blake, the Apostle reasoneth, 1 Cor. 9 13, 14, will be proved sacrificing Priests, if as Mr. Blake saith, analogy may direct us in the use of an instituted ordinance. 2. I say Mr. Blake doth by his analogy according to his first rule, allow the making a new worship▪ For the worship is not the same, but a new worship, when though the same element be used, yet the nature, use and extent of is otherwise than the institution, as though the Pharisees used water according to the tradition of the Elders, Mark 7. which is the element used in Baptism, yet their washing their hands was another worship than Christian Baptism, because the nature, use and extent of it, was other than the institution of Baptism: So likewise though water be retained in their so called Infant-baptism, yet it being neither used in the manner appointed by Christ, to wit, by dipping, but by sprinkling or pouring, nor on the subject appointed by Christ to be baptised, to wit, disciples or believers in him, but on Infants, who are not such, nor to the end Christ appointed, that is, to testify by that act their owning Christ for their Lord, their dying to sin, and rising to newness of life, but only to seal the Covenant of Grace, I say a new worship is made in their Infant-watering, as there was of old a new worship made in Infant-communion, and is at this day in the Popish mass, and Baptising of bells. As for Mr. Blaks retortion, I do grant Mr. T. may as well deny an institution, and destroy as well as curtail that which is instituted. But that by denying Infants visible Churchmembership in the Christian Church of the New Testament, and their being in Covenant, and right thereby to Baptism, I curtail Christ's institution, I do then expect he will be able to make good, when he proves the snow black and the crow white. And whether I prove▪ that by analogy or some other way Baptism is extended beyond the institution in Infant-baptism, I leave it to the Reader to judge.  
Mr. Blake goes on thus. The second rule (he says) overthrows all, for if we may not rest solely on the analogy, why at all? How then is that collection from Ezek. 44. 8. good, after other arguments against nonresidence? neither do I say, that it may not go alone, but it will hardly go alone, but other arguments will be found to second it, in which I also gave instances.  
Answ. 1. The collection from Ezek. 44. 8. is good to illustrate, not to rest on as a proof, yet with the correction of my speech as above. 2. I did not charge him that he said it may not go alone, nor is it to the purpose which he tells us that he said analogy will hardly go alone. But this I say, His second rule is that reasoning from analogy holds when we do not rest solely on the analogy with other commands, but have our further reason for confirmation, which doth plainly intimate that we may not rest solely on it. Now I argue, if it be a good proof, we may rest solely on it; For one good proof is enough for a man to rest upon, though more arguments make it clearer. If then we may not rest solely on analogy with other commands (as Mr. Blakes words intimate) than it is not a sufficient proof. To which in Mr. Blakes words there is no reply, nor hath he avoided my objection that his second rule overthrows what he contends for, the validity of his analogical arguments impugned by me.  
Mr. Blake of me. He adds, this is enough to show that analogy hath no strength, that indeed it doth not only illustrate, cannot prove▪ what is an argument by analogy, but an argument à simili? I had thought there had been much difference between these two kinds of arguments à pari & à simili; pari à similibus omninò differunt, saith Scheibler in his Topics. I may send him to his Dictionary to see whether one be not Englished equal or even, and the other like or semblable. I may send him to the Predicaments whether one be not in Quantity, the other in Quality, and demand of him whether there be magis & minus par & aequale, as there is magis & minus simile? And to con ult with the Topics whether that be not one head from which they draw arguments which in their judgement are valid: Hath Mr. T. never read de paribus idem est judicium? quod valet in re pari valet etiam in compari. I think he never read de similibus idem est judicium: quod valet in simili valet etiam in re assimilata. If Mr. T. be agreed we will refer it to the Common Law, whether this way of reasoning will hold or no; if it fail, we shall need no other Levellers to take down that art, it will fall of itself, they have scarce any other way of arguing. But if these only illustrate (which I think no Logician will say) yet it is here sufficient, There was an institution of Circumcision and there is of Baptism; neither of these needs proof being not in controversy between us and our adversaries. The right subject of Baptism only is enquired after; the institution hath Infants we say within the verge, and are not excluded from it; For this we have our arguments which from the initiating sacrament of the jews we only illustrate.  
Answ. It seems Mr. Blake thought he had me here at a lift, and therefore after a message from him by words of mouth some years since, intimating he took my speech to be absurd, that an argument from analogy is but an argument à simili, he bestirs himself in this manner in this his book. But to stop him in his career. He tells me he had thought there had been much difference between these two kinds of arguments à pari & simili: which may be true, and yet my speech true also, what is an argument by analogy (I did not say à pari) but an argument à simili? He tells me, paria à similibus omninò differunt▪ saith Scheibler in his Topics. Answ. It is true, Scheibler Top. c. 23. q. 2. saith so, But withal he tells us, that Titleman comprehends paria sub similibus, & Hunuaeus, similium & parium aut nullum aut pertenue discrimen esse ait, idque proptereà, quia eadem exempla referantur ad similia & paria. Yea even Scheibler himself c. 23. saith, Ad similia etiam pertinent parabolae & analogia; analogia est similitudo composita trium vel quatuor terminorum. Keckerm. syst. log. lib. 3. c. 6. sequitur locus qui est à similitudine composita, quae dicitur analogia seu proportio. Burgersdicius Instit. log. l. 2. c. 18. Intelligitur hoc loco non simplex sed composita similitudo sive analogia. And in the same place hath this passage even of analogy. Argumenta ex locis similium p●tita magis illustrant quam probant, & ut ait Molinaeus afferunt magis dissentiendi pudorem quam assentiendi necessitatem. Georg. Dounam. Comment. in Rami Dialecti. lib. 1. c. 21. Comparatio similium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur, id est similitudo, dicitur etiam proportio Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut similia proportio nalia Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & à mathemacis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, inquit Fabius lib. 5. c. 11. quidam à simili separaverunt, nos eam subjectam huic generi putamus. Nam ut unum ad decem, sic decem ad centum, simile certe est, & ut hostis sic malis civis. Ac certe proportio nihil aliud est, quam duarum rationum similit udo. Sic enim Euclides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ratio autem seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est duorum inter se terminorum collatio. Exempli gratia, ut 2. ad. 4. sic 3. ad. 6. proportio sive similitudo est, quia eadem est ratio seu qualitas 4. ad. 2. quae 6. ad. 3. scilicet dupla. Solent quidem hae voces à quibusdam ad quantitatum collectiones adstringi, verùm generalis sunt significationis. Name & similitudo omnis proportio est, & qualitas omnis ratio est. And for the Dictionary. Pares▪ cum paribus facillime Congregantur in Cicero, is rendered by Cooper, like most readily gather in company with like. Par est, Plaut. it is like or equal. Par Co●at jungatque pari. Horat. Jam sumus Ergo Pares, Martial. These and innumerable instances besides show that however in the Predicaments par is applied to discrete quantity, and simile to quality, yet they are taken without such exactness in other Authors, and that frequently parity is as much as likeness in quality and other conditions. And it is known that it is a rule in Logic, that qualities are sometimes expressed by words of quantity, as when we say a great Philosopher. And for the Topics locus à pari is not à pari numero, or simili qualitate only properly so called, but also from any such argument which makes it probable that the like may be said of the one as of the other: locus à majori & minori is all one with locus à magis & minus probabili. I find in Keckerm. syst. log. l. 3. c. 7. this Canon. De paribus & similibus idem est judicium. I grant good use of arguments à paribus & à similibus in the Common Law, which they call from the same case: nor do I except against it as insufficient for Judges and Lawyers to determine by. Yet as in the Law when there is a Statute Law which determines any case, Judges and Lawyers use not then such arguments: so Christ having made an express Statute concerning Baptising, and who are to be baptised, it is against the Law of God for Mr. Blake to run to his analogy, and to impose on men's consciences such uncertain conjectures as his analogy from circumcision, which are no better than his own and other Paedobaptists figments. And me thinks his words she● there is no strength in it, when he saith. The institution of Baptism hath infants within the verge, and are not excluded from it; For this we have our arguments, which from the initiating sacrament of the Jews we only illustrate. If other Paedobaptists would stand to this, we should be less cumbered with the argument from the Covenant and seal, which was Mr. Marshals and the Assemblies main if not only argument. However the Reader may here take notice that Mr. Blake confesses that he with others do only illustrate their arguments for Paedobaptism by the argument from the initiating sacrament of the Jews: which may move the considerate Reader to regard little that argument, and to look for other arguments from the institution comprehending infants, which have and will appear frivolous, as his exception here against me hath been.  
Mr. Blake yet adds. The third likewise saith he, is uncertain and vain; For how shall we know when the analogy holds full proportion? when nothing can be fairly brought against the one, but may be also concluded on the other? when is the proportion full? if only when omnia sunt paria. When Mr. T. will destroy our old Logic to set up his own Divinity, it were to be wished that he would furnish us with a new piece of Logic as he hath done of Divinity, that all learning humane and divine may stoop to his reformation. I have learned these for maxims. Parium exacta est convenientia. Quod de uno parium affirmatur id affirmatur etiam de altero & e contra. But these with Mr. T. are vain and uncertain, and all arguments that dance not after his pipe, though our Saviors, St. Paul's, or any others.  
Answ. There is nothing here but flirt's and flams. Neither do I destroy old Logic, nor set up any other than what I have from the Scripture, yea and the best approved writers: nor need I any new Logic to help me in the reformation of Infant baptism, but such as Protestant Divines have used in reformation of Popish and Prelatical ceremonies. I do not say the maxims of Logic Mr. Blake here sets down are vain and uncertain, and all arguments that dance not after my pipe. But this I say, Mr. Blakes rule about arguing from analogy conceived between Circumcision and Baptism, or any other Old and New Testament rites, so as without precept or Apostolical example in the New Testament to frame an obligation on our consciences is vain, and uncertain, nor doth our Saviour, or St. Paul, or any other sacred writer argue so, as in my answer above may be seen.  
Mr. Blake, This can never happen (saith Mr. T.) in analogies between the rites of Moses and the rites of Christ. How did Paul then reason from a parity in the Jewish altar and the Lords table, 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. Yea from manna and the rock to the Lords Table? as Pareus and other interpreters observe, that spiritual meat was eaten in the one and in the other, and a like danger of profaning the one and the other.  
Answ. I said true, it can never happen in analogies between the rites of Moses and the rites of Christ that all things should be even, or that there should be an exact agreement between them, so, as that which is affirmed of the one should be affirmed of the other, or that there should be the same reason in the use of the one as in the other, and thence inferred, what ought to be done in the one ought to be done in the other, they who are to partake of the one are to partake of the other. This is enough to overthrow the supposed parity between Circumcision and Baptism as inferring Infant baptism, that they agree not in this, that the institution of Baptism extendeth it to all those to whom the institution of Circumcision extends it. It is not true that Paul did reason 1 Cor. 10, 16, 17. from such a parity in the Jewish altar and the Lords table, as if what was done at the one, must be done at the other by reason of an answerableness in the one rite to the other. But he argues from that which is common to both, and to all other Religions whether true or false, that they which did partake either of them did thereby profess the same Religion, to prove that they which should eat of the Idol meats had communion with the Idol, and so with the Devil. It is not true that the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4. argues from manna and the rock to the Lords Table, as if he would prove that spiritual meat was eaten in the one, therefore in the other, or that it was dangerous to profane the one (for what danger was there in profaning the cloud, Sea, manna, or water out of the rock?) therefore there is the like danger of profaning the other, much less what was done in the one was to be done in the other by reason of analogy between them: But the Apostles argument is manifestly this, the Israelites being under the cloud, and passing through the Sea, was to them as Baptism to us, their eating manna and drinking water from the rock noted Christ as well as the Lords supper to us, and yet this could not save them from God's displeasure when they sinned, therefore our sacraments will not shelter us from God's wrath if we sin, which v. 6. 11. 12. of 1 Cor. 10. manifestly show to be the force of the Apostles reasoning.  
Mr. Blake adds. If when there is a parity in many things, it will be (saith he) uncertain how many parities will serve turn to make the proportion full. Here is an excellent dexterity to enervate so many Scripture arguments, that the weakness of this argument (in spite of all Logic) might appear; I have told him, and may tell him still, The Corinthians and the Pharisees wanted his head-piece, otherwise Christ and Paul had not gone so away with arguments of this nature. To satisfy him therefore fully, one parity will serve the turn. The exact proportion, say Logicians, is in quantum paria respectu tertii in quo paria comparantur. There are many imparities between the Lord's supper and manna, yet they agree in this that both were spiritual meat; so between the Jewish altar and the Lords Table, but they agree, in this, that there is Ecclesiastical communion in both of them, to make the partakers of one body Ecclesiastical: many differences between Circumcision and Baptism, but so far they agree (by Mr. T. his confession) that both are initiating sacraments; he hath multiplied many differences, but stands not to any as in application to this particular in difference.  
Answ. There is in my answer nothing tending to enervate any Scripture argument, though what I say is enough to show the vanity of Mr. Blakes arguments▪ there being no certain rule to show how many or what sort of parities, general or special, essential or accidental will serve turn. Neither Paul nor Christ did argue thus, this was appointed in a rite of the Old Testament, therefore thus it is to be observed in a rite of the New. In Logic it is usual to deny an argument valid à comparatis, though there be some parities, caeteris non paribus. It is true one parity will serve turn to make things compared even in the thing in which they agree. But there must be so many parities, or such a parity in things compared as make them equal in the reason of the thing inferred, otherwise one disparity proper to the matter is enough to enervate the argument. Which is very manifest in the argument about Infant baptism. For the formal reason of Circumcising Infants being the command, there is no parity to infer thence Baptising of Infants without the parity of command. Which is the difference I have often stood to in application to this particular in difference; which is not whether Baptism and Circumcision be initiating sacraments, but whether an argument can be drawn to bind conscience in the use of the one from a command, in the use of the other without a precept in the New Testament.  
Mr. Blake concludes this section thus: The third exception is, It is uncertain whether these rules be sufficient, whether there be no need of any more. It is certain than that Mr. T. cannot make it appear that they are insufficient, in case he could he would not have left them at any uncertainty: I shall judge them sufficient till I hear from Mr. T. the contrary.  
Answ. I have made it appear that these rules are not sufficient to make good the proof from analogy disproved by me: nor was it formerly uncertain to me they are not sufficient; yet I might say truly, it is uncertain, whether these rules be sufficient, whether there be no need of any more to satisfy others, who may think them too few as well as otherwise imperfect. I for my part do judge them notwithstanding Mr. Blakes plea to be insufficient, and all arguments inferring duty as of God's appointment in the use of a rite of the New Testament from some likeness or agreement with a rite of the Old Testament now abolished, without direction in the New, as frivolous and serving only to make wrangling, fill people with superstitions, and to weary Scholars, as I say in the Addition to my Apology in answer to Mr. Baillee sect. 15. Mr. Cawdrey Sabb. rediu. part. 4. ch. 1. against Dr. Sanderson, saying Divine right or institution is that First which is properly and primarily such; as what is (first) enjoined by express ordinance of God, or (secondly) what may be deduced therefrom by evident illation. Secondly that which is secondarily and consequently such. To which four things (say they) are required, 1. equity, 2. analogy, 3. insinuations in the new Testament, 4. continued practice of the Church, speaks thus. But this proceeding seems not sufficient. 3. There are things now in common use which have all the four conditions, and yet he will not say they are Divine institutions; as the observation of Easter &c: which yet are confessedly but Ecclesiastical. And will Mr. Cawdrey make a Divine institution of Infant baprism which in the next page he saith we have no express command (nor express example of it) in Scripture, from grounds which at most can make but analogy without equity (for in mere positive rites there is no equity but the appointers' will) insinuations in the New Testament or any truly well proved continued practice of the Church? However Mr. Cawdreys words are sufficient to show (though they oppose himself) that he counted analogy not sufficient, no not though accompanied with equity, insinuations in the New Testament and continued practice of the Church to make a thing of Divine institutution, but only Ecclesiastical. Which being granted, Mr. Marshals analogical argument (as he calls it) which with him the words of the Assembly intimate to be the chief prop of the Divine institution of Infant baptism, falls to the ground. But le's hear what Mr. B. saith also.  
What need (saith Mr B.) the same thing to be done twice, except men had questioned the authority of the old?  
Answ. The Holy Ghost hath delivered many things twice in the Old and New Testament, yet sure it was needful, else it is not likely it would have been done. Will Mr. B. charge the Spirit of God with needless committing so many histories, sayings of Christ etc. to writing, because they were written before? And to his question I say, If there were no other need, yet there was this, that the agreement of the Old and New Testament might appear, whereby the authority of both is greatly confirmed.  
The whole Scripture saith he, is the perfect Word and Law of God: and if he should reveal all his mind in one part, what use should we make of the other.  
Answ. The Gospels of the four Evangelists are the perfect Word and Law of God, they need no unwritten tradition for a supplement, in them those things are written by which we may have life, John 20. 31. yet there is use of Paul's Epistles. Suppose all God's mind revealed in one part, so as no more doctrine or truth were in the rest than in one, yet there is use to confirm, explain, enforce that which is elsewhere written in that one part. And indeed this reasoning of his would prove that book or part of Scripture to be of no use, as suppose Marks Gospel, which is counted an a bridgement of another, or so much of that Gospel as reveals no more of God's mind than another doth: which me thinks Mr. B. on better consideration should disclaim.  
He goes on. How silent is the New Testament concerning a Christian Magistracy? which made the Anabaptists of old deny it. Where find you a Christian in the New Testament that exercised the place of a king, a Parliament man, or Justice of Peace, or the like? so of an oath before a Magistrate, of war, of the Sabbath, etc. how sparing is the new Testament? and why? but because there was enough said of them in the old? This also is the very case in the question in hand.  
Answ. The Anabaptists (as they are called) of former times, or some of them, as it is reported (for their own books I never saw) of them, denied it lawful for Christians to be Magistrates, to war, to swear, not only because of the silence thereof in the New Testament, but also because they mistook the meaning of the texts, as forbidding them Is. 2. 4. Micah 4. 3. Zach. 9 10. john 18. 36. Mat. 20. 26. Mat. 5. 34, 35. Luke 22. 25, 26. etc. And so either did or seemed to do some of the Ancient Christians, even those who are called the Fathers, of which may be seen Sixtus Senensis Biblioth. sanct. lib. 6. annot. 25, 26. And yet learned men do not think the New Testament silent of a Christian Magistrate, of an oath, or war, but that there are texts for them in the New Testament, of which some are brought by Grot. l. 1. de jure Belli. ac Pacis c. 2. 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2, 3. Rom. 13. 1. etc. And though there be no example of a Christian King, Parliament man, or Justice of Peace, yet we find a Christian Centurion Act. 10. a Christian Deputy Act. 13. 12. Christian parents, husbands, masters, whose government is allowed, and rules given about the managing of it. Wherefore I conceive Mr. B. doth too much betray Christian Magistracy, soldiery, civil judicature, etc. who suggests to his Reader, as if the New Testament were silent of Christian Magistracy, and sparing about war, or oaths before a Magistrate. I confess the determination of the Old Testament is obligatory, because these things are moral, not peculiar to the Jews: but it doth not follow therefore that an argument is valid from analogy conceived between rites of the old Testament and the new, or the Jewish policy and the Christian to conclude an obligation to us in a rite of the New Testament, the rites of the Old Testament being merely positive, not from the beginning proper to the Jews, and together with the policy of the Jewish Church now abrogated.  
But there seems to be more difficulty about the Sabbath. Mr. Martial had said in his Sermon, that all that reject the baptising of Infants do and must upon the same grounds reject the religious observation of the Lords day. In my Examen part. 2. sect. 8. I denied it, there being something moral from the beginning in the Sabbath, not so in Circumcision, and there being something in the new Testament to prove an institution of the Lords day, nothing about infant baptism, To this Mr. M. replies, However the determinate day doth depend wholly upon institution, therefore they who reject that which depends upon positive institution, unless its institution can be expressly found in the New Testament, are as much at a loss for the Lords day as for baptising of infants. 2. And the advantage is here for infant baptism above the Lords day, because in the proof of infant baptism there is only need to show the subject to whom baptism is to be applied, in the Lord's day the institution of the day itself.  
Answ. 1. That which he says first confirms my exception; for therein he acknowledgeth there is something natural or moral by institution about a Sabbath, but shows nothing natural or moral in Circumcision.  
2. I never rejected infant baptism because its institution cannot be expressly in so many words or syllables without consequence found in the New Testament, but because it is not there either in express words, or by good consequence.  
3. If the determinate day require positive institution, there is institution brought out of the New Testament, if not express, yet by good consequence, which I count sufficient.  
4. Yet I do not count Mr. Ms. consequence good by analogy in his Defence pag. 208. The Jews keep the Sabbath on the seventh or last day of the week, ergo the Christians keep the Sabbath on the first day of the week. Of my judgement herein with other Antipaedo baptists more may be seen in my Praecursor, S. 15. And for the other thing Mr. M. adds, it is nothing to the business in hand, which is not about the greater or lesser necessity of clearing the institution of the Lords day or infant baptism, but about the principle by which infant baptism is rejected, whether it necessitate us to reject the Lords day: which I denied, because this principle, That use of a mere ceremony or positive rite which hath neither precept nor example in the New Testament is to be rejected, will not reach the Lords day, which is not merely positive, but in part moral, and hath precept and example for it in the New Testament, neither of which can be said of infant baptism.  
That which Mr. B. adds next about the desperate highest sort of Antinomians, who wipe out all the Old Testament with a stroke, and that they may as well do so by the New Testament too if they please, and telling us the question whether infants should be baptised is turned into a higher, whether the Scriptures be the word of God or not? I might well let pass as being nothing to the point in hand, the denying of infant baptism to be in the Old or New Testament, neither being upon the higher or lower sort of Antinomians (if there be such difference of them) principle, they that deny infant baptism, being not necessitated to it, nor so far as I find in their writings (except what I have met with in Mr. Dens Books) denying the obligation of moral precepts of the Old Testament. All that they are necessitated to maintain is, that Ceremonial precepts of the Old Testament and imagined ANALOGY between Baptism and Circumcision, the Jewish Church state and the Christian, are of no force to conclude a divine appointment concerning any Sacrament or merely positive worship of the New Testament. And therefore his Pathetic Rhetoric, though elsewhere of use, yet in a dispute as this his writing should have been, hath the face either of malignancy towards his Antagonists, or of an indirect trick to prepossess people with horror of that opinion, which he would refuse afore he comes to his Arguments, which is the chief part of his skill. And for what he saith further that incestuous marriages are not forbidden in the New Testament, and tells the men of Bewdley, That some of eminency that deny Infant baptism deny either incestuous marriages, or any thing else not forbidden in the New Testament to be sin, It is like the former, sith he might know that Antipaedo baptists are not necessitated to deny the obligation of the moral Law, in which the Laws about incestuous marriages appear to be in that the Canaanites were punished for their incests Levit. 18. 25. And Mr. B. if he had any mind to deal candidly with me, might have told them, that I was none of those men, sith he might (if he did read my books with any heed, of which I much doubt) have told them, that to this objection I answered in my Examen pag 111. 1. That the instance of the Laws about forbidden marriages brought by Mr. M. is not to the point of the obligation of mere positive ceremonial worship, sith the command about prohibited degrees in marriage is moral 2. That yet there is for one branch of Incest an express censure in the New Testament, proving the unlawfulness of it. To which Mr. M. page 196. of his Defence saith, But how would you laugh at such a consequence in another, a man may not marry his Father's wife, a thing which by the light of nature was abhorred among the Heathens, ergo all the degrees of forbidden marriages in Moses Laws stand firm? whereto I reply, I made no consequence but this, one branch of Incest is expressly censured in the New Testament, therefore it is unlawful. And this I only brought to show the impertinency of Mr. M. allegation to prove the matter in question, it being granted by me that a moral precept of Moses is in force, thought not a ceremonial, and yet Mr. M. brings instances only of morals standing in force, none of ceremonials, and instead of clearing the pertinency of his own instances, makes a consequence as mine, which, saith he, I would laugh at in another, which dealing is cavilling not answering. The like to which is that which follows in him. The like say you against Polygamy, there is proof against it, Mat. 19 5. 9 But is this an express prohibition of it? Must you not be compelled to go by a consequence to bring it in, which is ab I contend for? Whereto I reply. Though Mr. M. page 3. of his Defence charged me unjustly with a Socinian plot in my writings to question all conclusions deduced by consequence from Scripture, yet page 205. he saith of me, That I neither there nor here deny this Argument from a consequence to be sufficient for practice of some things in the worship of God, which are not expressly laid down in the New Testament, and therefore he might easily have seen, if he would▪ that to prove we may go by a consequence is not all he contends for, it being known to him that I grant it. But this he is to prove, or else he still is besides the business, that a consequence is good from analogy of an abrogated rite of the Old Testament to prove a Divine appointment concerning a mere positive rite of the New Testament, till this be done, his, and Mr. Bs. and Mr. Bls. arguings are quite besides the business in hand and carry an apparent show of Sophistry, not of just disputing.   

SECT. IV.  
Mr. Bs. Speeches about the little said for Antipaedobaptism is vain, and his speech about the Antiquity of Infant baptism is very inconsiderate, and his speech about the difficulty and importance of the point in question is examined.  
THe rest of Mr. Bs. ten positions are granted by me, but what he saith of me, pag. 5. that he never to his remembrance did plead with an able Papist, but he could say for more for his religion then Mr. T. said for his opinion on James 1. or his Sermon since, that he might insinuate that he and others had reason to be settled in the practice of infant baptism, because I said so little then, and my Sermon presently after, is like▪ King james his resolution, to be more for the Bishops and Ceremonies, because Doctor Reynolds and his Colleagues said so little against them in the Conference at Hampton Court, from whence M: B. might gather▪ that if such men as Dr: Reynolds (whose equal every way the world did then or since scarce yield) D: Spark, M: Chaderton, M: Knewstubs, did fail to speak what had been requisite, when it was expected, though they were four, which were to object, and that upon a sufficient time of premeditation, and yet this no good evidence for Bishops and Ceremonies, it is no good evidence for infant baptism, that I being single, being to answer ex tempore, hardly allowed by M: B. to repeat his Arguments, whereof some were hypothetical syllogisms, brought to prove an hypothetical proposition, and therefore such as could not be well repeated, and his arguments containing such terms, as it appears now by his Book, he used in senses different from what other Authors use them, and yet would not explain them, with sundry other captious devices, and provoking speeches, as I have in part made manifest in my writings, and through God's assistance shall do more, said so little at the dispute. Who is there that hath experience of humane infirmity, who knows not that distractions, forgetfulness, in advertency, sudden weakness of body, extemporality necessitated, slowness of speech, care to restrain passion, do hinder a man from speaking that in a great meeting, which he could in his study by writing easily express? What I said Jan. 1. 1649. was almost wholly as a Respondent, as the Argument required. Now they that know the rule of Schools understand the Respondents business is but to repeat, deny, distinguish, apply to the arguments of the Opponent, and this was done by me then, why it was done no more fully my Antidote, Praecursor, and the Review show. M: B. had in his Epistle Dedicatory to his Saints everlasting rest, published to the world, that I was driven to gross absurdities, being moved to name those absurdities in his answer to my Valedictory oration, he names 27. p. 207. To all which I answer in my Praecursor Sect: 17. and clear myself from the absurdities he imagined. In his Praefestinantis morator, when he comes to answer that Section, he only replies thus, Sect: 17. I know not one word of Answer that this Section needs for him that will peruse my words. To which I conceive I may without any heat reply, that he either wrongs his Readers by not making good that I was driven to gross absurdities, after my clearing of myself from them, or me, in not acquitting me from his charge. But I must needs speak it, though with grief, that I have scarce met with less justice, or fair dealing from any man than from M: B. and both his and other Antagonists courses tend not to an impartial and equal way of examining the point in controversy, but they use artifices to prepossess men against me and my writings and speeches, and to deter them from considering them. In my January●0 ●0. 1649. was given an answer to M: Bs. arguments so far as I could retain them in memory, or find them in some imperfect notes, when I had sought in vain to have them from M: B. himself in writing. Now they are in print, they have or shall have a large answer, if the Lord will. Papists may say much more than I said, yet that either for their Religion orree will so much of moment can be said as against infant-baptism is vainly surmised. It is well M: B. in his 7. Position confesseth some Divines have argued weakly for infant-baptism, and brought some misapplied Scriptures. If ye mean my Books by the third or fourth written against them▪ (as it is most likely) he might know my writings were in answer to M: Martial, whose writing is conceived to contain the Assemblies grounds, he is styled by M: Stalham the Antesignanus, and perhaps it may be judged arrogance in M: B. to imagine his own arguments better than his. For my part I think them weaker. However he had sh●wd some care of truth and love to me, if he had by communicating them to me endeavoured to stop me in my supposed error. But this I count my trouble, though I hope it will advantage the truth, that first Mr: Ms. Sermon hath been magnified, & that by examining it I hoped I had done my work, and yet after M: Blakes writing being magnified, I was put to answer that, and then Mr: Bs. preferred before them all, and yet I am referred by him to answer M: Cobbet, M: Drew, M: Church, and after all Doctor Hammonds is preferred, so that I must answer that, or else the truth be betrayed. It seems Paedobaptists know not well what to re● on, when they do shift so much from one to another. But I go on▪ M: Bs. eighth Position is, that one sound argument is enough to prove any thing true: yet more may be brought against infant-baptism. Almost all that Protestants dispute against Popish Rites, Non-conformists against Prelatical Ceremonies, may be said against Paedobaptism, M: Bs. words in answer to Mr. Bedford, Plain Scripture proof etc. pag. 302, 303. are appliable against infant-baptism. In my Praecursor I had set down M. B. words in the second Edition of the Saints everlasting rest, part. 1. chap. 8. Sect. 5. pag. 179. in the margin; in his Praefestinantis morator he saith, To what end you recite my allegation of Justin Martyr is passed my reach to imagine; unless you would insinuate that I confess this to be the course with all the baptised, which I expressly say was the way of baptising the aged. Answ It had been easy for M. B. to conceive why I set down those words, to wit, to prove from his own confession, that to baptise upon profession of faith, and to admit none to the Lords Supper but those who are thus baptised, is no new over-strict way. And however he now endeavours to mince the matter, these words of his, [And in the primitive times none were baptised without an express covenanting, wherein they renounced the world, flesh, and devil, and engaged themselves to Christ, and promised to obey him, as you may see in Tertul: Origen, Cyprian, and others at large.] being printed with a full point at the end, are as plain a denial that infants were baptised in the primitive times, as words usually express. As for the words following; I will cite but one for all, who was before the rest, and that is Justin Martyr; speaking of the way of baptising the aged saith, they are not words, if they be restrictive, that limit any one's▪ speech but Justin Martyrs, and if by them M: B. would intimate that Justin Martyr did not in that speech set down the way of baptising all that were then baptised, the words following saying thus, how we are dedicated to God we will now open unto you, and then setting down the constant way of baptising without any exception, M. Bs. addition will easily be perceived to be but a shift to avoid the evidence of this relation of Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. ad Antoninum, being so plain to prove infant-baptism not to have been then in use among Christians. Likewise in my Praecursor, Sect. 16. pag. 66. I bring an argument against infant-baptism from M: Bs. own words mutatis mutandis. His answer in his Praefestinantis morator is in these words. His Confidence, pag. 66. is marvellous. I doubt not but that he knows that I take the words [since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth▪ 28.] inclusively; And so I answer, that this solemn instition is our warrant, requiring us both to disciple nations, and baptise Disciples; and we have other Scriptures which plainly prove infants to be Disciples.  
Answ: My confidence is upon good reason, M: Bs. marveling is from ignorance; what he means by taking the words [since the solemn institution of Baptism, Matth. 28.] inclusively I know not▪ except he mean that time when that institution was given, as well as the time after, or that institution to be a warrant as well as after precepts or examples. Either way the medium of M. B. serves my purpose. For it plainly asserts, that what we have no warrant, in all the New Testament, for, we are not to do ordinarily▪ what we have precept and example for, we are to do. Which if he will stand to, than his warrant out of the Old Testament is not sufficient for infant-baptism, and so it is not fully determined in the Old Testament, at what age persons are to be admitted into the Church, as he said before, and what we do we have warrant for by his own grant, sith he cannot deny we have precept and example for baptising professors of faith. And then his including here Matth. 28. 19 in his Texts (though not brought Plain Scripture proof, etc. pag. 342. to prove his antecedent) is an intimation that in all the rest of the Texts, John 4. 1. Acts 2. 38, 41. & 8. 12, 13, 16, 36, 38. & 9 18. & 10. 47▪ 48. & 16. 15, 33. & 18. 8. & 19 3▪ 4, 5. Rom. 6. 3, etc. he finds not precept or example for baptising of infants, and so if he find not warrant Matth. 28. 19 for baptising infants, all his other proofs are by his own reasoning made invalid. For sure the Texts alleged do as evidently prove this antecedent [we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament (since the solemn institution of Baptism, Matth. 28.) to admit any member into the Church by Baptism, but believers by profession, but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it] as Mr: Bs. [we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament (since the solemn institution of Baptism, Matth. 28) to admit any member into the Church without Baptism, but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it] The consequent then [we must not admit ordinarily any by Baptism without profession of faith] must by the force of his own illation be undoubted to those that take the word for their rule. As for his evasion, that he hath other Scriptures which plainly prove infants to be Disciples, how miserably he fails therein will appear by that which follows in this Review. The Reader may perceive that whatsoever his talk be about a Gift and Ordinance of visible Church-membership unrepealed, and of Christ's Laying of hands on little ones, and such like Arguments and Texts he brings, yet if he will stand to his own reasoning in Arg. 9 against deniers of Baptism by Water, pag. 342. of his Plain Scripture proof, etc. we have no warrant to admit ordinarily by Baptism, but according to the precept and example in the New Testament in the Text, Matth. 28. 19 and the other Texts before recited. Concerning which I have reason to be as confident as of common notions, that they include not infants, and to marvel that Mr. Bs. prejudice should so blind him, as not to see the futility of his arguings to prove infants to be Disciples included in the institution Matth. 28. 19 But I proceed.  
Because, as he saith, pag. 5. An answer cannot be always presently given, which may make the case plain to some men, therefore Mr. B. should have given his arguments in writing to those that came to him, which had been an easier and fairer way than to tell them as he doth, pag. 6. If any of you have taken up the opinion of Antepaedobaptism, and have not read and studied Mr. Cobbet, M. Church, and other the chief books, and been able (at least to himself) to confute them, you have but discovered a feared conscience (a most heavy, though vain censure, showing what rashness and distemper was in Mr. B. in this writing) which either taketh error for no sin, or else dare venture on sin without fear, and have betrayed your own souls by your laziness, as if a man might not be satisfied by reading of the Scripture, and conference with the able of the opposite party, without reading so many Books. Sure Mr. B. who had read those Books showed little charity to those of Bewdley that came to him for arguments for infant-baptism, when he would neither set down his own arguments in writing, nor direct them in what part of those books they might have satisfaction; but fly upon them with so deep a charge, without any moderation of spirit. And when he saith, pag. 7. He dare say by my books, that it is my case not to have received the doctrine of infant-baptism on the best grounds and arguments. I reply, 1. that there are many passages which make me think he never read my books with exact diligence and heed, but (if I may use his own words) He betrays his own soul by his laziness or prejudice. 2. It shows a fond conceit in him of his own arguments, which another perhaps will think weaker than those of Calvin, Ursin, Piscator, the Assembly, Mr. M. etc. which he might perceive by my Exercit. and otherwise, that I had considered. I said in my Apology, pag. 6. that I rested wholly on 1 Cor. 7. 14. for many years, and that Text Mr. B. calls a full plain Text, and Dr. Hammond in effect builds all his proof for infant-baptism upon it, and therefore Mr. B. might have perceived his mistake concerning me, if he had heeded my books. If some Divines have argued weakly for infant-baptism, used some unfit phrases, and brought some misapplied Scriptures, as he saith, I am sure Mr. B. had reason to number himself among them, if he be not the man who hath in all these outstripped them. I wish he had held his resolution of not heaping up many arguments, it would have saved me much labour.  
To his words, Whatsoever Mr. T. may pretend among the simple, I shall easily prove, that infant-baptism was used in the Church as high to the Apostles days as there is any sufficient History extant to inform us: and that the deferring of Baptism came in with the rest of Popery, upon Popish or heretical grounds.  
I answer, 1. That my pretences about the innovation of infant-baptism are not among the simple, as he would insinuate, but among the most learned, for whose examination my allegations are obvious in print. 2. That his assertion concerning the antiquity of infant-baptism is most inconsiderate, there being nothing in Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and other the most approved Histories and Authors, for his assertion. And for those be brings, the highest is Pope Hyginus, whose words he alleged out of his Decree, which I conceived had been in his Epistle decretal, judged to be counterfeit, but Mr. B. in his Praefestinant is morator lets fly at me Sect. 3. for my mistake. I confess I have not Blondellus, Surius, Nicolinus, Crab, Binius, Gratian; but Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 2. l. 2. c. 5. saith, Reliqua Decreta, quae huic Episcopo tribuuntur, ex Gratiano ad verbum (quia prolixa non sunt) referemus. And then sets down five Decrees, on the second of which he notes thus, Ex hoc decreto el●●et vanit as harum constitutionum; & quod falsò prioribus Episcopis Romanis tribuantur. Quis enim credat? etc. Quare manifestum est haec Decreta longo tempore post Hyginum facta, & in Ecclesiam Dei, jam superstitionibus Pontificiis contaminatam, introducta esse. Hujus farinae sunt & proximè sequentia Decreta, de rebus frivolis edita, of which the last is, In catechismo, & in baptismo, & in confirmatione unus p●trinus fieri potest, si necessit as cogat, non est tamen consuetudo Romana: sed per singulos (astus) singula suscipiunt. Whereby the Reader may perceive the Decree to be but a forgery, and that if it were true, yet it doth not mention the baptising of infants, sith Gossips were at the Baptism of elder persons, (though Dr. Hammond say in his 
Mr. Fox in the second Book of the Acts & Monuments, as the years 636 664.  Letter, pag. 214. Godfathers have place only in baptising of Children) as may be made appear by instances at the baptising of some S●xon Kings, and otherwise, and the Decree itself, putting a Gossip in Catechism before a Gossip in Baptism, makes it probable not to be meant of a Gossip to an infant baptised. And lest it be thought Osiander is alone, I will adjoin the words of Mr. Fox, Acts and Monuments first book at the year 175. The like (that Telesphorus made them not) is to be thought also of the rest, not only his Constitutions; but also of the other ancient Biships and Martyrs, which followed after him, as of Hyginus anno 142. who succeeding him, and dying also a Martyr, as Volateranus lib. 22. declareth, is said or rather feigned to bring in the cream, one Godfather and Godmother in Baptism, to ordain the dedication of Churches: when as in his time so far it was off, that any solemn Churches were standing in Rome, that unneath the Christians could safely convent in their own houses. Likewise the distincting the orders of Metropolitans, Bishops, and other degrees, savour nothing less than of that time. Doctor Prideaux, one of Mr. Bs. own Authors for this Decree of Pope Hyginus about Gossips, though he make mention of it where he speaks of that Pope, Compend. of History, cap. 7. Sect. 3. inter. 7. yet after, among many of his inquiries, this is the third, Whether it be likely that these religious Popes in such extreme persecutions had liberty or list to think on making Cardinals or Gossips, and introduce a rabble of beggarly Ceremonies. And though I were mistaken in calling that decree of Hyginus the Decree in the Epistle, yet I think the Authors which censured the decretal Epistles did comprehend the Decrees ascribed to those first Popes among those forged Writings under that name. However, what I have produced is enough to justify my speeches in my Praecursor, that the Decree ascribed to Pope Hyginus about Gossips, is so manifest a forgery, that I could hardly have imagined any learned Protestant would ever have alleged so notoriously forged a writing: so that I need not answer Mr. Bs. allegation of this testimony, as by currant consent of Historians assuring us that Hyginus Bishop of Rome did first ordain Godfathers and Godmothers at the baptising of infants, and his questions thereon, but by telling him he hath reason to be ashamed of abusing men with this forgery after so much eviction of it by learned men, being more like a brazen faced allegation, than that he so censures me for without cause. The next of his allegations is Justin Martyr, from whom besides the bastard writing of Questions and Answers ad orthodoxos, all the rest alleged, pag. 156. by Mr. B. is manifestly impertinent, and his genuine writing yields a good evidence against the use of infant-baptism, as unknown to him, as may appear by what is said before. Mr. B. in his Praefestinantis morator, says Sect. 3. Seeing you deny nothing in Justin Martyrs words, you must yield that it was known to Mothers that their infants were of God's kingdom, and then certainly they were Church-members, and known Disciples or Christians. To which I reply, that I have not Justin Martyr now by me, and do doubt whether in that passage of the Epistle ad Zenam & Serenum, he did mean infants, sith the term is [children] which may be meant of persons who are come to some age capable of understanding; and if the words be meant of infants, yet it may be very well conceived that the meaning is, that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, that is the Kingdom of Glory, and that not in respect of their present, but future estate, as when it is said, Matth. 5. 10. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven; that is, they shall have a great reward in Heaven, verse. 12. And then it neither proves their present being of God's visible Kingdom, nor that they were Church-members, and known Disciples or Christians, and to be baptised. This testimony for the antiquity of infant-baptism I remember not alleged by any before Mr. B. and therefore besides the impertinency of the words, as he himself allegeth them, I see no need to search any further into it. His allegation, pag. 154. out of Iraeneus is impertinent, wherein besides other frivolous inferences out of his words he tells us, that Irenaeus cannot mean by sanctifying, internal real sanctifying only, for then according to their exposition of Renascuntur, it should be but Tautology, q. d. [He sanctifieth all that are sanctified or new born] whereas had he heeded these words set down by himself, this imagined Tautology had been seen to be his mere mistake; for his words are, Omnes venit per semet ipsum salvare, He came to save men of all ages, as Dr. Hammond renders it, not as Mr. B. He sanctifieth all that are sanctified. And yet if they had been thus, he sanctifieth by himself all that are born again or sanctified by him, it had not been a Tautology, sith it is manifest that Irenaeus by [per semetipsum] meant by the pattern or example of his own age, and then it is no Tautology, but hath this plain sense, that all that are sanctified by Christ, he came to sanctify them by the pattern or example of his own age, and therefore lived in every age of a man, which is the purport of Irenaeus his discourse in that place, which is by all sorts of writers censured as his mistake Having said so much of Mr. Bs. mistakes, and thereby sufficiently showed that no writer in the two first Centuries mentions infant-baptism, and therefore Mr. Bs. speech is most false, that he shall easily prove that infant-baptism was used in the Church as high as the Apostles days, as there is any sufficient history extant to inform us, I leave the examining of the testimonies for baptising of infants, or against them, till I have finished the review of the dispute from Scripture testimonies, and then I intent not only to examine what Mr. B. hath scribbled in his Plain Scripure Proof, etc. part. 2. chap. 15. and in his Praefestinantis morator, Sect. 3. but also what Mr. Ms. friend Dr. Young (as I am informed) and what Dr. Hammond (men better acquainted with the writings of the Ancients than Mr. B. or Mr. Bl.) have said about the antiquity of infant-baptism, and do no whit doubt but that I shall with the Lords assistance make good the assertions of the first part of my Examen, that First, infant-baptism is not so ancient as is pretended; Secondly, that as it is now taught it is a late innovation, meaning as it is taught by the Assembly, Mr. M. and the reformed Churches called Calvinists. As for Mr. Bs. assertion, that he should easily prove that the deferring of Baptism came in with the rest of Popery upon popish or heretical grounds, if he mean the deferring it till a person were catechised and of years sufficient to answer by himself to the three questions, about Repentance, Faith, and Obedience, which were still put to the baptised, it is not only vain and inconsiderate, but notoriously false, it being the constant order of the Church to baptise after catechising, and the baptising of infants only an exception from the common rule and order, in case of danger of death, till after Angustines' days, who flourished in the fifth Century. The grounds on which Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen did persuade the delaying of Baptism, were neither popish nor heretical, as their words alleged in my Exercit. Sect. 22. show. But on the contrary, the hastening of infant-baptism manifestly appears by the words of Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen, alleged there, and of ●yrian, and Augustine, together with the relations of Gregory Nazianzens and Augustine's Baptism alleged in my Examen, Part. 1. Sect. 7, 8. to have come from the popish conceit, that without Baptism infants could not come to God's Kingdom, or were damned. I deny not, deferring of Baptism to have been an abuse upon sundry misconceits set down in Mr. Ms. Defence, pag. 22, 23, 24, 25. but not one of them popish, except that of washing away sins by it, which was the very ground of hastening infant-baptism, as appears from the passages forenamed by me. That which made persons of years defer their own Baptism, made them hasten the Baptism of their infants.  
Whereas Mr. B. would have Mr. cradock's Gospel Liberty read, I have read it, and do find that neither in his second part, chap. 12. nor here, Mr. Cradock is well used by Mr. B. Mr. Cradock pag. 114. counts the custom of the Church the weakest rule to discern by, and then only he leaves Christians to it, when there is no other light to go forward. Mr. B. himself pag. 302. concludes against Mr. Bedford, that in so material a thing as infant-baptism, to hold Traditions Apostolical, not contrary to Scripture-custome, or which may not be confirmed from Scripture, as our rule, is prejudicial to Scripture, and a complying with Papists. Besides, I need not say anymore than Mr. B. there saith about the uncertainty of Traditions unwritten, and customs of the Ancients, which may serve for the present till a fuller answer be made to that calumniating question in his Praefestinantis morator, Sect. 3. Do not you care to smite through Christianity, so you may bring down infant-baptism? which he hath as much need to answer as myself; for he shows pag. 303. by the uncertainty about Easter, the mistake of Irenaeus about Christ's age, how uncertain the relations of the Ancients are about things not set down in Scripture. And for the customs of Christians an 
See Sprint of Conformity.  Age or two after the Apostles, Writers do show many corrupt customs came in about Easter, Lent, Infant-communion, sending the Communion to the absent, mingling Water with Wine, Monastic profession, honouring of Martyrs; about Baptism, giving Milk and Honey to the baptised, anointing them, the use of the sign of the Cross, which grew to a very great number in Augustine's time so as that in his 119. Epistle to Januarius, he complained, as is before mentioned, and yet they increased after in the height of Popery, by reason of the innumerable company of humane Ceremonies, insomuch as that the pure worship and truth of the Gospel was shadowed so much, as that for the abundance of such leavs, the fruit of the Gospel-worship and doctrine was very little or scarce discernible, and Christian Religion was almost wholly placed in those Ceremonies. And therefore however there were weight in that argument of the Apostle, we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God of those times, yet especially in matters of Ceremonies and positive worship the former after the Apostles days, much less the present customs of the holiest Saints and Churches should not be of any great weight in cases controverted, except when they serve to expound some passages of the Scripture that are cleared by them. Yet this will no whit infringe the validity of the testimony of the Ancients about the canonical books, or right readings of the Scripture, no more than the discrediting of the Jewish Rabbins relations about their Traditions doth infringe their testimony about the books of the Old Testament, though Mr. B. in his Praefestinantis morator, Sect. 3. would insinuate, as if denying the certainty of Augustine's rule about Apostolical Traditions must infer an uncertainty about the canonical Scripture, which shows his proness to calnmniate me, and his inconsiderateness in not observing how this may be objected against his own speeches, pag. 303, as well as mine. As for Mr▪ Bs. tenth Position, though I grant it as it is set down, yet in his amplifying of it there are sundry things that need animadversions. 1. That whereas he speaks of some, that disclaim Reason because they require express words of Scripture, and content not themselves with his supposed evident consequences; he may know that I have often acknowledged consequences good proof from Scripture, and if others do deny consequences, I do imagine that if they were rightly understood, it would appear that they deny only such far-fetched consequences as are used about infant-baptism, resting upon such hypotheses as are taken for granted, when they have need of proof, or such consequences as are drawn from the rites of the Jews to the Sacraments of the New Testament, which if it be their meaning, Mr. Bs. censure of them as senseless ignorant wretches is too harsh and magisterial. 2. To what he saith, Will you allow of such an argument for infant-baptism as Christ brings for the Resurrection? I answer for my self and the people of Bewdley, to whom that speech was intended, we will: but withal I say, that in viewing of his book I discern nothing but Mr. Bs. vanity, in imagining his arguments to be like Christ's, when upon trial they have little in them but superficial reasonings urged with much confidence and importunity upon mistakes, and stuffed with impertinent Texts, frivolous questions, and childish wonder, fitted like things set in fields and gardens to fright birds, to deter the shallow heads of this age from the truth, who either have no mind, or no ability to examine it scholastically. This is my judgement of it. Chap. 2. After all his ten Positions, Mr. B. hath three more Propositions, the first about the difficulty of it, in amplifying of which he confesseth the point of infant-baptism to be such, as the most godly learned impartial Divines cannot agree in, after all their writings, disputing, studying, and praying; which being true, it is most unjust in Maresius that in his sixth question he makes the error of Anabaptists intolerable, in Ministers, that they will not permit such as deny infant-baptism to preach, nor will either themselves hear them, or pray with them, or suffer their hearers, but renounce communion with them, and make separations from them, and so show themselves Schismatics, yea, and in their Pulpits and Writings endeavour to make them odious, exciting Magistrates to imprison, expel, and destroy them; on the otherside the Parliament is justified in that speech of theirs in the Declaration Ordered March 4. 1647. to be published in answer to the Scots Commissioners Paper, that the opinion against the baptism of Infants is such, as wherein in former ages as well as this, learned men have differed both in opinion and practice, and that therein they held it fit that men should be convinced by the Word of God, with gentleness and reason, and not beaten out of it by force and violence. But Mr. B. hath another fling at my speech, that it is an easy point, and that the reason why so many Divines did not discern it, was their wilfulness or negligence, and this he imputes to want of humility, modesty, conscientiousness, and that he should tremble to pass so high a censure, forgetting what a heavy censure he had passed before on others of discovering a seared conscience▪ either taking error for no sin, or else daring to venture on sin without fear, and betraying their own souls by their laziness, p. 6. Who should be Antipaedobaptists without reading, and studying first some books there named, calling others ignorant senseless wretches, with much more of this kind over all his book, in which it is frequent with him to censure me, my answers and speeches, as if they showed some fearful spiritual judgement fallen on me, when his own mistakes through heedlessness, or uncharitableness, are all the occasion of such a censure. But for my speech here, I say still, that I know not how to say otherwise, and yet deprehend not any such pride▪ immodesty, or want of conscientiousness in my speech, nor any such high censure as he should tremble to pass, but as humble and fair an answer as is to be given to the question. Godly, learned, and humble men have differed in the points of Prelacy, Ceremonies, Ordinances, even in things that in themselves were easy to be discerned. What censure is easier than this, when some of them have continued in an error easily discernible, to say it hath been through wilfulness or negligence? which things are incident to the best and ablest, when they have a conceit of the point as of small moment, specially in comparison of peace and unity, when prejudice by education, determinations of Councils, Schools, leading Writers, Magistrates censures, etc. prepossessing them, draw them from examining it, or if they do examine it, makes them willing to satisfy themselves with imperfect and raw answers to their scruples, and most of all, when the loss of Preferment, Friends, Estate, Liberty comes to be in question, and pre-engagements make it grievous to retract. What I said of this is manifest by the instance I gave about Lutheran Consubstantiation, which M. B. should have showed not to be appositely brought, and not carp and cavil at my words so often as he doth (though they were but in a speech in private conference) that he may paint me out in as ugly shape as he can, specicially to those of Bewdley, my dear Auditors heretofore, but now causelessly by his affrightments estranged from me; which if it be not a fruit of malevolence in him I know not what to call it. As for his talk of his own doubts and pains to resolve himself, and the easiness and plainness of the grounds of it, it satisfies not me, but still I am suspicious of his negligence in not considering better many of those things he hath taken up. In which I am confirmed from his own confessions of prejudice, unwillingness to be put on this business, in that it diverted him from other enjoyments and studies, and from his hasty printing, his indistinct handling specially of his second argument, never clearly opening his terms, nor showing the hypotheses on which he builds his second main argument, his disorderly placing his proofs, his heaping up impertinent Texts, his mistakes of my answers, his overly reading my writings out of contempt of them, his frivolous questions, and expostulations, etc. And for his inference about my wilfulness or negligence, it is but a further piece of petulancy to insinuate that of me, in which my Apology, Sect. 4. might have undeceived him, though it were not then so easy to discern that error as now, after so much debating of it, did not pride, prejudice, fear, or some other partial affection hinder. And for Mr. Bs. conceit of his grounds, though I neither find them easy nor plain, yet it is no marvel others discern not how infant-baptism can be inferred from them, which can at most prove a reasonableness of the thing, as Mr. Bedford▪ Dr. Field, Dr. Hammond, and others speak, but not an institution of God, which must be gathered from precept or example in the N. T. and can only warrant our practice as the mind of God in mere positives about worship in the New Testament. In the explication of his second Proposition, pag. 10. he again objects my speech, that Mr. Ms. Principle on which he establisheth his Proof from Circumcision for infant-baptism is one of the first condemned Heresies, by which I meant that Proposition which he hath in his Sermon, pag. 35. that all God's commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them, in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, and were not accidental to them, in which thus much is maintained, that some part of the command of Circumcision, and the other Sacraments of the Jews, bind us as much as they did the Jews, which is expressly condemned, Acts 15. 24. as subverting the souls of the Gentiles, and is called, the heresy of the false Apostles, by the Century-writers, Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 5. and others condemn it under the title of Judaisme. But than saith Mr. B. Mr. M. is an Heretic with me, and all the Divines in the world that go his way. To which I answer, This inference hath too much show of Sycophancy, being urged so often, and to the People of Bewdly, my quondam Auditors. For, 1. though I say that Doctrine is such an Heresy, yet I do not say Mr. M. still holds it as his words did import; yea, I did acknowledge in my Apology, pag. 99 and in this writing Sect. 2. that Mr. M. doth deny that we are tied to any practice of the ritual part, which is indeed to retract his former speech in his Sermon. 2. But were it true that he did still hold it, yet it would not follow, that he were an Heretic with me. For, 1. I should not take him to be an Heretic that holds that Doctrine which is Heresy, if it were not so directly, but only by consequence not heeded, as this of his is. 2. Nor do I take him to be an Heretic that doth hold that which is Heresy directly, except he hold it in or with a party made to maintain it. And therefore I do once more protest against Mr. Bs. calumniatory inference, and deny that I account Mr. M. an Heretic, and yet I account still his Principle mentioned, if it were held as the words in the Sermon did import, to contain one of the first condemned Heresies, to wit, Judaisme. To this calumny Mr. B. adds another. Because I used the words of the Apostle, Acts 20. 26, 27. in a Sermon, he from the report of his Notary, and a multitude of my Auditors, likely his tale tellers, without sending to me about the truth of it, prints what he received from them, and thence infers, that the baptising of persons of years, notwithstanding their infant-baptism, is taken by me for a fundamental point, which the salvation or damnation of men doth necessarily depend on. Or what I meant to say [their blood be on their own heads] he knows not. And yet he conceives me to contradict myself when I blame the Papists for making baptism of necessity to salvation.  
To which I reply, that herein Mr. B. shows his inconsiderateness, or his mind to calumniate, or both. For, 1. he might have interpreted my words, as I think when I spoke them they were meant, in reference to other duties which I had taught them, with that of Baptism. 2. If it were meant particularly of Baptism, yet the threatening I conceive was not to the bare omission, but to the omission joined with opposition. 3. I am sure, if I did threaten, their blood should be on their head for omission of Baptism, it was not simply or barely for the omission, but for the omission after teaching, and upon supposition of conviction, by it of their duty▪ And this I think Mr. B. doth not stick to do to his hearers, in case after teaching and supposed conviction by it, they practise not a duty, though non-fundamental, as suppose reproving of their neighbours. For than they live presumptuously in sin, and such sinning consists not with sincerity and truth of Regeneration. And yet this doth not suppose the point in itself fundamental, that is, such as the mere ignorance of it, or the bare omission of it doth damn a person, or exclude out of the kingdom of God: in which sense I blame the Papists for maintaining a necessity of an infants being baptised to its entering into the kingdom of Heaven.  
But Mr. B. doth not think God lays so great a stress on this point, as I and others do.  
Answ. That which I hold is this, 1. that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Christ that binds Christians now as well as in the Apostles days, Mat. 28. 19 Mark 16. 15, 16. Act. 2. 38. & 10. 47, 48. Ephes. 4. 5. And I detest the audacious impiety of Socinians, and those in our days, who count themselves above Ordinances, that is as Mr. B. well interprets it, Plain Scripture Proof, etc. pag. 24. above obedience to God, and so Gods, as being one of the most palpable delusions of unsound men in our days, who place their perfection in a manifest disobedience to Christ's appointment, and some of them in an Antichristian presumption, as if they sat in the Temple of God, and showed themselves as God, do most arrogantly of their own heads, without any allowance of God, make void the express prime Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ, calling it a low dispensation, etc. I hope I shall have liberty hereafter to show the frivolous allegations and pretences of these men. In the mean time they may see what Mr. Laurence, Mr. Bartlet, M. B. pag. 341. of this his Book, have written for these Ordinances. 2. I hold that every Minister of the Gospel is bound, as to preach the Gospel, so to baptise those that are made Disciples, Matth. 28. 19 3. That every believing Christian is by necessity of precept tied to be baptised, that is, dipped in water, in testimony of his profession of Christ his Lord, 
Mr. Blake, Vind. foed. cap. 6. That is the Covenant draught, terms of the Covenant we find, He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned, Mark 16. 16  upon his being made a Disciple of Christ, Mat. 28. 19 Mark 16. 15, 16. Acts 2. 38. & 22. 16. 4. That this is ordinarily where and when it may be had without unmercifulness, defect of water, or some other like reason, a necessary means of salvation, Mark 16. 16. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Tit. 3. 4, 5. Eph. 4. 4, 5. 5. That infant-baptism is not the performance of the duty of being baptised according to Christ's appointment. 6. That in a regular and orderly way, persons, notwithstanding their pretended infant-baptism, are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper till they be baptised upon profession of their faith in Christ, Acts 2. 41, 42 1 Cor. 10. 2, 3, 4. & 12. 13. These things I may hereafter have opportunity to debate more fully. As for that which Mr. B. saith, pag. 10, 11. It doth no whit overthrow this necessity which I assert, but rather confirm it: For Gods freeing us from the great burden of Jewishrites makes it the rather necessary for us to obey Christ's appointment in those few Sacraments he hath ordained, which Mr. B. truly saith, As they are duties they are great, and so in themselves considered, and not only in respect of the consequences of them. And he saith truly, pag. 11. All Christ's commands must be obeyed, both great and small, so far as we know them. Yea, Mr. B. Scripture proof, pag. 342. saith, Baptism with Water is Heb. 6. 2. reckoned among the foundations or principles which are of standing use, and therefore it is so itself. Nor is his interpretation right, that the things ascribed to Baptism are ascribed to it without the external washing. In all these places, Rom. 6. 3, 4. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27. Ephes. 5. 26, 27. 1 Peter 3. 21. the outward use of Water is expressed, though the things ascribed to it do presuppose something more, as he himself allegeth them, pag. 342. which is the meaning of that speech, 1 Pet, 3. 21. Not the putting away of the filthiness of the flesh, that is, not it only, but the answer of a good conscience towards God joined with it. And whereas Mr. B. tell us, that we shall never be able to justify it, if we lay out the hundredth part, or perhaps the thousand part of our time, study, talk or zeal upon this question, I confess this may be true at some times, in some persons: but if other tenets be clear, and other duties not neglected, and this becomes a doubt of conscience, and falls into frequent practice, so as that it concerns them much for themselves, people, and little ones to be resolved in it, else they shall sin either by omitting a duty, or by doing a thing with gainsaying or doubting conscience, it is justifiable, though they bestow more than a hundredth part of their time and study upon it. And especially if the person be a Minister called to be a Guide to the People, and by special providence and solemn covenant led forth to vindicate the truth in such a time, when otherwise it is likely to be suppressed, and the Assertors of it oppressed. In these and such like cases it may be unjustifiable, if a person do not spend more than the hundredth part of his time about this question; else neither the Hussites will be justified in spending so much time in opposing the half-Communion, nor the Protestants in opposing Transubstantiation, nor the Non-Conformists in opposing the Ceremonies of Bishops. Mr. Tho. Goodwin preface to Mr. Cottons Dialogue for infant baptism, saith truly, The due application of baptism to all those persons Christ would have it administered unto, cannot but be apprehended by all that have any insight into the Controversies of these times, to be of very high importance. Not that I like their Carriage that neglect other necessary things, and spend all their time, study, talk, and zeal about this, such hypocrisy I should declaim against with him, remembering what our Saviour said in a like case, Matth. 23. 23. These things ought ye to have done, and not to have left the other undone.  
As for M. Bs. third Proposition concerning the grounds on which the point of infant baptism stands, that they are of great moment, because what he saith, rests on the heap of consequences he infers from the denial of infant baptism (of which there is scarce any one true) and the showing them to be but vain surmises, depends on the dispute itself, I shall therefore respite the vindicating the truth, from them, till I come to examine in this Review the arguments from Scripture urged on both sides, after which shall come in those from humane testimony and reason, unto which I now apply myself.   

SECT. V.  
The first argument from the institution, Mat. 28. 19 Mark 16. 16. and the practice in the New Testament against Infant baptism is urged.  
MR. B. saith pag. 8. he will prove, 1. That it is the will of God that some infants should be baptised. 2. that it is the will of God that all infants of believers ordinarily should be baptised.  
This latter doth better state the question, which is about the practice of those reformed Churches that baptise infants, whose doctrine is, that it is the privilege of a believers child. Yet Mr. B. and M. Baillee for some advantage choose to undertake the proof of the former, whereas the true state of it is, as in my Examen s. 2. and Mr. Ms. Sermon, Whether the infants of believers are to be baptised with Christ's baptism of Water by the lawful Minister according to ordinary rule? I hold the Negative, Mr. Martial, Dr. Homes, Mr. Geree, Mr. Blake, Mr. Baillee, Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Baxter, etc. hold the Affirmative. My dispute is to this purpose.  
The ordinary rule for baptising is Christ's institution, John the Baptists, and the Apostles appointment and practice: But neither according Christ's institution, nor according to John Baptists, or the Apostles command or practice, or any other approved example in Scripture, is the baptising of infants of believers; Therefore the baptising of infants of believers by a lawful Minister is not according to ordinary rule. The Major is confessed by all sorts, specially Protestant's and Anti-Prelatists. 

M. Collings Episto the Reader before his Vind. Minst. Evang. In things relating to the worship of God it is a general rule, in which our brethren and we have long since agreed, That nothing aught to be done without an express warrant in the Gospel.  
Mr. Rutherford, Due right of Presbyteries, pag▪ 364. what the Apostles commanded not in God's worship, that the Churches must not do.    
Mr. Bs. words are cited by me in my Praecursor, s. 16. and the force of his reason is showed here before s. 4. to contain this Proposition, What in baptism we have no warrant for by word or example in all the New Testament (since the solemn institution of baptism Mat. 28.) we are not to do; and much more to like purpose may be gathered from other passages of his page 302, 303. and Mr. M. in his Sermon on 2 Chron. 15. 2. is very punctual for Gods command to be observed in his worship. The 28 Article of the Church of England against reservation of the Bread etc. hath these words, The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not by Christ's Ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped, whereby it is apparent that reservation of the bread is condemned, because it is not by Christ's Ordinance, though Mr. Perkins in his right way of dying well confess it to be ancient. Bellarmine himself tom. 3. cont. de sacr. bapt. l. 1. c. 8. Sacramentum non pendet nisi à Divina institutione. Chamier tom. 4. panstr. cath lib. 5. cap. 14. sect. 55. ●is solis baptizare competit, quibus Commissio data est baptizandi. Haec propositio per se patet: quia baptismi institutio pendet à sola voluntate instituentis: itaque ex hac sola me●●enda: quomodo eucharistiae. Lib. 8. c. 2. s. 3. Quod si igitur tota sacramenti essentia est ab institutione divina, profectò hac violata, non potest sacramentum consistere. C. 8. s. 14. He citys calvin's words. Institutio enim Christi est certa regula, à qua▪ si deflect as, jam rectum non tenes. S. 21. At nos, contra hanc sceleratam audaciam ratum habemus illud Bielis in Canonem lectione 35. sacramentum irritum reputatur si contra institutionem celebretur. L. 7. c. 13. s. 17. sed non peccari in missa privata negatur; non enim aliter potest si contra institutionem admittatur: sic consentiunt omnes peccatum fuisse, cum baptizarentur mortui: quia videlicet institutio habuit doceri, baptizarique gentes: in quibus mortui nulli numerantur. Sic emendatum fuit, quod olim admittebatur, ut infantibus porrigeretur eucharistia: quoniam institutio habet, ut seipsum probet, qui de hoc pane sit esurus: similis omnino & communionis ratio; quandoquidem disertum, Accipite, edite. Mr. Selden lib. 1. de syned. Ebrae. c. 13. pag. 500 Modorum & temperamentorum ejusmodi ex arbitrio Humano accessione, ut id quod esset institutum aliquod Divinum novaretur aut ullatenus mutaretur, nunquam ritè permissum est. If all these testimonies satisfy not, the Apostle Paul's speech 1 Cor. 11. 23. yields us this truth, that the institution of Christ is that whereby an abuse in a sacrament is to be reform, and therefore is the ordinary rule according to which the sacrament is to be administered. Whence the New Annot. on that place infer, The only way to reform any abuses in the Church, is to have recourse to the word of God and first institution. And even the Assembly itself Confession of faith chap. 20▪ make many things used by Papists, as private masses, half-communion, adoration, elevation, reservation of the bread, contrary to the nature of the Sacrament, and to the institution of Christ, and prove it only by these texts. 1 Cor. 10. 16. Mark▪ 14. 23. 1 Cor. 11▪ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. Math. 15. 9 which are no proof without this Proposition, To vary from the institution in things appointed is evil, as being an humane invention, or worshipping of God after the commands of men, contrary to Matth. 15. 9 The Minor is confessed by Mr. Cawdrey Sab. Rediu. part. 4 ch. 1. num. 59 We have not in Scripture either precept or example of children baptised. Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 35. that there is neither express command or example in the New Testament that children should be, or were baptised, and pag. 44. It is said indeed that they taught and baptised, and no express mention of any other, and a little after, both John and Christ's disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptised, because than no other were capable of baptism: But that we may not seem to beg what is to be proved, I further argue thus. The institution and practice of the Sacrament of Christi an baptism is set down in the New Testament; But baptising of infants of believers is neither according to the institution of Christ, nor any practice or example therein, Ergo. The Major is plain of itself: For Christian baptism being a Sacrament of the New Testament, must have its institution and example to regulate it, there or no where. It is frequently put into the definition of the Sacraments of the New Testament, that they are ordained by Christ himself, and for defect of Christ's institution in the New Testament, sundry things are denied to be Sacraments of the New Testament. The Minor is proved from the texts which speak of baptism, either of the institution or practice. From both which I argue thus. Matth. 28. 19 is Christ's institution, Mr. B. calls it The solemn institution of baptism: But the baptising of infants of believers is not according to Christ's institution of baptism Matth. 28. 19 Ergo. The Minor is proved, First from the Subjects appointed to be baptised, to wit disciples of all Nations. They that are not disciples of Christ are not appointed to be baptised. Norton resp. ad Apollon. c. 2. pag. 34. non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizandi: Matth. 28. 19 discipulate baptizantes. But infants of believers are not disciples of Christ; Therefore they are not appointed to be baptised. That [disciples] included in the verb [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make disciples] as [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is Rom. 4. 4. in [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is the substantive to [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, them] is proved from the expression, John 4 1. where it is said [when the Pharisees heard that jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, maketh disciples and baptizeth] This the Evangelist saith was done by the Disciples of Christ. Now what they did before in Judaea, they were after appointed to do among all Nations, Matth. 28. 19 Therefore no other were appointed to be baptised than were baptised before, john 4. 1. (saving only with greater extent) that is, disciples made of, or among, or in all Nations. Beza annot. in Mat. 28. 19 Discipulos facite, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est discipulos mihi facite ex omnibus gentibus, Make to me disciples out of all Nations. Ursin Explic. catech. part. 2. q. 69 Verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quo Christus utitur proprie est discipulos facite, quod declaratur a joanne c. 4. 1. The word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which Christ useth, is properly [make disciples] which is declared by john ch. 4. v. 1. Pareus Comment. in Matth. 28. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, est idem quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, discipulos facere Christo, ut explicatur john 4. 1. It is the same with to make disciples to Christ, as it is explained John 4. 1. The New Annot▪ on Matthew 28. 19 of the first edition (which is now altered in the second edition, to hinder truth) teach] Greek, make disciples of, as john 4. 1. all nations] not jews alone, but Gentiles also Acts 10. 34, 35, 47. Chamier Panstr. cath. tom. 3. l. 12. c. 9 s. 15. It was the express command of Christ, teach or make disciples in all nations. Norton resp. ad Apollon: c. 2. pag. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make disciples, Joh. 4. 1. Cameron in his Lecture on Mat. 19 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to make a proselyte, is as Mat. 28. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said for [to make a disciple]. This is confirmed in that what is said of Joseph Mat. 27. 57 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rendered by the vulgar Latin, Beza, our English, etc. [who also himself was jesus disciple] is john 19 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being disciple to jesus. Whereby it is apparent that in both places, in Matthew the Noun [disciple] is included in the Verb, though in Matthew 28. 19 it be used actively [make disciples] in the other Matthew 27. 57 it is used passively [he was himself a Disciple] The same is to be conceived of the two other places where the word is used Matthew 13. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made a disciple. Acts 14. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had made many disciples. And this is further proved from the parallel place Mark 16. 15 16. where [preach the Gospel to every Creature] answers too [make disciples all nations] and [he that believeth and is baptised] answers too [baptising them] which plainly shows the subject▪ of baptism to be disciples, and those disciples to be believers, as Chamier proves panst. cath. tom. 3. l. 12. c. 9 s. 15. But such are not infants of believers. Ergo, they are not appointed to be baptised. 2. Those only Christ appointed to be baptised to whom the Gospel was preached, and the persons taught; But such are not infants, Ergo. The Major is plain both by the words, Mat. 28. 19 make disciples, which is by teaching, and more plainly from Mark 16. 15. Go preach the Gospel to every Creature, which answers too [disciple all nations] and this is to precede baptism. This is confirmed by the Apostles practice, which shows how they understood Christ's words, and how we should understand them, for they baptised none till they were taught, Ergo neither should we. Conformable hereto is the constant exposition & observation of former and later writers and Expositors, of whom as they have occurred to me I shall set down their words. Athanasius Orat. contra Arianos. Ideoque salvator non quovis modo baptizandum praecepit, sed primum dixit docete, ac deinde baptizate in nomine Patris et filii et spiritus sancti, ut ex doctrina recta fides oriretur, et cum fide baptismatis integra initiatio perficeretur. Hieron. in Mat. 28. 19 Primum docent omnes genses: deinde doctas intingunt aqua non enim potest fieri ut corpus baptismi recipiat sacramentum, nisiante anima fidei susceperit veritatem: Ordo praecipuus: jussit Apostolis ut primum docerent universas gentes: deinde fidei intingerent sacramento et post fidem ac baptisma quae essent observanda praeciperent: which words are also ascribed to Hilarius in Matthew 28. 19, 20. And the like to Beda, Anselmus, Aquinas, Paschasius, Rabanus, Lucas Brugensis, jansenius, and many others on Matth. 28. 19 which were it necessary might be produced: whence the Ancients deduced, that persons were first to be catechised, and then to be baptised: which was constantly observed, except in case of present danger of death towards children of believers, until some later ages. But because later Protestant writers are of more esteem with most of my Antagonists, I will add some of them, Calvin in Matthew 28. 19 apud Marlor. Baptizari jubet Christus qui nomen Evangelio dederint, seque professi fuerint discipulos. Ursin Cat. Explic. part. 2. q. 69. Quasi dicat colligite mihi Ecclesiam per verbum, et quos feceritis mihi discipulos toto corde credentes eos omnes et solos baptizate & mihi areliquis separate. Pareus Com. in Matt. 28. 19 Colligite mihi Ecclesiam inter omnes gentes, praedicatione vestra adducentes eos ad fidem. Alsted. Theol. polem. parte 3. pag. 

Piscator observ. in Matth. 28. 19 Docete omnes gen●e● (nempe praedicando Evangelium, ut declarat Marcus) baptizantes eos, vult ergo ut prius constet de alicujus ●ide, quam is baptizetur.  
Collings vin. Min. Evang pag 36. It is the first act in ministerial Commission Mat. 28. 19 first preach, then baptise.   251. Ut praecipitur ex cohaerentia sententiarum Matth. 28. docete omnes gentes (nempe praedicando Evangelium) baptizantes eos. Confer cum Marc. 16. Becm. Exercit. Th. 17. p. 259, 260. Doctrina praecedit, baptismus sequitur. Mr. Cotton, The way of the Churches in New England, chap. 4. sect. 6. And indeed the Commission which Christ gave his Apostles, holdeth it forth that they were by preaching to make disciples before they baptised them and their children. This later is his own addition, the rest is right and to my purpose. But sure Christ did not appoint to preach the Gospel to infants, therefore he did not appoint to baptise them. For Christ appointed his Disciples to baptise none but they who were first preached to, and consequently they do it without Commission from Christ, who baptise infants ordinarily without preaching the Gospel to them. I suppose no man will conceive Christ appointed infants of a day old to have the Gospel preached to them, it had been a ridiculous injunction; therefore neither did he appoint them to be baptised. For both commands are joined together concerning the same persons.  
3. The institution is, To baptise into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, But the baptising of infants is not into the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit; Ergo their baptism is not according to the institution. The Minor is proved from the right understanding of the meaning of the phrase of baptising into the name of the Father, Son and holy Ghost, Beza annot. in Matthew 28. 19 Into the name] that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being called upon. And this interpretation is confirmed from the words of Ananias to Paul Acts 22. 16. Arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord, where is enjoined calling on the name of the Lord with baptising, which explaineth what Christ had appointed, Mat. 28. 19 Of baptising into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Or to be baptised into the name is to be baptised with the person baptised, his devoting himself to the Service of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit. This is gathered from the phrase 1 Cor. 1. 13. Were ye baptised into the name of Paul? Beza annot. in Acts 19 3. Baptizari autem in ejus nomen dicimur, cui nos per baptismum dicamus ac consecramus: quamobrem recte Paulus negat seize in nomen suum quemquam baptizâsse. Or to be baptised into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, is to be baptised with profession of that doctrine, to wit, that Jesus is the Son of God, Act. 8. 37. testified by the Father, Son and Spirit, Mat. 3. 17. 1 John 5. 5, 6, 7. as to be baptised into John's baptism, Acts 19 3. whether the same with being baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus, verse 5. as those conceive that expound the words as spoken of what john did, or different, yet it was with profession of doctrine, as Beza annot. in Acts 19 3. Baptizari in joannis baptisma significat doctrinam quam Ioannes annunciabat, ac baptismi symbolo obsignabat, profiteri, & baptismo adhibito amplecti. I will add the words of Grotius annot. in Matth. 289. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] cum locutio, haec varias habeat ex Hebraismo significationes, eam his praeferendam arbitraor, quae baptismo maximè propria est. Est autem baptizari in aliquem, vel in ejus nomen, se ei auctorare atque devovere, & de ejus nomine appellari ●elle. Paulus 1 Cor. 10. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, respiciens illud Exodi 14. 31. Crediderunt in Deum & Mosen servum ejus, id est, Mosi tanquam Dei ministro cum bona siducia regendos se commisere, sic Paulus negat quenquam baptizatum in suum nomen, 1 Corinth. 1. 13, 15. hoc est, sibi velut novi dogmatis auctori mancipatum. Maimomides de bello capta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: baptizet eam in nomen proselytarum, id est, in eam religionem quam profitentur proselytae. Christiani igitur tres sui dogmatis auctores agnoscere jubebantur, Patrem, filium & spiritum sanctum, nihilque ut necessarium admittere, quod non ab eis esset profectum, id est, quod non à patre ortum, à filio proditum, à spiritu verò esset partim explicatum apertius, partim obsignatum. Administratur enim baptismus, ut loquitur Hilarius, in confession, & auctoris & unigeniti & dom. But infants of believers do neither call upon the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, nor devote themselves to their service, nor profess the doctrine of Christ, Therefore they are not baptised into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, according to Christ's appointment.  
Mr. M. Defence page 266. calls these petty reasonings, and saith, That baptising into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost should be interpreted to be invocation of God's name, and so to make baptism and prayer all one, is strange divinity.  
I reply. My words are perverted by him: I said baptising is to be with the party baptised his invocation of the name of the Lord, not that baptism and prayer are all one, but that they should be concomitants, and together in the use of baptism after Christ's appointment. And this is no strange divinity to others, however it be to Mr. M. The words of Ananias Acts 22. 16. Beza on Matthew 28. 19 show it to be no strange or forced Divinity. Becman Exercit. Theol. 17. p. 251. hath the like, In nomen hoc est invocato nomine Christi baptizamur. The New Annot. on 1 Cor. 1. 13. The third reason taken from the form and end of baptism, wherein we make a promise to Christ, calling on also the name of the Father, and the Holy Ghost. The words of Grotius a learned man, whatever his other qualities were, show it to be old Divinity. Annot. on Matthew 28. 19 he speaks thus. Post has ergo stipulationes atque responsiones, quas verba Sacramenti Tertullianus vocat ad militiae morem alludens, sequebatur baptismus, cui accedebant preces in quibus nominabantur Pater, Filius, & Spiritus sanctus. Orationem hanc propriè ad patrem directam indicare videtur Justinus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Deinde, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Solemn ejus invocations verbum erat Abba Pater, ut not at Chrysostomus 8. add Rom. 15. The words in chrysostom hom. 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, by which we cry Abba Father. This holy Ministers know what it is, rightly commanding to say this word first at the mystical prayer, meaning at baptism. Grotius goes on thus. His si addas id quod Acts 22. 16. refertur ab Anania dictum Paulo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Videbis tum eum qui baptizabatur, tum eos qui baptismo aderant (neque enim in toto coetu exercebatur primis temporibus, quod ostendunt, etc.) solitos orare Deum patrem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quomodo ipse orare nos docet, John 14. 13, 14. Ut sidem ejus qui baptizabatur, & liberam illam christianismi professionem muneraret spiritu suo sancto per gradus quosdam, quorum initium erat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Grotius notes to like purpose on Luke 3. 21. where it is said, Jesus being baptised, and praying, the Heaven was opened; which shows Christ prayed at his Baptism, and thereupon the Spirit descended; which the Ancients conceived as a Rule, and is at least recorded as an Example to be imitated.  
Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindic. pag. 182. calls this New Light, which if he mean Ironically, (as it is likely he doth) he may hereby perceive, that he is mistaken, and for what he excepts against this Exposition, that neither in the baptising of the Samaritans, Acts 8. was that Rule observed, nor was it possible that the three thousand baptised in one day, Acts 2. should arise each of them, and call upon the Name of the Lord, as they were baptised; it proceeds upon a mistake, as if no calling on the Name of the Lord were sufficient, but that which was set and solemn before the public Assembly, whereas neither is Baptism necessary to be administered before the public Assembly: Grotius proves out of Justin Martyrs words, and otherwise, that it was administered not as they now do infant▪ sprinkling in the public meeting place, but in some place without, aside from the public Assembly, and the calling on the Name of the Lord was or might be ejaculatory, whether in the heart only, or by words, praying to the Father by Christ for the Spirit.  
Mr. M. makes this inference from my words; Then it seems if the party baptised call on the Name of the Lord by prayer, that's all that is intended by baptising into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  
But this is but another of his pervertings of my words: for in the same place I joined with it, devoting themselves to the service of, and adherence to the Father, Son, and Spirit, which I proved out of 1 Cor. 1. 13, 15. which proves plainly that to be baptised into the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, notes not a Minister's Commission from the Father, Son, and Spirit, nor a Form of words to be used by him at Baptism, whether the party baptised understand it or no, but in baptising, engaging the party baptised to acknowledge the Father, Son, and Spirit, as Lord and Teacher, Diod. Annot. in 1 Cor. 1. 15. In mine own Name] as to bind them unto me to acknowledge me for their Head. Hence John's Baptism is the Doctrine he preached, and the baptised by him professed, Mark 1. 4. Acts 10. 47. & 19 3. and the Pharisees therefore were not baptised of John, Luke 7. 30. because they should have professed John's Doctrine, which they were against, if they had been baptised of him, as their Disciples did their Doctrine, and John's Disciples did his. Clear therefore it is, that [baptising into the Name] doth note not only the act of the Ministers of Baptism, but also the party baptised his act of invocating, addicting, profession of Service and Doctrine, and obediently testifying it by that sign: for that is plain from the command, Acts 2. 38. Let every one of you be baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the requiring of a duty from them conjoined with repentance, and ●herefore to be baptised is not merely passive, but implies a voluntary yielding of a person to it. And it is further proved from the words to Paul, Acts 22. 16. where he is commanded, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Arise, baptise, and wash, which all require voluntary action on his part, as well as ministration on Ananias his part, out of which this argument is form: They are not baptised into Christ's Name, or his Fathers, and Spirits Name, who do not perform the acts required in that expression; But infants of believers do not perform the acts required in that expression; therefore they are not baptised into Christ's Name, or his Fathers, o● Spirits, according to the meaning of it in the institution. So that this argument is not a petty reasoning, but a solid reason, to prove infant's baptism not such as Christ appointed. As for Mr. Ms. frivolous question, Were not the infants of the Jews devoted to God by Circumcision, though they could not actually devote themselves? Though I am not bound to answer his impertinent questions, yet I will tell him they were; yet this is nothing to the business in hand, about the meaning of the Phrase [to be baptised into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] which manifestly implies the party baptised his act, which infants cannot do. Whereas no where▪ there is such a command [Be ye circumced in the Name of Jesus Christ] nor is it all one to be circimcised, as to be baptised; which is still supposed but never proved.  
4. I further urged, Christ bids the Apostles presently after Baptism, Teach them to observe what ever he commanded; But this direction could not pertain to infants, they could not be taught to observe Christ's commands; therefore neither were they appointed to be baptised: Mr. M. denies that they were enjoined presently to teach them to observe what Christ commanded. But the Text knits these together, Baptising and Teaching, so as that they that were baptised should be taught, & that by them that baptised them; which the Apostles could not do, being to go up and down from place to place, to plant the Churches in all Nations, if they had been to baptise infants; for than they must have stayed many years till they came to understanding to be taught to observe what Christ commanded. No man me thinks should imagine Christ's appointment to be thus, Make infants disciples, and baptise them, and then after five, six, or ten years, when they are grown to some understanding, come again and teach them to observe what I have commanded, but that Christ did appoint them to teach them presently after Baptism, that is, in so many hours or days after that Ordinance was administered, as it could be well done. Nor doth Mr. Cobbet avoid this objection by saying, pag. 179. then they must be presently taught the whole mind of Christ, which is impossible. For [presently] is not restained to an instant, but comprehends a just latitude of time for the doing of the thing, only it notes that the beginning of it is to be not long after Baptism, but sooner by much than it could be done to infants. Mr. Baxter Plain Scripture Proof, pag. 341. argues thus, What Christ hath conjoined, man must not separate; but Christ hath conjoined Discipling and Baptising, (I add, and Teaching) therefore we must not separate them.  
5. The institution of Christ is best understood by the command of the Apostles, the resolution of Philip, the practice of John Baptist, the Apostles, and other men sent by God to baptise; but the Apostle Peter commanded first Repentance and then Baptism, Acts 2. 38. Philip resolved the Eunuch demanding, What hindereth me to be baptised? If thou believest with all thy heart, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou mayst, it is lawful or allowed thee, Acts 8. 36, 37. John the Baptist, the Apostles, and other holy men sent by God to baptise, baptised none but Professors of Repentance, Faith, and being Disciples of Christ, as may appear by the Texts mentioning their baptising, Mat. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. Luke 3. 10. Acts 2. 41▪ & 8. 12, 13, 38▪ & 9 18. & 10. 47. & 11. 17, 18. & 16. 15, 31, 32, 33. & 18. 8. & 19 5. & 22. 16. Therefore Christ's institution is of baptising only Professors of Repentance, Faith, and being Disciples of Christ, and therefore not infants of believers. The major cannot be denied by those that confess that Scripture best expounds Scripture, and that the Apostles knew Christ's mind, and did observe it. The minor is manifest from the Texts alleged. And Mr. rutherford's words are express to that purpose, Divine Right of Church▪ government, cap. 5. q. 1. pag. 257. We read that John Baptist and the Apostles baptised none but such as confessed their sins, and professed faith in Christ Jesus.  
To this Mr. M. Defence, pag. 227. says, that it would be a hard task for me to prove that John baptised none but upon profession of Repentance.  
I reply, 1. It is proved already and confessed by Mr. Rutherford. 2. I did think Mr. Ms. own words, Sermon pag 44. that John did teach before he baptised, because than no other were capable of Baptism, did amount to as much, till Mr. M. to help himself, referred [then] to the time until Parents were converted not to the time of Johns and the Apostles ministry, of which the objection was, to which in those words he answered. For the objection was, that they always taught and made them Disciples, by teaching before they baptised any; and Mr. Ms. words in his answer were, John and Christ's Disciples, and the Apostles, did teach before they baptised, because than no other were capable of Baptism, which if not understood of the time of their Ministry, it was an answer besides the objection. 3. Mr. M. hath not yet showed any other, but such baptised by them, and therefore it is probable in the highest degree of probability that no other were baptised by them. 4. I think an argument in this matter from the Evangelists relation negatively is good proof, unless we will suppose John Baptist and the Apostles were defective in their duty, or the Evangelists in their narrations of that which frequently (if it had been their duty) would have occurred, and their story lead them to mention, and it was of much concernment to the Churches of God in after Ages they should.  
2. He saith, It would be hard to prove that John did impose or require confession of sin before baptism.  
Reply. I think not, 1. what they did, sure was required of them, else it had not been an acceptable thing, and by John, else he had failed in his duty, Luke 1. 17. But they confessed sin afore Baptism▪ Matth. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. Ergo. 2. He that preached repentance to them that came to be baptised, required confession of sins (which is a chief part of it) afore Baptism; But so did John, Matth. 3. 2. Ergo. 3. He that preached to them to prepare the way of the Lord, required confession of sins afore Baptism, for that was the preparing the way of the Lord by bringing persons to confess sins, and then to baptise them; But John did preach to prepare the way of the Lord, Mat. 3. 3. 4. He that preached the Baptism of repentance, required confession of sin to Baptism; But John did preach the Baptism of repentance, Mark 1. 4. Luke 3. 3. Acts 13. 24. & 19 4.  
To prevent this, saith Mr. M. It is said, he baptised them eyes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (unto repentance) not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (in repentance) as stated in actual repentance.  
But dare Mr. M. in good earnest say that John Baptist did admit persons to Baptism that were not in a state of repentance? If he should, I doubt not but to be able to prove the contrary from that which is said of those he baptised, Matth. 3. 6. They were baptised of him in jordan, confessing their sins; and Mark 1. 5. They were all baptised of him in the River of jordan, confessing their sins; [all] must not be understood simply, for so it were not true, but, as the matter requires, with this limitation, all that were baptised were baptised confessing of sins, which was a state of repentance, Matth. 21. 32. the different state of those that believed john, and those that believed not, is expressed thus, the one repent that they might believe, and the other not. And by comparing it with Luke 7. 29, 30. it appears they only were baptised that believed john, and others not. But were it not Mr. M. had been minded to wrangle, there had been no need to have proved this, His own words, That there was a new Church to be constituted of those that should receive Christ, Sermon page 44. shows none were to be baptised but penitents, unless they were to be Church members who were not in a state of repentance. Would john admit manifest impenitents? Then the new Church should consist of impenitents, and so no difference between the Church and the world, them that receive Christ and them that receive him not, all should be Church-members. john's baptism and Christ's is by Protestants asserted to be all one, saving that the one pointed at Christ to come after, Acts 19 4. the other as already manifested by name, neither did admit any but penitents, and believers in show. As for Mr. Ms. quirk, that he baptised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matthew 3. 〈◊〉. unto repentance, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in repentance. 1. I might urge Erasmus his reading ad poenitentiam, at or upon their repentance, as the like is to be expounded Matthew 12. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not [unto] but [at the preaching of jonas. 2. There is no need▪ for both are true, and may be proved out of the text, that he preached repentance to be before baptism and after. That he preached repentance to be before baptism is already proved, and Pareus in his Comment. on Matthew 3. 5. disputing against Maldonate the jesuit, who applies this confession of sins to Auricular confession, urgeth the tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is in the present tense, referring to the time of baptism, having confessed their sins, or then confessing their sins when baptised, not confessing their sins after as in Auricular confession at the sacrament of Penance as they call it. Hereupon he urgeth, Non prius baptizabantur postea confitebantur ut in●p●e fingit Maldonatus, and concludes, that john rejected the Pharisees when he saw their hypocrisy, v. 7. and infers that his auditors first in testimony of repentance confessed their sins, and then were baptised, and gathers this doctrine, To the Sacraments no impenitents are to be admitted.  
It's true that he baptised them unto future repentance, that is so as that they were required and professed to repent and change their lives. Therefore he required that they should bring forth fruits meet for repentance, Luke 3. 8. and directed particularly wherein verse 11, 13, 14. Initial repentance is prerequired to baptism, and continued repentance is to follow after, and therefore john Baptists calling for repentance and preaching the baptism of repentance show not only that this was the lesson they were all to learn, but that also as Pareus proves, that they must all manifest that they repented afore he baptised them, and that all did and were tied to make confession of sins, notwithstanding Mr: Ms. saying.  
Master M. sets down the judgement of very learned men who conceive their confession of sins was not because it is a necessary medium to all who should receive baptism, but to clear his baptism from misconstruction, to thwart the opinion of justification by the works of the Law. To which I say.  
1. That were this granted, yet it avoids not my argument, who bring the matter of fact only, it is enough for me at present if it appear that john baptised none but penitents.  
2. Yet the judgement of those very learned men is but their own saying, nor can it be right. For if the end of john's requiring repentance was only to clear his baptism from misconstruction, because the men who came to be baptised of john, were such as had been educated in an opinion of justification by works of the Law, & so more was required of them than of others, as it is usual to require more of an heretic for his admission into the bosom of the Church, than he had required such confession of sins and repentance only of Pharisees and their Scholars, whereas he required it also of Publicans, Harlots, Soldiers, as may be seen Luke 3. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. And indeed he required it of all for both ends, that he might contradict the Pharisees doctrine, and because it was a necessary prerequisite to his baptism, because his baptism was contrary to the baptism that initiated proselytes into judaism, in the nature of it, that is the doctrine taught by the Baptist, and professed by the baptised, the Pharisees baptism requiring observance of the Law for righteousness, and john's baptism requiring repentance for remission of sins, and therefore the Pharisees rejected it, Luke 7. 29, 30. so that in truth this judgement of those learned men about the reason of john's baptism proves against Mr. M. that repentance is to antecede baptism, and his allegation thereof may be retorted upon him.  
6. To strengthen this argument from the institution of Christ and practise Apostolical, there are many passages in the Epistles, which do prove that baptism was and ought to be with such profession and acts of the baptised, as do not nor can ordinarily be ascribed to infants of believers, and therefore they are not rightly baptised according to ordinary rule. Ro. 6. 3, 4 Know ye not, saith the Apostle, that so many of us as were baptised into jesus Christ, were baptizd into his death; therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life, now to be baptised into death & Christ's death is by baptism to engage ourselves to die with Christ to sin, with profession of purpose of newness of life and hope of resurrection. Becman. Exer. Theol. 17. pag. 257. Baptizari in mortem Christi dicimur quatenus stipulamur nos credere in Christum pro nobis mortuum & ipsius exemplo veluti en●care peccatum ne nobis dominetur. But this could not infants do therefore no infants were then baptised, and consequently ought not to be now.  
1. Cor. 12. 13. For even by or in one Spirit have we been baptised into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and have been all made drink into one Spirit, or as some copies have it, have been all made to drink or drench into one drink into one Spirit. That here baptism with water and the drinking the cup in the Lord's Supper are meant, is manifest, the Apostle arguing from the end of those two rites for the union and communication between all Christians, as 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. he had done in the Lord's Supper, and Eph. 4. 4▪ 5. he doth from baptism. And without that allusion the phrase is not intelligible. And the exception of the Antibaptists is vain, that it is Spirit-baptism not water-baptism, For it is indeed both, Spirit-baptism from the Spirit as the cause, and water-baptism together as the outward element. Now hence three Arguments arise against infant baptism.  
1. All that were baptised into the body were baptised by one Spirit as the Concurrent cause as Mr. B. saith rightly in his plain Scripture proof, etc. page 342. that is together with the word, as Ephes. 5. 26: is declared, by preaching of which the Spirit was given, Gal. 3▪ 2. and this was presumed of all, as 1 Thes. 1. 2. 4. and elsewhere. And Mr. B. truly saith in the same place, That it was all that were thus baptised into the body. But I subsume, infants were not thus baptised, Ergo, no infants were then baptised, and consequently ought not to be now.  
2. All that were thus baptised were also made to drink, or did drink themselves, or were drenched by their own act in the receiving the cup in the Lord's Supper unto one Spirit in communion and testification of one Spirit, as 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. But infants did not thus drink, Ergo infants were not then baptised.  
3. All that were counted members of the body of Christ, or the Church, were thus baptised, and made to drink. But infants were not thus baptised, and made to drink, for if so, they received the Lords Supper, therefore were not then visible Church members, and consequently ought not to be so counted now.  
Gal. 3. 26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27. For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ. Where the Apostle proving that they were all the children of God by faith in Christ, because they had put on Christ, must needs intimate that it was by faith in Christ Jesus that they had put on Christ, and then the Apostles speech is this, As many of you as have been baptised into Christ have by faith in Christ Jesus put on Christ, and consequently so many as were baptised were believers, and therefore no infants were baptised for want of faith.  
Ephes. 4. 4, 5. There is one body and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Whence I argue,  
1. They that have one baptism, have also one faith; But infants had not one faith; Ergo they had not one baptism, and consequently are not to have it now.  
2. One faith is placed before one baptism, therefore faith went before baptism in the Apostles days, and consequently infants were not baptised.  
3. They that were counted of one body had one faith; But infants had not one faith, therefore they were not counted of one body, that is Church-members, Mr. Bs. words p. 342. confirm this Ephes. 4. 5. As the whole Church is one body, and hath one Lord, and one faith, so hath it one common baptism,  
Eph. 5. 26. That he might sanctify it, cleansing it with the washing of water by the word, whence Mr. B Plain Script. proof, p. 342. infers, the whole Church of Christ must in duty be washed with water. Now I argue, 1. They who were washed with water, were cleansed with the washing of water by the word, which word is the word preached, as where mention is made of baptism, there mention is made of preaching of the word going before it, and [the word] doth no where signify the covenant or promise of God taken precisely or abstractively from the narration of Christ's coming and invitation to repentance, but altogether as it was preached, as may be seen in Peter's speech, Acts 10. 36, 37, 38, etc. But infants were not cleansed by the word; therefore they were not cleansed by the washing of water.  
2. The whole Church was cleansed with the washing of water by the word; But so were not infants; therefore they were not parts of the Church, and consequently are not now.  
Col. 2. 12. Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye have also been raised together through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead. Whence I argue. They who were buried with Christ in baptism were also therein raised together through faith, and consequently were believers; But infants were not in baptism raised together through faith; therefore they were not buried with Christ in baptism, that is, they were not baptised, and by consequence ought not to be.  
Tit. 3. 5. is usually expounded of baptism, as by Mr. B. pag. 342, so by many others. But if the washing there be meant of baptism, it is such as was with regeneration and receiving of the Holy Ghost; therefore not of infants whose regeneration and receiving was unknown.  
Heb. 6. 1, 2. Where the foundation is mentioned, this order is observed, first repentance, than faith, than baptism, then laying on of hands, than resurrection of the dead, and lastly eternal judgement, now if the Apostle kept a right order here used in teaching, and according to the event of things (as he seems to have done) than repentance and faith went before baptism: and so no infants baptised.  
1 Pet. 3. 21. The baptism that saves is accompanied with the answer of a good conscience towards God. This saith Beza in his annot. on that text alludes to the Custom of stipulating or promising at baptism by the baptised: which if right (as is probable) than it is manifest that the baptised did answer at baptism, which infants could not, and therefore were not baptised.   

SECT. VI  
Mr. Blakes exception against the Major, that such institution or example as I require for infant-baptism is unnecessary, is refelled.  
AGainst these arguments (chiefly the two first) brought to prove that infants are not to be baptised, according to the institution Matth. 28. 19 and the practice of the Apostles (besides what is alleged and refuted already) many things are alleged. Mr. Blake Vindic. foederis page 411. construes the objection, that infant-baptism wants an institution, as if the meaning were that it wants an institution with limit to infant age, and then talks thus at randum, This Objection, if it have force in it, followed home, will overthrow all baptism at any age, and every other new Testament ordinance whatsoever: For according to this rule a person must bring a precept for one of his age to be baptised. But this is M. Blakes mistake of the objection; For in it an institution is not required with limit to infant age, but such an institution as comprehends by any description ordinarily infant age. But then, saith he, upon the same account church-members in covenant of any age ought to be baptised, and so the institution is not in question (about that there is an agreement) but whether infants be in covenant, whether they be any church-members, is to be disputed, which already is satisfied.  
Answ. It is false which he faith that there is an agreement about the institution, I deny that the institution is, Baptise persons in covenant, except he mean persons in covenant by their own profession and promise, or that it is all one to baptise disciples and to baptise persons to whom God hath promised, or covenanted Christ: For then the Jews yet uncalled should be baptised, to whom God's covenant is, Romans 11. 27. It is false also that upon the same account upon which the institution of baptism with limit to infancy is waved, church-members in covenant of any age (in Mr. Blakes sense) ought to be baptised, and that the question is only whether infants be in covenant, whether they be any members. He knows well that I yield that infants are in the covenant of grace, in respect of Gods promise to as many of them as are elect, whether believers children or not, and that I grant that many of them are members of the invisible Church; yea he himself in his 43. chap. of Vindic. foederis sect. 3. had disputed against my tenet, denying a connexion between the covenant and initial seal, and therefore this speech of his shows either his oscitancy, or his willingness to misled.  
He than repeats his arguments in his Birth privilege in the same words he then used to prove the institution to comprise infants, which were answered in my Examen sect. 13. and my answer there vindicated in my Postscript sect. 14, 15, 18. in answer to the 11 chapter of Mr. Blakes answer to my Letter. I will not here repeat what I then answered, but reply to what he excepts in his Vindic. Foederis pag. 413. where he doth not show insufficiency in what I say Apol. page 147. to answer his allegation of Isaiah 49. 22. But says he doubts not I abuse my memory. Concerning which I yield it not unlikely my memory did fail me in that thing, of his alleging Isaiah 49. 22. as an argument by itself. I hope this may satisfy Mr. Blake, and the Reader, if he read the places in my writings here mentioned, may be satisfied that it proves not any thing for Mr. Blakes purpose. Likewise for what I answered in my Postscript sect: 18. to his allegation of Mat. 18. 5. & 10. 42. Mark 9 41. Luke 9 47, 48. he refers to Mr. Baxters' book page 22. I shall refer the Reader to my answer to Mr. B. here.  
M. Blake only adds, that the denial that infants are within the verge of the Commission, Mat. 28. 19 involves the Apostles and all that are employed in their work in succession, in a contradiction. The nations are to be discipled: Infants bear a part of the nation: and yet infants are in an incapacity wholly of it. See Mr. Cooks answer to the Challenges of the Anabaptists of Stafford, pag. 14.  
I reply, Mr. Blakes words are so obscure (as many of his speeches are) that I understand not his meaning when he saith, The denial that infants are within the verge of that commission Matthew 28. 19 involves the Apostles, and all that are employed in their work in succession, in a contradiction, whether he mean thus, my denial involves the Apostles in a contiadiction to their own sayings, or to Christ's words: either way understood, I discern not any truth or show of truth in Mr. Blakes words. Christ's words are a command, and not an enunciation, and therefore there can be according to exact expression no contradiction to them; and for any sayings of the Apostles which should be involved in a contradiction by my denial, it is beyond any art of divination of mine to guess which and where they should be. And for his syllogism it is false, consisting of four terms, 1. The nations, 2. to be disciples, 3. infants, 4. bear a part of the Nation. If it were good I might from the parallel place Mark 16. 15. argue in the same manner, Every creature is to have the Gospel preached to it; Infants bear a part of every creature, therefore to infants the Apostles were to preach the Gospel. Nor is there any contradiction in these two Propositions, The nations are to be discipled, and yet infants are in an incapacity of it, no more than in these, God hath granted repentance to the Nations, Acts 11. 18. yet not to infants, All nations and all people are exhorted to praise God, Rom. 15. 11. in him shall the nations trust, verse 12. yet not an infant meant. The speeches are so plain Acts 15. 3. declaring the conversion of the nations, verse 7. God made choice among us, that the nations by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe, verse 14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Nations to take out of them a people for his name, verse 17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Nations upon whom my name is called, verse 19 Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble not them which from among the Nations are turned to God. Acts 20. 25. As touching the Nations (for the word translated Gentiles and Nations is the same in all these places) which believe, we have written, and yet in no one of these places are infants meant under the term [Nations] And when our Lord Christ expresseth what he said Matthew 28. 19 Disciple all nations, by the words preach the Gospel to every creature, Mark. 16. 15. as the comparing the texts shows, and interpreters confess; I know not how to conceive with what Spirit Mr. Blake is moved, who doth so often seek to impose his stale all egations so often and so plainly refuted. Will any man conceive that Christ bid them preach to infants, and yet his bidding them to disciple all nations is as much as to bid them go preach to all nations? If men do swallow down such fancies, I can hardly judge but that they are willing to be deceived. In Mr. Cook's book in the place to which he refers me, I find no more then in Mr. Blakes, and therefore need give no other answer than what is given to him.  
But Mr. Blake adds. For that part of the objection, that there is no example in the New Testament scripture of infant-baptism, I answer, First, for an example of baptism with limit to any one precise number of years or days, we have but one that I know (if that) in Scripture, and that is of Christ, who was (as is computed) about the age of thirty when he was baptised, if this be pressed and followed all must at that alone be for baptism, and no other of any age may be baptised. Mr. T. had many years above thirty over his head, when I heard him say, that he was satisfied, that though an infant ought not to be baptised, yet being baptised in infancy, when in years he did make profession of the Gospel this was valid, which he spoke in justification of his own baptism; though now (as error is creeping) of an Antipaedobaptist he is grown up to an Anabaptist, and is rebaptised, and in his Praecursor glories in his shame of rebaptising others.  
Answ. The Objection as by me framed doth not intimate a pleading the necessity of an example with limit to any one precise number of years or days, as a rule to be followed in baptism, but rests in the institution and examples in the new Testament as sufficient to direct whom to baptise, to wit disciples, repenting believers in Christ by profession, whatever be their age, nor did Mr. Bl. ever hear me press Christ's age as the exact rule for the time in which Christians should be baptised; and therefore did not Mr. Bl. take occasion to vent his jerks and quips (in which he is frequent) he had forborn to recite my speech in that manner he doth. Concerning which I do not think I did then express myself, to wit in the year 1643. (for sure it was in that year that I spoke with M. Blake now above nine years since) in the very words he sets down; I do rather conceive by the words in my Exercit. pag. 22. composed about that time, that I spoke more cautelously. But had I said it, it only shows I received light by degrees, as in all reformations it hath been. Neither am I an Anabaptist, nor do I rebaptize, and though I glory not in any thing of mine, yet count it not my shame, but my honour, that God hath used me as an instrument to reform the superstitious opinion and profane practice of infant-baptism, or rather (as now it is used) sprinkling or perfusion, and do bless God with rejoicing, that amidst so many temptations, reproaches and other sufferings, my heart hath been obedient to Christ's command of being baptised, and baptising, though to his own shame, he makes it my shame that I have done my duty in this particular.  
Mr. Blake adds. There are many things of which we make no question, and yet we have no example of them. I instanced in the trial of the suspected wife by the water of jealousy, there is no example for it in all the old Testament Scripture; and for women's receiving the Lords Supper, there is not a particular institution, or any particular precedent for it in the New Testament: See further instances in Mr. Cooks Treatise before mentioned, page 21. They cannot give us any instance of any one trained up by believing parents for baptism, and assoon as he could give an account baptised, not one child of a believer brought up for covenant and not in covenant.  
Answ. I may say also there are many things of which we make no question, and yet we have no example of them: It is enough if either precept or example approved could be brought of infant-baptism. Of the trial by the water of jealousy there was no need of example to direct, when the rule was so plain. Mr. Cooks instances are to no more purpose than Mr. Blakes, being brought against them who deny proof by consequence, which I do not. Their need be no example brought according to my principles of a believers child catechised first and baptised after, it is enough to us that such a one is comprehended in the institution being a disciple, Christ never requiring us to inquire whose children they are, but what is their faith and profession, and to baptise disciples and believers in him. If Mr. Blake mean [by being brought up for covenant] to be taught the knowledge of the true God, Ishmael the child of a believer was brought up for covenant and not in covenant. Of women's, who are Christian believers or disciples, receiving the Lord's Supper, my speech Examen pag. 112. was right, there is institution and example of it in the New Testament, and this is justified in my Postscript s. 11. But Mr. Blake hath a fling at my instances, though his fellow Paedobaptists count them very plain, he is minded it seems to be ad oppositum to me in all I say in this argument. The particular command for women's receiving the Lords Supper I said was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let 
Mr. Fox in the Acts and Monuments of the Church relates how in the disputation at Oxf. 1554. with Mr. Latimer Dr. Weston objected this thing, and Mr. Latimer answered, he found a woman's receiving the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 28.  a man examine himself, and so let him eat, this says Mr. Coleman is as clear for women as men; But then, saith Mr. Blake John 7. 22. is Moses his command, the Jews practice with Christ's approbation, in the same comprehensive latitude in regard of both sexes, as in Saint Paul for receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. I answered, true, if the subject matter did not limit the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the male John 7. 22. it being a relation of the Jews practice, which was only to circumcise the male, which it doth not 1 Cor. 11. 28. But than saith Mr. Blake, my express formal command is lost, they are not expressed but included only, and by consequence, which will not be denied either to Mr. Coleman, or Mr. Blake. Answ. This is enough for me which he grants, that women are included in that precept 1 Cor. 11. 28. though by consequence only, for then there is institution in the New Testament for their receiving the Lords Supper, and therefore this objection of Mr. Blake and others against my requiring either precept or example of infant-baptism in the New Testament in express terms or by good consequence, by requiring me to show a like precept or example for women's receiving the Lords Supper, is answered by his own grant, that there is such a precept for women's receiving the Lords Supper, as I deny to be for infant-baptism. Yet I still say it is more than by consequence, even an express precept in formal terms for women's 
Mr. Will. Cook Font. uncov. pag. 16. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes the species or kind of man distinct from other creatures, without difference of age or sex.  receiving the Lords Supper, which is 1 Cor. 11. 28. For I take that to be an express command in formal terms, which is in the imperative mood, and in a word that according to Grammar construction comprehends both men and women, there being no circumstance restraining it to the male. And in this sense Mr. M. saith truly in his Sermon pag. 35. Express command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jews, and make them disciples, and then baptise them, though Jews are only comprised under the general term [all nations.]  
Mr. Blake goes on. He further saith, that 1 Cor. 10. 17. is an express example in formal terms of women's receiving the Lords Supper; we being many are one bread and one body, for we are partakers of one bread. I demand of Mr. T. whether the Apostle speaks in the person of Christians or in the person of women? not of women sure, for he takes in himself, and he was a man, and then the formality of an express example falls. When it is said that the whole house of Israel is circumcised in the flesh, Mr. T: will not yield that there is a proof, not by any consequence, that women, though of the house of Israel were virtually circumcised: but all partaking of one bread, there is a proof formal and express that they were at the Lords Supper.  
Answ. An express formal example is mentioned 1 Cor. 10. 17. of women's receiving the Lords Supper, there being relation of partaking the bread in the indicative mood, and the term [we all] according to Grammar construction the matter not excluding them comprehending women as well as men. For the Apostle under [all we] expressly comprehends all the many that were one bread and one body, who are all Christians both Jews and Gentiles, 1 1 Cor. 12. 13. Mr. Blakes demand makes a disjunction of members coincident, which is illogical; However to it as it is I say the Apostle speaks in his own person, not in another's, yet he speaks of the persons of all Christians both men and women, and he takes in as expressly the women as the men, and the formality of the example is of one as well as the other. As for the other passage alleged by Mr. Blake the Predicate [circumcised in the flesh] being necessarily understood of actual circumcision, there is a necessity to understand the Subject [the whole house of Israel] synecdochically, else the speech would not be true. But tropes are not to be made but where there is a necessity to make good the speech, or to make it agree with the scope, circumstances and other expressions: of which there is no necessity 1 Cor. 10. 17. to verify the speech of the Apostle, but that it is true of women as well as men, and must be so understood without a trope, and therefore there the speech is to be expounded according to the plain Grammatical meaning as expressed formally without the like trope.  
Mr. Blake saith of me. He brings Acts 20. 7. that the disciples on the first day of the week came together to break bread. Here is an example as express and formal. Mr. T. cannot infallibly prove by help of consequence much less expressly that there was a woman there. At that night meeting there might be none but men, as at the first institution. It can never be an express example till it be made appear that none are disciples but women.  
Answ. I had thought when it is said, it is appointed unto men once to die, Heb. 9 27. death passed upon all men, in that all have sinned, Rom. 5. 12. it had been express and formal for women's and infants dying though there be other men than women and infants, and yet in both places [men] in Greek is in the masculine gender, [Disciples] in the Acts note all Christians Acts 11. 26. Tabytha is named a disciple Acts 9 36. and therefore there being no reason to make a trope Acts 20. 7. in the word [Disciples] Christian women as well as men are comprehended. And by breaking bread, say the Assembly at Westminster Answer to the reasons of the dissenting brethren page 67. Sacramental breaking of bread is understood generally by all, Acts 20. 7. The like is said by Chamier Panst. Cathol. tom. 4. l. 7. c. 6. s. 13. And it is confirmed, 1. from the text, the words importing that the breaking of bread is there meant which was the end of their customary meeting on the Lord's day; But this was Sacramental, Ergo. 2. From 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. where the Lords Supper is called breaking bread as the usual known term among Christians. This seems to me infallible proof, that women were there, or which is to my purpose, that usually they did meet with other disciples to break break. As for what Mr. Bl. adds, That if I had the texts in hand of a whole household baptised, they would be sufficiently formal for infant-baptism, I tell him no: for I could not have withstood the clear light to the contrary, from the words Acts 16. & 18. and elsewhere, which limit the whole house to persons that did hear the word, believe, receive, fear God, etc. Ampsing. dialog. contra Anabap. page 206. Idem quoque vobis responsum volumus ad loca illa, Act. 16. 34. 1 Cor. 16. 15. Tit. 1. 11. ubi quaedam de totis familiis enunciantur, quae non nisi de adultis accipi possunt. It is false that the Commission Matthew 28. 19 is to baptise Nations, but disciples in or out of nations, as is proved above. Providence hath not ordered that nations including infants have been brought into the Church as Christ appointed, to wit by preaching the Gospel: but the national Churches are gathered (otherwise than Christ appointed) by human laws and infant-baptism. I value as much the Church's practice as ever, but it is false that in no controverted thing the Church is found so unanimous as in this of infant-baptism. It is more unanimous about Episcopacy Prelatical, use of the sign of the cross, and many other things, as may be seen in Mr. Sprint of Conformity pag. 85. etc. I shall in convenient time I hope show the mistakes of Paedobaptists plea for infant-baptism from antiquity.  
The other speech of Mr. Blake, That which will speak for infants to receive them into Heaven, will speak also to receive them into the Church by baptism, is not true. For Election, the Covenant of Grace, a secret work of an initial, habitual, seminal or actual holiness or faith, being supposed, may speak to receive them into Heaven, yet not to baptism, Nor doth it follow that if want of faith exclude them from baptism, then by the text Mark 16. 16. the same want of faith excludes from salvation. For (as I answer in my Praecursor s. 6.) a want of faith dogmatical excludes from baptism, and yet excludes not infants from salvation.   

SECT. VII.  
Mr. Ms. exceptions, that Matthew 28. 19 is not the institution of baptism, that only disciples are not appointed to be baptised, that this was a rule only for a Church to be constituted, are refelled.  
THere are many other exceptions against the argument from the institution Matth. 28. 19 to be considered. Mr. M. in his Sermon page 44. saith, 1. That of matth. 28. is not the institution of baptism. 2. It was instituted long before to be the seal of the Covenant. 3. It's only an enlargement of their Commission. To which in my Examen I said,  
1. If this be not the first institution, yet it is an institution, and the institution of baptism to us Gentiles, and therefore the rule by which Ministers are to baptise, there being no other institution that I know of to regulate our practice by, but such as is gathered from John Baptist, the Apostles, and some preachers in the Acts of the Apostles, their practice and sayings.  
2. By requiring him to show another institution, else Paedobaptism cannot be acquitted from will-worship. To this M. M. Defence page 225. having referred me to part 3. s. 13. where he saith, all this is abundantly answered, saith, This enlargement of their Commission is very unfitly called by me an institution of baptism to us, their Commission at the same time was enlarged to preach to the Gentiles, will you call that an institution of preaching? And that the method of preaching to us Gentiles must be fetch out of this place? I know you will not.  
Refut. 1. By institution I conceive is meant no other than commanding, ordaining, appointing, and I find the words used as equipollent so promiscuously in the Assemblies confession of faith chap. 27▪ 28, 29. in the larger and shorter Catechism, in the Directory about baptism, that sure Mr. M. was either very forgetful of what passed in the Assembly, or very much disposed to cavil when he excepted against my speech as un fit, in calling Mat. 28. 19 the institution of baptism. The Assembly Confess of faith ch. 27. art. 3. call it the word of institution, chap. 28. art. 7. allegeth no other text to prove the ordaining and appointment of baptism by Christ, but Mat. 28. 19, 20. Mr. B. calls it page 342. the solemn institution of baptism, yea in the disputes with Papists and others about the author, minister, form, use of baptism, it is so common a thing to call this the institution of baptism, yea the regulating institution, the words therein are called the words of institution even in the Directory, that I admire Mr. M. should put in this exception had he not a mind to wrangle or to find a knot in a bulrush. I will recite Chamiers words, Panstr. Cath. tom. 1. l. 9 c. 10. s. 39 Dico hanc ipsam formam baptizandi in nomine patris & filii & spiritus sancti & solam esse & optimam constare ex Evangelio: ubi nimirum institutionis est descriptio. Nam quis ignor at quaecunque instituuntur à Christo non tantum optimè institui, sed etiam sic, ut non debeant aliter. But he tells me he knows I will not call that Matthew 28. 19 an institution of preaching, nor affirm that the method of preaching is to be fetched out of this place. To which I reply, He is deceived, I do call it an institution of preaching, and therein follow his Colleague Mr. Rutherford Due right of Presbyteries pag. 454. That which we allege is an institution for preaching and baptising, Matthew 28. 19, 20. and before him Pareus in his Comment. who entitles this part of the chapter, institutio ministerii, and from hence with the generality of Divines fetch the method of preaching. But saith he, This was only an enlargement of their Commission. Answ. I find that the Apostles had commission to preach, Mat. 10. 7. and that they did baptise, John 4. 1. which I doubt not they had Commission for: But be it so, yet however Mat. 28. 19 they had their Commission enlarged in the extent of the persons to whom they were to preach and baptise, and this Commission is an institution of those works: so that frivolously it is denied to be an institution because it was an enlarged Commission, when the enlarged Commission was all one with a renewed institution, and must needs be a rule about preaching to, and baptising of Gentiles, and therefore the institution of baptism to them. But it was instituted long before to be a seal of the Covenant. Answ. I deny not but John Baptist was appointed to baptise by God Mat. 21. 25. John 1. 6. and the Apostles by Christ: but where there is any institution of baptism so expressed as to regulate our practice afore that Mat. 28. 19 I find not, and therefore know no solemn institution by which we are to be guided in the use of it afore this. But it was long before instituted to be the Seal of the Covenant: for this he refers us to that which he had said before. Answ. What ambiguity, uncertainty, and falsity there is in Paedobaptists speeches about the Covenant, being in Covenant, seal of the Covenant, connexion between the Covenant and seal, will be showed in that which follows. For present I know no place assigned by Mr. M. in his Defence part. 3: s. 13. wherein he shows that baptism was instituted long before the time of the speech Mat. 28. 19 to be the seal of the Covenant. I have read over that section, and do aver that I find it so empty of any either proofs or answers to my Examer, that his words in my apprehension are mere trifling. If it be thought I wrong a man of such repute, let any man show me a word in all that section (in which he saith he hath answered all this abundantly) in answer to what I say that Matthew 28 19 is the institution of baptism to us Gentiles, and the rule by which ministers are to baptise, and that there is no other institution, and I will forfeit my credit. He neither in all that section, nor elsewhere, that I know, shows either any other or foregoing institution of baptism to us Gentiles, or any other but this with John Baptists, the Apostles, and some forenamed their practice and sayings for a rule of baptising: only p. 212. he dictates thus. Sir, since it is apparent that here is no new Commission for any new method in their work, but only an enlargement of their Commission to apply their Ministry to new persons, how could they understand our Saviour's meaning to proceed any other way to the Gentiles than among the Jews? etc. But to whom is it apparent? and when, either sleeping or waking? where is the old Commission that we must understand this by, so as to proceed the way to the Gentiles that was taken among the Jews? Is it the Commission of circumcising Gen. 17? If that be it, than baptism is not a Sacrament of the New Testament only but of the old, than it is not a new administration, than the Commission of baptising is to any parent, though no minister, to baptise, than it must be done the eighth day, to males only; were Christ's words thus to be understood they had been a mere riddle: where or whence it is apparent that ever the Apostles conceived that in executing the Commission Mat. 28. 19 they were to proceed according to the Commission about circumcising? I have showed Examen part. 3▪ sect. 14. that it rather follows to the contrary that they did and were to proceed clean otherwise. And therefore that the Apostles should understand the institution Mat. 28. 19 by the institution of circumcision Gen. 17. is so wild a conceit, that I cannot impu●e it to any thing but mere dotage in the assertor, there being no one word in the Commission or the executing of it throughout the Acts of the Apostles that doth show that Christ had reference to it, or the Apostles so understood him. Yea if that of Circumcision Gent. 17. be an institution of baptism, by like reason that of the Passeover Exod. 12. must be an institution of the Lords Supper, and then the Lords Supper should be instituted afore the night in which Christ was betrayed, and the Lords Supper should be from Moses, and regulated by the Ordinances of the ceremonial Law etc. If Mr. M. mean by the foregoing institutution the manner of the Jewish Doctors in baptising proselytes children with the parents, it shall be showed hereafter, especially in answer to Dr. Hammond, that there is nothing therein for infant-baptism now, it being done to no Jew's or their infants many ages before Christ's incarnation, and therefore not out of respect to the Covenant Gen. 17. nor as a privilege from thence, but merely as a rite to purge them from the uncleanness of Gentilism, nor ever done to the infant posterity of the proselytes of righteousness after the first time of being made proselytes, nor ever used to proselytes of the gate. And yet had the use been such as that infants of Proselytes after their first entrance on the Jewish profession had been baptised, yet there is no commission in Scripture for it, though Rabbins would fetch it, some from Gen. 35. 2. some from Exod. 19 10. some from the flood, nor is there any thing in the institution of Christ, or Acts and sayings of the Apostles, that shows that Christian baptism was conformed to the Jewish baptism in this, and therefore I conclude, that there is no other institution besides Mat. 28. 19 Mark 16. 15, 16. together with the Apostles, John Baptists, and others forenamed sayings and practice, that is a rule to us about baptising, and if infant-baptism be not here appointed, it is besides the institution, and so irregular.  
But Mr. M. allegeth further, that it is not said that only disciples are to be baptised. To which I replied Examen page 132. it is not said 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let him only eat that can examine himself, nor here only preachers in office are to baptise, nor only two to be one flesh, nor let only wine be drunk in the Euchurist, or water used in baptism, yet Divines make these speeches exclusive. M. Ball of the Covenant par. 2. c. 2. p. 252. when difference or distinction is contained in some term, the proposition is for sense exclusive no less than if it were expressly noted. Against this Mr. M. excepts Defence pag. 215. That the practice and example of Christ and John is sufficient to make a positive rule affirmative but not exclusive, and the reason is plain, they possibly might not meet with all persons and occasions, as though no proselyte of the gate were baptised till Acts 10. nor any till they made actual confession of their faith and repentance, nor any rule given that the receiving the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost should without any other confession be a sufficient warrant to baptise any, yet Peter upon the very pouring out of those gifts, without requiring any further confession either of faith or repentance, baptised Cornelius and all his Company.  
Ref. 1. M. Ms. confessions are to be noted, that none till they made actual confession of their faith and repentance were baptised till Acts 10. nor any rule given that the receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost should without any other confession be a sufficient warrant to baptise any, which do grant that till than there was neither rule nor practice of baptising any without actual confession of their faith and repentance, which is in effect a grant of the Minor, in my argument, denying any institution or practice in the New Testament of infant-baptism, for there is no other rule or practice of infant-baptism after Acts 10. otherwise than that before.  
2. It is to be observed, that Mr. M. deals not rightly with me in that he makes me to have framed the exclusive rule from practice, whereas I joined institution with practice, and showed neither to be for infant-baptism.  
3. If the non-including of persons or things in the institution or practice of baptism be not exclusive, than the institution is not our rule, than there is no will-worship, or it is no sin to swerve from it, we may add to God's worship infant-communion, and innumerable other things rejected may be lawful, then do preachers, especially Mr. M. unjustly urge the Parliament, and others, to reform invented ceremonies, and Protestants contend against Popish rites in baptism, mass, etc.  
4. However Mr. M. conceive, yet men abler than Mr. M. do frequently assert negative arguments from institution. I will name one who hath few fellows, Chamier Panst. cath. in the words lately by me here recited, and tom. 4. l. 5. c. 9 s. 24. Haec testimonia sunt institutionis: quae etsi non prohibent toridem verbis alios liquores: tamen eo ipso quod non ponat excludit. L. 7. c. 10. s. 38. quamquam in hoc genere rerum quae nihil sunt nisi ex institutione validissimam esse aportet argumentationem negativam si inde sumatur.  
But Mr. M. saith, John the Baptist and the Apostles might not meet with all persons and occasions.  
Answ. 'tis true, they baptised no Emperors or Kings, because none were converted, yet they had a rule to baptise them if disciples: But this could not be the reason of their not baptising infants, sith innumerable believers had infants in the times of the Gospel story, and Acts of the Apostles, and yet no mention of baptizingany. Do not Mr. M. and other Paedobaptists plead that the little children brought to Christ were infants of believers, and yet there's not a word of their being baptised? As for Mr. Ms. instance to prove no necessity of practice to warrant infant-baptism, though I grant if there were institution without practice it were enough, yet is it not rightly brought. It supposeth Peter baptised Cornelius and his household upon the very pouring out of extraordinary gifts, without actual faith and repentance required; And I grant he required them not: but yet withal it is manifest he did not baptise merely upon the pouring out of extraordinary gifts without them. For the text Acts 10. 46, 47. expressly saith, they magnified God, ere he spoke of their baptising, and Acts 11. 17. that they had the like gift as themselves who believed on the Lord Jesus, and they gathered thence that the Gentiles had repentance unto life granted by God.  
But it is objected by Mr. Cobbet, Just Vindic. part 2. cha. 3. sect. 2. that Mark 16. 16. none but true believers are meant, then if the term be exclusive none but such are to be baptised. 2. that those believers had signs following them, verse 17.  
Answ. The rule is, disciples by profession are to be baptised, to which is equipollent [believers by profession] I say not that believers only who are such as those Mark 16. 16. are to be baptised by us: But yet comparing Mark 16. 15, 16. with Mat. 28. 19 I gather that a disciple and believer are terms equipollent, and so it helps me to understand the term [disciple] as answerable to the term [believer] And though by reason of the matter predicated Mark 16. 16. the believer there is only a true believer, yet the term often is given to believers only by profession, and we find such warrantably baptised, and that is enough for our direction: though we are to require more, yet we are not to forbear baptism till we know there is more. We acknowledge only true believers have right before God to baptism: but in the face of the Church believers by profession have right to baptism, and are to be taken by us for true believers upon their profession, till they be discovered to be otherwise. As for verse 17. it doth not say these or some of these signs shall follow every of them that believe: but they are true if they followed some of them that believe, sith the terms being indefinite in matter contingent, the Proposition is true if only particular. Indefinita propositio in materia contingenti aequipollet particulari, say Logicians.  
But there is an objection ad hominem against myself, that I have said that if I knew an infant were actually sanctified, etc. I would baptise him, if so, than an infant is not excluded out of the institution.  
Answ. I grant that an infant barely as an infant is not excluded out of the institution, but as ordinarily not known to be a disciple or believer. If an infant were known to be a disciple or believer, I would baptise him, as I would one who having his tongue cut out who is known to be a believer otherways. But then I have added that this would be upon extraordinary manifestation only, and so not according to ordinary rule, and therefore justifies only that extraordinary fact, not the ordinary practice of infant-baptism, which hath no rule ordinary or extraordinary.  
But than saith Mr. M. page 215. show us your extraordinary ●ule.  
Answ. When I do thus, or challenge this, I shall: in the mean time it is enough that my concession doth not infringe my argument against baptising infants ordinarily without ordinary rule.  
Mr. M. hath yet another exception in his Sermon, page 44. That no other are mentioned to be baptised but disciples, or believers, because a new Church was to be constituted, and then all were to be baptised upon profession of faith, after the children came in by their right by virtue of the Covenant.  
Ref. 1. when I come to examine Mr. Ms. Conclusions I shall show, that there is no such Covenant as to give right to believers infants to be baptised; yea that title to the Covenant did not give right to Circumcision, and therefore this is a vain pretence.  
2. He assigns that for a reason why no other were baptised, which was not a reason: For in the Jewish Church which was already constituted, and which Christ did join himself to, and to whose children they say did belong the Covenant, yet while other were baptised all the time of John and Christ's Ministry on earth, no one infant was appointed to be baptised, no not those infants Mark 10. which Christ blessed, and which were (if Paedobaptists say true) believers infants in Covenant.  
3. It is a vain pretence, that there is no mention of baptised infants; because they had no right till their parents were converted: For neither when they were converted is there any mention of the infant's baptism.  
4. The institution Mat. 28. 19 expounded by the practice of John Baptist etc. is the standing rule for Churches at first planting, and after increasings, nor can any other rule be produced distinct from this, and therefore neither at first conversion, nor after settlement of Churches, are any to be baptised according to ordinary rule till they be disciples of Christ, or believers by profession.   

SECT. VIII.  
The exceptions of Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Blake, etc. against the order of teaching afore baptising, of Mr. M. Mr. Hussey, that baptising is discipling, are refelled.  
AGainst the argument from the order of teaching first and then baptising, it was excepted that it is said Mark 1. 4. John did baptise and preach, which objection in my Examen was removed by the words of Beza par. 4. s. 1. To which I add, that the reason is manifest from the text why the one was put after the other, not because he did baptise any afore he had preached, but because Mark having expressed his baptism, it was needfulhe should show the difference between John's baptism and the Jewish or Phasaical baptism.  
To this Mr. M. returns thus much. Christ's order is (say you) teaching should go before baptising; is not that the same with this; That men must be made disciples by preaching before they be baptised? To which I only say,  
1. That the arguments are not the same as I made them, the first being taken from the term [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them] the other from the order of teaching afore baptising.  
2. However I take that which Mr. M. grants, that it is the same to teach, and to make disciples by preaching before baptising. But Mr. Cobbet just vindic. part 2. ch. 3. sect. 2: allegeth something against this argument. He grants some things in this order of Christ are perpetual, but he will not have all to be presidential to all Churches and times, because it is said Mar. 16. 17. in the same speech, that miraculous signs should follow them that believe.  
But if this were good, than the rule should only hold while such gifts remain, which no churches now have, and so he must fall into the opinion that makes water-baptism a temporary ordinance, and those things which he grants perpetual, as viz. preaching the Gospel before baptism is to be administered by such as preach, discipled inchurched persons are to be baptised, that in founding churches the first members are to be visible professors of the faith in reference to church estate, that baptism is with water applied to the persons baptised, and that into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, must be temporary as well as teaching before baptising: If the one be perpetual notwithstanding this reason so is the other, and presidential to all churches and times.  
But saith Mr. Cobbet, there is a distinction to be made in baptising at the gathering of Churches, and when they are gathered: the order must be observed at the former, not the later.  
Answ. 1. If it was to be so at first gathering of churches, why did not those in New England observe it then when they first gathered their churches? surely they were not rightly gathered for want of baptism if this be the rule at gathering of churches. Nor can they plead their baptism they had in the National and Parochial churches of England; For by their principles, baptism belongs to the children of believers, not as such, but as in church-covenant, and church-members, and therefore they baptise not any but the children of church-members in covenant, and yet most of them had their baptism in the churches of England, and their parents no church-members and so neither they nor others that gather churches in Old England do keep to their principles in the gathering of their churches.  
2. But besides what I said before to this objection, Mat. 28. 19 there is no such distinction made, and we are not to distinguish where the law doth not, yea all the institution, and every thing in it was to be observed in the churches of Christ in gathering and gathered at all times, as is manifest from the promise annexed of being with them always to the end of the world, which shows that he would have that rule continued to the end of the world, and to encourage them therein he promiseth to be with them. To say with Mr. S●ltmarsh in his Sparkles of glory and some others, it is to be read [to the end of the age] is frivolous, sith Matthew 13. 39▪ 40, 49. Matth. 24. 3. the very words show it to be meant of the last time at Christ's coming to Judgement.  
But (saith Mr. Cobbet) the Commission James 5. 14. to anoint with oil, is not perpetual.  
Be it so, that that appointment of the sign of a gift of miraculous cure now ceaseth, yet it doth not follow that the institution Mat. 28. 19 in which a sign of a perpetual duty is instituted, is temporary.  
But saith Mr. Cobbet, There are variations in the mention of Christ's last Commission about the Lords Supper, and therefore another analogy of faith and comparing Scriptures with Scriptures is to regulate us in this point of Sacramental order, and so in the other.  
To which I answer, 1. That the variations Mr. Cobbet sets down are none of them about the order of the actions appointed by Christ pertaining to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and therefore not pertinent to the presen: business.  
2. If Mr. Cobbet will not have the order in the institution to be moral and perpetual about the Lords Supper, than they do ill in his Judgement that contend against Papists, Prelates and others to have the Lords Supper reduced exactly to the first pattern as a constant rule, there being such variations as disable it from being a rule.  
3. I grant that analogy of faith and comparing Scriptures with Scriptures is to regulate us in this point of Sacramental order: But till Mr. Cobbet show that in any other Scripture or analogy of faith there is a rule that persons should be baptised afore they be taught, his reasoning is, not to the present purpose.  
But than saith he, If order must be observed so strictly, baptising must go before salvation, Mark 16. 16. repentance may be before faith, Mark 1. 5. confession before faith, Romans 10. 9 if the place in Mark must be so closely stuck to without comparing it with the Scriptures of the old Testament, than we must preach the Gospel to Dogs, Cats, etc. since it is expressly said preach the Gospel to every creature.  
Answ. 1. That if it follow not that every thing set before is first in order of time or nature, yet what is first appointed to be done in the solemn institution of Sacraments, is to be done first, as taking, blessing, breaking bread, before eating, so teaching the baptised afore baptising as the Apostles practice shows, who best understood Christ's appointment. As believing upon preaching is to go before salvation, so baptising ordinarily and regularly (for which I now contend) and yet in special cases as persons may be saved without personal actual believing upon preaching, so without baptism. To avoid the inference of preaching to Beasts, we need not go to the old Testament Mat. 28. 19 ●ol. 1. 23. etc. yield sufficient light to show, that by [every creature] is meant all nations of men, or Gentiles, as well as Jews.  
But (saith Mr. Cobbet) if it be absurd to say the Gospel is preached to little ones, what shall we say of Christ's speech Mat. 19 14. Deut. 30. 6. Acts 2. 38, 39 Luke 1. 76?  
I answer, This may be said, that all these are frivolously alleged to prove that Christ should appoint the Gospel to be preached to infants (which were to make Christ as ridiculous as the Legends do Francis the Friar) sigh none of them mention any speech or preaching to little infants, though some of the speeches are of or concerning infants. As for what he further adds, It was no absurdity that infants were circumcised, Christ laid his hands on infants, Peter's feet were washed, though these acts were not then understood. I grant it, and say, if Christ appointed infants to be baptised, I should not count it an absurdity, but sith his express institution is, that teaching should go before baptising, till that order be showed to be altered, it is a profane abuse of the ordinance of baptism to baptise those who are not taught.  
Mr. Blake Vindic. foederis page 243. speaks thus, This is the weakest of all arguments, to reason for a precedency of one before another from the order in which they are placed in Scripture, so we may say John baptised before he preached the baptism of repentance, for his baptising is mentioned before preaching of baptism Mark 1. 4. So we may say we must have glory first and virtue after, for so they are placed by the Apostle, 2 Peter 1. 3.  
Answ. Though in Histories of facts sometimes things are s●t down last which were done first, yet in setting down institutions, order and every circumstance is observed, so as thence to conclude it irregular not to observe the order used in the primitive institution, 1 Cor. 10. 16. the cup of blessing is mentioned before the bread we break, and yet it would be counted a disorder and sinful to administer the wine before the bread, because in the mention of the institution the three Evangelists and Paul observe exactly the order as well as the use of the elements, as delivered by the Lord. In like manner when Christ appoints, and the constant practice of the Apostles expounds his words thus, that first persons be made disciples and believers, and then be baptised, sure it is an act of transgression of Christ's command to do it otherwise, especially considering that by so doing the prime and chief end of baptism, to wit, to signify the baptised persons engagement to repentance and faith in Christ, is thereby evacuated.  
Mr. Blake●aith ●aith Vindic. foederis pag. 136. God is a God of order, and he will have order observed, & p. 164 God will not suffer that disorder that the leading Sacrament should come after.  
I may more truly say, God will not suffer the disorder of Mr. Bl. to have baptism go before and faith follow, when by necessity of precept, as he speaks there, Christ having instituted it and commanded it, discipleship and believing are put before baptism Mat. 28. 19 Mark 16. 15, 16. and the Apostles so taught and practised Acts 2. 38. 41. & 8 12. 37. & 10 47, 48. & 11. 17. & 16. 15, 33, 34. & 18. 8. Glory is put before Virtue 2 Peter 1. 3. without disorder, if either the meaning be as Heinsius in his Preface to his Aristarchus sacer on Nonnus conceives, he hath called us by his glorious power, or if the ordinary reading be retained, though Virtue be before glory, yet we are called to glory first as the end, and then to virtue as the means, the end being first in intention, though last in execution.  
There is another exception which I counted in my Examen p. 126. a very absurd one, and such as I presumed none that had any wit would entertain it, to wit that making disciples Matth. 28. 19 is to be by baptising them, and yet Mr. M. in his Defence pag. 212. goes about to maintain that the Jews children were discipled when circumcised, & pag. 213. that baptising may be well rendered discipling, and allegeth Spanheimius for it. Mr. Hussey vents it as very remarkable and advantageous to prove infant-baptism. But against this toy I argued in my Examen page 131. 127.  
1. No Lexicon, nor I thought expositor do expound [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make disciples] that is circumcise or baptise them.  
2. That the word plainly signifies so to teach as that the persons taught do learn and accordingly profess the things taught.  
To this Mr. M. replies, 1. That better Critics than myself say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Rabbinick phrase, and from their use of it it is best to be understood, and that with them it signifies to admit scholars, not because they were taught, but that they might be taught.  
Answ. But Mr. M. neither names the Critics, no● brings proof for what they say, nor if it were all granted would serve his purpose to prove that ever [disciple ye] is as much as [circumcise ye, baptise ye] I grant there is great use to be made of the Talmuds and Rabbins in expounding many passages in the New Testament, but in expounding this term there is no need of using them, when the use of it in other places, and comparing it with other Scriptures are sufficient to clear it, yet if Mr. Ms. Critics look over all the Talmuds and Rabbins I presume they will not find one passage wherein the making of a disciple or admitting of a Scholar was ever applied to an infant. And though Mr. Hussey ridiculously tell us of taking children to School, and counting them for Scholars, who carry a hornbook to School, though they be put there only to play and keep them from harm, yet neither do any so admit as Scholars infants of a day or eight days old, nor is [a Scholar] all one with [a disciple] the latter word being from learning, the other from vacation from other employment that he may learn, nor is making a disciple all one with admitting a Scholar.  
Rightly saith Becman: Exercit. Th●ol. 17. pag. 2●0. verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (quod omnes libenter admittunt) ex nativa origine est discipulos facere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Atqui hoc ipsum non nisi accedente doctrina fit. Qui enim discit tanquam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab alio ●x ra●ione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur itaque discipuli sunt qui docentur & discunt. pag. 261. nec ulli discipuli sunt nisi qui docentur. Dum igitur Christus Apostolos jubet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ante omnia & quidem de necessitate jubet docere.  
But 3. Mr. M. refers me with a blind direction to Spanheimius to consult with, which however I have done, as I find his words Dub. Evang. part. 3. dub. 27. and I say as in my Apology page 100 besides the mention of his words there need no other refutation.  
For 1. it is false, that [to make disciples] signifies the end of their sending, and not the act they were to do, whereas it plainly notes the first act they were to do: and if it had been the end of the act of baptising and teaching, it should have been thus [baptise and teach them all things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that ye may make all nations disciples.]  
2. Spanheimius there makes [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make disciples] to answer to [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he maketh disciples, John 4. 1.] But there it is another thing than baptising, for making disciples and baptising are knit together as two distinct things, and the making disciples there was by preaching, as the story of the Evangelist shows, therefore making disciples Matthew 28. 19 is by preaching, and is not barely baptising.  
3. His own words do refute the reason of his analysis. For he allegeth this reason, because if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should simply signify only to teach, there would be found a tautology in Christ's words thus; Go teach all Nations, baptising them, teaching them. But this absurdity is not avoided by his own exposition. For he himself saith, non significat solum docere, sed & discipulos facere, now if it signify at all to teach the tautology is alike, if we say, Go, not only teach, but also make disciples baptising them, teaching them, for by his own words teaching is twice commanded. Nevertheless in my exposition (commonly received) there is no tautology, Go, make by teaching or preaching the Gospel (that Jesus is the Christ) disciples, so as that they learn him to be the Messias, and profess him, as Mr. M. expounds John 9 27. will ye be his disciples? and then baptise them, and after teach them to observe all that I have commanded. So that here is a double teaching enjoined, one to preach or teach them the Gospel, that Jesus is the Christ, as Philip did the Eunuch, Acts 8. 36, 37. and then baptise, and then teach duties commanded by Christ. And for what Spanheimus saith, That this may in its manner be ●i●ted to infants. For when parents do give their names to Christ for themselves and their families, their whole house is discipled, their children as well as themselves, it is false. For then if a parent give his name to Christ for himself and his family, and the whole house is discipled, thereby it will follow, that the wife, child, servant, though infidels, are discipled, and so infidels should be Christ's disciples. But no where is in Scripture any made a disciple but by his own act of learning. As for what Mr. M. adds to show that without teaching first, by initiating into a Master a person may become a disciple, it is insufficient to that end. For 1 Cor. 10. 2. though all our Fathers be said to be baptised into Moses, yet not to be discipled, and the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was discipled, Matth. 27. 57 doth not note a bare entering into Christ's School without teaching or hearing of Christ, much less such an initiating as they give to infants without any act of their own, and John 9 27. Mr. M. himself paraphaseth thus, will ye be his disciples, will ye profess him? which is an act of their own, of which infants are not ordinarily capable, and it supposeth some teaching and learning, at least this, that Jesus is the Christ.  
2. I argued from Mark 16. 15. to which our Translators refer in the margin at Matthew 28. 19 as clearing the meaning of it, and generally interpreters show thence how they were appointed to make disciples, to wit, by preaching the Gospel, and so Mr. M. Sermon page 35. Express command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jews, and make them disciples, and then baptise them, and Defence page 210. Their commission was to preach and baptise, and hereupon from Matth. 28. 19 is gathered, that none are to baptise but preachers. Whence I argue, If the making disciples were to be by preaching the Gospel to them who were made disciples, then by making disciples is not meant baptising, nor baptising to be rendered discipling, For baptising and preaching the Gospel are not all one; But the making disciples is appointed to be and was by preaching the Gospel to them who were made disciples; Ergo discipling is not by baptising.  
3. I argued from John 4. 1. in which it is confessed by the New Annot. edit. 1. on Mat. 28. 19 [made disciples and baptised] answer to [make disciples baptising them Mat. 28. 19] now John 4. 1. making disciples is one thing, and baptising is another thing, though coupled with it; therefore the making disciples is not baptising, but a distinct thing.  
4. The Commission of Christ is to be understood according to the Apostles practice, unless we will say that either they understood not, or followed not Christ's appointment; But their practice was to make disciples first by preaching, and then to baptise, and no other mentioned, as Mr. M. grants in his Sermon page 44. Ergo. I truly said, nor need Mr. M. wonder at it, or call it a wild consequence, as he doth Defence page 214. that if the Apostles had understood Christ's Commission as Mr. M. doth, baptise according to the rule of circumcising, they might have saved a great deal of labour in preaching to the baptised afore they baptised them, and in baptising females, sith the rule of circumcising did not require either. And though I grant it to be true, that male and female are all one, yet in the rule of circumcising a difference is made, and if that be the rule of baptising infants, then in baptising them male infants should be baptised and not female.  
5. If making disciples be by baptising without preaching before to the baptised, then non-preaching ministers may and do baptise rightly though they preach not the Gospel; But this I suppose will be denied by Mr. M. Ergo.  
6. If making disciples be by baptising without preaching to them, than the Spaniards in America who drove the Indians into the water to be baptised, without teaching them or preaching the Gospel to them, did rightly, For they followed Christ's rule thus expounded; But that is absurd; Ergo.  
7. Mr. M. and other Paedobaptists say that the commission Mat. 28. 19 was the commission for first constituting the Churches of the Gentiles: If then the Commission be to be understood, make ye disciples by baptising them, without first preaching to them, than he had appointed them to constitute or plant the first Churches without preaching, and then the Apostles gifts of tongues etc. were unnecessary, they might have constituted Churches by hands, baptising them only without the use of those gifts; but these things are absurd, besides other absurd consequences which follow on the exposition that discipling is baptising, or baptising discipling, Mat. 28. 19  
Lastly many of their own grants and expositions before recited do so cross this conceit, that as I said before, I thought none that had any wit would embrace it, so now I wonder that such men as have taken it up did not better make use of their wit, to decline so witless a shift. Only I perceive any thing will erve turn to keep up the credit of Infant sprinkling.   

SECT. IX.  
The exception of Mr. M. Mr. Blake, Mr. Cobbet, nations are appointed to be baptised Matthew 28. 19 and so infants, is refelled.  
BUt there is yet another exception against my argument from Matthew 28. 19 followed by many, that Christ bids them make nations disciples and baptise nations, & consequently infants at least the species.  
Against this I opposed, that all nations simply are not appointed to be baptised, but disciples of all nations. So Beza annot. on Matthew 28. 19 Make to me disciples out of all nations. The New Annotations on the Bible on Matth. 28. 19 first edition, teach] Gr. make disciples of, as John 4. 1. all Nations, not Jews alone but Gentiles also, Acts 10. 34, 35, 47. Mr. Baxter plain scripture proof etc. pag. 327. when Christ saith [make me disciples of all nations baptising them] he means [sincere disciples] Georg. Pasor Lexic. ad verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matthew 28. verse 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, docete omnes gentes, h. ●. colligite mihi discipulos ex omnibus gentibus.  
Mr. Blake himself saith, Answer to my letter ch. 11. sect. 1. he is ready to subscribe to this interpretation as I lay it down in words by preaching the Gospel to all nations make them disciples, and baptise those that do become disciples of all nations. As for his exceptions, that the verb is transitive, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nations is in the accusative case, that it is boldness to put it into the Genitive, that then the whole of the nation should not be appointed to be baptised, and so not infants, I have answered them in my Postscript sect. 14. And I further prove that the nation entirely is not appointed to be baptised.  
1. For then the infidels of the nation should be to be baptised, for they are a part of the nation.  
2. Then the Apostles were not to baptise regularly till they baptised a whole nation, yea all nations together, for so it is construed by them who make nations entirely the subject of baptism according to Christ's institution.  
3. The Apostles practice is an infallible comment on our Lord Christ's words. As they practised, so Christ meant; But they baptised not any entire Nation, Country, City, or Tribe, but believers or disciples out of them; therefore no other were appointed to be baptised. 4. If the baptising of all the parts of a nation, or a nation entirely, were appointed by Christ, then there might be some rule to know when a nation is discipled, chosen, so as that it ought to be entirely baptised; But there is no such rule, Ergo.  
To none of these do I find any thing replied by Mr. M. but by telling me I fall to my old artifice of framing many senses (which yet in this point were but two) for which he blames me, as if it were unblamable: whereas it is the only way to clear truth to show the divers senses of a speech, for avoiding of ambiguity, according to that saying, Qui benè distinguit benè docet, he that distinguisheth well teacheth well, and his not distinctly answering by showing in what sense his speech is meant tends to nothing but the hiding of truth.  
Then he tells me, That I vent my Criticisms, and undertake to show that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to teach cum effectu▪ or to teach till they were made Scholars (my word was disciples) and that they were not to baptise till they were disciples, and then saith, But Sir, what need all these things? The meaning is plain that other nations should be taken in likewise as the Jews according to Isaiah 19 24. when other nations should by receiving and professing the Gospel come under God's wing, they should partake of the same Covenant which the Jews had before enjoyed, he would henceforth be the God of them and their seed.  
Whereto I reply, 1. That in his upbraiding me with venting my Criticisms, as he calls them, about the word [disciple ye] he excepts against me for doing that which was necessary to be done, to wit, to clear the meaning of the word, by which the sense of the text is manifested.  
2. When he should answer the thing I alleged and proved, that nations are not appointed to be baptised without any other circumscription, but disciples or believers in them, he repeats his dictates as obscurely as before, bringing a text impertinently, which doth not at all say, that all the nation of Egypt, that is, every man, woman, and child, that is an Egyptian, shall be his people, but such as know the Lord, do sacrifice, vow a vow, return to the Lord, verse 21, 22. which was fulfilled either when after the return from captivity, in Babylon, many of the Egyptians became Jewish proselytes, who were very probably many when P●olomy Philadelphus appointed the Bible to be translated into Greek, as Josephus l. 12. Antiq. c. 2. relates, or if it were fulfilled in the time of the Gospel, the stories of the Church refute that conceit, that the whole nation of Egypt were a national Christian Church, as the Jews before Christ's coming, so as that all the people, men, women and children were Christians, though it be true that God had his Church at Alexandria in Egypt somewhat early, of which Mark is said to have been Bishop (of which more may be seen in Selden on Eutychius) and if that passage 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church that is at Babylon elect together with you, be meant of Babylon in Egypt, it is plain that the Church there was an elect company chosen out from the rest, and therefore not the whole City, men, women and children, and consequently not a nation entirely; nor is there a word either in Matthew 28. 19 or in the places Mr. M. compares with it Mark 16. 15. Gal. 3. 8 9 Rom. 1. 16, 17. or Acts 11. 18. to prove that any other of the nations should partake of the Covenant the Jews before had enjoyed, than those that receive the Gospel, believe and repent, or that they that believe should partake of the promises of the Covenant as it was national, and contained the promises made to Abraham's natural seed, or that he would henceforth be the God of the Nations professing the Gospel, and their seed: But the texts all of them prove plainly that the term [nations Mat. 28. 19] is limited to those of the nations, that were disciples, or did believe, Mark 16. 16. that did repent, Acts 11. 18. that believe, Romans 1. 16, 17. As for Gal. 3. 8. I admire that not only Mr. M. but also the Assembly at Westminster in their Confession of faith chap. 28. art. 4. to prove the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptised, should cite Genesis 17. 7, 9 with Gal. 3. 9 14. which if it were alleged any thing to their purpose to include infants as Genesis 17. 7, 9 then [nations] must be taken to comprehend all of the nation, and [the blessing of Abraham] meant of visible Church-membership: whereas the text expressly expounds [all nations] to be meant of them [which be of faith] and [the blessing] to be [justification, and the promise of the Spirit through faith] inferring from thence, that God would justify the heathen through faith. yea it is so frequent to understand the term [nations] synecdochically for a part of nations, that I find no fewer than eighty times, and of these at least eight in Matthews Gospel, the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nations or Gentiles] in the New Testament, taken so as not to include infants, in the speeches in which it is used. But of this I have said enough in my Praecursor sect. 22. in my Postscript to M. Bl. s. 14. M. B. in his Praefest. Morat. s. 22. saith, that my speech he excepts against [that no one Country were discipled] was meant by me not only of a past event, but also of a duty, that it is not the Minister's duty to endeavour the discipling of any whole nation (for then he must endeavour to disciple infants) nor a part of the work of that commission; and this I confess is true, and I still think it; yea if it were as Mr. B. would have it, that Christ had bid them disciple the whole nations, even infants, than he had bid them preach the Gospel to infants, which had been a command of a man not in his wits, and which the Apostles never obeyed, and therefore I must blaspheme Christ if I expound the words as Mr. B. doth; nor doth any promise of Christ foretell that he will make the whole of a nation, even the infants, disciples. What is in his addition page 339, 340. I know not: I had thought I had all his addition to his third edition when I had his Friendly accommodation, and his Praefestinantis morator; what the reason is I know not, but I cannot yet get his additions: yet I conceive in his addition there is but a greater heap of impertinent texts.  
He saith of me, As for what he saith of Moses and Magistrates, if you peruse what I have said to that already, I think it will appear that he is no where more vertiginous than in this.  
To which I answer, I said that if Christ would have had a whole nation made his Church as the nation of the Jews was, comprehending old and young he had used Emperors and Kings to gather his Church as he did Moses to gather the Jewish Church in the Wilderness by his authority, not Apostles and Preachers by persuasion. What he saith to it in his first edition, shall be (God assisting) in its place fully answered, I may more truly say that in this conceit of his, that Christ should bid the Apostles disciple infants, there is giddiness, if not an higher degree of folly. And my speech is so agreeable to reason, that if I be vertiginous in it, I shall then begin to turn Sceptic, and question whether any thing be certain.  
As for what Mr. Blake saith about the rule of knowing a chosen believing nation, giving title to infants of that nation to be baptised as the Jewish infants were circumcised, I think there is no need to add any more to what I say in the Postscript s. 15. sith he confesseth page 67. as the nations are discipled, so they are to be baptised, and the infants of a nation are baptised by virtue of a privilege from their parents, not from the nation: Though Mr. rutherford's words Temperate pleach. 12. concl. 1. arg. 7. Due right of Presbyteries ch. 4. sect. 6. p●. 260, 261. do intimate that the children in a chosen nation are holy with the holiness of the chosen nation, though father and mother be as wicked as the Jews that slew Christ, who were certainly unbelievers, and they must stand to this if either they will justify the ordinary practice of baptising any infants of any Atheistical, profane Sco●ters, Persecutors, & Blasphemers of God and Religion, if they were baptised in infancy and are called Christians, or stand to their principle, that the commission is to baptise all nations in the same latitude that the Jews infants were to be circumcised, which was and ought to be done, though the parents were such as Ahab and Jezabel. But however those of the Congregational way, who say we are freed from the pedagogy of the Jews, and deny that now there are national Churches by institution as the Jews were, and that it is sufficient now to make a member of the Church because one is by birth of this or any other nation, as than it was, because one was born of the nation of the Jews, as Mr. Burroughs vindic. against Mr. Edward's aspersions pag. 23. me thinks should reject the interpretation o● making disciples all nations, in like wise as the one nation of the Jews were circumcised, which was by virtue of their birth, according to God's appointment, as descended from Abraham, or as joined to that people.  
Yet Mr. Cobbet Just vindic. part 2. ch. 3. s. 4. argues thus. All nations are the subject to be discipled and baptised by commission, and therefore at least all the specifical parts of the nations, all sorts of persons in the nations, but not all of every sort.  
To which I reply, The consequence is not of any validity, all nations, therefore all sorts of the nations, It follows not, all nations shall serve him, therefore all sorts of the nations, all nations compassed me about, therefore every sort of persons in a nation.  
But, saith Mr. Cobbet, I would know then why the collective nations are mentioned under that title of nations rather than that of grown persons of the nations.  
To which I answer, the reason is because the thing said, suffiently shows who of the nations are meant, and it is very frequent to restrain the extent of speeches pro subject a materia, as the matter spoken of will bear it with truth and sense. And that this is usual in the use of the term [nations] is showed before.  
As for what Mr. William Cook saith in his Font uncovered page 14. children are not to be excluded Mat. 28. 19 because children are a very considerable and essential part of a nation, it is frivolous, For  
1. If he mean by children infants, it is false that infants are an essential part of a nation, it is possible there may be a nation which may have for some time never an infant in it.  
2. If it were true, yet it is not to his purpose till he proves that [nations Mat. 28. 19] is not taken synecdochically for a part of the nations, those that are of age to understand preaching of the Gospel, but that it must comprehend every essential part in its full latitude.  
And in like sort Mr. Nathanael Stephens his reasons taken not from the text, but from his own conceit, That [nations] must be taken as [nation] was in the application of it to the Jewish Church, and that otherwise there should be a shortening of the Covenant, they have been often answered and showed to proceed upon such mistakes as these, that the Church of Christians was to be modelized after the fashion of the Jews, and the use of baptism was to seal such a national Covenant, and that title to a Covenant made by God gives right to baptism. And for his instances page 9 of his Precept for infant-baptism, to infringe our argument from John 4. 1. to prove that Mat. 28. 19 only disciples actually made are the subject appointed to be baptised, they all proceed upon a mistake of the reason, as if from the example there were gathered an universal rule, whereas it is only brought, First to explain the meaning of the phrases Mat. 28. 19 of making disciples and baptising them. Secondly, that example is brought not by itself alone (as Mr. Stephens brings it) but together with the institution, and all the examples in the New Testament to prove infant-baptism irregular, but his single instances do not infer. And whereas page 10, 11. he takes on him to show a certain rule to know a discipled nation, he should have added initiating infants of that nation to baptism, and sets down their public profession, he clears not the difficulty, except he tell what profession and whose makes it a public profession, whether when the representative of it professeth, or the King, or the Major part, or every person of understanding, and if he mean these ways or any other, how he can acquit the Apostles from swerving from Christ's rule, never looking after any other than personal profession, nor baptising any infant upon his imagined rule, and if as he speaks, as the parents do now receive the faith, so far they and theirs must go under the account of a discipled nation, if they profess to bring up theirs in the faith, then though the children and servants be professed infidels, yet the parents and masters being believers, and promising to educate theirs in Christianity, these shall be baptizable because part of a discipled nation; And when he saith, Not only the families of those that truly believe, but the families of others also that are willing to yield to the Christian education, and to live under the tuition of a Godly Magistracy in the Commonwealth, and the instruction of a powerful Ministry in the Church; so far forth as they are willing to be guided by the Laws, and the Government of the Church of Christ, and are no worse, so far they must go under the notion of a discipled nation: and parents and children both be the lawful subject of baptism: He speaks nothing but riddles leaving it to his Reader to study what he means by so many [so fars] whether he thinks all these do amount to a profession of the faith, whether these do make a man a Christian complete, or only an half Christian, what he means by [and are no worse] and how such a submission, as for aught I can perceive may stand with gross ignorance of Christ, and at some times, as in Constantine's and Theodosius his times was in Pagans, afore the Inquisition in Spain in many Jews and Saracens, and is at this day in Spain, yea and England in many that know nothing of Christianity, nor have any savour of the faith of Christ, can make a discipled nation, and entitle to baptism, not showing any Scripture for what he saith, but Abraham's circumcising, Gen. 17. 12, 17. which how impertinent it is to this point of baptism, is, and shall be more fully showed hereafter.  
But I am necessitated yet to say something more to my teasing, and eager Antagonist Mr. Blake, who speaks thus Vindic. foed. pag. 194. Mr. T. in his Apology sect. 14. pag. 143. would fain fasten another interpretation on these words, and make the Commission not to sound according to the Letter of the words, nor yet according to the success by grace attained, but to his liking and therefore is put to it to change the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than all nations must either be put by apposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or with the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so instead of disciple all nations, it will be make disciples in all nations. This he thinks is very tolerable, because to disciple and to make disciples is all one. But though they may be one in themselves, yet it makes a main difference in the phrase, and with the additions of his preposition inverts the whole meaning of the words, as to the thing in controversy, which is such a violence offered to the Text, that is not to be endured in him, that is about to draw a Logical argument for his advantage against his adversary.  
Answ: What I do in expounding Christ's words is not only tolerable, but necessary to be done to clear the meaning of them. I do no more than Beza, the New Annot. and others. Mr. Blake me thinks allows my exposition in these words a little before. The Apostles were to make disciples, to bring men into Covenant with God, and being discipled to baptise them, sealing them as Gods in Covenant; So John 4. 1, 2. when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptised more disciples than john, though jesus baptised not, but his disciples. Here John made disciples & baptised them being made, the disciples of Jesus made disciples, and baptised them being made; an outward work then to make profession of the faith is sufficient to make one a disciple and to bring him into the verge of the Covenant. In which he plainly asserts, that Christ appointed and the Apostles practised the making disciples by an outward work to make profession of faith, and baptised them so made. Now if this be the meaning of Mr. Blake, I see not wherein there needs be difference between us. For whether we read make disciples all nations, or make disciples of or in all nations, and this making disciples by an outward work, and profession of faith upon that outward work are that which makes one a disciple, and these are to be baptised that are thus made disciples, I shall not stick to yield that Christ appointed, and the Apostles practised by the outward work of preaching to make disciples by the outward work of profession of faith, the whole of all nations, and baptised them wholly being made disciples by profession of faith: And I mean this as Pareus on Mat. 28. 19 Tertium mandatum est de baptizandis omnibus gentibus, hoc est sacramento baptismi initiandis & consecrandis omnibus iis qui Christo nomen darent. And herein I make the Commission to sound according to the letter, and according to the success by grace attained, without the least interverting the whole meaning of the words, without any violence offered to the text. Nor do I expect any thing in this matter to be endured in me but what I find agreeable to speeches of Be●●●, Pareus, the New Annot. and M. Blake himself.  
Yea but the text is to be expounded so as to comprehend every age of men, and the term [all nations] is to comprehend the whole of every nation.  
Answ. It is clear by comparing Mat. 28. 19 with Mark 16. 15. that [make disciples all nations] answers too [preach the Gospel to every creature] which later term is in show more comprehensive than [make disciples all nations] But I suppose Mr. Bl. will not be so absurd as to conceive that any other than of humane kind are meant thereby, nor that any other of them are meant thereby than those that were capable of hearing and understanding it, me thinks he should not conceive Christ bid them preach the Gospel to every deaf man, every natural fool, or mad man that have at no time use of reason, or men that wilfully would not hear: yea methinks Mr. Bl. should yield further, that when Christ bids them preach the Gospel to every man that is fit to hear, he did not intend to charge them, that they must preach the Gosspel so as that every intelligent person of mankind in the world must hear it from their mouth: For than it had been their sin being a breach of Christ's command, if every person of natural understanding, whether of Jews or Gentiles, did not hear the Gospel from them; which must have tied them either to sin, or else to search out every Country, Continent, o● Island be it never so small, every house in every City, village, wilderness, and to preach Christ to them, wherever they were, which had been according to the course of ordinary humane abilities altogether impossible for them to do. I conceive Mr. Bl. will yield that in what sense it is meant Col. 1. 23. the Gospel was preached to every creature under heaven, that is it was preached to all sorts of persons that were hearers without difference of Jews or Gentiles, in the same sense Christ bids them [preach the Gospel to every creature] & [make disciples all nations] being the same command as the comparing the texts shows. If [every creature] be not meant of every creature universally and distributively, but of any sort or number of men indefinitely, to whom they might and it was fit to preach, in like manner in the same command thus expressed [disciple all nations] by [all nations] are not meant omnes gentes totaliter totae, all nations whole and wholly, but any persons indifferently in any nation whom they might, and were fit to be made disciples by preaching, and to baptise them that were professing disciples of Christ so made, which is the only sense that the success by grace attained to makes good. Neither did the Apostles in the event preach the Gospel to every humane person capable of hearing and understanding, they came not to every Village, I●le, civil or barbarous, sure not to every house, yea sometimes they were restrained, as Paul from preaching in Asia, Bythinia, Acts 16. 6, 7. nor was there ever by the Apostles or any other the Gospel preached so successfully as that there was ever one whole nation, I mean totaliter tota, comprehending every individual humane person of that nation, discipled thereby, so as that every one of the nation, not one excepted, did upon hearing the Gospel, freely, or of their own accord, soberly, or in their right wits, seriously, or not in jest, understandingly, or knowing what they spoke, become disciples of Jesus, confessing him to be the Christ the Son of the living God.  
But Mr. Blake goes on Vindic. foederis pag. 195. [And as it is against the letter of the text, so it is plainly against our Saviour's scope and end in giving this Commission. Mr. T. Examen page 130. saith, This enlargement unto all nations in this place was in opposition to the restriction Mat. 10. 5. now in that nation to which there they were limited, the whole of the nation was in covenant, all the Land was the Land of Immanuel, Isa. 8. 8. And consequently so it was to be in other nations by virtue of this happy enlargement, or else the opposition is utterly taken away, the meaning of the words clouded, and the Apostles at a loss for understanding of them; for having spent their pains before in a nation all disciples, and now having a commission for the discipling of all nations, how shall they understand the words, unless the whole of the nation where they come are to be discipled?]  
Answ. The nation in which the Apostles according to the commission Mat. 10. 5. 6. before spent their pains, were the people of Israel, and to say that nation were all disciples, understanding it of disciples of Christ, and of every person of that nation, is to say the snow is black; For the contrary is manifest by express Scripture John 1. 11. & 7. 5, 48. & 9 28, 29. & 10. 20. & 12. 37 38. But, saith he, The whole of the nation was in Covenant, I grant that the whole of the nation were in the Covenants at Horeb, Exodus 19 and in the plains of Moab by Moses his edicts from God Deu. 29. But what is this to prove that the Apostles spent their pains in a nation all disciples, every person or persons, even the infants of that nation were disciples of Christ. Were all of the Jewish nation when the Apostles preached to them, disciples of Christ, because in Moses his time many hundreds of years before all were engaged in the covenants at Horeb, and the plains of Moab by Moses authority? It is but a new nonsense gibberish to make these terms synonimous to be disciples of Christ, and to be in covenant according to the manner of the Jews being in covenant. And the reason of Mr. Blake is as frivolous, All the Land was the Land of Immanuel, Isaiah 8. 8. therefore The whole of the nation were in covenant, that nation were all disciples of Christ.  
For first it is plain that [the Land of Immanuel] there is not the people, but the ground or earth they inhabited, because it is that, The breadth of which the King of Assyria did fill with his wings, that is his forces, and did pass through.  
2. How doth Mr. Blake prove that it was called The Land of Immanuel, because the whole of the nation was in Covenant? It might be called Immanuels land, when the Assyrians, Chaldaeans, and other strangers inhabited it, Israel being expelled, because of God's title to it, and the people might and shall be in covenant when they shall not be in the Land.  
3. But it is in my apprehension a mere whimsy, to infer the whole of the nation was in covenant in Isaiahs' days, therefore the nation of the Jews were all disciples of Christ when the Apostles spent their pains in preaching according to the commission Mat. 10. 5, 6.  
4. There is no less dotage in the rest of his frivolous speech, that it [is plainly against out Saviour's scope and end in giving the commission Mat. 28. 19 to understand, make disciples in (I said of) all nations, that if the whole of the nation be not in covenant in other nations as in the Land of Immanuel by virtue of this happy enlargement, the opposition is utterly taken away, the meaning of the words clouded, and the Apostles at a loss for the understanding of them.]  
All which are but vain words. The meaning is plain enough, as I conceive, it was understood so by the Apostles, and hath been so by Expositors, as I have showed, even by the chiefest of the Paedobaptists, without any such construction as Mr. Blake makes.  
Mr. Blake goes on thus. [And hereto accord the prophecies of the Scripture, for the calling of the nations of the Gentiles, God shall enlarge japhet, and he shall dwell in the tents of Sem, Gen. 9 27. Sem was wholly in covenant not by pieces and parcels, but universally in covenant, japhet is to come in succession into covenant in like latitude; Psal. 28. Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession. It is not some among the nations of the heathen that are to be the inheritance of Christ, but the heathen. To which agrees Revel. 11. 15. The Kingdoms of the Earth shall become the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ; Immanuel of old had one, now he shall have more Kingdoms; And they become his no other way, than by discipling; God's Ministers are his men of War for subduing and captivating them, 2 Cor. 10. 4, 5. and Kingdoms are promised them, not some in a Kingdom. Alexander would not sit down with such a conquest, neither would Jesus Christ. If to possess some in a Kingdom be to possess a Kingdom, than Antichrist of long time hath had his Kingdom; All Kings shall bow down before him, all Nations shall serve him, Psal. 72. 11. All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee O Lord, and shall glorify thy name, Psal. 86. 9 Thou shalt call a nation which thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee, Isaiah 55. 5. There God calls the nation, and the nation doth answer Gods call. In that day Israel shall be a third with Egypt, and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the Land, whom the Lord shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance. There Egypt and Assyria are in equipage with Israel, all three sister-Churches; Israel without any pre-eminence, either Israel than was not a nation of Disciples, a nation wholly within covenant, or else there are to be national Churches, the whole of the nation to be discipled and brought into Covenant.▪]  
Answ. Mr. Blake saith, The prophecies of Scripture accord hereto, that Mat. 28. 19 they were to make all in a nation disciples, the whole of the nation was to be discipled, and that the words were not otherwise to be understood. If this reason were of force, where any thing is said of the nation it must be understood of the whole of the nation, of every person in it or of it, even the infants. Which how monstrous and wild a conceit it is will appear by multitudes of instances. Matth. 21. 43. The Kingdom of God shall be given to a nation (contradistinguished to the Jews) bringing forth the fruits of it: If Mr. Blake say right, there is a prophecy of a nation, the whole whereof every particular, even infans should bring forth the fruits of the Kingdom of God, Mat. 24. 9 Ye shall be hated of all nations for my name sake, that is, the whole of all the nations, and if so, then of the Christians even themselves, who are a part of the nations. Besides, if this were the meaning, the prophecy of Christ would be contradictory to the prophecies Mr. Blake brings, in the latitude in which he expounds the word [nations] Mat. 24. 7. Nation shall rise up against Nation, and Kingdom against Kingdom, that is, if Mr. Blakes fu●ile dictates were aught worth, the whole of the Nation and Kingdom, even the infants, should rise up against the whole of another Nation and Kingdom, even the infants. Acts 11. 18. God hath given repentance to the Gentiles, or nations, that is, according to the rate of Mr. Blakes expositions, the whole of the nations, even the infants. Acts 15. 3. The conversion of the Nations, that is, of the whole of the nations, even the infants, ver. 17. All the nations upon whom my name is called, that is, the whole of the nations, even the infants. The instances are so many to show the futility of Mr. Blakes reasoning, that I hope either he himself will discern his folly, and those that magnify him, his weakness herein, or else me thinks the impudence of such reasoning should be exploded.  
But to show further the vanity of his dictating, rather than disputing, He mentions Gen. 9 27. as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles, but he takes it as presupposed, but proves it not; and what exceptions lie against it will appear in that which follows in answer to Mr. Cobbet. And then he saith, Sem was wholly in Covenant, not by pieces and parcels, universally in Covenant, if he mean it of the Jews, in the sense wherein being in covenant is as much as being disciples of Christ by profession, it is most palpably false: for they disclaimed it, John 9 28. But were it granted that they were in Covenant wholly, yet where is there a word to prove that Japhet is to come in succession into covenant in like latitude.  
Again he saith, Psal. 2. 8. It is not some among the Nations of the heathen, that are to be the inheritance of Christ, but the heathen.  
In which speech either he deals deceitfully or unskilfully. For whereas to [it is not some among the nations] he opposeth [but the heathen] he should, if he would speak congruous sense, have said [all of the heathen] for [ah] is opposed to [some] But instead thereof he saith [but the heathen] which is either to delude the unwary Reader in that indefinite expression, as if it were all one with an universal, or to trifle, sith [some of the heathen] may be called [the heathen] it being but an indefinite term, and doth not stand by any rule of Logic necessarily for [all heathen] and therefore it is all one as if he had said, It is not among some of the nations, but among some of the nations. Besides, what sense is there in these words [some of the nations of the heathen]? What are the heathen but the nations? Heathen, Gentiles, the Nations, are all terms of the same sense, answering to the same words in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore to say [some of the nations of the heathen] is all one as to say [some of the nations of the nations] which is to trislle. Then Revel. 11 15. is brought in, which prophecy is not to be fulfilled till the seventh Angel sounds, till than he shows not That God's Ministers have Kingdoms promised them, not some in Kingdoms. And even then The nations were angry, and the Wrath of God was come, and the time of the dead to be judged, ver. 18. which sure was not in John's days, ●or is it to be imagined to be fulfilled in our days. His talk of Christ as emulating Alexander the Great, is most vain. Christ conquers those whom his Father hath given him, be they fewer or more, and sits down with that conquest, until his foes be made his footstool, but it is most false that there is any Scripture that tells us, that all the Kingdoms of the world shall be Christ's, so as that the whole of each nation shall be disciples of Christ, or willing subjects to him. For then at his coming he should have no enemies to put down, none to condemn. No doubt Antichrist, yea and the Devil too, hath had of long time a Kingdom, some its likely in most or every Kingdom, yea even where Christ's Kingdom hath been. Doth not Christ say, The Angel of the Church of Pergamus dwelled where Satan's throne was? Neither Psal. 72, 11. nor Psal. 86. 9 nor Isai. 55. 5. saith, That the whole of the nation shall be disciples of Christ, and if the prophecies were understood in that latitude, they were most palpably false. Nor is Isa. 19 24, 25. certain to be a prophecy of the call of those people in the times of the Messiah, but may be understood of the succession of Proselytes thence after the return from the Captivity, and if it were, yet there is not so much as the term [nation] nor is it absurd to deny Israel to be a nation of disciples, or a nation wholly within covenant, as being within covenant is equipollent to being disciples of Christ; nor can national Churches, consisting of the whole of a nation, even the infants, be proved thence, or by any History. The whole of the nation to be discipled, and brought into covenant, is a mere fantastic dream.  
M. Bl. yet adds, These prophecies or a great part of them I produced in my Answer of Mr. T. passing by other in silence (as having nothing to reply) he marvels that I am not ashamed to produce Psalm 72. ver. 11. Psalm. 86. ver. 9 to prove that the whole of the nations, even infants, must be included, Matth. 28. 19 As if it were foretold that the whole nation, even infants, should come before God and worship. It is strange if Mr. T. be ignorant, that prophecies in the old Testament of the glory of New Testament times, are in Old Testament phrases by way of allusion to the worship of those times, set forth to us. Now it was the practice of the people of the Jews, for their males of growth and strength to appear before the Lord, and neither females no● infants, as Ainsworth on Exod▪ 23. 17, observes, yet they appeared in the name of females, and their females and children were in Covenant together with them, Deut. 29. 11. so that as the rest of the prophecies to which Mr. T. hath nothing to say, so these two prophecies (against which he excepts) speak fully for the discipling of nations in the New Testament times.  
Answ. Mr. Blake construes my omitting to except against the allegation of the other prophecies besides Psalm 72. 11. Psalm 86. 9 as if I had nothing to reply, whereas being indeed in that writing necessitated to be brief, I thought best to answer those that seemed to have most show for him: But now he is answered in all. I said I marvelled he was not ashamed to produce them as he did: but he seems past shame.  
He saith Vindic. foed. pag. 329. That an eminently learned man lately observed that I had donum impudentiae. Who that eminently learned man is I know not, nor do I care. Till there be given a reason of this censure it cannot better me, but will have a show of malignancy to me, if not vanity also in the Censurer and Relator. And ill will seldom speaks well: He may bestow his censure more rightly elsewhere. I say still, it is a shameful thing to abuse Scriptures as Mr. Blake doth to understand by nations the whole of the nation, even infants, when, if they be so understood the Scripture should in that sense be most palpably false; for it should foretell a thing that neither was nor will be. I conceive myself not ignorant of what Mr. Blake saith, and though I grant all he saith, yet it covers no part of his shame in abusing the text. For even in his allusion, the whole of the nation, females and infants, did not appear before the Lord, and therefore were the extent of the prophecies as large as that they are conceived to allude to, yet the whole of the nation, even infants, were not included. And this is enough to show the futility of his talk about discipling nations, which in his sense never was. Nor is there one reason given by Mr. Blake for his exposition, and reasons sufficient are given for mine, and I may retort Mr. Bls. words upon him, All indifferent men may challenge their reason that heed him, and when I am taken with such frivolous dictates as his are, I expect my friends should conclude that I dote.   

SECT. X.  
That infants of believers are not disciples appointed to be baptised, Mat. 28. 19  
THe last exception against the minor in my Argument [that infants of believers are not disciples of Christ appointed to be baptised Mat. 28. 19] is by denying it, and asserting on the contrary that they are disciples and appointed there to be baptised. But this is so sorry a shift, so contrary to the notation and use of the word in the New Testament in the text, to the Apostles practice which best expounds Christ's commission, to their own or fellows confession elsewhere, that it looks like the putting a face on a thing when there is small hope to hold it.  
Mr. Rutherford Divine right of Presbyteries page 268. See you doubt not of a warrant for baptising children who are not disciples; For then the Apostles from this place had no warrant to baptise the infants of believers.  
Nevertheless because such men as Mr. Cotton, and Mr. Baxter have put this text in the front to prove infant-baptism by it, I shall lay down sundry arguments against that abuse of the text, and then examine what they say about this. That our Lord Christ did not mean by [disciples to be baptised Matth. 28. 19] infants either of believers or unbelievers, I prove.  
1. from the notation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a verbal noun, which comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath learned. Mr. B. Plain Scrip. proof▪ etc. pag. 92. acknowledgeth it to have denomination from the act of learning. Mr. Blake Vindic. foederis pag. 205. They are still styled in New Testament-Scriptures, Believers from the faith that they profess, Saints from the holiness to which they stand engaged, Disciples from the doctrine which they profess to learn, and Christians from him whose they are, whom they serve, and from whom they expect salvation.  
Whence I argue. They are not disciples as Mat. 28. 19 who do not learn or profess the learning of Christ's doctrine; But infants do not learn Christ's doctrine; Ergo they are not disciples. The major is proved from the notation and use of the word before confessed, and intimated in that speech of the Apostle Eph. 4. 20▪ which shows, that to be a Disciple is to be one that learns Christ. The minor is manifest, from the want of capacity to learn, and from sense, to which it is apparent that they regard not, heed not, understand not any thing of Christ, as by other signs, so by the difficulty to teach them when they come to years.  
To this what Mr. M. replies is answered before. Mr. B. part 1. chap. 2. saith You must understand that one may be called a disciple, 1. in a large sense relatively, as being of the number of those that belong to Christ as Master and King of the Church, and destinated or devoted to his oversight and rule, and teaching, for the future: thus believers infants are disciples, of which I shall give you proof anon.  
2. Sometimes the word is taken in a narrower sense for those who are actually learners. But commonly applied to men at age it includeth both relation and subordination, and also actual learing, but the former principally: but applied to infants it intendeth the relation at present and actual learning, as one end of it intended for the future.  
To which I reply, 1. I take it for granted that it is sometimes taken for those who are actually learners.  
2. That the term [disciple] commonly applied to men of age includes actual learning.  
3. That applied to infants it intendeth the relation as present, and actual learning as one end of it intended for the future.  
Wherein letting pass the uncouth expression that [the word in tendeth an end] and taking his meaning, I observe,  
First, that he makes the term [disciples] to be meant in one manner, when it is said of men of age, and another when of infants. Which me thinks is as absurd as that he chargeth Mr. Bedford with pag. 300. that he made one end of baptism in the aged, another in infants, one covenant to parents, and another to infants, as if the aged were one sort of disciples meant Mat. 28. 19 and yet the same word includes another sort of disciples in a clean different sense. It would be known of which sort of disciples he understands it, for certainly there is but one sort of disciples there mentioned: and if he will stand to his words in that place▪ he must understand it of disciples upon instruction.  
Secondly, That he sets down the sense of a word, and yet produceth no place for the present where the distinction is put, but refers us to another place, which his Reader must seek, and when he hath sought all his book he shall find but one text Acts 15. 10. and that miserably abused by him. Of which in its place.  
Thirdly, That he acknowledgeth page 92▪ and here, that the denomination is from the disciples act of learning, yet will have it imagined that an infant may be a disciple without his own actual learning, only from his belonging to Christ by God's covenant, and men's destination and devoting to learn hereafter. But it is to me unconceivable that the denomination which is from the act inherent in the person should be without the act inherent in the person from some acts of another, and those acts not putting the form denominating in actual being, yea when oftentimes the form denominating is never in act. For by Mr. Bs. doctrine, God's covenant, and man's devoting make a disciple, and yet I think notwithstanding the covenant, and man's devoting, many thousands, yea the most part of infants whom he would have baptised never actually learn by reason of death or disaffection, yea many expressly renounce it. Were God's covenant absolute to every true believers infant that he shall be a disciple, yet for the present it doth put nothing actually in the person to whom the promise is made, no more than election doth put actually any thing in the elected. Praedestinatio ni● ponit in praedestinato, Aq. p. 1. q. 23. art. 2. God's purpose of a thing doth not put it in being, Mr. Bl. Vindic. foed. pag. 89. Most truly Mr. Cobbet Just Vindic. part. 2. cap. 2. Election doth neither make a man holy, but only intentionally, nor give him actual Church right. And this may in like manner be said concerning God's promise or covenant, by itself considered, it doth assure something for the future, but put nothing in present being. The covenant is to a person afore he is born, as to Isaac and Jacob, shall it be said, that afore they were born they were actually disciples, and had actual Church right? I confess they might be called disciples or believers in possibility, but not actually. God's election and promise denominate a man elected and a child of the promise (which are terms of the same extent, Rom. 9 8.) but not justified, converted, regenerated, or actually a believer, disciple, or visible Church member. But this is yet more in consistent with Mr. Bs. bypotheses, who when he assigns the covenant which he will have to make an infant actually a disciple, makes it only the conditional covenant of grace (as I shall show hereafter) and that covenant is upon condition of faith, and this he will have to belong to all men whether believers or unbelievers, and me thinks he should not say all men are actually disciples, visible Church members, though God hath made that covenant with them which he seals in baptism, which he often says to be only the conditional covenant, and ●eckons it my prime error that misleads me in the point of baptism, that I make baptism seal the absolute covenant of grace. And yet he chargeth Mr. Bedford p. 300. 301. as with an absurdity following his tenet that baptism should seal one covenat to the Father, another to the son. If then the covenant make not others actually disciples, than neither infants. Idem quà idem semper facit idem. Again, a conditional covenant cannot make an actual disciple, till the condition which is actual faith be put. Conditionale nihil ponit in esse. Therefore the conditional covenant sealed in baptism cannot make an actual disciple. Nor is it to be said, the parent's faith is the condition of the covenant for the child.  
For 1. it being not the condition of the covenant to the parent that another should believe for him, neither is it the condition for the child, except Mr. B. will fall into the absurdity he chargeth on Mr. Bedford, that one covenant should be to the Father, and another to the child, sealed in baptism.  
2. A child, the father believing, shall be actually a disciple before it is born, for a conditional proposition, the condition being put, becomes absolute. Now it is his child, and he believing afore it is born; Ergo.  
In like manner it may be said of another's devoting or destinating an infant to be a disciple, that is no act of the person denominated, it can only make a disciple intentionally; a persons devoting is but his wish, or desire, or promise, and shall that make a child actually a disciple? yea destinating and devoting is before the child is conceived or born, as Hannah did devote Samuel, was Samuel therefore actually a disciple and visible Church-member afore he was born? many of those whom the parents destinate and devote to be actual learners in after time, yet never are such: yea many of them are express disclaimers and opposers of that doctrine; shall these be called actual disciples, from their parents wish, or hopes, or promise?  
Again, he makes the term [disciple] applied to an insant to note a relation present, actual learning as one end of it intended for the future. I confess that [disciple] notes a relation between the teacher and person taught, yet it seems to note a passion as its form or quiddity, so that if any should ask who is a disciple, I should say, one that hath learned, and what it is to be discipled, it is to be taught or learned, and so doth import a passion, and is to be put in that predicament, and the relation is as they say secundùm dici, not secundùm esse. But were it granted that the whole essence of a disciple did consist in relation, I would fain know what shall be the foundation of his relation. Logicians say, To relation there is requisite a foundation, as begetting, two terms, as Father and Son, and a respect arising between them from that foundation, as fatherhood It is an unheard-of thing that a relation should be without a foundation, a Father without begerting, an actual Father without actual begetting. It is true, a man may be p 〈…〉 lly a Father without actual begetting, but to make an actual F 〈…〉 without actual begetting, is oppositum in opposito. Mr. B. Saints everlasting; est, part 1. 〈◊〉. 8. sect. 2. To be the people of God without regeneration is as impossible as to be the natural children of men without generation. Now what should be the foundation of the relation of a Disciple of Christ but learning of Christ of an actual Disciple but actual learning, I know not. Future learning, being according to Mr. B. the end intended, is not in being, perhaps will never be, and therefore it is in my apprehension a most illogical and absurd conceit which Mr. B. hath hatched, to obtrude upon us such a notion of a Disciple, as supposeth a relation without a foundation, and contrary to Grammar, to call a person a Disciple who hath learned nothing, no not so much as to know or own his Teacher. To say a person may be a Scholar afore he learns, serves not turn, to avoid the force of this Reason: For the term [Scholar] coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, leisure or vacation from other exercise, may be without actual learning, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Verbal Noun from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath learned, and Disciple à discendo, from Learning; and therefore as it is absurd to call one learned or a Learner, without Learning, so it is absurd to call one a Disciple without actual learning. But I rest not on the notation alone, but proceed to the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Disciple.  
2. I argue thus. The word [Disciple] Matth. 28. 19 is to be understood as it is understood all along the New Testament; But all along the New Testament it is applied to those that addicted themselves to some as Teachers, followed them, learned of them, no where to an insant, who doth none of these. Ergo, Infants are not Disciples, meant Matth. 28. 19 The major is plain from the rule of understanding words, that it is to be according to the use of them. The minor is proved thus. The Disciples of Christ are understood as the Disciples of john and the Pharisees, Luke 5. 33. as the Disciples of Moses, john 9, 28. of the perverters, Acts 20. 30. But in all these places, and in all the rest, they are termed Disciples of John, the Pharisees, Moses, and the perverters who addicted themselves to them, followed them, learned of them, no where an infant, who doth none of these; Therefore the term [Disciples of Christ] notes only such, and no where an infant.  
3. I argue thus. They that are not termed believers, are not Disciples; But infants of believers are not termed believers; Therefore they are not termed Disciples. The Major is proved from the equipollence of the term [Disciple] and [believers] in the New Testament. Calvin institut. lib. 3. cap. 2. sect. 6. Cur respondet quod passim Evangelistae sideles & discipulos ponunt tanqu im synonyma, ac-praesertim Lucas in Acts Apostolorum saepius, Acts 6. 1, 2, 7. & 9 1, 10, 19, 25, 26, 38. & 11. 26, 29. & 13. 52. & 14. 20▪ 22, 28. Which thing is strongly disputed by Chamier, 2. Panst. Cath. tom. 3. l. 12 c. 9 s. 15. against the Papists implicit saith, that none are believers but disciples who learn and know. Which he confirms from Matth. 28. 19 in these words, Nimlrum disertum erat Christi mandatum, Matth. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Docete, sive discipulos facite omnes gentes. The minor needs not proof, believing being an act of the intellectual part, supposing the use of reason which infants ordinarily have not, at least in such things they cannot be said ordinarily to be behevers; nor is the term believer any where in Scripture applied to them. Rightly saith the same Chamier, Panstr. Cat. to●. 4. l. 12. c. 9 sect. 53. Infants potentia tantùm sideles sunt, actu nemo nisi adultiv.  
4. This is further confirmed by comparing Matth. 28 19 with Mark 16. 15, 16. where the same Commission is expressed, given at the same time, in somewhat different words, which therefore without all contradiction the one expound the other. Now what is said Matth. 28 19 [Make Disciple of all Nations] is in Mark 16 15. [Preach the Gospel to every creature] and what is said Matth. 28 19 [baptising them] is Mark 16. 16. [Whosoever believeth and is baptised shall be saved] which apparently shows that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them or Disciples] are the same with [believers] and consiquently not infants.  
5. Which is further confirmed by Philip's answer to the Eunuch 〈…〉 lings him, that Act●▪ 7. which shows that Philip understood Christ's Commission to be to baptise believers and none else; But infants are not such ordinarily; Therefore they are not ordinarily to be baptised. Mr. B. himself pag. 300. saith, Now for the aged a Disciple and believer are all o●e Mark 16. ●6. what Mr. Blake speaks Vindic. foed: ●ag 4, 3. of infants being Disciples as to the participation of Ordinances, and elsewhere of being believers virtually, though not formally, is without Scripture proof, which terms none Disciples 〈…〉 right to participate of ordinances, but from Learning, 〈…〉 believers who are not so formally, nor do I know 〈◊〉 w 〈…〉 infant's may be called virtually believers, Then 〈…〉ing is said to be virtually such, though not formally, when it hath, though not the quality in its kind, yet hath it ability to produce it, as the sun they say is not hot in its self formally, yet it is hot virtually, because it can produce it in another; But I presume he will no say this of an insant that he is virtually a believer because he can produce it in another. If he mean it in another, sense, he should show how an infant may be said to be virtually a believer, and prove that sense out of Scripture, and not abuse men with a nonsense distinction, if he mean to clear truth. I shall need no better proof against him, to show infants are not to be termed Disciples and believers, than his own words, Vindic. Foed. p. 205. All visible Professors that except the terms of the Covenent are believers, Saints, Disciples, Christians; so they are styled in New Testament Scriptures, believers from the faith that they profess, Saints from the holiness to which they stand engaged, Disciples from the Doctrine which they profess to learn, and Christians from him whose they are, whom they serve, and from whom they expect salvation: of which terms according to his own explication none can be attributed to infants of believers.  
6. That infants of believers are not Disciples appointed to be baptised, Matth 28. 19 is proved from the means of making Disciples, to wit, by preaching the Gospel to them, as appears by Mark 16. 15. For what is Matth. 28. 19 Make Disciples of all Nations, is Mark 16. 15. Preach the Gospel to every creature. Whence I argue, Those Disciples which Christ hath ordinarily appointed to be baptised, an such as are made such by preaching of the Gosepl to them. Rightly saith Mr. Collings Vindic▪ Vindic. pag. 145. How i● one made a disciple, but by conversion? and when is a man converted, but when he is brought to believe? But infants of believers are not made disciples by preaching of the Gospel, as is of itself manifest, and acknowledged by the adverse party, who make them Disciples by an imaginary Covenant, and their parent's profession; Ergo, they are not Disciples appointed by Christ ordinarily to be baptised.  
7. Those are appointed to be baptised, and no other, whom the Apostles did baptise, for the Apostles practice shows how they understood Christ's Commission, and rightly saith Mr. Norton, respon. ad Apollon. c. 2. pag. 34. 35. Religio est nobis judicare Apostolos in baptizando obseruàsse regulam à Christo latam Matth. 28. 16. religion binds us to judge the Apostses to have observed in baptising the rule made by Christ Matth. 28. 19 But they baptised no other than repenting and believing Disciples of Christ, no infants, Ergo.  
To say that in Christ's and the Apostles days there were no infants which they might baptise, is neither true, nor consistent with their own allegations of Mat. 19 13, 14. Acts 2. 39 & 16. 15. To say that at first gathering the Church they were not to do it, but after, is to make them faulty in not observing the commission of Christ, as they expound it, that even in the first planting of the Church they were to baptise disciples immediately and remotely such, as Mr. Baxter speaks; and to hold that the Apostles practice is not our pattern, and that the first Church was not best ordered, though it was indeed the purest reformed Church, and therefore the solemn covenant ties us to endeavour the establishing the worship of God according to it. To say, infants were baptised by them but not recorded, is without proof, or any likelihood of truth, and tends to derogate from the fullness and perfection of the Scriptures.  
Out of all which I conclude, that infants, even of believers, are not disciples appointed Matth. 28. 19 ordinarily to be baptised.   

SECT. XI.  
Mr. Cottons allegations in his Dialogue, the first chapter, to prove infants Disciples, are showed to be insufficient.  
AGainst this Mr. John Cotton in his Dialogue, entitled, The Grounds and Ends of Baptism, etc. chapter 1. disputes thus.  
That all the children of the faithful (or which is all one, all the children of the Church, for the Church is a congregation of the faithful) that they are all of them disciples, may appear by the testimony of the Prophet Esay, who speaking of the times of the Church in the New Testament▪ All thy children (saith he) shall be taught of God, Esa. 54. 13. and if they be taught of God then are they disciples, for that is the meaning of the word disciples. Disciples are taught or learned of God.  
Answ. 1. It is supposed but not proved that the tossed v. 11. is meant of the Church of the N. T. and not of the people of the Jews after the Captivity.  
2. The phrase of [children of the Church] is not a Scripture-phrase, nor that I know is the Church made a mother, though Jerusalem, which is above be called the Mother of us all, Gal. 4. 26. which seems to be meant of the Evangelical Covenant.  
3. It is supposed that to be children of the Church, and to be children of the faithful, are one, yet Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindic. makes them only the Church seed, who are children of persons inchurched, otherwise, though the parents be faithful, yet they are not the Church seed. Besides to be [children of the Church] is not all one with to be natural children of believers. For the Church doth not beget or bring forth by natural seed, but by spiritual, to wit, the word of God, 1 Peter 1. 23. and children are begotten in the womb of the Church by the Spirit, and therefore said to be born after the Spirit, Gal. 4. 29. by the promise or covenant of the free woman, v. 30. And indeed the New Annotations on Isaiah 54. 13. hath thus, And thy Children shall be taught of the Lord] By the outward Ministry of the word, and inward co-operation of the Spirit, Jerem. 31. 34. John 6. 45. 2 Cor. 13. 3. 1 Cor. 2. 10. 1 John 2. 20, 27. Calvin Instit. lib. 3. cap. 2. s. 6. Denique non frustrà Deus apud jesaiam hâ● not â disoernit filios Ecclesiae ab extraneis, quod omnes erudiet [verbo] ut sint ab ipso edocti.  
4. It is supposed that the Church whose children those are is the visible church as such.  
Whereas 1. in Scripture no Church is called the Mother but Jerusalem above, Gal. 4. 26. which is the mother of us all, and that is either the Evangelical covenant, or the invisible Church. The Church's children are Christ's seed, and they are those whom his Father hath given him, Heb. 2. 13. made disciples by his Word and Spirit. Our Lord Christ where he citys this passage of the Prophet, John 6. 45. applies it to those that are drawn of the Father, and whom he will raise up at the last day, ver. 44. who are only the children of the invisible Church. Diodati annot. on John 6. 45. all not all and every particular person, as it appears by ver. 44. & 65 but all the elect and children of God. No● is Mr. C 〈…〉 shift, rather than answer, of any moment, when he saith, For look what promises are made to the invisible Church, they are for their sakes offered to all the members of the visible Churches, whereof the lively members are the chief.  
For 1. He doth alter the term in the objection, which was [made] not [offered] wherein both he, and Mr. George filips before him, deal not rightly, so speaking as that it may be taken, that to be in covenant; to have the covenant made, is all one with to have it offered: Whereas it is offered not only to the children of the visible Church, but to many professed unbelievers, as Acts 13. 46. Now this answering is a way to delude Readers, when the objection is, that the promise is made only to the children of the invisible Church, to answer the promises are also offered to the members of the visible, and when it is expected that it should be proved the promise is made to conclude that it is offered.  
2. Mr. Cotton dare not say that promise to be made to any but those that are children of the invisible Church, and therefore it can be meant of no other, and so no other taught of the Lord and disciples, which will not reach to the natural children of visible in churched believers.  
3. [Thy children] is not all one with [thy infants] Mr. Cotton denies not, that the meaning in part may be of men of years, and if so no necessity to understand it of infants, and then his argument falls, which is to prove infants to be disciples.  
4. Besides, our Lord Christ, where he citys John 6. 45. the prophet, leaves out the word [children] and applies the teaching of God only to true believers. Omnes, saith Grotius, quibus sermo Evangelii annuntiatur.  
5. Were it granted Mr. Cotton that all believers infants were taught of God by secret indiscernible teaching, yet this being such, cannot be applied to the disciples meant Mat. 28. 19 who are disciples by preaching the Gospel, and known to be such by their profession.  
But Mr. Cotton tells us, The infants or children of the faithful are not to be excluded from the number of the children of the Church. For the same Prophet speaking of the same Church, fetcheth in infants among the blessed ones of the Church, and blessed with such spiritual light and life from Christ, as if they had lived an hundred years in the Church Esa. 65. 20. There shall be no more (saith he) then●● forth an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days. For the chi●● shall die an hundred years old, but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. How shall the child die as at an hundred years old, but that he is so well instructed, and enlightened by Christ, and thereby as capable of entrance into heavenly glory, as a grown disciple of an hundred years old?  
Ans. 1. Were M. Cottons paraphrase granted, yet the conclusion follows not thence, that therefore infants are disciples to be baptised according to Mat. 28. 19 or as he speaks, children of the Church. For to be so well instructed, and enlightened by Christ, and thereby as capable of entrance into heavenly glory as a grown disciple of an hundred years old, may agree by extraordinary inspiration to one that is only of the invisible Church, and not of the visible Church as disciples meant Mat. 28. 19  
2. Mr. Cotton, when he saith, [how shall the child by as at an hundred years old] doth sl●ly intimate as if [as] were in the text: whereas it is not so, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the child or boy shall die an hundred years old, or the son of an hundred years. Which without any allegory hath a plain sense as the New Annotations express it, He that is now a child shall attain to those years ere he die. Which was accomplished in the return from the captivity according to the prophecy of Zechariah ch. 8. Vide Grotius 4. and therefore we need not run to any allego▪ annot in Ze●. rical interpretation, nor refer it to the times of 8. 4. the Messiah, either after the resurrection or afore, of which Hieronym in Locum.  
3. Were an allegory allowed, yet not only in Hierom, but also in Calvin, Piscator, and others, there are variety of senses different from Mr. Cotton, so that in alleging these texts he trifled more than became so grave a man. But he goes on thus.  
The Apostle Peter reckoneth infants of the Church for disciples Acts 15. 10. If the infants of the Church had not been disciples, the false Apostles could have pretended no power to have ●ut that ordinance upon them.  
Answ. 1. [infants of the Church] is a phrase the Scripture useth not, and i● serves only to possess the unwary reader with this conceit, as if the children of believers inchurched, as they speak, were children of the Church; whereas none is a child of the Church till taught the Gospel and made a believer.  
2. It is untruly suggested, as if the false Apostles pretended power to circumcise infants of Christian disciples from this chat the infants were disciples: But ver. 1. 5. show plainly that they alleged that the Gentile disciples were tied to observe the law of Moses, and so to be circumcised, both they and their children.  
But, saith he, Peter acknowledgeth them disciples, but the yoke of circumcision was too heavy for them, as drawing upon them the yoke of the Ceremonial Law.  
Answ. There is not a word of Peter acknowledging the infant's disciples, but the believing parents; nor is the yoke of circumcision said to be too heavy for them now▪ as if it were not so 〈◊〉, but it 〈…〉 such as neither the Apostles, nor their Fathers Were able to bear, much less Gentiles.  
But 〈…〉 Christ Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. 〈…〉) is the Kingdom of God, which argueth that even little children are members of the Church here.  
Answ. It is proved in my Postscripts. 20. that Matth. 19 14. the Kingdom of heaven, in Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. the Kingdom of God, is meant of the Kingdom of Glory: But it follows not that therefore infants are members of the Church here, many belonging to the invisible Church, which belong not to the visible, and vice versâ, as abortives, still born infants, converts at the point of death, etc. are of the Kingdom of Glory, who are never members of the visible Church here.  
But, saith he, Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God, as a little child (to wit, as a little child receiveth it, for so much the Grammar construction requireth) he shall in no wise enter therein.  
Answ. It is untrue, that the Grammar construction requireth, that it should be understood thus, that a little child receiveth the Kingdom of God, but only this is meant, that none shall enter into the Kingdom of God, but such as have such an humble mind, free from ambition, as a little child hath, as our Lord himself expounds it, Mat. 18. 3, 4.  
But, saith he, Christ's testimony of them and his carriage towards them, show that little children born in the Church are accounted disciples of Christ, and therefore commanded to be baptised with their believing parents.  
Answ. Mr. Cotton himself confesseth, that it doth not appear that their Fathers, who brought them, were baptised themselves; how are they then said to be children born in the Church, or to be baptised according to rule? wherefore his own words show it to be uncertainly, and therefore insufficiently alleged to prove that the infants of believers are among the blessed ones of Christ, such as of whom his Church and and Kingdom consisteth, and so come under the fellowship of his disciples, whom Christ commandeth to be baptised. And in very truth in that there is nothing apparent, whether the parents brought them or others, whether the parents were disciples or not: nor is any thing at all ascribed to the parents but to Christ's indulgence in this action, and it appears Christ did not command them to be baptised, nor spoke any thing as intituling them to discipleship and baptism, though he said, Of such is the Kingdom of God, this text is not only impertinently brought to prove the discipleship and baptizability of believers infants, but also makes to the contrary, that infants are not disciples nor baptizable, sith if they had been so Christ would have so declared on this occasion, which was opportune for it.  
But there is yet another argument in that chapter of Mr. Cottons, and it is to this effect, That the Commission Mat. 28. 19 appoints believing parents to be baptised, and would infer, that in God's account, and in Scripture phrase, parents themselves are not reputed of God to be baptised, if their children remain unbaptised.  
Answ. But will any man believe Mr. Cotton in this, that in Scripture phrase parents are not reputed of God to be baptised if their children remain unbaptised? Scripture speaks of thousands baptised, and mentions not the baptising of any of their children under that relation as their children, shall we believe Mr. Cotton that those phrases of Scripture, that say they were baptised, speak false? and that they were not reputed of God to be baptised, because there is no mention of their children's baptism? many believers were baptised their children being infidels, Mat. 10. 35. were not the parents reputed in Gods account baptised because the children were against it? But let us hear Mr. Cottons goodly proof in his own words.  
Surely, saith he, in the old Testament a man was accounted of God as uncircumcised himself, if his children were uncircumcised: for so it is written in Exod. 12. 48. that if a man will come and keep the Passeover, all the males in his house must be circumcised: and the reason given, is, for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof, which plainly argueth, that a man is uncircumcised himself, and (as an uncircumcised person) is to be debarred from the Passeover, until all his males be circumcised. If then our Lord's Supper come in the room of the Passeover, and our baptism in the room of circumcision, look as he that had not circumcised his males was accounted as one uncircumcised himself, and so to be debarred from the Passeover, so he who hath not baptised his children is accounted of God as not baptised himself, and so to be debarred from the Lords Supper.  
Answ. That baptism and the Lords Supper come in the room of Circumcision, and the Passeover, is often said, but never proved. But if it were granted (though I still deny it) yet Mr. Cottons inference is not good, till it be also yielded, that every rule of Circumcision, and the Passeover is a rule to us about Baptism and the Lords Supper, which me thinks he should not maintain. Nor do I think he can give any reason why in this the rule should bind more than in others. Yea did he consider it, he might have perceived, that if the proportion be stretched according to this rule, no parent must be counted baptised, nor to eat the Lords Supper, except he had not only all his children baptised; but also all his Servants. For the males to be circumcised were not only children, but servants also, and so those must be baptised who are out of covenant, and a national church must be fo●med like to the Jews, which I think were hated of him as the blind and the lame were of David's soul. And methinks it should follow, that if it happen (as it may happen many ways, especially in new England, where many baptised persons may not have their children baptised, because the parents are not Church-members) the infants be unbaptised the parent is to be baptised again, because counted of God, and according to Scripture phrase, if Mr. Cottons dictates hold, unbaptised.  
Which being absurd, I count his inference (If therefore you forbid baptism to children, you evacuate the baptism of their parents, and so make the Commandment of God, and the Commission of the Apostles, and the baptism of believers, of none effect, together with that other passage of his pag. 4. If godly parents do withdraw their children from the covenant, and the seal of the Covenant, they do make void (as much as in them lieth) the Covenant, both to themselves, and to their children also. And then will the Lord cut off such souls from his people, Gen. 17. 14.) to be mere Mormoes or bugbears to fright children, though I am afraid they are used for a further evil end to incite Magistrates a 'gainst Antipaedo baptists, and to justify their hard dealing with then in new England.  
That which Mr. Cotton adds, That if we gather no infant are disciples from Mark 16. 16. compared with Matth. 28. 1●▪ because believer and disciple are terms of the same sense, and i● fants not believers, it would follow, that no infant were capable of salvation any more than baptism, I have answered in my Praecursor s. 6.  
That which he speaks of the Gospel, That the promise of being God to believers and their seed is to be preached as Gospel according to Mark 16. 15. and if his allegations of Acts 16. 31. Luke 19 9 Gal. 3▪ 16, 17. be right, and his words true p. 22. God hath promised salvation to believers, and their seed, and house also, is so palpably false, that Mr. Marshal and Mr. Geree do both disclaim It as contrary to Protestant doctrine, as I show in my Apology s. 9  
That which he saith pag. 24. (' That the expounding baptising into the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost Mat. 28. 19 thus, baptise them into the true and orderly profession of that which they have been taught and believed, is to assert that we are to be baptised into the name of Creatures for profession is an act of our own and so a creature, which he counteth an effect of God's judgement taking men in their own wiliness, while they turn the glorious name of the blessed Trinity into the weak performance of a Christian duty, is a frivolous quillet unfit for so grave a man, James ch. 5. 14. To anoint with oil in the name of the Lord, id est, saith Beza, invocato nomine Domini, the New Annot. by calling on the name of the Lord, which is a work of their own: Do they therein turn the name of the glorious God into a Creature? But enough of this childish chapter of Mr. Cotton, in which I find so little worth answering, that were it not for the esteem he had, and his acquainting me with this piece in his letter to me, I should have chosen to have let it pass as not worth the labour bestowed in answering it.  
Mr. William Cook in his Font uncovered pag. 13. brings Acts 21. 4, 5. To prove that infants in their mother's arms were reckoned among disciples, and makes the enumeration there to answer Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. Ezra 8. 21. And whereas it might be said that the children are distinguished from the disciples, he prevents this by retortion their wives are distinguished from disciples, yet might be disciples, so the children.  
Answ. 1. The places are no way parralel in the matter, nor exactly in the enumeration made, in the former there is mention of servants, none here, all were of duty there to enter into covenant the whole nation together, not so here, in the later place no mention of wives, and the business was a solemn humiliation for them upon their return from captivity, but here only a courteous accompanying of Paul to the ship.  
2. I grant the wives are not necessarily excluded from being disciples, nor children by the enumeration Acts 21. 5. nor are they necessary to be included: but how doth Mr. Cook prove the the children, babes carried in arms, or such little ones as had not abilities of understanding? More likely, this thing being done by common consent, the wives and children were of years to conceive what they did, whether already baptised disciples or persons catechised and expectants it is uncertain.  
I shall now, finding nothing needing more answer in Mr. Cobbet part 2. ch. 3. s. 4. but what will fitly come in when I answer Mr. Baxter, pass on to the answering Mr. baxter's third chapter of the first part of his plain Scripture proof, etc. where he thus argues.   

SECT. XII.  
Mr. Bs. allegation of Acts 15. 10. to prove infants disciples is fully answered & his arguments retorted.  
ALL that are Christ's disciples ordinarily aught to be baptised; But some infants are Christ's disciples; Therefore some infants ordinarily aught to be baptised. He tells us how he means by [disciples] which meaning of his is before proved not to be the meaning of the text, and then saith, His major is evident in the text from the conjunction of the two commands: Go make me disciples, baptising them. If any shall be so quarrelsome against the plain tezt to say, It is not all disciples that they were commanded to baptise, but only all that were made disciples, and this making was only by teaching.  
I answer, 1. If I prove infant's Disciples, I sure prove thereby they were made so, or else they they had never been so.  
2. By teaching the parents and children were both made disciples, the parents directly, the infants remotely or mediately: if they be proved once to be disciples, it will easily follow it is by this way. He that converteth the parent, maketh both him and his infant's disciples incomplete or in title; This therefore lies on the proof of the Minor.  
3. But I would say more to this, but that Mr. T. (as I understand) hath in his Sermons professed, That if we will prove that infants are Christ's Disciples, he will acknowledge that they ought to be baptised: the like he granted to me; and well he may.  
Answ. 1. It is well Mr. B. grants that to go make disciples, baptising them, are two Commands, and that there is a conjunction of them, whence it follows, that he appoints not baptising till the making of disciples, nor of any but disciples made as Christ appointed.  
2. It is no quarrel against the plain text, but the very plain doctrine of the text to say, It is not all disciples (visibly or invisibly, directly or remotely, completely, or incompleatly, in reality or in title) that they were commanded to baptise, but only all that were made disciples, and this making was only by teaching or preaching the Gospel to them Mark 16. 15.  
3. It is true, I have often granted, that if it be proved infants are Christ's disciples made by preaching to them the Gospel, they ought to be baptised. But when I granted this, it did not come into my thoughts, that Mr. B. would ever have hatched, much less have printed such wild nonsense fancies as here he doth, of a disciple by title without learning, like a King of Jerusalem without reigning▪ or the Pope's Bishop of Chalcedon without overseeing, of teaching remotely in the Parent's conversion without any personal teaching in themselves. For which fancies he neither brings a text of Scripture, nor any approved Author, nor any other besides himself thus speaking. Such distinctions are but mere abuses as are without any instance of such an use of terms. And to show the grossness of this foppery of Mr. B. which a School▪ boy may easily discern that hath gone no further than Qui mihi discipul●s. I argue thus,  
1. If he that converteth the parent maketh the infant a disciple, then either because the infant is an infant, and then eurey infant should be made a disciple by that conversion; or because his child, and then every child is made a disciple, yea though he be a professed infidel; or both, and then it would be showed what grant there is to the child while infant, which ceaseth when grown up: where the relation of a disciple in his sense is appropriated only to infant child. Yea all the plea is, by teaching the parents and children were both made disciples, therefore this relation comes from being a child of such a one: But the professed infidel child is the child of the Father; therefore also a disciple in title, and to be baptised after Mr. Bs. doctrine.  
2. If children be made disciples remotely and mediately according to the command Matth. 28. 19 in that the parent is converted, and that the teaching of the parent is the teaching of the child, than it follows, he that teacheth the Father hath done his duty of teaching, though he teach not the child himself, and so a preacher need not at all go and catechise each child but only preach to parents. It would be ill with Kederminster if it should be so there. But this follows according to Mr. Bs. exposition of Christ's command Mat. 28. 19  
3. It will follow as well, that he that baptizeth the Father baptizeth the child, for there is a conjunction of these commands, and the baptising is to be correspondent to the teaching; if then the teaching the parent is the teaching the child, then is the baptising the parent the baptising the child according to the command, and so the command is only to baptise in another him who is taught in another, and it is a gross transgression of Christ's command to baptise him in himself, who is only a disciple in another.  
4. Forasmuch as Mr. B. doth not limit the child's being a disciple or teaching remotely to the next parents being converted, he that shall teach the Grandfather, great Grandfather, etc. teacheth the child, makes him a disciple, yea according to his doctrine pag. 101. he that converts the Master of the house makes his servants, and those that are at his dispose, though not his children, (whom he would have baptised) disciples, for sure he would not have them baptised that are not disciples. Now I appeal to any man of understanding whether this be not as gross and pernicious a delusion as Hart the Jesuit held (so much exagitated in the conference by Dr. Raynold ch. 2. divis. 7.) That the Pope preacheth by another, to say he that teacheth the parent teacheth the child, Assuredly had I ever dreamt that Mr. B. had such fantastic, if not frantic notions, I had denied his major, and do now expressly deny it in his sense, All that are Christ's disciples incompleatly, in title only, remotely by the parent's conversion without their own ordinarily aught to be baptised, and expect it to be proved by him ad Graecas Calendas. Nor would I have laid the stress of the argument on the proof of his Minor, if I had understood his deceitful gibberish, by which he detestably abused many people, and perverted Christ's words. But it is my lot to answer such a writer and I follow him.  
He next goes about to prove his minor thus, [That some infants are Christ's disciples, and so called by the Holy Ghost is most evident to any that will not grossly pervert the text or overlook it, in Acts 15. 10. why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear? now who were these disciples? no doubt those on whom the false Teachers would have laid the yoke. And what was that yoke? It is plain it was Circumcision, as necessary and as engaging them to keep the Law. And whom would they have persuaded thus to be circumcised? Why both the Parents and Children in that Age, and only the Children in all following Ages ordinarily. So that thus I argu, Those on whose necks the false Teachers would have laid this yoke were Disciples: But some, yea most of those were infants on whose necks they would have laid this yoke: Therefore some Infants are Disciples, and so called here. The major is plain in the Text.]  
Answ. The minor of Mr. Bs. Argument, that Infants are Christ's Disciples, should not be understood of Disciples in that sense, that Christ appoints Disciples to be baptised, Matth. 28. 19 Discipleship in Mr. Bs. sense in title without learning, by remote teaching in the Parent's conversion, being a sense unknown to the Scripture, and a mere figment of Mr. Bs. brain, is falsely said to be a scribed to infants by the Holy Ghost, or to have any evidence in Scripture for it: nor do I think any do more grossly pervert the Text, Acts 15. 10. or overloook it more than Mr. B. But let us look a little nearer on Mr. Bs. arguings: he premiseth three Questions, and answers them; concerning which I grant his answer to the first, that those were Disciples on whom the false Teachers would have laid the yoke. In his second Question and the Answerly sundry fallacies, 1. in that he puts the Question about the yoke what it was; whereas the Question that should have cleared the difficulty had been, what was the putting on of the yoke, (which Mr. B. doth I fear sophistically omit) the point in question being who are meant by [Disciples] and it being resolved by Mr. B. Those on whom the false Teachers would have laid the yoke, the Resolution must be not by knowing barely what the term [yoke] imported, but by knowing how they would lay the yoke, or what the act was of the false Teachers, termed, laying a yoke on their necks. Were the act effected or attempted, or intended only, it's that we must know what act it was, whether such as infants were the passive subjects of, or whether such only as persons of age were capable of? And here I conceive two ways they might be said to lay the yoke, one by cutting with their own hand off the little skin of the privy member, either of Parents or Children, or both, according to the rite of Moses Law; the other by teaching, persuading, charging Parents that they and their Children should be circumcised, or else they should not be saved; the former had been an act of their hands, this latter of their tongues; the former only can prove infants to be meant by [Disciples] if this latter be meant, than infants are not meant by [Disciples] for they were not subjects capable of that act. There was no act either effected or attempted on infants, but only the act of the hand using an instrument to cut off the skin. If they had attempted to act on infants the later way, by telling sucking children, you are to be circumcised, and to keep Moses Law, they had done rather like mad men than cunning Seducers. Mr. B. himself, when in the next words [And whom would they persuade to be circumcised?] and when after he confesseth, that which the false Teachers did, was Teaching, doth plainly intimate that the false Teacher's act, in putting on the yoke, was only of the tongue, not of the hand, and therefore not infants the passive subject of it, and so not meant by Disciples. Yea, the Text itself clears what their act was, when it says, v. 1. They taught the brethren, v. 24. They trouble●▪ them with words, subverting their souls, saying. And this is enough to show the foppery of Mr. Bs. and others, arguings hence to prove infants Disciples, had they any mind to heed what is spoken. Those only are meant by Disciples who were Patients or passive subjects of the act of laying on the yoke: that is Mr. Bs. own major in effect: but infants were not such, for they were not taught, nor troubled with words, nor had their souls subverted by the sayings of false Teachers; therefore they were not the Disciples meant Acts 15. 10. 2. Concerning the Answer to the Question, as he lays it down, [That the yoke was Circumcision, as necessary, and as engaging them to keep the Law,] it may be meant either of the command concerning Circumcision, and so it is granted that the yoke was Circumcision, that is, the command of Circumcision propounded, and taught as necessary to the Disciples, that they might be saved, and engaging them to keep Moses Law; or by Circumcision is meant Circumcision in act, or actual Circumcision, as passively received in the flesh, and this it seems Mr. B. understands, sith it was it which was to be put on infants, and it only, in which sense it is not meant Acts 15. 10. as I have showed. 3. The terms [as necessary, and engaging them to keep Moses Law] may be understood variously, either as necessary and engaging them in the opinion of the circumcised, so that the sense is, they would have laid the yoke on the necks of the Disciples, so as that the Disciples should have received circumcision with this opinion that thereby they were engaged to keep Moses his Law, and in this sense it is true, the yoke was the command of Circumcision to beget this opinion, or else in the opinion of the Teachers or Circumcisers only, and so it is false, that the yoke was actual Circumcision as necessary, and engaging to keep Moses Law, they did not only teach or circumcise, so as to have an opinion of this necessity, but so as to endeavour to possess those they would lay the yoke on, that it was necessary, and they were engaged to keep Moses Law. As for his Answer to the third Question, according to the plain sense of the words, it is false, that they would have persuaded the children, I mean infant children, to be circumcised: For though they would persuade the Parents to be circumcised, and then to circumcise their children, yet that they would have persuaded the children, that is, that any of them went to an infant and would have persuaded him to be circumcised, is false, and the thing would have been ridiculous.  
As for the argument from Acts 15. 10. as it was framed by Mr. M. I did Exam. pag. 135. deny the major, and gave my reason, it is not said, they would put it only on Disciples, it is more probable they endeavoured to put it on the necks of all, whether Disciples or others, as a thing universally necessary to salvation, v. 1. which Mr. M. in his Defence overthrows not, but puts it off without answer, only imagines that then I cannot evince from Matth. 3 5, 6. Acts 2. 42, etc. that John and Christ's Disciples baptised only penitent believers. But I presume Mr. M. will be better advised than to make it alike argumentative to prove all were Disciples on whom the false Teachers would have put the yoke, from Acts 15 10. and to prove that there was Baptism in the New Testament but of penitent believers, from the perpetual course of the history thereof, in the former Disciples being only mentioned occasionaly in condemning a fact done to them, in the other are set narrations of Acts done in the Church of God, and therefore there would have been a defect in the narration if there had been any other than penitent believers then Baptised,  
But Mr. B. pleads thus, If any will say, that it is not all, but some of those on whom they would have laid the yoke that are here called disciples, that is only them at age, I answer, Than it is but some only whose Circumcision the Apostle and the Synod doth conclude against, that is those of age. For he speaks against laying the yoke on none but Disciples, And then for any thing the Apostle saith, or this Synod, all infants might be circumcised still: which is a most gross absurdity, when the very business of this Synod was to decree against the necessity of Circumcision and the Law. To which I replied, I denied the major as expressed by Mr. M. thus [all they upon whose necks those false Teachers would have put the yoke of Circumcision are called Disciples and to be called Disciples] because I conceived they would by their teaching put a necessity of circumcision even on unconverted Jews who are no Disciples, yea upon all persons whatsoever, holding of all sorts of persons that except they were circumcised and kept the Law of Moses they could not be saved. And in like sort I deny the major of Mr. Bs. Argument if it be universal, all those on whose necks the false Teachers would have laid the yoke mentioned Acts 15. 10. were Disciples. Nor is it plain in the Text, there is no more plain in the Text but this, that the persons expressed Acts 15. 10. on whom the false Teachers would have laid the yoke were Disciples. but it doth not follow that they would have laid the yoke on none other than are there expressed, as when it is said, Christ would have gathered the children of Jerusalem, Matth. 23. 37. though none but the children of Jerusalem are there expressed, yet it follows not all are the children of Jerusalem whom he would have gathered. Nor doth that imaginary gross absurdity follow which Mr. B. would fasten on this denial of his major. For 1. there are in the Synods letter both v. 24. Condemning the false Teacher's Doctrine, and v. 28. 29. laying no other burden on them to whom they wrote, plain pasages exempting old and young from Circumcision, though v. 10. were left out. 2. Even in that, v. 10. Peter reproves their putting a yoke on the neck of the aged, he doth determine parents not bound to circumcise their children, and this is a conclusion against Circumcision of infants, as A canon against Priest's marriage is a Law against their wives living with them; and the concluding against a practice in some upon a common reason, to others is a general prohibition, as the Apostles determination Acts 6. 2. is a determination against the like in others. But however, this is enough to answer Mr. Bs. Argument; and some perhaps would yield his minor, yet I deny it, and doubt not to show that in the thing wherein he is most confident, in so much that in his Epistle before his Saints Everlasting Rest, he makes me with others play the Devil in accusing my own children as no Disciples, when God saith the contrary, (O utinam!) Acts 15. 10. he is an egregious Trifler.  
To prove his minor, he thus argues, I prove it was the Infants also, thus, If it were Infants also whom the false Teachers would have had to be circumcised as necessary, and as engaging to Moses Law, than it was infants also on whom they would have laid the yoke; but it was infants also whom they would have had circumcised, etc. Therefore, etc. The Antecedent is undeniable. But it is the Consequence Mr. T. denieth; for he saith, It is not Circumcision as necessary, and as engaging to Moses Law, which was the yoke, but it was the Doctrine of those Teachers. But was Mr. T. of this mind when he wrote these words? Exam. p. 101.  
Answ. 1. Should the Conclusion be granted him, that they were infants also whom the false Teachers would have had to be circumcised, etc. yet sith he grants, that they would have had the Father's circumcised, they only may be meant by [Disciples] though Circumcision were yielded to be the yoke. 2. Circumcision is no way necessary, that I know, but as commanded, nor engaging to keep Moses Law, but as taught, and yielded to. And therefore I know not what sense Mr. Bs. words have, that it was infants also whom the false Teachers would have had to be circumcised as necessary, and as engaging to Moses Law, but one of these, they would have them circumcised, having this opinion, that it was necessary, and did engage, or that they taught Circumcision as a necessary command, and as engaging to Moses Law, and in this latter sense I should not have said, (if I did say it) that it is not Circumcision as necessary, and as engaging to Moses Law, which was the yoke, but it was the Doctrine of those Teachers; but rather have said, it was Circumcision as necessary, and engaging to Moses Law, which was the yoke, that is, the Doctrine of those Teachers. But because Mr. Bs. expression is dubious, or nonsense, and that which he mainly bends himself to prove, is, that it was not the Doctrine which was the yoke to be put on Disciples, (for then there would have been no colour to expound [Disciples] of infants) but Circumcision in act, or acted on the flesh, though as a blind he add those words, as necessary and engaging to Moses Law, therefore I denied the Consequence, as if those words were left out, which indeed he himself leaves out in the proof of his Antecedent, proving only they would have had them circumcised, without saying any thing, to prove they would have had them circumcised under this formal consideration or respect, as yielding to the necessity of it, and engaging themselves thereby to keep Moses Law. But if he put in those words in the minor, in this sense, I deny it also. As for the Consequence there is no proof brought for it to confirm it, but by overthrowing the reason I gave of denying it, so that had I given no reason of denying it▪ there had been brought no proof. But as yet I do not apprehend, though I had granted him, that Circumcision was the yoke, and not the Doctrine, (which I do not) that yet it would have followed, that if the false Teachers would have had the infants circumcised they were those also on whom they would have laid the yoke, for they might have attempted to lay the yoke of Circumcision on the Parents, and so the laying on of the yoke might be only the circumcising the Parents, though they would have also the infants circumcised. But it being true, that I gave that reason of my denial of Mr. Bs. Consequence, that I may the more abundantly show the futility of his foolishly magnified dispute, I will engage with him even upon that point also. And to clear my meaning, it is true, Exam. pag. 101. I said, the yoke, Acts 15. 10. was Circumcision, as Mr. M. himself declared, pag. 39 of his Sermon, and all the legal Ceremonies, and the reason why I used that expression was, because I alleged Mr. Ms. words. But that I meant not Circumcision in act, or as acted on the flesh to be the yoke, but Circumcision in command, as commanded and imposed on the conscience, appears by the words following: if it be a privilege to be free from Circumcision it is a privilege to be free from any Ordinance in the room and use of it, it was the Ordinance then, I made the yoke. And my mind is expressed thus, pag. 135. The putting the yoke of Circumcision is not actual Circumcision in their flesh, for that they were able to bear for many Ages, but the necessity of it on men's consciences to salvation. In my Antidote, sect. 6. I deny it to be actual Circumcision, but sometimes call it the doctrine or opinion of the necessity of it. In my Book of Scandalising I call it the Ordinances of the Jews. In my Praecursor, pag. 10. the doctrines and commands: but most plainly I express myself in my Praecursor, pag. 74. in my Answer to the 27th absurdity Mr. B. chargeth me with, pag. 208. of his Plain Scripture Proof, etc. where I make it the yoke of Doctrine, or the command of Circumcision, and show, that not only Grotius, but also Pareus, Piscator, Diadati, the new 
Ames. Bell. Eneru. Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 7. Th. 11. Protest. Acts 15. 10. Lex Mosis dicitur jugum importabile, & Chamier  Annot. so expressed it. This then is my constant judgement, 1. That the Yoke, Acts 15. 10. is not actual Circumcision or Circumcision in act, that is, as acted on the flesh, which alone serves for Mr. Bs. turn to prove 
Panstr. Ca●h. tom. 3. l. 11. c. 15. spends a whole Chapter to prove against the Papists that the yoke there is the Moral as well as the Ceremonial Law. Yea, Mr. B. himself Direct. 10. for peace, pag. ●1. hath these words, They were therefore said to be in bondage to the Law, and the Law was said to be a yoke, which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear, Acts 15 10. Vide Pareum Bell. Cas●ig de Justific. l. 5. c 14. is the common Doctrine of Protestants to interpret the yoke of the whole Law, intolerable, because of the curse.  infants Disciples, for no more would they have done to infants. 2. That the putting the yoke is teaching the necessity of it, or the command of God still binding their consciences, of which act the infants were not subjects recipient. 3. That the yoke as from the false Teachers was the Doctrine, or command of Circumcision and other Precepts of the Law, which sundry learned men in their notes on Matth. 11. 29. gather to be meant by the yoke, comparing these places with 1 John 5. 3. what is Matth. 11. 29. called Christ's yoke, is 1 John 5. 3. called his Commandments, and doctrinal commands, or as the expression is, Matth. 15. 9 Doctrines, commands, are called Burdens, Matth. 23. Luke 11. 46. Rev. 2. 24. As it is taken passively, that is, to be received by the person yoked or taught is the opinion of the necessity of these unto salvation, or as Mr. B. himself after calls it the judgement of it. 4. That by the Disciples are meant the converted Christians of the Gentiles called the Brethren, v. 1. those that from the Gentiles turn to God, v. 19 The brethren of the Gentiles, v. 23. Mr. Blake Vindic. Foederis, pag. 208. Complaint is made, Acts 15. 10. that those that urged the necessity of Circumcision put a yoke on the necks of the Disciples, which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear; they urged it upon all in visible profession, and not upon regenerate ones alone. 5. That by their necks is meant not their flesh or skin, but their consciences. Let's now see what Mr. B. brings to prove the yoke Acts 15. 10. to be actual Circumcision, or in act, that is, acted on their flesh, and not the doctrine or command of Circumcision, or that the putting the yoke was in their flesh by cutting off the skin, not in their consciences by teaching.  
1. Saith he, The Text saith so three times over, [that it was Circumcision as necessary and engaging to Moses Law, that was that yoke] v. 1. They taught the brethren, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved: and v. 5. They taught, it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses: and v. 24. saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the Law.  
Answ. There's not a word in either of the three Verses, that says so expressly, or by any good consequence, that the yoke v. 10. is Circumcision actual or in act, that is, acted or to be acted on the flesh. Mr. B. me thinks if he could have made any good inference from thence, for his Conclusion, should have form it, being not ignorant that in my Antidote I bring these very verses and words to prove the contrary.  
2. Saith he, It appears evidently from the same, v. 10. the yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear, that which neither their fathers nor they were able to bear, was the yoke there meant: but it was Circumcision as necessary, and engaging to keep the Law, and not the Doctrine of the false Apostles, which their fathers and they were not able to bear, therefore, etc. The major is in the Text; the minor is plain; 1. In that there is no mention in the Scripture of the Father's being so burdened with that false doctrine; but that there is mention enough of their being burdened with the Law, and Circumcision as engaging to it. 2. It was true and good Doctrine before Christ which these false Apostles taught, viz. that except they were circumcised, and kept the Law, they could not be saved: I mean as to the Jews it was true, (for I will not now meddle with that great controversy whether the Gentiles were bound to keep Moses Law. I know not what Grotius, Franzius, etc. say on one side, and Cloppen burgius, and many more on the other.)  
Answer. This passage I also allege against Mr. Bs. opinion, in my Antidote sect. 6. to prove that it is not Circumcision in act but in command or doctrine that is there meant by the yoke. But that we may determine the thing it is to be considered: 1. Who [We and our Father] are: 2. In what part or respect, and how it was intolerable. Doubtless by [we] the Apostle means the modern Jews, and by [our Fathers] the Jews of former times. The intolerableness was not to their flesh, as Diodati speaks, for the labour in observing it, for though it be true that it was very irksome to observe Circumcision, and the Rites of Moses Law, yet Circumcision was possible to be born, especially by an infant, though, in the end and intent of the circumcisers it was done as necessary and engaging to keep Moses Law, yet the infants being not sensible thereof, it was not intolerable to them. And the Apostle Paul, Phil. 3. 6. speaks of himself, as touching the righteousness of the Law, blameless. But it was intolerable to their minds and consciences, by reason of the imperfection of it to quiet the conscience, and the condemnation it bound to for not keeping it in, saith Diodati locum. And therefore it was the Command and Doctrine that was intolerable to persons on whose consciences the Law was imposed, not the acting Circumcision, or Circumcision acted, which alone was put on infants, and consequently the yoke is not what was imposed on infants, but on persons taught and commanded. As for Mr. Bs. reasons, the first he himself answers by his second. For he saith that doctrine was true to the Jews before Christ, therefore sure the Fathers were acquainted with it, it was doctrine known among them whether the Scripture mention it or no; and whether it were true or false if it were received by them it must needs be burdensome to them. And for his second: 1. That it was true doctrine to the Jews before Christ that except they were circumcised after the manner of Moses they could not be saved, and that it was needful to circumcise them, and to Command them to keep the Law, v. 1. 5. is in my apprehension diametrally opposite to Paul's doctrine, Gal. 2. & 3. & 4. & 5. Rom. 3. & 4. & 10. Phil. 3. concerning the nonnecessity of observing the Law for justification, justification by faith without the works of the Law both in Abraham's, david's, Moses his time. 2. If the doctrine were true to the Jews, it was the more intolerable, it wouldly the more heavy on their consciences, finding themselves unable to observe it; therefore this reason is against Mr. B. and proves the doctrine was the yoke.  
But he adds, Mr. T. saith it was the Pharisees doctrine of being justified by the Law which was the yoke. But I answer, 1. the Pharisees were not of so long continuance as to be the burden of the Fathers by their doctrine. 2. these in the Text taught but a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised and keep the Law: so did not the Pharisees.  
Answ. 1. Those in the Text taught not only a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised, and keep the Law, by way of Precept, but also of means, that except they did so, they could not be saved, and that was still taken by the Apostle in the Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Philippians, as the Doctrine of Justification by the Law. And that this was the yoke which was so intolerable, Acts 15. 10. appears by the next words, ver. 11. But we trust or believe to be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, even as also they. The term [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but] being adversative, shows the Apostles assertion, v. 11. to contain an Antithesis to their Thesis or Doctrine, that is, whereas they impose this intolerable yoke of Doctrine, that without Circumcision, and keeping the Law, Disciples cannot be saved, We believe they may be saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, purifying their hearts by faith, v 9 without the observation of Moses Law. 2. It is not true, that they taught only a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised, and keep the Law; as if they exempted others. For though there is mention only of their teaching the Brethren, yet doubtless they held a like necessity of it, or rather a greater, for Jews. whether converted or unconverted, as for Christian Gentiles. 3. But were it true, that they taught but a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised, and keep the Law, yet the Doctrine might be an intolerable yoke both to Disciples, and to the Ancestors from whomsoever they learned it. Whose Doctrine soever it were, yet it was a yoke intolerable to present Disciples and the Predecessors of former Generations. 4. The antiquity of the Pharisees is variously conceived by Writers; it is conceived that Sect began three hundred years before the birth of Christ, by some higher; sure they were ancient enough to burden the Fathers, that is, the Ancestors of the modern Jews, when Peter spoke those words. 5. Were it that others spoke that Doctrine, and burdened the Fathers with it, yet it might be well called by me the pharisees Doctrine, who taught it afterwards. 6. That Mr. Bs. willingness to cavil may appear, let v. 5. be read, and there it is said, The false Teachers were of the Sect of the Pharisees. 3. Saith Mr. B. The Doctrine is no further a yoke than as it hath reference to Circumcision, and keeping the Law, in practice, and as it prevaileth to bring them to the belief and practice; therefore it is evident, that the Doctrine is not the yoke; but the judgement and practice which that Doctrine did teach them; else it would be in the power of men to yoke and burden us at their pleasure: But till we obey it we are free from the yoke; therefore the yoke lieth not in the Doctrine, but the obeying.  
Answ. This Argument however faulty, yet it plainly crosseth Mr. Bs. purpose; for his aim is to expound the yoke, so as that it may be said, to be laid on infants, and so they be reckoned for Disciples; but if it be that the judgement and practice which the Doctrire did teach were the yoke, if the yoke didly in obeying, as he here saith, than the yoke was not put or endeavoured to be put on infants, the false Teachers neither did put nor endeavoured to put any thing on the judgement or practice of infants, nor to have brought them to obeying. What was to be done to them was not to be done by false Teachers, but the Parents; there was no act to be done on the infant's minds, consciences, judgements, but on their flesh, nor were they to be active in practice, or willing in obedience, but merely passive, and likely very unwillingly. And therefore I infer from Mr. Bs. own Argument, If the Doctrine were no further a yoke, than as it hath reference to Circumcision, and keeping the Law, in practice, and as it prevaileth to bring them to the belief and practice, that the yoke is the judgement and practice, which the doctrine did teach, that it lieth in the obeying, than it is no yoke to infants, than it is not Circumcision as acted but as taught and yielded to, than it was not to be put on infants, and consequently no infants are meant by the Disciples, Acts 15. 10. But for the thing objected, as I have said before, the doctrine may be considered either in se, in itself, as it came from the Teachers, or in the event to the persons taught, being yielded to by them: It is true, the doctrine was not à yoke to the Disciples eventually, till the Disciples yielded to it, but it was in itself a yoke, and might so be called before, as the truth of Christ is the Gospel or glad ●idings in itself, and may be, and is often so called, though it prove not so to all that hear it. Wherefore I have sometimes called the yoke the command, sometimes the doctrine, sometimes the necessity of observation, sometimes the opinion of the necessity, and all these in different respects are rightly made the Yoke, in respect of God the command and necessity of observance, of the Teachers the doctrine, of the persons yoked the opinion and judgement, when it becomes such in the event, not only in fieri, but in facto esse, yet no way barely Circumcision acted on infants, and consequently they not Disciples, Acts 15. 10. which conceit is plainly overthrown by Mr. Bs. own Argument.  
4. Saith Mr. B. [That which this Synod did decree against, and Peter here spoke against, that was the yoke here meant. But it was Circumcision as needful, and engaging to keep the Law, which this Synod decreed against, and Peter here spoke against: therefore this Circumcision was the yoke. The minor is evident in the the three verses before named, and in the whole Chapter. Who dare say that this Synod did not decree against Circumcision and keeping the Law? And the major is as plain; And yet the very sum and strength of all that Mr. T. hath to say against this Text is here, which seems apparently to me to be but a mere cavilling with the plain Scripture.]  
Answ. All this may be justly retorted. That which this Synod did decree against, and Peter here spoke against, that was the yoke here meant: but it was not barely Circumcision as acted on infants, but Circumcision as taught, the command, doctrine, obligation, necessity of it to salvation, & opinion of that necessity urged on Disciples by teaching, which this Synod decreed against, and Peter here spoke against: therefore this doctrine, command, obligation, necessity, opinion of Circumcision and keeping the Law urged on persons taught was the yoke, & not barely Circumcision as acted on infants by parents, after the manner, and by virtue of Moses Law. The minor is evident in the three verses before named, and in the whole Chapter. Who dare say that this Synod did not decree against the command, doctrine, obligation, necessity, opinion of Circumcision, and and keeping the Law? And yet the very sum and strength of all Mr. B. hath to say against this Text is here, which seems apparently to me to be but a mere cavilling with the plain Scripture.  
But he adds of me, [He saith that the Synod decreed against Circumcision but by consequence, and not expressly; and that the thing they directly and expressly decreed against, and Peter spoke against, was not the yoke itself, but the putting the yoke on them, which was the act of the false Teachers in Teaching.]  
Answ. That which the Synod decreed against, and Peter spoke against, I say was not barely Circumcision as acted on infants, no● Circumcision acted on infants immediately, but the command, doctrine, obligation, necessity and opinion of necessity of Circumcision, and keeping the Law to salvation, and consequently the infant's Circumcision, which how or in what sense they are the yoke, and what the putting on of the yoke is, hath already been often showed.  
But saith Mr. B. [1. If this were granted, yet neither directly nor consequently do they decree against the circumcising of any but Disciples, and therefore infants must needs be part of those Disciples.]  
Answer. That which Peter spoke against was the practice of the false Teachers, v. 10. The decree of the Synod was expressly, 1. a condemnation of the false Teacher's practice, v. 24. 2. A release to Gentile Disciples of other commands called bardens save only some excepted, v. 28, 29. Acts 21. 25. And it is true that these decrees are directed only to the Disciples of the Gentiles for the freeing of their consciences. But it is false that they decree against the circumcising of none but Disciples. It is true the decree is not for the release of burdens to any but Disciples: But he that releaseth the burden that is the command of Circumcision to the Father who is a Disciple, doth withal by plain consequence free the child from Circumcision, and yet the child no Disciple.  
2. Saith Mr. B. But the Text expresseth actual Circumcision three times over.  
Answ. And it expresseth also keeping the Law, doth it therefore follow that the yoke, Acts 15. 10. is the actual keeping the Law, and that this might be put on infants.  
3. Saith he, [It is undeniable in the 28, 29. v. that it was matter of their practice, as directly as the false Apostles teaching, and much more which was decreed against. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burdens than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to Idols etc. Mark 1. their practice is the thing decreed upon expressly, and not the doctrine of the false Teacher (though that is implied) they do not say we do not decree, that they preach so no more, but that you abstain, etc.  
Answ. 1. Mr. Bs. speeches seem to enterfer, when he saith, v. 28 29. It was the matter of their practice as directly as the false Apostles teaching, and much more, which was here decreed against, Doth he not confess that the false Apostles teaching was directly decreed against, though not so much? yet presently he bids, Mark, that it is not the Doctrine of the false Teachers that is decreed upon expressly (though that is implied) yet by [directly and expressly] he seems to mean the same. 2. What if v. ●8, 29. decree not expressly against the Doctrine of the false Teachers, yet if it were implied it was decreed against. 3. If it were not expressly decreed upon, v. 28, 29. Is it not enough that it was expressly decreed against, v. 24.? 4. Though they do not say v. 28. we decree that they preach so no more, yet when they say, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burdens than these necessary things, this is an express decree against the Doctrine of those false Teachers, v. 1. Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved, and v. 5. that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses.  
2. Saith Mr. B. This is it also which is here called [the burden] in the sense, no doubt, with that which before was called the yoke, no greater burden or yoke. And can any impartial man's conscience tell him that the only chief question here debated and determined was, whether the false Apostles should any more preach such doctrine. and not rather whether the Disciples ought to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses.  
Answ. If the burden and yoke be the same, than the yoke v. 10. is not that which was put on infants. For the burden v. 28. is called [Command] v. 24▪ and this was opposite to the false Teachers saying to command them to keep the Law of Moses v. 5. and by burdens elsewhere are meant Commands o● Doctrine, or Doctrinal Commands Matth. 23 4. Luke 11. 46. Rev●l. 2. 24. now Commands were not attempted to be put on infants who could not understand them. 2. If the practice were the yoke, than it was not on infants who were not urged to practice but to suffer, specially taking in what Mr. B. before said, it was the judgement and practice which the Doctrine did Teach which was the yoke. And to his questions I say, the false Teacher's Doctrine and the Disciples practice were both in question, and both determined in the Synod, and therefore both decreed against, and so the doctrine is the yoke in respect of the yoakers, and the judgement and practice in respect of the yoked.  
4. Saith Mr. B. It was the Church of Antioch and not the false Teachers that sent to jerusalem for resolution. 5. And it was to the brethren, and not to the false Teachers that the Synod did direct their letters, and decrees: therefore it was the Disciples practise that is more directly decreed against (or at least as much) than the Doctrine of the Teachers.  
Answ. Be the Conclusion granted, yet the Doctrine is decreed against, and consequently is meant by the yoke v. 10. even according to Mr. Bs. argument, That which the Synod did decree against was the yoke here meant. But doth not Mr. B. in these words plainly intimate that Disciples are the same with brethren, to whom the letters were directed, which sure were not infants? It is true the Church of Antioch, and not the false Teachers, sent to Jerusalem for resolution, and that the letters were directed not to the false Teachers, but brethren called believers, Acts 21. 25. yet they sent about the false Teacher's Doctrine, and the decree and speech were against that Doctrine: even as the decrees or Canons of Councils are against the doctrine of Heretics though sent to the Churches. From all which I infer that Mr. Bs. reasoning is frivolous, and while he oppose●h i●, his own arguments prove, that the Doctrine of the false Teachers is the yoke. But he hath not yet done.  
6. Saith he, If it were granted as Mr. T. would have it, that it is only putting on the yoke that is here expressly decreed against, and the yoke or practise itself but only by consequence, than he would make this Synod so weak as to leave the matter imperfect and obscure, which they were to determine expressly: and perhaps it might put him hard to it to prove that consequence: For it will not always follow that what may not be taught may not be practised, as I could show in several cases.  
Answ. I hold the Synod to decree expressly against the yoke, understanding by it the Doctrine of the necessity of Circumcision, the obligation and opinion of its necessity, and the putting of the yoke, that is the Teaching this Doctrine to Disciples, and by consequence against the Gentiles believing Parents practice of circumcising their Infants as of duty, nor do I know how any other way Mr. B. can gather it from the Epistle of the Synod than as I do; sure in all the Epistle I find not any other way to prove Gentile believers are not bound to circumcise their children, but by urging the words v. 24. 28. 29 in which parents are not discharged of circumcising infants expressly in so many words, But by consequence. And yet the matter is not left imperfect or obscure, but there is an express determination against that which was the occasion of the Synod, to wit the Doctrine of the false Teachers, v. 24. nor is the consequence hard to infer, if the Apostles give no command to the Gentile parents to be circumcised▪ and to keep the Law, than parents are not tied to circumcise their infants, there being no necessity or duty to them who have no command or burden put on them. Mr. B. mistakes in conceiung I framed the consequence thus: What the false Apostles might not teach, the parents might not practise. And therefore though he could show in many more cases than he can, that it will not always follow that what may not be taught may not be practised, the consequence as I frame it may be clear, & the determination of the Synod express and perfect.  
But he adds: 7. And me thinks we may be allowed to prove baptism of infants by consequence: if this Synod assembled of purpose about Circumcision and the Law did yet leave them nothing but consequence against it.  
Answ. I never said, that the Synod left nothing but consequence against Circumcision and the Law; nor did I disallow at any time the proving of infant's baprism by consequence, but have often declared the contrary, though Mr. M. most unbrotherly charged me with it, pag. 3. of his Defence, but absolved me of it, pag. 205. as I show in my Apology, sect. 11. and in my Praecursor, sect. 8. But having so long expected some proof by consequence for infant-baptism, and finding upon trial in so many Authors as have occurred nothing worth the name of a proof, I conclude there is no such thing, but that Paedobaptists, and none more than Mr. B. do only gull the world, and which is more to be detested, the godly, and of those, many that are teachers of others, with flourishes and shows, instead of proof, in so much as some who are of able parts magnify his book about infant's baptism as excellent, whether it be out of rashness, or for advantage sake to themselves, find it upon strictest examination to be but a mere cheat.  
But Mr. B. hath one string more to his Bow. 5. Further, saith he, that it was Circumcision itself as needful, and as engaging to Moses Law, which is here meant, is plain in Gal. 5. 1, 2, 3. No doubt either those that mis-taught the Galatians were the same with those or their companions teaching the same Doctrine, and therefore Paul there decideth the same cause; and mark what he calls the yoke, Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every m●n that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to the whole Law. Is not he wilful that yet will say, the yoke is only the Doctrine of the false. Teachers, and not Circumcision as engaging to keep the Law.  
Answ. 1. Mr. B. before p. 17. said, that it is evident the doctrine is not the yoke; here when he saith, Is not he wilful that yet will say that the yoke is only the doctrine of the false Teachers? He doth plainly intimate that he excepts not against the holding the yoke to be the Doctrine, but the holding it to be only the Doctrine of the false Teachers, which is me thinks to contradict himself, and to overthrow what he contends for, to wit, the yoke is that which was put on infants: but the Doctrine was not put on infants, and therefore if the Doctrine were in part the yoke, and this not put on infants, than the yoke was not put on infants, than it is not absurd for me to expound the yoke of the Doctrine of the false Teachers, and his Arguments against that Exposition are answered by his own concession. 2. If it be true, that either those that mis-taught the Galatians were the same with these false Teachers, Acts 15. 1. or their companions teaching the same Doctrine, than it is most false which Mr. B. teacheth, pag. 16. It was true, and good doctrine before Christ, which these false Apostles taught, viz. that except they were circumcised, and kept the Law, they could not be saved; I mea● as to the Jews it was true. Now the Doctrine of those that mis-taught the Galatians, was justification by the Law, as appears by the Apostles opposition, Gal. 2. 16, 21. & 3. 5. 11, 18, 21. & 4. 21. & 5. 4. and this was the same with the Doctrine of the false Teachers, as appears from Acts 15. 1, 9, 10, 11. and Mr. B. confesseth it to be the same. But that Doctrine the Apostle denies to have been true and good before Christ to the Jews, Gal. 3. & 4. and elsewhere, and therefore Mr. B. contradicts the Apostle, and his speech overthrows the Gospel, and avows keeping of the Law necessary to justification and salvation, to have been true and good Doctrine to the Jews afore Christ. 3. He is not wilful but considerate, that by the yoke of bondage, Gal. 5. 1. understands not Circumcision as acted on infants, that is the bare passive reception of Circumcision, of which only infants are capable, no nor perhaps 
Vide Dr. Field of the Church, l. 3 c. 1.  (for that is disputed) all willing receiving of Circumcision as the Habassi●e Christians do, but the willing subjecting to Circumcision according to the command of Moses, and the Doctrine of the Teachers that urged it as necessary for justification and salvation. For herein, 1. they have many of the best sort of Protestant Writers on their side▪ 2. They have these Reasons for them, 1. Because the exhortation, Gal. 5 1. is inferred from his determination in the precedent Chapter, from v 21▪ to the end, to wit, that the Covenant of the Law did beget to bondage, and that they were children of the free woman, and therefore the yoke of bondage is not simply Circumcision as acted, but as Mr. Dicson expresseth it, the yoke of the Covenant of Works and legal Ceremonies. 2. Because [if ye be circumcised, v. 2.] is expounded rightly, if ye be willingly circumcised, upon the opinion, and according to the Doctrine of the false Teachers to seek justification thereby, as the reasons of the Apostle, v. 3. 4 do evidently show. 3. Otherwise Timothy might be said to be entanged with the yoke of bondage when he was circumcised, Acts 16. 3. which being so, this Argument (as all the rest of Mr. Bs. Arguments) is against him. For if the false Teachers were the same, and the yoke the same, Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 1. and the yoke, Gal. 5. 1. be not Circumcision as acted on infants, but the Covenant of Works, and Circumcision as taught and yielded to by the circumcised under the notion of necessity for justification, and obligation thereby to keep the whole Law, than the yoke was not that which is put on infants, nor any infants meant by Disciples, Acts 15. 10.   

SECT. XIII.  
The Arguments are vindicated, which are brought to prove infants not meant by Disciples, Acts 15. 10.  
BUt Mr. B. proceeds, Well, but Mr. T. hath one argument for his conceit, and but one that I have heard, and that is like the conceit itself. If (saith he) putting on the yoke be only by teaching, than the yoke itself is only the Doctrine, and consequently it was to be put on none but those that could be taught. Answ. 1. I deny both the Consequences, and he will never prove them. For, 1. by [putting] he confesseth is meant [an endeavour to put] therefore it must be more than bare Doctrine. And if by Doctrine they persuade the People of the necessity of practice in so doing, they put on them both the mis-belief and the practice.  
Answ. Mr. B. it seems either did not read, or not heed, or forgot what was in Examen. pag. 135. when he saith, he had heard but of one Argument for my conceit, though it be his mere ignorance that makes him call it my conceit, as if it were my peculiar conceit; whereas his own conceit is scarce any thing older than himself, and mine agreeable to the Exposition of the best and elder Interpreters. And however when Mr. B. wrote this he might know of no more Arguments against his conceit, yet there are more i● my Antidote, sect. 6. to which with this here I shall review his Answers. My Argument in form is this, They only are meant by Disciples, Acts 15 10. who were to be the subjects passive or recipient of the act of the false Teachers whether effected or attempted, that is of that which they would have done to them. But no infants were to be the subjects passive or recipient of the act of the false Teachers whether effected or attempted, that is of that which they would have done to them. Ergo. The major is plain to common understanding, according to all Rules of Logic and Grammar. So we argue, they must be meant by all men, John 12. 32. when Christ saith, I will draw all men to me, who were the subjects recipient of the act of drawing. Every particular man is not the subject of Christ's drawing, therefore [all men] doth not note every particular man. Innumerable such Arguments are among Writers Ecclesiastical and Civil, nor is there any thing more plain to common understanding The minor is proved thus: the only act of the false Teachers by which the yoke was to be put on Disciples was teaching, or that which they would have done to them was only teaching. But of this act no infant was the passive subject. Ergo. The former is confessed by himself in calling it persuading, and if it were not, the Text proves it, v. 1. 5▪ 24▪ The minor is manifest, they were neither capable of it, nor were the false Teachers so senseless as to endeavour it. But let's view Mr. Bs. Answer. He denies this consequence, if the putting on the yoke be only by teaching, than the yoke itself is only the Doctrine. But this is not my consequence, but this, if their act of putting on the yoke were only Teaching then the terminus, at least immediate, must be Doctrine in respect of the agent, and in respect of the patient learning, as if the act of the Sun be Teaching, the immediate terminus is heat, although other effects follow, as dryness or the like; so if the false Teachers did put the yoke on the Disciples by Teaching, they did put Doctrine on them, and if they received it they learned that Doctrine, although other effects followed, as disquietness of mind, etc. which may be comprehended under the metaphor of a yoke. By Teaching parents, an infant is not cut or cicumcised, no not though the parents receive the Doctrine, he may have no child to circumcise, or no strength, or the like: no though it come to pass that the child be circumcised, yet this is not done by the false Teacher, but by the parent. If then their act was only teaching, than the product result or terminus must be Doctrine, though there were other consequents to follow. But Mr. B. denies also this consequence, that if the yoke were only doctrine, it was put on none but those that could be taught. Whereto I reply, he may as well deny the Snow to be white, as deny it: Can any put Doctrine but on Persons that can be taught? What is this but to hold that a Person may have Doctrine put on him, that cannot be taught, which is a mere contradiction, all one as to say, He may be taught that cannot be taught. But he will forsooth give us some Reason of his denial as wise as the rest. For, 1. by [putting] he confesseth is meant [an endeavour to put] therefore it must be more than the bare doctrine. Answ. 1. I confess not by [putting] is meant [an endeavour to put] though I confess that Peter accu●eth them only of their endeavour to put the yoke. 2. If I had confessed it, yet Mr. Bs. Reason is foolish, for it would rather follow, that it is less than bare Doctrine, the endeavour to put being less than putting. Yet it is not true that I said, The yoke notes bare Doctrine, without any other effect, but that the yoke notes doctrine, command, opinion of obligation, and necessity, and perhaps disquietness, trouble, care, fear consequent. However they that put the yoke by teaching did put doctrine on whom they put the yoke, the putting the yoke being nothing but teaching. That which follows, And if by doctrine they prevail to persuade the people of the necessity of practice in so doing, they put on them the both the mis-belief and mis-practice, is as little to purpose. For, 1. to put on them the misbelief is to put on them the doctrine, for doctrine is put on by being learned or believed.  
2. They that do prevail do put on the mispractice it may be in the event, but not barely by their putting on their doctrine, for it may be they may both teach, and that effectually, so as that the person do learn or mis-believe, and yet not mis-practice through many intervenient impediments, yea though he do mis-practice, yet the mis-practice is not the terminus of his teaching, nor is he the mis-practicer, it is not his act logically or physically, though it be his morally, that is, the fault of it be imputed to him, as arising from the Doctrine be taught. However if it be by persuading and by producing mis-belief and mis-practice, they only are the subjects of it who mis-believe and miss practice, which being not verified of infants, they are not meant by Disciples, on whom the yoke is put.  
But Mr. B. gives a Reason of his denial of the latter consequence, and it is this, 2. The latter consequence is as false; For he that persuadeth a parent to circumcise himself, and his child, doth as properly put that burden of Circumcision on the child as on the parent. Though he teach only the parent, yet by teaching the parent he puts the burden on both.  
Answ. 1. If the putting the yoke be Teaching or persuading, sure he only is the subject of his putting the yoke, who is the subject of his Teaching, (as if we say the kill there was wounding by the sword, it follows he was not there said to be killed who was not wounded by the sword) though it may be true also that another agent by another act may put the burden on one not taught. 2. But were Mr. Bs. speech true, yet it is nothing to his wi●less denial of the later consequence, for the consequence is thus, if the yoke were only Doctrine it was put on none but those that could be taught, which may be undeniable, though it be granted, that he that Teacheth only though parents, yet puts the burden both on parent and child. 3. Yea Mr. B. doth grant it by supposing that he Teacheth only the parent, that Doctrine is put only on the parent. For what is it to put Doctrine on any but to Teach him? And therefore if the yoke were only Doctrine, sure it was put on none but such as could be taught, unless we imagine that Doctrine can be put on those that cannot be taught, which is all one in my apprehension as to say they may be taught who cannot be taught. And therefore if there be any silly wranglings in the dispute between us, sure Mr. B. doth wrangle here either as a silly man or as a most perverse man in denying this consequence, and in his whole arguings about this Text, when confessing the yoke to be not only the Doctrine but the judgement and practise also of Circumcision, and that the false Teachers would put it only by Teaching, yet doth imagine he can persuade his reader to be so silly as to conceive that they did any thing to infants or that infants are any of those Disciples mentioned Acts 15. 10.  
And here I shall enforce the arguments of my Antidote sect. 6. The first is ad hominem. He counts it a heinous offence that I take the word [holy 1 Cor. 7. 14.] in a different sense than it is used six hundred times in the Scripture, and yet ●e takes the word [Disciple] used three hundred times in the New Testament, and of those about one hundred in Luke's writings for one that is a Disciple by owning a Teacher and his Doctrine, in another sense o● rather nonsense acception for one that is a Disciple in title, incomplete, without actual learning for present, that is for a mere relative without a foundation, and brings no place in any Author for this sense but this, and therefore I may more justly use his conjuring speech p. 83. requiring men that are not of desper 〈◊〉 resolutions and prostituted consciences to consider faithfully how they can answer the Lord Christ for perverting so solemn an institution as that is Matth. 28. 19 by their baby sprinkling, when the very words of Christ, practise of the Apostles, constant use of the word [Disciples] throughout the New Testament, common consent of Interpreters shows Christ appointed Disciples only to be baptised ordmarily, who were made such by preaching the Gospel, upon pretence that infants are called [Disciples Acts 15. 10] in a sense different from what Luke useth it elsewhere even in the precedent and following chapters, and that sense or rather nonsense self-contradicting acception devised of late by Mr. B. without any ancient Author I know, or any reason from the Text. That which Mr. B. replies is as frivolous. 1. He saith infants are called Disciples Acts. 11. 26. They are there part of Christians and Disciples; but this is false there's not a word in the Text that sounds to this sense, that infants are any part of the Christians or Disciples there mentioned, yea there is that which is plainly to the contrary v. 29. Then the Disciples, every manaccording to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren. If every one of the Disciples determined to send, and no infants determined to send relief, than no infants are part of the Disciples. 2 Saith he, the case is not alike, In 1. Cor. 7. 14. I argued about the meaning of the word [holy] here we are agreed about the sense, that it signifieth one so related to Christ as their ●aster, the difference is about the application of this term. But this is false that I agree with him about the signification and sense of the word [Disciple of Christ] as it notes a relation to Christ as Teacher, yea I utterly deny it notes such a relation as Mr. B. fancies in title without actual learning or owning Christ as Teacher, in which sense it is no where taken in Scripture or any Ancient Author I know. 3. Saith he, However I am certain, if we have not the name elsewhere, yet we have the description and names of the same signification, they are Church members, God's people, his servants, and therefore Disciples. Answ. 1. This doth not at all avoid his own charge of prostituted consciences, etc. in another case, he charged these things on me for using the word [holy] in a different sense from what elsewhere it is used, though I brought a term of the same signification Mal. 2. 15▪ and cogent reason out of the Text for my interpretation, and therefore by his own Law to me, he is to be charged as he chargeth me for doing the same, though it were true he had the description and names of the same signification. 2. It is not proved, no nor can be proved, the terms [Churchmembers, God's people, God's servants] to be of the same signification with [Disciples of Christ] 3. There is no: so much as one Text in the New Testament, which alone is written in Greek by the Holy Penmen, and therefore the fittest if not the only way to show the meaning of a New Testament term, brought to prove infants under the New Testament to be called Churchmembers, God's people, God's servants.  
4. The consequence shall be examined in that which follows.  
Besides I argued from the Text, the putting the yoke on the necks of the Disciples is the same with that which is mentioned v. 1. they taught the brethren, and v. 5. they said it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses, and v. 24. certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying ye must be circumcised and keep the Law. Now is any man so senseless as to think they did these things to infants? Again the Text. v. 1. 23. calls the Disciples v. 10. brethren, saith v. 9 their hearts were purified by faith upon the hearing of the word, which none but those that are resolved to outface a plain truth would aver to be meant of infants, therefore neither the term Disciples, v. 10 fi●h what is said of the brethren is meant of the Disciples v. 10. To this all the reply I find in Mr. B. is this pag 252. And your bringing some passages of the chapter not applicable to infants doth not prove that therefore the rest is not, no more than several passages in Deut. 29. applicable only to the aged, will prove little ones were not taken in to be God's people.  
Answ. It is true, the bringing some passages of the chapter not applicable to infants doth not prove that therefore the rest is not: if I had made such an Argument I would give him leave to use his Rhetoric of silly insipid arguings. But my arguing is this, The same thing which is expressed, v. 10. by putting the yoke on the necks of the Disciples, is expressed v. 1. by teaching the brethren, v. 5. by saying to them it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses, v 24. by troubling with words, subverting their souls, saying, ye must be circumcised and keep the Law, and the same persons which are expressed by Disciples, v. 10. are termed v. 1. Brethren, are said v. 9 to have their hearts purified by faith, v. 19 those of the Gentiles that were turned to God, v. 23. Brethren of the Gentiles; But these things were not done to infants, nor infants comprehended under these persons, in these places, which express the same thing, and the same person, which is apparent by the narration, Peter reprehends the same thing in the same persons, v. 10. which is related v. 1, 5, 23, 24. the occasion of his speech was the same fact, the drift of his speech is to condemn the same fact, the determination of the Council is against the same practice, the same persons are in all these places spoken of, and this is proved by Mr. Bs. first Argument, who brings v. 1, 5, 24. to prove Circumcision to be the yoke, v. 10. which Argument supposeth the same persons and things meant, v. 10. which are meant, v. 1, 5, 24. But not one of the things said there is applicable to infants. How then can any man imagine that the same act being meant in all the places, it should be meant of the act of Circumcision, v. 10. and not v. 1, 5, 24. and the same persons meant, they should be infants meant, v. 10. and not v. 1, 5, 24? Is not this to make the same act and the same persons not the same, which is a contradiction? I know not how men conceive of my intellectuals: But I am still possessed of this to be so good proof, that I should as soon doubt of other common notions as of this, and as soon believe that the Moon is made of green Cheese, as believe Mr. B. affirming that Peter meant infants by Disciples, Acts 15. 10.  
I added further, if the putting on the yoke had been Circumcision, it had been to be done not on their necks but elsewhere, the yoke was put not on their flesh, but on their consciences, their souls are said to be subverted, their minds troubled, v. 24. not their flesh pained by the putting on the yoke, it was done by words, v. 24. not by a knife or such like instrument. Again, the yoke v. 10. was such as neither the present Jews nor their fathers were able to bear: but Circumcision put on infants was tolerable. I argued also that Christ's doctrine is called his yoke, Matth. 11. 29. I alleged the testimonies of Pisc. sch. on Acts 15. 10. Grot. Annot. in Acts 15. 10. calling it the Law and Doctrine, that the yoke of bondage, Gal. 5. 1. is the Doctrine or Covenant of the Law, which genders to bondage, Gal. 4. 21, 24. That Circumcision is not the yoke without subjection of mind or opinion to it, which are not verified of infants. These things he saith are answered already, but where I know not: if he mean in his Argument before, he may see his Cannon turned against himself.  
I said, all the colour Mr. B. hath from this Text to prove infants disciples, is by conceiving the yoke to note barely and precisely the cutting off a little skin. To this he answers, I must say it is but one of your fictions. Did you over hear me talk of such a thing? Cutting that skin is not Circumcision, as the word is used for a Sacrament. The end, signification, and engagement go into the definition of Circumcision. And if from hence you would infer, that it is only the aged that are capable of signification and engagement, you may straight conclude that no infant was ever circumcised.  
I reply, it is no fiction of mine, but a truth, whether Mr. B. talked or thought of it or no, that all the colour, that is show of reason Mr. B. hath from this Text to prove infants Disciples, is in taking the yoke for the cutting off a little skin. For his proof is from what was done or endeavoured to be done to infants; but that was only the cutting the little skin. Mr. B. would have the yoke to be actual Circumcision, or Circumcision as acted, and that was nothing but the cutting off the little skin. It is true, Circumcision in the users is more than the cutting off the little skin, there is the end, signification, and intended engagement, but as infants receive it, as it is acted on infants, the yoke can be no more than the loss of the skin and the soreness following, they neither are taught, nor discern the end, signification or engagement, and Circumcision as it includes these is as I say in my Antidote Circumcision not as acted on infants, but taught persons of years; nor was it my objection that Circumcision as a Sacrament was only the cutting off a little skin, but as it was acted on infants, and the imagined ●oke endeavoured to be put on infant's Acts 15. 10. which sure Peter never blamed them for, and therefore it is not the yoke there meant. Mr. Bs. talk of Circumcision as a Sacrament, and what is the definition of it as a Sacrament, as it leads to a dispute about the notion of a word not found in Scripture, so being besides the present business, I shall let it pass.  
Lastly I added, that if it were granted that the term [Disciples Acts 15. 10] noted infants, then only male infants, for they only were to be circumcised, therefore female infants should not be thence proved Disciples, nor to be baptised. To this he answers, That is as much as I needed, when my position was that some infants are Disciples and to be baptised. I reply, It is not as much as he needed, unless he understood his position only of some male infants. 2. Saith he, I should hence prove, that if males are Disciples, then certainly females, both being Church-members till Christ, though but one circumcised. I reply, 1. It is more than he can prove that those who were Church-members in the Jewish Church are Disciples of Christ in the New Testament to be baptised. 2. If he could prove it, yet not from Acts 15. 10. it being certain no more can be proved thence to be Disciples, than are there called Disciples, which Mr. B. himself will not say of female infants. I conclude still, that in this arguing of Mr. B. I find nothing but froward, and, I had almost said, impudent wrangling against a plain truth, that the Disciples Acts 15. 10. were only the brethren converted, and the yoke the Doctrine the false Teachers would have put upon them, and the reader, of whosoever education or tu●●●age, if he be not otherwise blinded, may perceive with his own eyes the slightiness of Mr. Bs. arguings, and how superficially he hath handled this business. I go on to review the next, which is no better.   

SECT. XIV.  
Infant's discipleship is not proved by Mr. B. from Leu. 25 41, 42. which speaks of the Israelites being God's servants.  
MY second Argument, saith Mr. B. to prove that some infants are Disciples, is this, If no infants are Disciples, than it is either because they are not capable, or else because God will not show them such a mercy; But neither of these can be the cause; Therefore that no infants are Disciples is false Doctrine. Mr. T. to this gave this Answer [that the reason why they are not Disciples is because they have not learned.]  
Answ. It is true, in the dispute at Bewdley finding Mr. Bs. vein of disputing to run upon a captious way of endeavouring to bring me to such absurdities ●n appearance as would stir up passions in hearers against me as lessening God's mercy to their infants, and then aggravating these imagined absurdities, turning to the people with his wont exclamations, and other Rhetoric (whereby he hath befooled not only those parts, but a great number of shallow heads throughout the Land) which I found to be his course in his first argument in ch. 6. now printed to prove his Ordinance of visible Church-membership of infants unrepealed, with which he began, when he should have first proved such an Ordinance and its continuing in force out of Scripture, it being an indirect way, though popular and taking, to prove a thing done by God, because we conceive it fit to be done, and having been tired with answering three or four hours his long hypothetical Syllogisms, and those sometimes brought to prove an hypothetical proposition, contrary to the use of schools, not allowing me to ask a question for clearing his terms, neither allowing me time to consider of his reasonings, nor at first liberty of repeating, I did thus answer to this argument, hoping though 〈◊〉 vain to reduce him to a proof of infants of Discipleship from the notation or use of the word, which is the only genuine and clear way of proving infants to be Disciples; ordinarily to be baptised, according to the institution Matth. 28. 1●.  
But, alas, saith Mr. B. that such an answer should satisfy such a man! I reply, Alas, that such an answer should not satisfy such a man! Is this any third cause saith Mr. B.  
Answ. What need any man assign any cause at all why infants are not Disciples, but because the term [Disciple] agrees not to them? If Mr. B. should prove in like manner infants to be believers, what need the respondent show any other cause than this, that they have not faith? so even sith Mr. B. himself acknowledgeth the term Disciple pag. 92. to have its denomination from the act of learning, it is a sufficient▪ yea the most direct and proper way to show infants not Disciples, because they have not the act of learning, which 〈◊〉. B. should have overthrown if he would have proved, as he should, infants to be Disciples. But then he might have been hindered in his vagaries and popular discourses, which with his Rhetorical exclamations were that he most minded to use, and been brought to discover his nonsense acception of the word [Disciple.] But saith he, or is it not evidently reducible to one of the former? For if their unlearnedness hinder them from being Disciples, either it must be because it maketh them or showeth them uncapable, or because God will not show the unlearned so great mercy.  
Answ. It is neither because unlearnedness maketh or showeth them uncapable, nor because God will not show them that mercy: But because what ever their capacity be, or God's intent toward them, they have not yet that which alone denominates Disciples. If his disjunction were good he should prove that capacity of a title, or God's intention of showing mercy, without actual learning or professing Christ, is enough to denominate a person a Disciple of Christ, which is so manifestly contrary to all the use of the word in the new Testament, and to expositors of Matth. 28. 29. that I am now bold to say, that it is no better than height of impudence after so evident proof to maintain so gross an absurdity. But I am necessitated to follow Mr. B. in his vagaries.  
1. If infants, saith Mr. B. are capable of being God's servants, than they are capable of being Disciples. For as they signify here the same thing and denote the same sort of persons, so there is the same capacity requisite to both: or if you will make a difference, there is more required to a servant than to a Disciple. But infants are capable of being God's servants: this is plain; For the Lord God himself doth call them his servants, Levit. 25. 41. 42. they are commanded in the year of jubilee to let their brother that was sold to them, and his children, depart; and the reason is added [for they are my servants] that infants are here included among [his children] cannot be denied or doubted of (Mr. T. began to deny it, but he quickly recalled it) Is not here then direction enough to help us to judge of the mind of God, whether infants are his servants and Disciples or no? Doth not God call them his servants himself? what more should a man expect to warrant him to do so? men call for plain Scripture, and when they have it they will no● receive it; so hard is it to inform a forestalled mind. It may be some may say, They were then capable of being God's servants, but they are not so now. But this were a wretched answer. For their capacity was the same then and now: Infants than were like infants now.  
Answ. It is certain that the term [servants of God] is not always equipollent to [a Disciple of Christ] For Jer. 43. 10. Nabuchadnezzar is called God's servant, and the heavens, Psal. 119. 91. But then when it is taken in the sense the Apostle useth it, Rom. 6. 16. His servants ye are to whom ye obey, and therefore unless he means by [servants of God] men voluntarily obeying the Gospel, yea and visibly appearing so to do, I shall deny his consequence, and his dictates, that either Acts 15. 10. or Matth. 28. 19 a Disciple and a servant of God in his sense signify the same thing, or denote the same sort of persons. And if more be required to a servant than a Disciple, it follows that a person may be a Disciple and yet not a servant of God, and so the terms are not reciprocal, and his consequence so much the more infirm. As for his minor it is denied, understanding it of capacity of infants while infants in an ordinary way, and of being God's servants in the sense used Rom. 6 16. in which alone it is equipollent to a Disciple. As for the Text Levit. 25. 41, 42. though it be plain Scripture, yet there is nothing plain or obscure in it for Mr. Bs. purpose, to prove that the infants of believers of the Gentiles now are Gods servants in a sense equipollent to a Disciple, Matth. 28. 19 For. 1. the passage is meant only of Hebrews, as Exod. 21. 2. is expressed, and the Text itself shows it. 1. From v. 55. where it is said, unto me the children of Israel are servants, they are my servants whom I brought out of the Land of Egypt, in which are two discriminating notes differencing them from others, 1. That they were the children of Israel descended from jacob by natural generation, 2. that they were brought out of the Land of Egypt by God. 2. v. 44. 45. do explain it, where God allows them to take Bondslaves of the 
Vide Selden de jure na●. etc. l. 6. c. 8.  heathen that were round about them, and of the children of the strangers that did sojourn among them, which is the description of Proselytes of the Gate, that is, such as acknowledged the God of Israel, but did not submit to Circumcision, and the observation of Moses Law, of which sort was Cornelius, Acts 10. 2. Such an one's children were not Gods servants in the sense there meant. Yea, Ainsworth in his Annot. on v. 42. citeth Maimony resolving that an Israelites children begotten on a Canaanitish bondwoman are but Canaanites in every respect, not Gods servants in the sense there meant. 2. What is said there is said not only of Infants but also of Parents, yea though they were idolaters, as those that worshipped the golden Calf, or joined themselves to Baal Peor, or who hardened their hearts, and could not enter into Canaan for unbelief, Heb. 3. 18, 19 even the wo●st of them with whom God was not well pleased, which were not true of servants of God in a sense equipollent to a Disciple of Christ, Matth. 28. 19 3. Diodati expresseth in his Annot. on Leu. 25. 42▪ in what sense they are called Gods servants, to wit, in as much as none could get sovereign Dominion over them to prejudice his, therefore they are there called God's servants in this respect only, in that they were to be disposed of not as men would, but as he would, who had right to them by his purchase, in bringing them out of Egypt. So that they are called Servants of God, in that place, not out of any either voluntary obedience to his Precepts, or peculiar right to visible Church-membership, but in respect of God's sovereignty over them to dispose of them as Hebrews, which was not belonging to believers or their children, or other Nations not joined to the policy of the Hebrews. And therefore I still say, Mr. B. doth but trifle as a man that superficially looks over a Text, when he talks so vainly as he doth of direction enough to help us to judge of God's mind, whether Infants are his Servants and Disciples or no. Nor is it true which he saith, that the capacity is the same then and now. For though infants than were like infants now, yet the judicial Laws of Moses, and the peculiar condition of the Hebrews is not now as then.  
But he goes on. May I not make this a third Argument of itself? If God call Infants his Servants, though they can do him no service, than we may call them so too: for we may speak as God doth: but God doth call them so; therefore we may.  
Answ. The Conclusion is granted: he may call Hebrew infants Gods servants in the sense meant, Leu. 25. 41. But if he call the children of Gentile-believers Servants of God in a sense equipollent to a Disciple, Matth. 28. 19 He must bring better warrant than that Text, or else I shall deny it, slighting his vain censure of a forestalled mind, and conceiving rather it verisied of himself. As the Man thinketh, so the Bell tinketh.  
Again, saith Mr. B. If God call Infants his Servants, though they are uncapable at present of doing him service, than we may call them Disciples, though at present they are uncapable of learning. But God doth so call them; therefore we may, etc.  
Answ. If God call infants his servants according to the Apostles description of a servant, Rom. 6. 16. then I confess infants may be called Christ's Disciples, but not if only according to the sense of Leu. 25. 41.  
Mr. B. goes on. Hath he a good wit now or a bad mind, that can raise a dust for the darkening of so express and plain a Text? and yet still call for Scripture proof? I will deal faithfully in telling you Mr. T. his answer to this▪ and that upon deliberation, in his Sermon after the Dispute. 1. He distinguisheth of Servants of God de ●ure & de facto. 2. Between Servants actively and passively; and saith, that here the term Servant is meant passively and not actively, that is, such as God useth: and that they are called Servants here in no other sense than the Heavens and the Earth are, Psalm 119. 89, 90. They are thy Servants; Are they therefore Disciples? (saith he) what ridiculous arguing is this? So Mr. T. O what cause have we all to look to the tenderness of our consciences in time, before engagement in a sinful cause hath benumbed them, and made the Word of God to be of no force to us? I know shallow brains are uncapable to discern the weakness of the silliest Answer: they go that way as their affection doth bias them: their approbation of an Argument or Answer is no credit to it. But let any man of a tolerable understanding, and conscience not seared, but weigh-seriously this Answer, and I dare warrant he will think it a bad cause that must be underpropt by such palpable abuse of Scripture.  
Answ. I loathe to take notice of such base insinuations, far unworthy of a christian brother or an ingenuous scholar, but that thereby Mr. B. hath more prevailed to hinder the entertainment of the truth I maintain, than by any arguments he hath brought. And were it not that the Law of Charity forbids me to put the worst construction on things, I see so much as might move me to retort upon himself his insinuations against me, as if I had a bad mind, and a seared conscience, and a bad cause, and that I darken so express and plain a Text, and so palpably abuse Scripture because of my answer about this Text. I will not deny him to have a good wit, nor impute to him a shallow brain, I wish his judgement were as good as his fancy, & that with his quickness of apprehension he had more considerateness in his determinations, and especially about the meaning of Scripture; if it were so, the Church of God might have much more benefit by his labours than it hath, nor would his polemic writings especially, have so many crudities in them as there are. As for this present business I think that intemperate zeal to the cause he thinks good hath so transported him that he shows much want both of ingenuity of spirit, and clearness of understanding, which he hath in other writings, and that however he doth often pretend love to me, yet his gall doth so overflow when ever he speaks of me, that he can neither give aright interpretation of what I do, nor of what I say. But to the matter. I had said in my Sermon, and in my Antidote sect. 4. that what is said Levit. 25. 41. is nothing to our children, it being spoken peculiarly of Hebrew children. To this in his reply pag. 182. 248. he tells me. 1. The jews infants were infants, and our dispute you know was of the species.  
Answ. The Jews infants were infants its true, and so were the Canaanites infants, yet not servants of God, as Levit. 25. 41▪ is meant. 2. The dispute was not as it was first managed between me and Mr. M. nor as it was by Mr. Bs: first argument borught to an issue, of the species, whether any infants indefinitely or any one's infant's whatsoever were to be called Disciples of Christ and to be baptised, but whether the infants of believers, of whom his meaning is in his first argument, however he make his position, that some infants are to be baptised. 3. whatever his position were, yet his words in his Epistle to the people of Kederminster were that God saith our children are Gods servants, which is palpably false, he saying it of the Hebrews children as such; and not of ours.  
2. saith he, I have proved that our privileges are greater than theirs (and you deny it not) and that this was not perculiar to them.  
Answ. if it be granted that our previleges are greater than theirs, yet it is but in some respects, and therefore there is no good argument, if it be confessed God shows more mercy to our children therefore he gives them every such privilege as the Jews had. God shows mercy to ministers of the Gospel more than to the Priests of the Jews, yet it follows not, our children must have such privileges of continuance in office, inheritance & c. as they had. That what is said Levit. 25. 41. was peculiar to the Hebrews, is so clearly proved, that it hath a show of impudence to deny it. 3. saith he, it proves that there is nothing in the age to make them uncapable, or else the Jews infants would have been uncapable.  
Answ. It proves that there is nothing in the age to make them uncapable of being God's servants in the sense of Levit. 25. 41. But it proves not that they are capable of being God's servants ordinarily as the title is used Rom. 6. 16. and is equipollent to a Disciple, Matth. 28. 19  
But saith he, How have the believing Jews lost this privilege or Proselytes of the Gentiles?  
Answ. 1. This privilege was belonging to the unbelieving Jews while it continued, as well as the believing. 2. If it be lost (as I think it is) it is lost by the dissolving the judicial Laws of Moses, and the national policy the Jews had.  
But saith he, where you talk of servants in this sense and that sense, they were so servants as to be visible Church-menbers, and that is all that I contest for. They were reckoned among Moses Disciples, and so are ours to be among Christ's Disciples or Christians (as Moses Disciples also in some sort were Christ's Disciples.)  
Answ. The sense in which the Jews children were called God's servants is not all one with to be visible Church-members, nor Moses Diciples, as is proved above where the genuine sense is showed. But to the distinctions I used in my Sermon and Antidote, I deny not that I used both distinctions, and they are usual in schools. The former is used by the Author of the New annot. on Deut. 22. 24. the later is common, in the differencing of active and passive scandal, Conversion taken actively and passively, Mr. B. himself, p. 81. distinguisheth of being sanctified actively and passively. But he thinks the application to be a palpable abuse of Scripture. For, 1. He (meaning me) saith they were servants of God de jure, but not de facto, in right, out not in deed. But a servant is a relation, that is the form of it, servus est Domini servus. And have they only a right to this relation? who then or what hindereth them from possessing the relation which they have right to? Is it not God that giveth them right to this relation? And is not that to give them the relation itself? I would he would tell us what more he giveth them that have th●● elationo itself de facto, (for I suppose he dare not interpret it of a future right.)  
Answ. I said in my Sermon as Mr. B. hath printed it pag: 181. that the meaning is not that infants are actually servants, but in right, to me, he doth not speak what they did, but of God's right and interest he had in them: which is so plain a truth that I supposed he could not have sound any matter of exception. But Mr. B. is so quarrelsome with me that he will either find or make a Knot in a Bulrush. 1. He renders de facto in deed, as if I had said, they had relation of right, but not in deed, that is not in possession: whereas my meaning was plainly expressed, they were not actually servants in respect of what they did, or in respect of the act or fact of service. 2. he misunderstands it as if I spoke of their being servants of right, that they had the right of being God's servants so as to claim it as a privilege on their part, whereas I meant it and expressed it in respect of Gods right and interest in them, though I deny not the other to follow. To his questions I answer. They have a right and possession of that relation, and it is given them by God with the relation, and to those that have the relation in fact, or as I spoke actually in respect of what they did. God gives this more to them that are his servants by reason of his right in them, that they have actual obedience to him, according to that of the Apostle, Rom. 6. 16. His servants ye are to whom ye obey.  
2. Saith Mr. B. whether they are servants actively or passively is nothing to the being or form of the relation; they are servants of God still. And it seems by this answer, that if God had called infants Disciples never so oft Mr. T. would have put God off with this distinction, and said, they are Disciples passively, but not actively. For 3. What reason can he give why they may not be called Disciples in a passive sense as well as servants? 4. Doth not God bid his Apostles baptise those that were Disciples without distinguishing? or doth he bid them baptise active Disciples, but not passive ones? Where is that distinction in the command?  
Answ. Mr. B. is so enured to his spiteful language, that my giving him an answer to his objection and clearing the words Leu. 25. 41. is termed by him putting off God with a distinction, as if I answered God, and not Mr. B. But to the matter. 1. Though servants actively and passively may be both called servants, as a slave bought with money, but sick and weak, who never did service actually, may be called his Lord's servant, because at his dispose, yet not univocally, as they speak in Logic, in comparison of him that doth actually service, because he is a servant but in one respect, whereas he that is a servant not only by being at his Lords dispose for his Lord to assign what he will for him, because of his propriety in him, but also doth service actively for his Lord, is in a double respect a servant, of which the later is that which is principal, and from which the denomination is primarily and principally taken, as the relation of a son is principally from generation, though analogically in some respect an adopted son have that title. 2. But were it supposed the term did univocally agree to both, yet the question being whether Infants be Disciples, and the argument being brought from the title of God's servants to prove them Disciples, the term [Servants of God] passively taken for one that doth not voluntarily any service to God, but only is at God's dispose, is not as much as [a Disciple of Christ] which signifies one that hath learned Christ, and professeth himself to follow his teaching. And so it is a clear answer, that infants are not proved to be Christ's Disciples by being proved to be passively Gods servants, except they be also proved to be actively such, and that 〈◊〉 obeying the Gospel, and professing that obedience. What ever seems to Mr. B. (whose imaginations of me are still to the worst) If I had found God call once Infants Disciples in the sense, Matth. 28. 19 I should quickly have yielded there is no need of such a distinction of active or passive Disciple, si●h I find the title given to none but such as are actual learners, and that is a reason why Infants may not be called Disciples in a passive sense as well as God's servants. For use is the rule of understanding words, and Christ bids us baptise only Disciples that are actual learners, and profess Christ their Master, as appears both by Christ's words, Mark 16. 16. in which he expresseth that by [he that believeth] which he did Matth. 28. 19 by [a Disciple] and by the practice of the Apostles, who best understood Christ's precept, and by the constant use of the word [Disciple] in the New Testament, as is proved above. Nor needs there be any such distinction of active and passive Disciple in the command, because the word [Disciple] is not used passively, though [Servant of God] be.  
5. Saith Mr. B. But I shall be bold to take it for one of Mr. T. his fictions, and a mere falsehood, that Infants are here called Servants passively only, till he have done somewhat to prove it; to which end he hath not spoken one word, as thinking it seems that he spoke to men that will take his word. Why may they not be called Servants from the mere interest of Dominion that God hath to them? and authority over them? Are Infants the King's Subjects or Servants in a passive sense only? Is it not foundation enough for the relation of a servant, if God will own them so, and number them with his family of mere grace, though he should make no use of them at all? or if there must be more: may they not be called so, as being destinated to his service for the future? And so they may have the relation before the service; which is common with those men that buy children with their parents for their future service. So Eccl. 2. 7. read it.  
Answ. How egregiously doth Mr. B. trifle, who expects I should prove, who was but the Respondent, and that also which is apparent to common sense, that infants are not servants of God actively in obeying his precepts, or as I said in my Sermon, in freely and voluntarily giving service to God and doing what he 〈…〉 s, who neither know nor hear God's precepts, and looks I should prove what he agrees with me in! For when I said in●●●ts are servants from God's right and interest in them, though they do no service, Mr. B. as if I said no such thing pu●s many importinent questions to me, as if he would by them know my mind in that which I had plainly though more briefly expressed, to wit that the Jews infants were Gods servants. 1. Of right, because God had a right, propriety or perculiar interest in them, he had purchased them otherwise than he had done other people. 2. Passively, so as that their bodies and liberties were at his dispose, not allowing men to dispose of them, as he did to dispose of others. As for the question may they not be so called as destinated to his service for the future? I conceive not; destination to his service for the future doth not either there or any where else that I know, give denomination to a servant as actually such: no● doth I think any thing in the Text lead us to such a reason of the denomination, but to that which I have set down. And to his question, Are infants the King's Subjects or servants in a passive sense only? I answer, yes, while they are infants, and should question his intellectuals that should deny it; and when he calls it my fiction and mere falsehood, that infants are here called servants passively only, it seems prejudice against me makes him count that a fiction and falsehood in my mouth, which is current enough when it comes from his own pen. But Mr. B. is not yet reconciled to me, there's more anger yet behind. For thus he speaks.  
6. But the grossest is yet behind, (as the worst error is still at last, and the further a man goes out of his way the further he goes amiss) would any man think that such a man as Mr. T. can possibly believe that infants are called Gods servants in no other sense than the Heavens and Earth are?  
Answ. May I not take up the Poet's words, Tantaene animis coelestibus irae? Is Mr. B. so waspish as to be still humming and buzzing about my ears, and stinging me with his misrepresentations. 'tis true, to show that the term [servant of God] is not equipollent to [a Disciple of Christ] I instanced in Ps l. 119. 91. where the Heaven and the earth are called Gods servants in a passive sense, but my words (as he himself printed them) are not, infants are called Gods servants in no other sense than the Heaven's a●● earth are: yea I mentioned Nabuchadnezzar called God's servant Jerem. 43. 10. after the allegation of Psal. 119. 91. And yet if I had said so I know no error in it, much less gross erour, or grossest of all. But Mr. B. asks placet. Well! room for Mr. B. Let me a little reason this case, saith he, 1. Are the Heavens only passive servants of God? Is that good Philosophy? Answ. Sith Mr. B. is either in his reasoning or posing vein, I shall enforce myself with what patience I can to read his childing Lecture, and to answer his questions, though he would not answer mine at the Dispute, when he should. To his first and second I answer affirmatively. It is not good Philosophy to say, the Heavens only suffer, and act nothing: but it is very good Philosophy, and Divinity too, that the Heavens are only passive servants of God, when they do Gods will, they do it not with consent of will, as when the stormy winds fulfil God's word, Psal. 148. 8. they do act, but not actively obey God. Herod and Pontius Pilate did what Gods counsel determined, Acts 4▪ 27, 28. yet were not active servants of God, but passive, the doing of God's will was besides their intentions So Nabuchadnezzar, Jer. 43. 10. Sennacherib, Isai 10. 5, 6, 7. joseph's brethren, Shimei, Absolom, etc. are servants of God in this sense. And in this sense the Heavens are Gods servants, as Mr. B. might have perceived by the joining the earth with them, which moves not, or rather in this passive sense, because they are at God's disposing.  
2. Saith he, What if the Earth and Infants were both called Gods Servants only in a passive sense, because God maketh use of them? Is it therefore in the same sense? Answ. Yes. Mr. B. Is it the same use that God maketh of both? Answ. No, and yet it is the same sense. Again, Mr. B. What if Christ were called God's servant for his suffering? Shall we say it were in no other sense than the Earth is so called? when the use and sufferings are so unlike?  
Answ. No, for if Christ were called God's servant for his suffering, I would call him an active servant of God, not a passive▪ For though he in his suffering were passive, and Divines call it passive obedience, yet he did not obey passively, that is, against his will, or without consent of will, as the Earth doth, but actively, out of his free and voluntary intention, and consent of will. Be the use and suffering never so unlike, those persons or things may be in the fame sense passive servants of God, whose sufferings or use accomplisheth God's will without their intention, and they active servants in the same sense whose use or sufferings are with intention and consent to accomplish the will of God, though their use or sufferings are much unlike. But he hath not yet done posing or chiding me.  
What if I prove, saith he, (as me thinks with Mr. ●. I might easily do) that the Heavens are Gods servants actively, and Christ also is called his servant actively? Doth it follow that they are servants in the same sense, when the action is so unlike?  
Answ. Yes, for I never took the identity of sense to presuppose necessarily likeness in the actions. The same sense is when words signify a like meaning, whatever likeness or unlikeness there be in the actions of the subjects to which the Predicate is attributed. And I pity Mr. Bs. oscitancy that doth not observe such obvious things, but troubles others with such frivolous questions. But yet there are more of these demands to be answered.  
3. Saith Mr. B. Hath not God prevented all these Cavils by joining Parents and Children together in the same title? He saith of Parents and Children both together, they are my servants: where it is evident that both therefore have the same kind of relation. And will he say that the Parents are only passive servants?  
Answ. Yes, in that place, according to the explication before given; and I conceive that God hath prevented all Mr. Bs. Cavils against this exposition, even in that he joins Parents and Children, (who can be no other ways servants of God) together, in the same title; besides other passages of the Text do show it, as I have alleged above.  
4. Saith Mr. B. Or if all this be not enough, yet look further, where God himself tells you the reason why he calls them his servants, (who knows better than Mr. T.) They are my servants which I brought out of Egypt, etc. God's interest and merciful choice of them, and separation to himself, is the reason. When God calls us his servants, it oftener signifieth the honour and privileges of that relation, which in mercy he calls us to, than any service we do him therein. Are the Heaven's God's servants, because he brought them out of Egypt, and separated them to himself as a peculiar People?  
Answ. Mr. B. is a strange man, most shamefully dealing with me, who suggests to the world of me as if I took no notice of that in the Text, which in my Sermon as it is printed by himself, pag. 181. was observed in the first place with advice to my hearers to mark it, and urged it to that end that I might show this was peculiar to the Hebrew children, and therefore impertinently brought by Mr. B. to prove our infant's Gods servants as there it is meant much less as [God's servants] is a term equipollent to [a Disciple Matth. 28. 19] all which he seems not to take notice of, but in stead thereof after a dictate or two without proof, he puts to me this frivolous question, Are the Heaven's God's servants because he brought them out of Egypt, and separated them to himself as a peculiar people? To which I answer no, but what then? cannot therefore the Heavens be said to be God's servants passively, that is, at God's dispose, because they were not brought out of Egypt as the infants, Levit. 25. 41.? The reason is given there in respect of the subject, why they were God's servants when other people were not, not on the part of the predicate, as if none were servants but they that were brought out of Egypt. Nabuchadnezzar is called God's servant, Jer. 43. 10. for going into Egypt there executing Gods will on the Egyptians; though he had no intention of doing any thing for God.  
5. Saith Mr. B. yet if all this be not enough, he that will see may be convinced from this. The Jews and their infants are called Gods servants in a sense peculiar as chosen and separated from all other: the Gentiles at age were not so God's servants as the Jews infants were. If God call these infants his servants in no other sense than the Heavens and the earth, than it seems in the year of Jubilee men must release the earth from its service to them: But Mr. T. knows that even the Gentile servants that were actively so were not to be released in the year of Jubilee: and therefore the Jews and their infants are called Gods servants in another sense than the Heavens or the heathens either; even as the chosen separated people of God and members of his family. or else how could it be a reason for releasing them in the year of Jubilee any more than for releasing any other? But no Scripture can be so plain, but a man that hath a mind so disposed may find some words of contradiction.  
Answ. It is true, and Mr. Bs. cavils about this Text apparently preve it. But this with all the rest is not enough to convince me that the infants of the Jews are called Gods servants actively, as the term [Gods servant] is equipollent to [a Disciple Matth. 28. 19] though I would see it, yet I cannot, no not by Mr. Bs. spectacles, even by this last reason. I confess that the Jews infants were Gods servants in a peculiar manner, other than the Gentiles at years, yea though godly, as Cornelius, Acts 10. 2. that God for this reason required their release from bondage at the Jubilee, and yet why it should follow, that if the Earth be called God's servant passively, as the Jews infants, it must be released by men from service at the year of Jubilee, I see not. If it were form into an Argument, it would rest on this or the like Proposition, They to whom the same thing is predicated, in the same sense must have all other things predicated on them alike: which is so absurd a thing, that me thinks Mr. B. should disclaim it, and yet his reason turns on that hinge. To show its absurdity, Magistrates are called Gods, Jehovah is called God in one sense in respect of rule, else the term [God] should signify nothing common to both. Doth it therefore follow that what is said of Magistrates must be said of Jehovah, that he must die like men, or else the term [God] cannot predicate on both in the same sense in which [God] is taken for one that rules? This and such like mistakes of Mr. B. even then when he runs with full curreer show his heedlessness, and overliness in handling controversies, which require a man of more insight in the meaning of the Scripture, and more circumspect in observing the consequents on his sayings and reasonings than I find him. But I follow him, not doubting to overtake him in long tunning, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

SECT. XV.  
That Infants are not proved to be Christ's Disciples, from being Subjects to Christ, Christians, belonging to Christ, Luke 9 47, 48. Matth. 18. 5. Mark 9 41.  
THe sum of the next Argument is, Infants are capable of being Subjects of Chrsts kingdom, therefore of being his Disciples. The reason of the Consequence is, that Christ's Church is as properly called his Kingdom as his School, all Subjects of Christ in his visible Kingdom are Christians, all Christians Disciples, according to Acts 11. 26. Infants are capable of being Subjects in any Kingdom on Earth, nothing can be showed to prove them uncapable, they were actually Subjects of Christ's Kingdom before his coming in the flesh.  
To all which I answer, It's enough to deny the consequence sith infants may be subjects which imports only something passive, whereas [Disciple] imports action, which agrees not to infants. But I distinguish, subjects of Christ's Kingdom may be so called from active or passive subjection, visibly or invisibly, by extraordinary or ordinary operation. I deny infants to be subjects of Christ's Kingdom actively, visibly, by ordinary operation through Preaching the word in which sense alone the term [subject of Christ's Kingdom] is equipollent to [a Disciple Matth. 28. 19] and in which sense alone the consequence is true. Though in common speech arising from the fond conceit as if baby-sprinkling made them Christians, infants are called Christians, yet in Scripture none are called Christians till they believe. Christiani non naseu●●ur sed fiunt. Our Infants are children of Christians, But not themselves Christians till they believe in Christ. Acts 11. 26. is so far from proving infants called Christians, or Disciples, that both v. 26. & 29. prove the contrary, as was showed above. Though infants be reckoned as parts of human Kingdoms, yet it follows not they are parts of Christ's visible Kingdom or Church. For than natural fools, yea the mostungodly professed unbelievers, must be subjects of Christ's visible Kingdom or Church, because such are subjects of human kingdoms. I have seen Ephes. 5. 24. and see nothing there for Mr. Bs. purpose, but against him, there being no subjection there meant but what is willing, which infants have not, except by extraordinary operation unknown. Infants whether of believers or unbelievers are capable of being Christ's subjects passively, or actively by extraordinary secret invisible, and unknown operation, but not actively, visibly by ordinary means for want of the use of reason. This consequence will never be proved by Mr. B. Infants were members of the Jewish Church, therefore visible Church members of the Christian Church. To this argument, Infants were Disciples in the Jewish Church, Ergo, God will show the like mercy now, I answer by denying his antecedent, which he would prove from John 9 28. we are Moses Disciples in opposition to Jesus Disciples, But infants were Moses his Disciples. This proposition I deny, and Mr. B. hath brought nothing to prove it. The Text mentions none as Moses Disciples but persons of years, and therefore there's no need of further answer to his argument.  
3. My third argument saith Mr. B. to prove some infants are Disciples, is this from Christ's own words. If Christ would have some children received as Disciples, than they are Disciples; But Christ would have some such received as Disciples; Therefore some such are Disciples. All the question is of the antecedent and that is plain in Luke 9 47, 48. compared which Matth. 18. 5. and Mark 9 41. He that receiveth this child in my name receiveth me. Here observe. 1. It was the child himself that Christ would have received. 2. He would have him received [in his name] now that can mean no less than as a Disciple: when they are baptised it is into his Name: And that which in Luke is called [receiving in Christ's name] is expressed in Mark [one that belongeth to Christ] and in Matthew [in the name of a Disciple] though some of these places speak of infants, some of others: yet compared, they plainly tell you this; that to receive [in Christ's Name] and [as belonging to Christ] and [as a Disciple of Christ] in Christ's language is all one, for they plainly express the same thing intended in all. So that Christ hath encouraged me to receive children [in his Name] Luke 9 47. And he expoundeth it to me, that this is to receive them [as belonging] to him, and as [Disciples] I know some frivolous answers are made to this: but they are not worth the standing on. Mr. Blakes Argument hence remaineth as good as unanswered.  
Answ. What Mr. Blake alleged in his Birth privilege, p. 21: about these Texts was answered in my Examen, pag. 134. and what he replied in his Answer to my Letter, cap. 11. sect. 5. was refelled in my Postscript, pag. 145, 146, all which I have reviewed with what Mr. Blake refers to in his Repulse of Mr. Blackwood, pag. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. and do not find wherein my answer in my Postscript is deficient, and therefore see no reason to be moved by Mr. Bs. vain talk that Mr. Blakes Argument hence remains as good as unanswered, and do conceive it more abundantly answered than such a far-fetched argument deserved. Yet Mr. B. brings it again into the field, and Mr. Blake Vindic. Foederis, pag. 414. says, he will forbear to make any rejoinder to the Reply of my Apology, pag. 145. because Mr. B. hath here done it for him. Now what saith Mr. B. He saith, I know some frrivolous answers are made to this; but they are not worth the standing on.  
To which I reply, if the Answers be more frivolous than the Argument they are not indeed worth standing on. But let us see what kind of Argument it is. 1. Mr. B. should have concluded that Some Infants are Disciples, and he concludes that Some Children are Disciples, or else he means by [some such] in the minor and conclusion others than by [some Children] in the major, now some Infants and some Children are not all one. 2. The phrase in the middle term [received as Disciples] may be understood two ways, 1. thus, that Christ would have them received as being Disciples, and in this sense I grant the Consequence, but deny the minor, understood of some infants. 2. That he would have them received with such tenderness and love as is given to Disciples, though they be not Disciples. And in this sense I might grant the minor, and deny the Consequence of the major, though I think the minor is not true in that sense. And to Mr. Bs. proof of this, I say, 1. the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Matth. 11. 1●. (which is less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) notes a little child that could call to his fellows.  word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luke 9 47. doth not note an infant always. For Jairus his Daughter though twelve years old, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a little child, Mark 5. 41▪ 42. And yet that age might be a pattern of humility, seldom are children of that age ambitious, though they be impatient. And that the little child Matth. 18. 2. was not an infant but a person of some years, is made probable, in that Christ is said to call him, and to set him, or make him stand in the midst of them. 2. Beza saith, Perhaps it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such a little child. So the Syriack Interpreter reads, and it is very probable by comparing it with Matth. 18. 5. where the words of Christ are related, and there it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one such little child, and Mark 9 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one of such children. 3. But if the reading be allowed as the Copies now have it, yet it is not unusual that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this] is all one with [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such] as on the other side 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 2 Cor. 2. 6. all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So in the same Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luke 9 26. is not meant of one particular person, but of one so qualified, and in like manner 2 Tim. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from these turn away, that is, as our Translators well render it, from such turn away, and v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is rendered [of this sort] There are more of the like, 2 Thess. 3. 14. 2 John 7. 1 John 2. 22. Luke 8. 14, 15, 21, etc. So Grotius in Luc. 9 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ut apud Matthaeum, quomodo & hic Syrus interpretatur. And this may be confirmed by reason thus, If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luke 9 48. must be expounded of this little child, than the speech of Christ is to be understood only of that one individual little child and no other, for in that sense it is a Pronoun demonstrative, and so notes a demonstrative individual, as Logicians speak, and so it shall note not only the child himself, as Mr. B. observes, but even that particular little child then present, and it would only import a privilege appropriate to that little child, and agreeing to no other, whereas the sense is manifest from the words there, and other places, Matth. 10. 40. Luke 10. 16. John 13. 20. to be this, whosoever shall receive any one that comes in my Name, though he be as mean and as inconsiderable as this little child, receiveth me; and therefore it is added presently, For he that is least among you all, the same shall be great, which shows that by [this] or [such a little child] he meant the Apostles, whosoever receiveth any of you, though as mean as this little child, or such a little child, receiveth me. 4. There are sundry things in the Text, and in parallel places, which do evince, that the receiving the little child, neither is nor can be meant of a little child in respect of age, much less an infant.  
As, 1. that it is supposed that the little child here meant may be received in Christ's name, but that agrees not with the meaning of the speech as there is meant to understand it of a little child in age. For receiving in Christ's name presupposeth coming in Christ's name, as John 5. 43. 2 John 10. etc. that is either professing Christ's name or Preaching or acting in Christ's name. And that this is presupposed here, Luke 9 48. appears partly by the phrase receiveth him that sent him, which intimateth this to be the force of the speech, he that receiveth one such little child sent by me receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me, and partly from the very next v. 49. where John is said to answer and say taking occasion, as it seems by the relation from Christ's words, Master we saw one casting out Devils in thy name, which words intimate that he understood▪ receiving in Christ's name to be meant of one acting or speaking in Christ's name, and thus is the phrase [in my name, in the name of the Lord] often used Matth. 7▪ 22. & 21. 9 & 23. 39 & 24. 5. which thing is more fully confirmed by Mr. Bs. parallel place. Mark 9 37, 41. It is plain that Mark sets down Christ's words upon the same occasion of their contention for pre-eminence which Luke doth, and the same words v. 37. and there expresseth it, whosoever shall receive one of such little ones in my name, which cannot be meant of that little one then set before them, but of his Apostles and others who should be as mean as such a little one, and v. 39 expounds [in my name] of acting in my name, and v. 41. whosoever shall give you a cup of cold water in my name because ye are Christ's, that is, ye are sent by Christ, or act for Christ, which shows v. 37. to be meant of the Apostles not little children in age, but such as did act for Christ though mean as little children. The same may be proved from Matth. 10. 40, 41, 42. 2. Again, the receiving of the little child proves it is not meant of a little child in age. For what is the receiving? It is, 1. by hearing Luke 10. 16. 2. By entertaining upon travayl, as Luke 9 52, 53. they did not receive him by making ready for him, and Mark 9 41. by giving a cup of cold water, which was no small kindness to a traveller in those dry and hot Country's. But what kindness had this been to a little child in age as an infant, that travayls not? On the contrary, not receiving is expressed Matth. 10. 14. Mark 6. 11. by not entertaining them into their house nor hearing their words. so the New Annot. on Matth. 10. 42. [he that receiveth you] Luke 10. 16. John 13. 20. that heareth your Doctrine willingly, and entertaineth you, which receiving agrees not to infants, nor any other receiving mentioned in the Gospels that hath such a blessing assured to it as here. 3. The reward annexed, to wit, the receiving of Christ shows the receiving of a little one in Christ's name, to be another thing than the receiving of a little infant in Christ's name, that is, after Mr. Bs. silly conceit, the receiving into the visible Church by baptising it. For then the greatest blessing, that is, of receiving Christ and his Father should be annexed to so poor a thing as may be done by every poor Presbyter, or Curate, how ill mannered soever he be; the baptising, that is, as now it's used and defended, the sprinkling of a little holy water on an infant. 4. It appears that a little infant is not meant Luke 9 48. from the description of the little child there meant. For Mr. B. himself compares that speech in Luke with the like, Matth. 18. 5. Now such a little child Matth. 18. 5. is expressed v. 6. one of these little ones which believe in me, (not as Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindication, pag. 117. fond conceives without any other Author that ever I heard of besides himself, one of those little ones, who are the little ones of them that believe in me. For than it should be either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or some such supply, and it would be ridiculous to imagine the scandalising to be of infants, the penalty of which is heavier than to have a millstone tied about the neck, and to be cast into the Sea, that little infants are those not to be despised, whose Angels behold the face of Christ's Father, v. 10. The little ones Matth. 18. 6. are called Christ's brethren, Matth. 25. 40. answering to them that believe) and v. 3. one that becomes as a little child, v. 4. one that humbles himself as this little child, which it is mere dotage to expound of little infants. Again Mr. B. refers to Matth. 10. 41. and there the little child received is a Prophet, and a righteous man. Hereto I add the expressions of many writers. Piscator (to whom Mr. Blake refers) Analys. Luc. 9 48. innuit amorem suum ●rga demissos animo in exemplo pueruli praesentis. Scholar in Matth. 18. 5. propter nomen meum, propterea quod in me credit, Beza annot. in Matth. 18. 5. puerulum talem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, quempiam ita se demi●t●ntem ut puerum referat: nec enim propriè de pueris agit. Par●●s in Matth. 18. 5. dicit, qui susceperit unum ex parv●lis talibus, hoc est, unum ex vobis pueri instar humiliatum. Diodati on Matth. 18. 5. [one such] namely, a true Christian that shall have laid aside all worldly pride, whereby he is become abject in the sight of the world. New Annot. in Matth. 10. 42. [one of these little ones] who newly made profession of religion: on Matth 18. 5. one like such a child in the qualities before mentioned. Mr. B. himself confesseth that some of these places speak of infants some of others: yet saith ●e, compared they plainly tell you this; That to receive [in Christ's name] and [as belonging to Christ] and [as a Disciple of Christ] in Christ's language is all one; for they plainly express the same thing intended in all. From whence I infer, that if the same thing be intended in all, and all express the same thing, then is no other thing intended or expressed, Luke 9 48. than what is expressed and intended Matth. 18. 5. Mark 9 41. Matth. 10. 42. and then, it is certain that Luke 9 48. is not meant of a little infant in age, nor the receiving such as agrees to such an infant, sith it is certain that Matth. 18. 5. Mark 9 41. Matth. 10. 42. are not understood of either of these, and it follows upon Mr. Bs. confession that some of these Texts speak not of infants, that none of them speak of infants, sith they all express and intend the same thing; and thus Mr. Bs. own observation refu●es himself. But saith he, when they are baptised it is into his name.  
Answ. Mr. B. it seems would have this the sense: whosoever receiveth to Baptism in my name one little child receiveth me to Baptism, which should imply it to be a grateful office to receive him to Baptism, and the offending Matth. 18. 6. and despising v. 10. should be not admitting to Baptism, and when it is said [whosoever] shall receive one such little one, it would imply it to be a grateful work for any person though no Minister to receive to Baptism, and an ungrateful work for any to refuse to baptise. I grant that in the places named to be such a little one, Matth. 18. 5. to belong to Christ, Mark 9 41. to be a Disciple of Christ, Matth. 10 42. note the same sort of persons, yet I deny that proposition, which is the hinge of Mr. Bs. proof, [every one that belongs to Christ is a Disciple of Christ] For the holy Angels, those yet uncalled whom his Father hath given him, John 17. 10. belong to Christ, and yet are not to be called Disciples of Christ. And therefore I infer, that Mr. B. hath no encouragement from Christ's exposition of these Texts to account infants Disciples, and what he collects in his own fancy without the Text is frivolous and self contradicting, so little worth the standing on, that for my part I think this sheet of his Book, what ever be said of the rest, worth no more than a sheet that is made thur is piperisque ●ucullus, yet he cannot forbear but must add more of this frivolous stuff.  
In answer to this objection, Infants cannot learn, and therefore cannot be Disciples, he adds thus much more. 1. They can partake of the protection and provision of their Master (as the children of those that the Israelites bought) and enjoy the privileges of the family and school, and be under his charge and dominion, and that is enough to make them capable of being Disciples.  
Answ. What privileges of Christ's family and school, infants enjoy, I know not, what ever they be what ever protection, provision, rule, care is for them, yet this is not enough to make them Disciples, as Christ meant, Mat. 28. 19 till they have learned, or profess learning of this Lesson, that Jesus is the Christ; all that is said here of Children may be said of slaves bought with money, they are all then with him Disciples of Christ, though professed infidels.  
2. They are, saith he, devoted to learning, if they live: however they are consecrated to him as their Master, who can teach them hereafter, and that is yet more.  
Answ. I may add, they may cry, as Cyprian, and his sixty six Bishops alleged for their Baptism, and suck, and smile, and play with the mother, and that is more than this, but neither the one nor the other any thing to the denomination of a Disciple of Christ.  
3. Saith he, I wonder you should be more rigorous with Christ in this case than you are with men. Is it not common to call the whole nation of the Turks both old and young by the name of Mahometans, or Disciples of Mahomet?  
Answ. What a pretty passage is this to set out a man as rigorous with Christ, who expounds his words Matth. 28. 19 according to his constant language in all the Evangelists, because he allows not infants to be called Disciples, as if Christ forsooth did plead for infant's discipleship, and I were so stiff, as that I would not yield to him. But he thinks I will allow Mahometans children to be called Mahomet's disciples, for it is the common use, and why not then we and our children by the name of Christians and Disciples of Christ. Answ. I confess I think the common use now is to call the Turks young and old Mahometans, and in Chorographical relations, English, French, etc. are called Christian Nations, old and young, termed Christians: but neither do I find the common use to be to call infants either Mahomet's or Christ's Disciples, nor if I did, should this sway me at all to allow infant's discipleship according to Matth. 28. 19 till Scripture use of the term [Disciple] applicable to that sense can be showed.  
But Mr. B. hath more of this childish arguing. And when a man hired a Philosopher to teach him and all his children, were they not all then Disciples of that Philosopher? They are entered under him as their Master for future teaching, are at present in the relation of Disciples.  
Answ. It is no such strange thing to hear of a Physician taking a stipend to cure a man and all his children, but to hear of a Philosopher hired to teach a man, and all his children, even his infant children, and counting them Disciples, and entering them under him as their master, is so strange to me that it seems to me somewhat like a tale of a man of Gotham. Yet if there were any such thing acted by wise men in sober sadness, it is nothing to prove infants Disciples in Christ's or his Apostles language. But the prettiest part of this Comedy or poppet play of Mr. B. is yet behind.  
4. Saith he. And truly I wonder also that it should go so currant that infants are not capable of learning, the mother is a Preacher to the infant, partly by her action and gesture and partly by voice. Answ. And why not by smiles, and kisses and whipping? But what then? They can dishearten and take off from vices and teach them obedience. Answ. 'tis true they can still them from crying: but how they can take them off from vices and teach them obedience to Gods Command I am yet to learn, it may be nurses may better inform me than Mr. B. Me thinks saith he, we should not make an infant less docible than some brutes. What doth Mr. B. mean by this? Doth he think they that deny infants to be Disciples allow brutes to be Disciples? A parrot I think will sooner learn some words of Christ's than an infant, yet I think neither learn any thing of the Doctrine of Christ till they understand it. But I am referred to nurses, who he saith, will tell me more in this than he can, It may be so; yet sure nothing to show that any have made their infants learn the Doctrine of Christ. He adds. And what if they cannot at first learn to know Christ? even with men of years that is not the first Lesson: if they may be taught any of the duty of a rational creature it is somewhat. Answ. If they do not learn to know Christ they learn not that which should make them Disciples of Christ. It is somewhat indeed that they can learn to kiss the mother, struck her breasts, etc. but what's this to make them Disciples of Christ? And if they can learn nothing of the parents either by action or voice; yet Christ hath other ways of teaching than by men even by the immediate working of his Spirit.  
Answ. 'Tis true, and he may make infants Disciples, nor do I deny it to be done invisibly, but it would be a greater wonder than yet Mr. B. hath had for all his wonderments, a very prodigy that any of them should become a visible Disciple. 'Tis true they may learn something of God very young and are to be bred up in the nurture of the Lord. But that in their infancy at two or three days old they are learners of the things of God, of the admonition of the Lord from mothers and nurses is a fiction like Galilaeus his New World in the Moon, or Copernicus his Circumgyration of the earth.  
Mr. B. tells us he might argue further, All that are saved are Christ's Disciples, some infants are saved, Ergo. And I might answer him, that they may be saved, and yet no visible Disciples according to the meaning of Christ Matth. 28 19 But sith he hath put this off to another time I shall take a little breathing from Mr. B. and set him aside a little while till I have heard what his seniors say further for their baby-baptism.   

SECT. XVI.  
Dr. Featley and Mr. Stephen's arguings from John 3. 5. for Infant-baptism are answered, and Baptism showed not be a cause of Regeneration, and Mr. Cranfords' words considered.  
THere are some other Texts brought to prove an institution of infant-baptism out of the New Testament which I shall take in though the Assembly and the chiefest I have to do with in this controversy do omit them. The Ancients were wont to allege Joh. 3. 5. to prove infants are to be baptised after Christ's appointment, or rather the reasonableness and necessity of the Church's appointment. Augustine in his writings often joins Rom. 5. 12, and John 3. 5. as the reason of infant baptism Lumb. Sent. 4. Dist. 3. allegeth some as making the institution of baptism to be John 3. 5. The Papists commonly allege John 3. 5. for the necessity of infant-baptism, Becan. Manual. l. 4. c. 2. Mandatum habemus, Joan. 3. 5. They are refuted by the Protestants, as Chamier tom. 4. l. 5. the bapt. c. 9 yet Vossius thes. Th. de paedobapt. thes. 7. brings it, to which being in Latin I have answered in Latin in my Refutation of Dr. Savage his supposition, though contrary to my expectation not yet printed, Dr. Featley in his Dipper dipped, p. 10. 43. makes it one of his prime arguments for infant-baptism, p. 10. he thus argues. If none can enter into the Kingdom of God but those that are born of Water and the Spirit; that is, those that are baptised with Water and regenerated by the Spirit, than there is a necessity of baptising children, or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, (that is ordinarily) for we must not tie God to outward means. But the former is true. Ergo, the latter. And pag. 43. none aught to exclude the children of the faithful out of the Kingdom of Heaven. But by denying them baptism (as much as in us lieth) we exclude them out of the Kingdom of Heaven▪ For as Christ affirmed to Nicodemus, and confirmed it with a double oath or most vehement asseveration, Amen, Amen; or verily, verily (I say unto thee) except a man he born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, Ergo, we ought not to deny them baptism.  
Answ. This arguing is the same in effect notwithstanding the Doctors mincing it (which is but a little) with that which the Papists bring for their horrid tenet of Exclusion out of the Kingdom of Heaven of infants dying unbaptised. For he holds that there is a necessity of baptising children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God ordinarily. In which assertion he denies any infant's entrance into the kingdom of God ordinarily without water-baptism. And no more is said as I conceive by the more moderate Papists, such as Biel, Cajetan, Gerson, cited by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the problem. But no marvel the Doctor; who was addicted to the Common Prayer Book, concurred thus far with the Papists: For in it the Doctrine of Augustin, and others is retained, of asserting the necessity of infant-baptism because of original sin and Christ's words, joh. 3. 5. as appears by the Preface appointed to be used before the solemnity of Baptism. But Protestant Divines do generally refute this opinion, as e. g. Chamier Panstr. Cath. tom. 4. l. 5. de Bapt. c. 8. etc. teaching that infants of believers are ordinarily holy, and admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven, though dying unbaptised? But to answer his Arguments, 1. it's known that Calvin, Piscator, and many more do take [water] metaphorically, and the conjunction [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and] to be exegetical not coupling differing things, but expounding what is meant by [water] as if he had said, that water which is the Spirit, as when it is said Mat. 3. 11. He shall baptise with you the Holy Ghost and with fire, that is, with the Holy Ghost, which is as fire. And this they conceive as necessary, that the speech of Christ may be verified. For simply understood it is false, sith the Thief on the Cross, sundry Martyrs and others have entered into the Kingdom of Heaven unbaptised. And this Exposition Chamier Panstrat. Cath. tom. 4. lib. 5. cap. 9 hath taken upon him to maintain against the opposites to it, and if true the objection of Dr. Featley falls, which rests on this, that there a necessity of water-baptism is imposed on all that shall enter into the Kingdom of God. Nevertheless I confess myself unsatisfied in this Exposition. 1▪ Because I do not think that Matth. 3. 11. by [fire] is meant the Holy Ghost as being like fire in his operation on every sanctified person: but that the words are an express prophecy of what Christ also foretold, Acts 1. 5. and was accomplished at Pentecost, Acts 2. 3. when the Holy Ghost filled them, and fiery cloven tongues sat upon each of them. 2. Because if it were parallel to that place, and [water] were used metaphorically, (as is said by them) and exegetically added [water] should be after, and [spirit] before, as Matth. 3. 11. [spirit] is first, and [fire] after, and after the usual manner of speaking, it should run thus, except a man be born of the spirit and water, if it were to be expounded of the spirit which is as water. Dr. Homes animadv. on my Exercit: pag. 30. allegeth Bullinger, saying, Omnes penè de baptismo, joh. 3. 5. interpretantur, to which he adjoins bullinger's, and his own consent.▪ For these reasons I am much inclined to expound it of the Element of Water. Yet, 2. am very apt to conceive, that forasmuch as Mr. Selden de jurenat. & Gent. juxta discipl. Heb. lib. 2. cap. 4. tells us that when the jews did initiate Proselytes by baptising them with water, they called it Regenerating, and that Christ, when he taunts Nicodemus with dulness in being a Master in Israel, and yet not knowing of Regeneration, but by imagining a natural New-birth, when Regeneration was frequent in baptising Proselytes among the jews, insomuch that by it they taught a person lost his natural relations of kindred as he shows, lib. 5. c. 18. and hath these words in the place above cited, [tamet si de eâ quae spiritu fit non solùm aquâ loqueretur Christus] our Saviour meant baptism of water, not according to his Apostles practice, but the jews, and that the sense is this, Except a man be born of water, and of the spirit, that is, Except a man be not only born again by water, as ye Pharisees regenerate, when ye make Proselytes, but also by the spirit, as I do beget again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, although he may enter into the Commonwealth or policy of Israel: which sense nevertheless doth not assert a necessity of their water-regeneration, but only of Christ's spiritual regeneration, and the insufficiency of the other by itself, which is so much the more probable, because I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, and for but, Motth. 11. 19 & 12. 39 Acts 10. 28. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 26. 29. seems to answer to [not only but also] yet because I find not a place every way parallel, I only propound it to be examined. But 3. it being granted that it is meant of Christ's water-baptism, yet Papists themselves make not such a necessity of it as is without limitation and exception, and therefore they put in some one, some another restriction, which Chamier in the place alleged reduceth to four: 1. Unless the person be baptised either with the baptism of water, or some other thing instead of it, as the baptism of blood and spirit. 2. If they may be baptised, and they despise it. 3. If they be not baptised with that Regeneration which is by water, though it may be otherwise also. 4. If they be neither baptised in deed nor desire. Why may not then this limitation be added, Except a man be born again of water, that is, except such a person of whom baptism is required, according to my institution, be born of water, when he may have it, and it's cleared to him to be his duty, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. And indeed this and such like speeches Mark 16. 16. john 3. 18, ●6, etc. that require faith as well as baptism, are to be understood of persons to whom the Gospel is preached, and do or may hear it, and speak not of infants, whom we find not that God enters into the Kingdom of Heaven any other way than by his invisible election and operation of his Spirit. And it is observable, that whereas john 3. 5. our Saviour joins water and spirit as means of Regeneration, yet v. 6. he names only the spirit, omitting water; whence may be gathered, that water is not of such universal unrestrained necessity, that in no case a person is not born again without it, nor admissible into the Kingdom of God, yet such as is necessary ordinarily to those to whom the Gospel is preached, and their duty made known. Whence in answer to the Doctor's argument I say, that his speeches are to be thus limited at least, none can enter into the Kingdom of God ordinarily without baptism, to wit, of those to whom the Gospel is preached, their duty made known, and Baptism may be had; and to his later Argument I answer, by denying that children are excluded out of the Kingdom of Heaven by denying them Baptism, sith those unbaptized persons only are excluded who are appointed to be baptised, to whom the Gospel is preached, the duty of Baptism made known, and they may have it administered to them, which cannot be said of infants.  
Mr. Nathaniel Stephens in his Book entitled, A Precept for the Baptism of Infants out of the New Testament, having premised some thing about the Text, john 3. 5. pag. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. about the necessity of baptism of water, and the efficacy of it, in which many things are merely dictated, and very slightly handled, he would infer pag. 23, etc. a Precept for infant-baptism from john 3. 5. because infants are guilty of original sin, where the disease is there is need of the remedy, when Christ doth press a necessity of washing both by water and the spirit, he doth not this so immediately in reference to actual sin, as in reference to birth-sin, and to the natural pollution in which infants are born. The same is the plea of Mr. Thomas Fuller in his Infant's Advocate, c. 13.  
Answ. That either baptism of water or Circumcision are made the remedy of original sin is more than I find in Scripture, though it go as currant among many of former and later times. It is true our Lord Christ saith, Except a man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, John 3. 5. and he assigns this as a reason thereof, v. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, but that either thereby he intended to make baptism as the remedy of sin, or of original sin rather than actual is more than appears, For though our Lord Christ v. 5. make regeneration to be by Water and Spirit yet I conceive regeneration is by the Spirit only as the cause, by baptism of water only as the sign, whereby the person baptised testifies that he is born again by the Spirit. Now a remedy is a cause and not a sign only: no man calls that which is only a sign of cure a remedy, but that which doth operate for healing. That baptism of water is not the cause of regeneration appears. 1. Because v. 6. our Saviour giving the reason of the necessity of regeneration and the effect of regeneration, leaves ou● [water] and mentions only [the Spirit] 2. Because the person baptised is supposed to be born again, to be a repenting and believing person afore he is baptised: But if baptism were the cause it should be before regeneration, (for the cause is before the effect) and so men should be baptised afore they are believers, or repenting persons, which is absurd, and contrary to the Scripture, Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 38. etc. and contrary to the order of Christ that persons should be made Disciples afore they were baptised Matth. 28 19 3. Because it is altogether inexplicable how the use of water can be a cause either principal or instrumental to work a new birth or inward change on the soul; If it be said, that it is by virtue of God's promise, it is meet that promise should be showed, that at, by or upon the use of baptism, God hath promised to regenerate persons. That it is a sign of regeneration will not be I suppose denied; for it is made the sign of repentance (which is all one with regeneration) and therefore called the baptism of repentance Acts 19 4. because as Beza on v. 3. baptism was symbolum resipiscentiae, the token of repentance. And so in like manner it was the sign of faith, and therefore the Apostle Gal. 3. 27. saith, That as many as were baptised into Christ had put on Christ, that is, had by the sign of baptism testified their putting on Christ by faith. And in this sense it is termed the washing of regeneration (if baptism be meant by it) Tit. 3. 5. because by that washing the person baptised testifies his regeneration. And Rom. 6. 4. We are buried with him by baptism into death, that is, we by being under water testify our dying to sin conformably to Christ's death and burial. And in this sense Paul is bid Acts 22. 16. to wash away his sins, that is, by baptism to testify his purging from his sins. And so Christ is said to sanctify and cleanse his Church with washing of water, Ephes. 5. 26. that is, as Beza Annot, in locum, as representing what he entirely doth effect within. Mr. james Cranford in his Epistle to Mr. Thomas Bedford printed at the end of the Friendly Accommodation between Mr. Bedford and Mr. Baxter, saith, that he conceives the ground of Anabaptism to have been the erroneous Doctrine de nudis signis, in which he is more confirmed by what I answered once to an Argument drawn by him from Ephes. 5. from the efficacy of baptism to enforce the baptising of infants, that if that Tenent could be clearly proved, I would no longer oppose that practice. Concerning which I say, I remember not all that passed from me in the Dispute he mentions, I did think that which I put down in my Exerci●▪ sect. 11. had been his Argument. But this I still say, that could it be clearly proved that Christ ever appointed baptism of water taken severedly from the preaching of the Word to be the cause of Regeneration, or that God had assured that by outward baptism with water he would confer regenerating grace to an infant, I should not oppose the practice of Paedobaptism. What Mr. Bedford hath produced for the efficacy of baptism, hath been answered by Mr. Baxter in his Appendix to his Plain Scripture, etc. Nor doth it appear to me that Mr. B. is of his mind, notwithstanding what Letters have passed between them now printed, and the syncretism yielded to in the printing of the Friendly Accommodation, and leaving out the Appendix. Dr. Burges his Treatise of Baptismal Regeneration, hath been freely censured by many. Dr. jeremiah Taylour in his Discourse of baptism hath like an Orator rather than a Disputant pleaded for infant-baptism from the efficacy of baptism, more from speeches of the Fathers than from the Scripture. Sure I am, baptism was appointed by Christ, and used in the examples of the Scripture, as a testimony of Repentance, of faith in Christ, no cause of either. And therefore I deny baptism to be the remedy of original sin, or the cause of Regeneration, or that Christ intended to assign the use to baptism to heal original sin, or to testify the freedom from it without actual. These things have been delivered by Augustine, and taught by the Romanists and Lutherans, but by many other Protestants disclaimed and refuted; and therefore Mr. Stephens, Mr. Cranford, Mr. Bedford, etc. in using this Argument do but symbolise with the Papists, and revive what many Protestants of best note have exploded.   

SECT. XVII,  
The 31. Chapter of Mr. Bs. Plain Scripture Proof, etc. is answered, and Mark 10. 13, 14, 15, 16. is showed to make nothing for infants visible Church-membership and baptism, and his description of visible Church-membership is considered, and his Argument from Deut. 29. showed to be insufficient.  
THere are yet some other Texts which are brought by Paedobaptists out of the New Testament, for an institution and practice of infant-baptism. Mr. B. Plain Scripture Proof of infant-baptism, part. 1. cap. 31. brings Mark 9 36, 37. to prove that, Christ hath expressly assured us that he hath not repealed the privilege of infants visible Church-membership, and upon it falls to his Rhetoric, and tells us of his boldness in adventuring on this rule. All which I judge frivolous; nor needs it any further answer, there being no new Argument, and what he before spoke of that Scripture is answered before Sect. 15. where it is showed that Mark 9 37. by [little child] is not meant one that is so in respect of age, but in respect of quality, and that the receiving is not meant of baptism, but entertainment in receiving the Doctrine brought, and showing kindness to their persons.  
But he adds, And it is not once but oft that he hath thus manifested his will: in the very next Chapter he doth it more fully yet, Mark 10. 14, 15, 16. And they brought young children to him that he should touch them; and his Disciples rebuked those that brought them: but when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said to them, Suffer ye little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child he shall not enter therein: and he took them up in his arms, put his hands on them, and blessed them. And is not here enough to satisfy us yet, that he doth not cast all infants in the world out of his visible Kingdom or Church? but that it is his will they should be admitted? Will any say that it was not infants in the former Text and this that Christ speaks of? Did he take any but infants into his arms? Was it not plainly them that he did bid them receive (in the former Chapter) and was it not them that he would not have to be kept from him? And was it not them that he bid should be suffered to come (that is to be brought) and was it not them that he blessed?  
Answ. Mr. M. in his Sermon had alleged this Tex to prove, that the infants of believers even while they are infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men. I answered, 1. It is doubtful whether those little children Mark 10. 14. were infants. 2. Whether it be said of them, Is the Kingdom of Heaven. 3. Whether they were believers infants. 4. Whether the Kingdom of Heaven be said to be of them in their present estate or their future. 5. The reason why of them is the Kingdom of Heaven may be referred to Christ's blessing, not to their Parent's faith 6. That Christ's action in this was proper to him, as the great Prophet, and extraordinary, and therefore not fit to make a constant rule for an ordinance, and if it be to that use it is more apposite to establish confirmation than baptism, sith Christ did neither baptise, nor appoint them to be baptised, though he said of them is the Kingdom of Heaven. In all likelihood, if infant-baptism had been according to Christ's mind he would have taken this occasion to appoint it, which he not doing, it is very probable that he would not have it done.  
To all which Mr. M. in his Defence pag. 221, 222. replied only this, that they were dictates and brought in to little purpose, whereas there is nothing said by me without reason and some proof, and yet I being a respondent it was more than my business necessitated me to produce so much, a denial being sufficient for the respondent. And whereas he saith I grant enough to serve his turn, that the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to those infants and concludes that their infants in their infantile age are capable of inward grace, and some of them actually partakers of it, and this is enough for him, and that more than this cannot be said of grown men who are visible professors. To it I say, Though I should grant that the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to these infants, yet it serves not his turn to prove thence that the infants of believers are visible Church-members, and that believers infants have right to baptism, except it be proved that their parents were believers, that the Kingdom of Heaven for that reason did belong to them, and in this thing was intended by Christ, the establishing a settled rule for infant's interest in the Church and baptism. Capacity of inward grace is not denied to infants, no not to Turk's infants: whether any of them be partakers actually of inward grace is not determined: nor is it true that no more can be said of grown men: for the making of visible profession may be said of grown m●n, which cannot be said of infants.  
But Mr. B. is eager for infant-baptism as conclusible hence, le's see what he says. First he begins with his Rhetoric, which commonly supplies the want of proof. Then he heaps ●p seven or eight inte●rogations, and takes all for granted which he demands. But to them I say.  
To the first, 1. I except against his expression which insinuates as if by denying that infants are visible Church-members they were cast out of Christ's visible Church, whereas it is one thing not to reckon them in and another to cast them out, which is but once used in Scripture 3 john 10. and this phrase serves only to provoke passion. 2. It is so far from being true that there is enough in those Texts to satisfy that Christ would have infants admitted into his visible Church, that it is rather true on the contrary that there is enough against it. To his other questions, I answer. 1. By denying that they were infants he would have received Mark 9 37. 2. whether they were infants he took in his arms, whom he would not to be kept from him, but suffered to come to him, and whom he blessed, it is uncertain. Piscator, Estius, etc. conceive they were young ones that could come of themselves being called. But be it granted they were infants, le's see what Mr. B. gathers thence.  
Hence, saith he, I argue thus. 1. If Christ would have us receive infants in his name, than we must receive them as belonging to him and his Church. But he would have us to receive them in his name▪ therefore &c. 2. If he that receiveth an infant in his name receiveth himself, than some infants are to be received in his name; and those that refuse them sin: But the former is true, therefore the later.  
Answ. 1. Both the conclusions might be granted and yet Mr. Bs. cause not gained, the former, because infants may belong to Christ and his Church, to wit, the invisible, and yet it not be proved thence they are visible Church-members; the later, because they may be received in Christ's name as by harbouring, feeding them, and yet not be admitted to baptism. 2. The minor in both Syllogisms is false: For the Text Mark 9 37. speaks not of infants in age to be received, but of believers that are humble, and low in condition as infants, particularly of his Apostles.  
3. Saith Mr. B. if Christ was much displeased with those that kept particular infants from visible access to him, than (though they could not keep them from his visible grace) I think he will be much more displeased with those that keep all the infants in the world from visible access to him in his Church now (though they cannot keep them from the invisible Church:) But the former is true: Therefore the later.  
Answ. The conclusion is granted. For what visible access to Christ in his Church now can be but by profession of faith I know not. If Mr. B. know of any that keep infants from professing faith let him threaten them, and spare not. But that which he tells us that we keep infants from visible access to Christ, because we baptise them not for want of profession of faith, is but a squib that may affright women and children, when intelligent persons laugh at it.  
4. Saith he, If Christ command us to suffer them to come, and not to forbid them, than those sin against his express Command that will not suffer them to come but do forbid them, (for it is a standing Command and speaks of infants, and not of these individuals only; and there is now no other visible admittance to Christ but by admitting into his Church and to be his Disciples) But &c. therefore etc.  
Answ. The conclusion is granted without any detriment to our cause: we forbid not any to come to Christ. There's no coming to Christ no was those little children came, that is, to come to his person for blessing, cure, or teaching by himself in the flesh. There's no coming to Christ now but by hearing his word, and believing in him, as John 6. 35. is expressed. If any forbid infants to do so let him bear the blame. But we forbid infants to be baptised till they come to Christ, that is, till they believe, and we are sure we have the Scripture for us, Matth. 28. 19 Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. 37. Ephes. 5. 4. Gal. 3. 26, 27. A thing so known that all that heretofore baptised infants did take this as unquestionable, that believers only are to be baptised, and therefore to justify infant-baptism they run into wild fancies, as that they believe in the Church, in their Parents, in their sureties, in their being baptised. But Mr. Bs. hold is in his Parenthesis, against which I except, 1. that his speech of [admitting into his Church, and to be his Disciples] supposeth that a person is first admitted into Christ's Church, and then to be his Disciple, whereas no man is rightly admitted into Christ's Church, who is not first a Disciple. 2. That he saith, This Luke 18. 16. is a standing Commandment. But this we must take on Mr. Bs. word, there's nothing in the Text, or in Mr. Bs. writing to prove it. Nor is it likely. For if so, me thinks the Apostles and the Writers of the New Testament should not have been so negligent as neither to observe this command after this time, nor to have recorded any act done by the Apostles according to that command. 3. That Chists speech is of the species of infants, and not of these individuals only. 1. Is said without proof, yea it is more probable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is as much as, Suffer these little children to come to me, and that because, as Paedobaptists urge, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, (which is the reason of Christ's injunction) is meant of those infants. 2. Were it granted not to be meant of those individuals only, yet this is all that can be thence proved, that if after that time other infants were brought to Christ in that manner to be touched by him, they should be suffered. It may be granted, that there is now no other visible admittance to Christ but by admitting into his Church. But this is enough to prove that there is now no such visible admittance to Christ as those Mark 10. 14 had, who were admitted to Christ's person to be touched by him, and not into his visible Church by baptism.  
5. Saith Mr. B. If of such be the Kingdom of God, then of such is the visible Church: but the former is true. Therefore, etc.  
Answ. The consequence is denied. Of infants in the mother's womb, as Jacob, John Baptist, etc. is the Kingdom of God, and yet the visible Church is not of such.  
But saith Mr. B. Here they have two cavils against the plain sense of the Text, 1. By [such] is meant [such for docibleness and humility] To which I answer, 1. Then it seems they are so docible and humble, that the Kingdom belongs to them. For if it belong to others, because they are such as them, than it must needs belong to others also.  
Answ. Mr. Bs. censure of the Answers I gave as cavils is as the rest of this his Dispute rash and inconsiderate. For the very words Mark 10. 15. do directly▪ lead to that sense I give, and the words of Christ Matth. 18. 3, 4. plainly expound wherein they that enter into the Kingdom of God must be like children. But to the matter of his Answer, 1. The conclusion is granted, nor was it ever denied by me, that of some infants is the Kingdom of God, and particularly of those whom Christ blessed, but yet not because of their docibleness and humility, but because of Christ's blessing. Nor do I allow Mr. Bs. consequence, that if the Kingdom did belong to others, because they are such as them, than it must needs belong to them also. For the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to others, because they are such as them in the properties common to them with other children. But the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to them as blessed by Christ, not in respect of docibleness and humility. It may be it will be said, that then little children have those properties for which of them may be the Kingdom of God. I answer, it doth not follow: but this only follows that there is such teachableness and humility in little children in other respects, which other men imitating and expressing in spiritual things, and so becoming such as they are by analogy and resemblance, in that respect belong to the Kingdom of God.  
2. Saith Mr. B. Doth Christ say, To such as them in this or that respect only, and not to them, (or saith he) not in general, To such? even to such as he took in his arms and blessed? He would not have taken up, and blessed any, for a mere Emblem of such as were blessed; he would not have taken up and blessed a Lamb or a Dove as Emblems of humility and innocency. If Christ say, [of such] is the Kingdom, I am bound to take Scripture in the most extensive sense, till there be a plain reason to necessitate me to restrain it. And therefore must understand it [to such] both of that age, or any other age. Who dare think that the word [to such] is not rather inclusive as to them than exclusive? If I love humble poor men, and my servants keep them from my house because they are poor, and if I chide them for it, and say, Suffer such to come to me, and forbid them not, for my delight is in such: who would so interpret this speech as to think I would exclude them, while I command their admittance? And that I meant other humble ones, and not these?  
Answ. Doth Mr. B. say, To such in general in respect of age only belongs the Kingdom of God. If he do say so (as his words seem to import) than it follows, that to every infant, whether of believers or unbelievers, elect or reprobate, belongs the Kingdom of God: If not, than he must say as I say, if he will speak truth, that 1. To those infants belonged the Kingdom in this respect only as they were blessed by Christ, or elect. 2. If it be applied to other infants, it can be applied to no others but such as are blessed by Christ, or elect. 3. And for other persons, that under the term [of such] are meant also persons of age like them in humility and teachableness is so manifest from v. 15. Matth. 18. 3. 4. 5. that it is nothing but cavilling in Mr. B. thus to carp at my plain and clear exposition of the words agreeable to the most approved expositors, as Beza Annot. ad Matth. 19 14. talium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] it est, horum & similium ut supra 18. Piscat: sch▪ in Matth. 19 14. talium] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quales scilicet sunt isti pueruli, nempe credentes in me & demissè de se sen●ientes▪ confer. supra, c. 18. 2. & seq. that I omit others. Neither do I, nor need I say, that Christ took them, or blessed the little ones for a mere Emblem of such as were blessed, or that he might, by like reason with mine, have taken up and blessed a Lamb or a Dove as Emblems of humility. And though Mr. Bs. rule may be questioned, whether a man be bound to take Scripture in the most extensive sense till there be a plain reason to necessitate him to restrain it, yet I gainsay it not, to understand [to such] both of that age or any other, and I allow that Christ meant those, and other humble ones, and that the term [of such] is both inclusive, including more than those particular little ones; and exclusive, of those that are not elect or blessed by Christ. And though I maintain by firm Arguments in my Postscript to Mr. Blake, sect. 20. that by the Kingdom of Heaven, as in Matth. 19 14. or of God, as Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. is meant the Kingdom of Glory, (which Mr. B. denies not) yet were it allowed Mr. B. that it is meant of the visible Church, it is not true of all infants of believers, that of them is the visible Church, for infants in the womb, as Jacob, are of the Kingdom of God, that is the invisible Church, yet not of the visible, much less of the species of infants, as Mr. B. speaks. For then every individual infant should be of the visible Church, though the Parents be unbelievers, which Mr. B. me thinks should gainsay: and therefore there is plain reason necessitating to restrain the speech of Christ, as I do.  
3. Saith Mr. B. When Mr. T. maketh their docibleness the thing intended by Christ, he forgot that he judged them uncapable of being Disciples. Why may not those be Disciples who are not only docible, but exemplary for their teachableness.  
Answ. Mr. T. tells Mr. B. he did not forget, but thinks Mr. B. did not heed. The docibleness allowed to infants was in things natural, such as are to know the Nurse, imitate gestures, to be stilled from crying when rebuked, etc. but not in things spiritual, to know Christ to be the Son of God, the Messiah, etc. which are necessary to denominate them Disciples of Christ. Yet such teachableness, and humility only negative, in not ambitiously affecting pre-eminence are sufficient for Christ to propound them as examples or similitudes rather, to direct his Disciples to imitate in another kind.  
Their second Objection, saith Mr▪ B. is that by [the Kingdom of God] is meant the Kingdom of Heaven. And I think so too: but than if the Kingdom of Heaven belong to such, much more a standing as members in the visible Church: For what is it to be a member of the Church visible, but to be one that in seeming or appearance, or to the judgement of man, doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdom of Heaven? For the Church is but one, and the difference respective as I showed before: therefore both visible and invisible, both military and triumphant are called in Scripture [the Kingdom of Heaven or of God] If a man be known (or any sort of men) to belong to the Church invisible, than they visibly belong to it; and then they are visible members 〈◊〉 the Church: so that this proof is more full for infants Church-membership, than if it had been said, they may be visibl● Church-members. For it saith much more of them which includeth that.  
Answ. Mr. B. thinks it seems with me that by the Kingdom of God is meant the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, of Glory, or the invisible Church; which if true, then of no infants but elect is the Kingdom of God, for no other are of the invisible Church, or enter into the Kingdom of Glory. And if so, not the the very species of infants but particular persons, and of these not all perhaps but a few of the infants of believers, perhaps more of the infants of unbelievers are of the Kingdom of God. But however he thinks it will follow à majori, that if of infants is the Kingdom of God, that is the invisible Church or Kingdom of Glory, then much more they have a standing in the visible Church. To which I say, 1. If this Argument were good, it could only prove those infants to be of the visible Church who are elect. 2. It can prove it only of those who in seeming or appearance, or to the judgement of men do belong to the invisible Church, or be known to belong to the invisible Church. But no infants in particular are known to belong to the invisible Church, nor is there any note whereby any infant in particular may be discerned to be of the invisible Church, which may make it seem or appear to the judgement of man, Ergo, there is no infant, no not according to Mr. Bs. own description, hath a standing in the visible Church. The minor of this Argument I expect should be denied, but it will concern them that do deny it, to show us out of Scripture, where God hath given us any sign, though but probable, to judge such an infant to be of the invisible Church of the elect, such a one not. If any say God's covenant and the Parents faith. I reply, God hath plainly declared Rom. 9 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18. that he hath not made any promise to the natural seed of Abraham, that he will be their God in respect of saving grace, much less to the natural seed of every or any believer of this time, but that notwithstanding any covenant he hath made, he takes the seed of unbelievers to be his children, and leaves the seed of believers to be hardened: and this appeared plainly in Jacob and Esau of the same Parent's believers, born together, yet one loved, the other hated, and the Gentiles called, when the Jews were rejected. We say truly the book of life is a secret which belongs to God, who hath hidden it, yea hath so ordered it by the strange variations of his calling, that his judgements should be unsearchable, and his paths past finding out, Rom. 11. 33. And therefore no man hath warrant from God's Word to frame any judgement concerning this or that infant to be of the invisible Church. But because Mr. B. says somewhat to prove his consequence, let us consider what he brings. That which he saith is, 1. The Church is but one, and the difference respective. 2. He that saith that they belong to the invisible, saith much▪ more, even that which includeth that they are visible, (if I understand his obscure expressions) Church-members. 3. That to be a member of the Church visible, is to be one that in seeming or appearance, or to the judgement of man, doth belong to the invisible Church, or the Kingdom of Heaven.  
Answ. 1. It is true, the universal Church of the elect is but one, and the difference respective, yet the difference such, that all the invisible are not of the visible Church, nor all the visible of the invisible; nor by any good consequence can it be made good, they that are of the invisible are much more of the visible, no not when they are known to be of the invisible Church. The first is manifest by instances, the spirits of the just made perfect, elect persons yet unbegotten, yet uncalled, called, but not yet showing it are of the invisible Church, but not of the visible: on the other side, secret hypocrites are of the visible, but not of the invisible. And the last Assertion is manifest, in that though it is more to be of the invisible Church than of the visible, yet that which denominates a person of the visible Church doth not agree always to a member of the invisible Church. But Mr. B. thinks the contrary to be true, and accordingly frames an explication of what it is to be a member of the Church visible, which I must not call a definition, for that is excepted against by him, Praefestin: Morator, sect. 11. as if in Logic any descriptions or explications of words or things were not usually called definitions, though imperfect. Let's examine it however. He tells us here what it is to be a visible Church-member, which because he doth elsewhere more fully express, I shall have an eye on the writings elsewhere, and so much the rather, because in this mistake of his lieth much of the fallacy of Mr. Bs. second Argument. In his Praefest. Morator, sect. 11. He saith, when he distinguisheth the Church into visible and invisible, He doth not divide the genus into the species, sed aequivocum in sua aequivocata: but I think he is mistaken in this; for then a term is equivocal, as Arist. Categ. in the beginning tells us, When the name is only common, but not the reason of being, or the definition according to that name; but the definition of the Church of Christ, even that which Mr. B. himself saith, All Divines are agreed on plain Scripture, etc. pag. 82. that it is a Society of persons separated from the world to God, or called out of the world, doth agree to the visible Church, and therefore the term [Church of Christ] is not an equivocal term, but a genus, whether univocal, or analogum. And I add, saith he, that the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is, its seeming to be the same with the mystical; or that the name is given secondarily, borrowedly from the mystical to the visible.  
Answ. I grant that the Church invisible is famosius or primarium Analogatum, that is, the invisible Church is more truly, or in a greater degree of propriety Christ's Church than the visible, yet do not think the name of the Church is given secondarily, borrowedly, from the mystical to the visible. For the original meaning of the word] [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, translated Church] being [an assembly, or meeting, or congregation of people in one place] (who are an object visible) I conceive that the term [Church first agrees to the visible Church, and secondarily to the invisible, yea in exact speech the invisible Church now are called [the Church] in order to their meeting, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or General assembly at the last day, for Heb. 12. 23. these are joined together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the General assembly and Church, or as it is termed 2 Thess. 2. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, our gathering together unto Christ, at which time the visible Church and invisible will be all one visible company, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one sheepfold one Shepherd, John 10. 16. nor do I conceive the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is its seeming to be the same with the mystical, but because by their words and actions discernible by sense they own Christ as their Lord without any consideration of their election or reprobation, sincerity or hypocrisy, Christ's approbation, or non-approbation of them. And that the seeming to other men to be of the invisible Church, is not the reason of the appellation of a visible Church or Church-member, I gather hence, because a person may seem to be of the invisible Church, yea may be known to be of the invisible Church of Gods elect, as for instance, Jacob and John Baptist in their mother's womb seemed, yea were known to be of the invisible Church of Gods elect, Luke 1. 15. yet not of the visible. For sure they were not visible Church-members, when they were not visible men. Yea there may be many visible men who may seem, with great probability upon signs of their conversion wrought on them, to be of the invisible Church, and not of the visible as a number of Indians hearing Mr. Eliat, or Mr. Mayhew▪ preach, and showing affection by tears, smiting of their breasts, lifting up their eyes to Heaven and such like actions, have seemed, from these sensible expressions, of their own, to be elect persons, such as God intended to save, and yet I think no man will say that at that time they were visible Church-members till they afterwards made profession of faith in Christ. Mr. B. goeth on thus, So that if you ask me, whether it be certain or only probable, that infants are members of the visible Church? I say, certain. Answ. If Mr. B. mean it of the sorts or as he calls it species of infants, it may easily appear by this Review that it is so far from being certain [that infants are members of the visible Church Christian] that it hath scarce a show of probability. If he mean it of the individuals, I say that according to Mr. Bs. own sayings, there is no certainty that any infant is a visible Church-member. For according to him to be a member, of the Church visible is to be one that in seeming, or appearance, or to the judgement of man, doth belong to the invisible Church, or the Kingdom of Heaven, But this belonging in seeming appearance, or to the judgement of man is uncertain, it's but a judgement of probability which any man, hath of any man's belonging to the invisible Church, Mr. B. himself plain Scripture etc. p. 73. saith, Therefore even Cardinal Cu●anus calleth the visible Church Ecclesia conjecturalis, as receiving its members on conjectural signs. Therefore there is no certainty of it that any particular infant is a visible Church-member. If it be said that the seeming is certain, though it be not certain that they belong to the invisible Church, I reply, so it may be said that if Turk's infants seem to be of the visible Church, though to a fool or frantic man, the seeming is certain. But I suppose Mr. B. means that it is certain and not only probable to considerate men to whom things are not certain of which they have not certain evidence, that infants are visible Church-members. But this (understanding it of particulars) is not certain upon any good evidence that they are members of the Church invisible, and therefore it is not certain they are visible church-members sith by Mr. Bs. description, to be a visible Church-member is to seem to be of the invisible Church, and therefore as the seeming to be of the invisible Church is, so is the visibility, both uncertain and as most probable, and so all baptising of infants is upon uncertain grounds and therefore a man cannot do it in faith he being uncertain he doth his duty: which thing is also made good elsewhere from Mr. Bs. concessions Antipaedobapt. part. 1. sect. 35. But Mr. B. thinks he hath sure grounds, and therefore he added! If you ask me, what is it that directly or immediately constituteth them such members. I answer, their visible or audible, that is their external engagement by Covenant to Christ: This (performed by the parent for them) is it on their part; supposing Christ's title to them, and the offer of himself in Covenant.  
Answ. I grant that the visible or audible that is their external engagement by Covenant to Christ doth make the persons so engaging freely, seriously, soberly, and understandingly, visible Church-members. But that the parents performing this for the child doth make the infants such directly and immediately, is an assertion not proved by Mr. B. nor is it true, nor consistent with the descriptions of the visible Church and sayings about it, which Protestants of note give, nor doth it as here and elsewhere set down by Mr. B. yield any sure ground to know certainly any particular infant to be a visible Church-member. That I may make good these in their order. Two things are supposed and one thing named as directly and immediately constituting infants visible Church-members. The things supposed are, 1. Christ's title to them, 2. The offer of himself in Covenant to them. But there is nothing but ambiguity in these expressions. For 1. it is uncertain whether he mean that these are supposed when the parent doth perform the engagement for the child that Christ hath a title to them, and that he doth offer himself in Covenant to them: or whether he mean that the parents engagement doth constitute the child a visible Church member, if Christ have a title to it and offer himself in Covenant to it. If in the former sense, than it had been enough to have mentioned the parent's act without that supposition; if in the later, than what ever the parents act be yet no man is certain of the child's visible Church-membership by it alone without the other two. 2. What title of Christ to them he means whether by election and gift of his Father to him, or by his Spirit, which he that hath not is none of his, Rom. 8. 9 or what other title he means I am uncertain. 3. What Covenant he means whether the absolute Covenant of grace belonging to the elect, or the conditional Covenant to all upon condition of faith, or the national Covenant made to Abraham, and the people of Israel, o●▪ what other besides I cannot tell how to determine. 4. How the Covenant is offered except by Preaching to them or by some secret work of the Spirit I cannot imagine. 5. It is somewhat uncertain whether the external engagement that may make the infant a visible Church-member must not be of a parent that is a real and sincere believer, or whether a dogmatical faith serves turn. Sure in his plain Scrip. etc. chap. 29. part. 1. He makes a real faith necessary in the parent to that sanctification without which the child is not holy, that is a visible Church-member. 6. Whether he make the parent's engagement to constitute immediately infants born or unborn also visible Church-members is uncertain. Le's see what we can gather elsewhere I cannot for present find a place where he more fully expresseth himself than in his plain scrip. etc. pag. 336. of the first edition, whereas saith he, some stick at it that I make the condition of the infants Church-membership and justification to be wholly without him in the faith of the parent; I answer them. 1. That it is evident in all the Scripture that God putteth a very great difference between the children of the faithful and other men's. Which I grant, but withal that this is true only of the sincerely faithful and not only inexternal profession, and yet not so as to count any a visible Church-member in the Christian Church for the parent's faith. 2. Saith he, that he maketh such promises to them, and giveth them such privileges as I have expressed in this Book. But if he mean by the promises those of the Covenant of grace, I say, they are made only to elect and true believers, if other promises of temporal blessings they are not made to the children of mere seeming believers but true believers, nor do they at all reach to visible Church-membership or Justification of children. These privileges are no where promised to the children of believing Christians though sincere merely because of their parent's faith. And therefore that which he adds. 3. That this is to them as they are the children of the people who believe, is false, And when he saith. 4. And that he never requireth any condition inherent in the infant, that I find in Scripture, yet others conceive an inherent condition required in an infant Heb. 12. 14. and elsewhere. But he adds, And doth not this plainly tell us, that the parents faith is the condition? if the parent be a believer, the child is entered the Covenant, the father entering it for him, and his Deut. 29. If the parent be not a believer, the child is left out: And what other condition can be imagined?  
Answ. If the Scripture had required no inherent condition in the infant, yet it had not followed that the parents faith is the condition of the infants Church-membership and justification. For there are other ways, to wit, their election, Christ's death for them, which are a vouched as sufficient to their justification without the consideration either of any inherent condition in the infant, or the parent's faith. Nor is it true, that if the parent be a believer the child is entered the Covenant, the Father entering it for him and his, and that if the parent be not a believer, the child is left out. For if it be meant of the Covenant of grace it is most false, that if the parent be a believer the child is entered the Covenant. Esau was the child of Isaac a believer, Ishmael of Abraham, yet neither entered into the Covenant of grace, neither justified by the parent's faith? if it were so then they were entered into the Covenant of grace and justified, and after outed, which infers falling from grace. Not is there any such Covenant of visible Church-membership which if the parent be a believer the child i● entered in. Nor is there a word Deut. 29. to prove it. There is nothing there set down but a narration of Moses his renewing the Covenant with the children of Israel in the Land of Moab, beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. It is true it is said v. 10, 11, 12, 13. They stood all before the Lord, the Commandors and the men, than the little ones, wives, strangers, hewers of wood drawers of water, that they might enter into Covenant, but that, 1. The parents peculiarly as parents did enter into Covenant for their children appears not: but rather that the entering of the Covenant was by the Rulers in behalf of the subject, as the league with the Gibeonites was by the Princes in behalf of Israel, whereto they were bound Josh. 9 15, 19 nor is there any consideration of a Father entering into Covenant for his child more than of a Husbands entering into covenant for his wife, or a Masters entering into Covenant for his servant, and therefore if this fact were good to prove, if the parent be a believer the child is entered the Covenant, the Father entering for him and his: it is good to prove that if the Husband, or Master be a believer, the wife, and servant are entered into Covenant, the Husband and Master entering it for them and theirs, and so wives, and servants shall be visible Church-members, as well as infants of believers, by the faith of Husbands and Masters. 2. If the parent's faith procure this privilege for the child then either because it is his child, and then it procures it for the child while it is his child though the child be at years and an infidel, for than it is his child, or else upon condition the child agree to it, but then the privilege belongs not to infants, and there is an inherent condition required, to wit, the child's consent besides the parent's faith: if it be said that it procures it to the child while a● infant, but not when it comes to years how can this be true that the parents faith or covenanting should immediately and directly constitute them visible Church-members when infants because they are their children, and the covenant is made with them and their children (as they say) and yet they not visible Church-members while they are children? surely, the immediate cause continuing, the effect continues, and therefore if the parent's faith with the covenant) make the child in infancy a visible Church-member it must also make it a visible Church-member at years though an infidel. 3. Whereas it is supposed by Mr. B. that the parents as believers entered the covenant Deut. 29. it rather appears by Moses his preface v. 2, 3, 4. that▪ Moses did therefore draw them into this solemn Covenant, because they were to that day unbelievers, 4. It is false, that this entering into covenant did make them Church-members. For. 1. The end of it was to prevent them from backsliding v. 18. to Idolatry, and to prevent Gods forsaking them thereupon, v. 13. 2. They were Church-members before both by God's special separating of the whole nation to be his people, and the solemn Covenant at mount Horeb, and so were members of that Church as part of that nation. 3. If this entering into covenant made them there Church-members visible than it made their posterity also then visible Church-members, for with them also was that covenant made, v. 14▪ 15. and so persons should be made visible Church-members afore they are born. 5. If it were true, that that covenanting made them visible, Church-members of that Church, yet it advantageth no whit to prove infants now visible members of the Christian Church, which is not national as that was, nor gathered by the chief Magistrate as that was, nor enjoined such a national Covenant as that, but consisting of particular believers of all nations, gathered by the Preaching of the Gospel and voluntary personal covenanting for themselves only testified by their being baptised into Christ. If any ask whether a national covenant or a covenant of parents for children be now allowable? I answer, I deny not but such a national or parental covenant may be allowed, and in some cases convenient, yet I say that it makes not all the subjects and children Church-members, nor binds them without their consent any farther than the matter of the covenant itself binds. As for that which Mr. B. saith, if the parent be not a believer the child is left out, it is false, if we understand it in respect of Church-membership of children at years they may be in the Church visible though their parents were unbelievers and left out of the Church though believers; if of justification, it is false both of infants and children of years. And it is utterly untrue that in the Christian Church children are made visible Church-members by parents faith, or left out because of their unbelief. For, 1. There is no word of Scripture that saith so. The three Texts Acts 2. 39 Rom. 11. 16▪ 17. etc. 1 Cor. 7. 14. are fully discussed already in the first part of this review, and what Mr. Blake hath replied shall be examined (God willing) in that which follows. 2. No one passage of the New Testament doth show that any infant was reckoned for a visible Church-member of the Christian Church in the New Testament, but many show they were not. 3. If the infant children of the faithful had been accounted in the Apostles times visible members of the Christian Church there had been some thing done by the Apostles and other holy men to have preserved their right, but no practice of baptism on them, nor any other act can be produced that the Apostles or other holy men did to preserve such a right, Ergo. 4. The Covenant of the Gospel is with particular persons made believers out of all nations, their gathering by Preaching the Gospel to them, which evidently show that God intended to take in persons into the Christian Church upon their own faith, and not in a national way as he did the Church of the Jews. 5. The Texts (besides the three forenamed) brought by the Assembly Confess. of faith, ch. 25. art. 2. to wit, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. Gen. 3. 15. Gen. 17. 7. and the Texts brought by Mr. B. (not here examined) to wit, Matth. 23. 37, 38, 39 Revel. 11. 15. Heb. 8. 6. & 7. 22. Rom. 4. 11. Exod 20. 6. josh. 7. 25, 26. Deut 13. 12, 13, 14. Psal. 37. 26. Num. 31. 17. Dan. 6. 24. Deut. 20. 16, 17. Deut. 28. 4, 18, 32, 41. Mal. 2. 15▪ are so palpably impertinent to prove the visible Church-membership of infants now, that I am in a demur with myself, whether it be fit for me to bestow any more pains in showing the impertinency of them. 6. The speeches of Protestants of note do make the persons own profession that sign whereby they are judged, and from whence they are termed of the visible Church. Synops. Profess. Leydens'. Disp. 40. sect. 32. Ecclesia visibilis appellatur, non tam quia homines ipsi visibiles sunt, sed quia ipsorum ordo, professio & communio sensibus exponuntur. Dr. Prideaux Lect. 9 sect. 3. visibilis dicitur Ecclesia ratione communionis sensibilis membrorum inter se. Mr. Marshal himself in the Sermon at the Spi●●le, April 1652. styled by Mr. B. that late excellent, honest solid Sermon for unity, pag. 15. hath these words. Secondly, that part of the Church which is upon the earth in regard that the very life and being of it and of all the members of it lie in internal grace, which cannot be seen, in that respect the Church of Christ is called an invisible Church▪ but now as the same Church and members doth make a profession of their faith and obedience sensibly to the eyes and ears of others in that respect it is called a visible Church; but the visible is not one Church and the invisible another Church, but merely the same Church under several denominations, the one from their constituting graces, the other from the external profession of them.  
There was lately a printed sheet brought to my hands entitled, The profession of the Church, etc. which is owned by Mr. Richard Baxter in his Christian concord, in the Preface of which are these words. And because Ministers cannot well know who are members of the Churches, and who not, and so must be ignorant of the extent of their charges and duties without an expression of their people's consent. Hence I argue, 1. If Ministers cannot know who are members of the Churches and who not without an expression of their people's consent, than they cannot know infants to be members of the Churches, who express no consent. 2. Then the parents faith upon which they were baptised without their own consent expressed doth not make them visible Church-members, for if it did they might know them by their memory and registers that they were Church-members. 3. Then they are not rightly baptised by him without their consent. 4. Then it is not true which Mr. B. writeth plain Scripture etc. pag. 280. And do you not see it fulfilled before your eyes? Are not Bewdley, Kederminster (meaning all the people ●lder and younger) &c. and England▪ (till of lat●) as fully Christ's Disciples and so Church-members, a● the Jews were in Covenant with God and so Church-members? which if true Mr. B. may know who at Kederminster are Church-members without their expressed consent, even all the inhabitants, and that his charge is extended to all. 5. Then the gift of visible Church-membership is repealed ●ith in the Common wealth of Israel all the posterity of Israel were Church-members. 6. By his new course of distinguishing the professing and subscribing parioshi●ers of Kederminster as Church-members from the rest as not his Church-members, he gathers a Church out of a Church and separates some Disciples from others, and doth himself make a like division in his Church (though not in so justifiable a way as he chargeth so fiercely on me and others. Which I conceive to be little less than a retractation of his own tenet about infants vis●●e Church-membership, and clearing of his opposites. Lastly, by Mr. Bs. determinations there is no certain way to know a particular infant to be a visible Church-member. For in his determinations there is no resolution, nor according to his grounds do I think can be given a certain resolution whether the parent be such a one to whom the Covenant is, whether he have that faith which may entitle his child to visible Church-membership, whether the immediate parent's engagement be necessary or a remote parent's engagement be sufficient, whether the engagement must be open in the face of the Congregation, or it be sufficient that it be done privately, when it must be, at Baptism, or at some other time, whether it need not be as o●● as he hath children to be admitted visible Church-members, whether the baptizer may account him a visible Church-member, whose parents are dead, absent, unable to come, or to express their engagement and so baptise him, which with many other doubt● would ●●●a●d the course of Ministers and people in their profane infant sprinkling, if they did not with a blind obedience rest on Mr. Bs. unproved dictates, but searched after the truth considerately and impartially. But I pass on.  
6. Saith Mr. B. hence I further argue thus: I● Christ were much displeased with his Disciples for keeping infants from him, than he took it as a part of their revealed duty that they should not forbid them: But the former is true, therefore the later. Whence I further argue: if it were the Disciples known or revealed duty not to forbid them to come to Christ▪ then they must needs take it also for a revealed truth that infants in specie (and not those numerical only) should not be forbidden to come, (for they could not know that those individuals should be admitted but by knowing that infants should be admitted) But &c.  
Answ. The conclusion of the former argument may be granted, and yet the sequel of the later argument denied. For they might know it either by some particular sign from Christ or some particular instinct of the Spirit, that it was their duty to permit those infants to come to Christ, and yet not permit any more.  
But saith Mr. B. Yea further. 7. If it were the Disciples revealed duty to admit infants to come to Christ for this very reason, because of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, than it was no secret but a revealed truth, that of such was the Kingdom of Heaven: But the former is true. For Christ would not be angry so much with them for not knowing that which was never revealed, on for not admitting them when they had no means to know them to have right of admittance. The consequence is evident the ●●for●, and so 〈◊〉 follow 〈◊〉 that if it were then a revealed truth, that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; then they were visible members of the Church. For that sort of men that are known to belong to Heaven (though it be not known of the individuals) do visibly belong to the Church; (as I think none dare deny.)  
Answ. 1. According to their exposition who understand [of such] only those that are like little children in affection, and disposition, and not of those particular little children then brought, much more according to their exposition who by [of such] understand these individual infants and no other, they might know those infants were to be admitted, and yet have no knowledge of an universal rule for admitting● other infants at other times. 2. But be it granted that not only of those individuals, but also of other infants is the Kingdom of Heaven, yet I deny they were visible Church-members▪ And for his proof, I dare deny that which he fond thinks ●●n● dare deny, that they that are known to belong to Heaven 〈◊〉 visibly belong to the Church. Abraham and 〈◊〉 and J●●●● are known to belong to Heaven, yet I do not conceive do visibly belong to the Church. And the same is true of all the spirits of the Just▪ made perfect, of elect infants ●●born, J●●●s unceiled etc. I know none ●●iung to the visible Church but such as sensibly have professed faith in Christ. Am●s: Med. Th. l. 1. ●. ●1. sect. 24, 25, 26, 27, 〈◊〉 militant visibilis ●●su sc. vel sensu externo. 〈◊〉 prae●ect. 〈◊〉 Eccl. pag. 246▪ Ecclesia aliquando denominatur, ab●iis q●● 〈◊〉 quaeque▪ ●n sensum incurrunt Piscat ●●●or. ●o●▪ 19 10. visi●il● appellatur quat●ru●●er●●s h●bet no●●● in oculo● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mr. B. himself Praefest in▪ Morator, sect. 11. By [visible] I m●an th●● which is discernible by the understanding, median●● sensu. Therefore that sort of men that are known to belong to Heaven do not visibly belong to the Church, unless▪ they are known so b● some sensible expression, yea of their own▪ which is not true of infants, much less o● the sort of them, or any sort of being, no sort of beings being visible, but only singula●s.  
Mr. B. goes on thus, 8. But the chief evidence in the Text lieth here; if because that of such is the Kingdom; therefore it was the Disciples sin to keep them back; them it must needs be the very species of infants that Christ means, are of the Kingdom, (and not only the aged humble) but therefore it was the Disciples sin to keep them back, (and their duty to admit them, or else Christ would not have been much displeased with them) because that of such is the Kingdom; therefore it must needs be infants themselves that are of the Kingdom. The reason of the consequence lieth here; It would be no sin 〈◊〉 the Disciples to keep away from Christ those that were 〈◊〉 m●er Emblems of the saved. For else it would have been the Disciples sin to have forbidden all the Sheep or Doves in the country to have been brought to Christ to l●y han●s on. This is plain and convincing to me.  
Answ. The conclusion i● granted, that it was the infants, if they were infants that were brought to Christ themselves, and not only the aged humble resembled by them, that are of the Kingdom Mr. B. needed not to have cast away so much pains in ●r●ving it against me, who do in my Postscript sect▪ 〈◊〉 say, I stick not to that Exposition of not including those infants. But I think Mr. B. would prove, that not only Christ said of those infants, but of the very species of infants is the Kingdom of God▪ Which speech of his hath in it sundry absurdities. 1. He seems to make infants a distinct species from the aged: whereas in logic [〈◊〉, mankind] is species i● a, the lowest k●●●● in the Predicament of substance; and it is a Rule in that Art▪ ●ha● Se● and Age 〈◊〉 v●riant speciem, do not vary the kind. 2▪ When he saith, the very species are of the Kingdom, sith he grants, that by the Kingdom is meant the invisible Church▪ his words s●●m to 〈◊〉▪ that all infants are of the invisible Church. For the very species comprehend all the individuals, and then he must hold● all infants are elect▪ (for only the elect are of the invisible Church) and if after they be reprobate than election is rev●cable, and the elect may not be saved. But if he mea● it odely of some of that sort, and particularly all the infants of believers neither is that t●●●, sith the contrary is manifest in Esau. But if he mean no more than this, that of some elect infants, yea and of others than those particular infants is the Kingdom of God, I should not stick to grant it, nor need Mr. B. thus trouble himself to prove it, though I think his consequence is not good. For it might be their sin to keep back those infants from Christ, if Christ did by any sign discover his mind to have them brought, though it were not to declare their title, or any other infant's title to the Kingdom of Heaven, but only to use them as Emblems. Nor is Mr. Bs. reason forcible, that then it might have been their sin to have forbidden Sheep and Doves to be brought to Christ. For it may be granted, that this might have been their sin, if Christ had in like manner declared his mind by any sign concerning such Sheep, that they should be brought to him. Mr. Bs. arguing runs upon this supposition, that the Apostles might know it was their duty at all times to permit infants to come to Christ from a general truth, that of all infants (at least of believers) is the Kingdom of God, (which he neither proves, nor can prove) whereas the Apostles fault might be in not heeding some particular thing he had then by some words or other sign made known of those infants then brought, or not considering Christ's Office, and constant practice of doing good to all, specially to infirm and diseased persons, such as those infants might be, and as some conceive were, and accordingly brought to be cured by Christ. But Mr. B. is not yet come to that he would have.  
9 Saith he, Those that Christ took in his arms, laid his hands on, and blessed, were visible members of his Church, and not mere resemblances of such: but some infants Christ took in his arms, laid his hands on, and blessed: therefore some infants were members of the visible Church, (and consequently Christ hath not repealed the Church-membership of infants) and they were not mere resemblances of such. For would Christ have blessed so a Sheep or Dove? or are they blessed of Christ, and yet not so much as visible members of his Church? Sure there are none visibly blest without the visible Church. And it was not these only; for I have proved, it was the Disciples duty to admit others to the like blessing.  
Answ. I do not say, that the infants Christ took in his arms were mere resemblances of visible Church-members, and therefore Mr. B. in seeking to prove it still follows a false sent, proving what is not denied. But the other part of the conclusion is denied by me [to wit, that some infants were members of the visible Church] and that part of the major, [those that Christ took in his arms, laid his hands on, and blessed, were visible members of his Church] and for his proof, that [none are visibly blest without the visible Church] I deny it, nor doth he bring any thing to prove it but his own words, sure it is so. But I count it false. For Jacob visibly blessed Pharaoh, Gen. 47. 10. and yet Pharaoh was not of the visible Church. When Christ did raise Jairus daughter, heal the daughter of the Syrophoenician, I conceive they had a visible blessing, and yet were not of the visible Church. And if it were the Disciples duty to admit others to the like blessing, yet there is neither in the Text nor elsewhere a word to prove, it was their duty to admit them to the like blessing by any other than Christ himself, and his own laying hands on them. Or if it were imagined, that Christ intended this should be a Rule to the Disciples for their conferring a like blessing on infants, yet that it must be a Rule to successors, and if to successors, to all Ministers to do it, or that they must do it by baptism, and not rather as the Bishops did it in Confirmation, by laying on of hands, hath not the least shadow of proof; but rather the contrary is more likely. And accordingly Jancerus, & Concilium Senonense, as Chamier tom. 4. Panstr. Cath. lib. 4. cap. 9 sect. 3. the composers of the Interim, as Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 16. lib. 2. cap. 68 pag. 451. relate, gathered the institution of Confirmation from thence.  
But Mr. B. adds, And it is yet more considerable, that all the three former Evangelists make full mention of these passages of Christ; and therefore it is evident that they were not taken for small circumstantials, but Doctrines of moment for the Church's information. They are recorded also in Matth. 18. 2, 3, 4, etc. Matth. 19 13, 14. Luke 9 47. Luke 18. 16, 17. I desire any tender conscienced Christian, that is in doubt whether infants should be admitted members of the visible Church, and would fain know what is the pleasure of Christ in this thing, to read over the Texts impartially, and considerately, and then bethink himself, whether it be more likely that it will please Christ better to bring or solemnly admit infants into the Church, or to shut them out; and whether these words of Christ so plain and earnest will not be a better plea at Judgement for our admitting infants, than any that ever the Anabaptists brought will be to them for refusing them.  
Answ. Mr. B. wanting proof falls here to his Rhetoric, which elsewhere he falsely chargeth on me as my fault, but is indeed the chief part of his Book, and prevails much with the most of Readers. But it is the property of childish persons to be affrighted with such mormo's. I grant that the passages of Christ were by the Evangelists taken not for small circumstantials, but Doctrines of moment for the Church's information: yet not teaching infants visible Church-membership and baptism. What ever Christian I be, I have read over the Texts impartially, and considerately as I think this and other writings show, and I do declare in the presence of God that these passages do confirm me in this truth, that it is not the will of Christ that infants should be baptised, because he neither baptised, nor appointed these to be baptised, and that the words of Christ here are so impertinent that they are more likely to be a plea against infant baptizers who on such weak conjectures go against the plain institution of Christ Matth. 28. 19 Mark 16. 15. 16. and the constant use of the Apostles and first ages. And I do further declare that on my most serious studies I do resolve notwithstanding the evasions they bring, that the plea they make hence for infant baptism, and that which is alleged of their being Disciples, visible Church-members, in the Covenant, doth as well tie them to admit them to the Lords supper as to baptism, and that in refusing to admit them to baptism we have as good a plea and better at Judgement than they have in refusing to admit them to the Lords Supper. Nor is it to me any other than a sad sign either of injudiciousness or slothfulness in searching after the truth, or prejudice, or adhering to men's sayings out of reverence of their persons, or faction or some such like evil quality both in Ministers and people even those of tender consciences that they still retain so gross an abuse as infant baptism is upon such weak reasons as they do, and neglect yea and oppose the baptism of believers so manifestly Commanded by Christ and practised by his Apostles. But I must follow Mr. B.  
But what saith Mr. T. against this? why. 1. He saith, it was some extraordinary blessing to them that Christ intended Apol. p. 149. Answ. 1. it was a discovery of their title to the Kingdom of Heaven. It was such an extraordinary blessing that included the ordinary. If extraordinary blessing the● much more ordinary. 2 It was such as the Disciples should have known that these should be admitted to, or else Christ would not have been displeased.  
Answ. It is true I give this reason why I conceive that [of such] included those infants as conceiving from the circumstances of the thing that Christ intended some extraordinary blessing to them, and declaration concerning them. And in my Examen pag. 147. I say, Christ's action in this business is proper to him as the great Prophet of the Church and extraordinary, and therefore yields no ground for an ordinary rule of baptising infants by the ordinary Ministry, no more than Christ's whipping buyers out of the Temple, though related by the four Evangelists, for an ordinary practice answerable thereto. Now this is not denied by Mr. B. But he says, it was such an extraordinary blessing as included the ordinary: if extraordinary blessing, then much more ordinary. But 1. these things are said without proof. 2. Their falsehood is showed, and the rest is answered before.  
He adds, But Mr. T. saith, Apol. pag. 151. That [the reason of Christ's anger was their hindering him in his design, not the knowledge they had of their present visible Title; this is but a dream.] To which I answer, 1. Mr. T. is as bold to speak of Christ's thoughts without Book, and to search the Searcher of hearts, as if he were resolved to make Christ's meaning be what he would have it. 2. What Design was it that Christ had in hand? Was it any other than the discovery of his mercy to the species of infants, and to those among others? and a presenting them as a Pattern to his followers, and to teach his Church humility and renovation, and to leave them an assurance against Anabaptists, that it is his pleasure, that infants should not be kept from him.  
Answ. 1. There was no such boldness in my speech as Mr. B. rashly, and like a calumniator chargeth me with, but such as must be granted true, if we conceive Christ to have acted as a rational being that propounds an end or design in his actings. 2. The last of the designs Mr. B. mentions, assuring that it is his pleasure that infants should not be kept from him; meaning by not baptising them, is his figment. His design I knew without searching Christ's heart immediately by reading his facts, which show his ends to be 1. the blessing those infants. 2. Teaching Doctrine concerning such. 3. Showing himself thereby the great Prophet of his Church, and bestower of blessings.  
3. Saith Mr. B. How did the Disciples hinder Christ's design? Not by hindering him immediately, but by rebuking those that brought the infants. 4. If this were no fault in them, why should Christ be displeased, and much displeased at it? And how could it be their fault to hinder people from bringing infants to Christ, if they might not know that they ought to be admitted? And could they know of Christ's private intents and designs? Were there but this one consideration hence to be urged, I dared challenge Mr. T. to answer (as far as modesty would permit a challenge) that is, if Christ had intended only that humility or docibleness should be commended from these infants as an Emblem to his Disciples, than it could be none of their fault to forbid bringing of them to Christ; for how could they know what use Christ would make of them? or by what Emblem he would teach them? or when he would do it? All the creatures in the world may be Emblems of some good; and must they therefore permit the bringing of all to Christ? Christ had not told them his design before hand to teach them by these Emblems; and when they knew his mind they desisted.  
Answ. They might know Prophets did bless persons even little ones, they knew that Matth. 18. 2. Christ had before familiarly used a little child, and so was not averse from them, they knew or might know that Christ was the great Prophet that was to come into the world, that he made it his work to do good, that he did permit all sorts of persons that came for healing or other blessings to come to him, and therefore it was their fault to hinder Christ in this design, and to hinder any that came to him for his blessing. I neither say that his design was only to teach humility by these as an Emblem, nor that they knew or might know what use Christ would make of these infants. Mr. Bs. challenge is upon a mistake, as if I affirmed, that Christ would have those infants brought only to teach humility by them, when the very words he citys are to the contrary. I am weary with answering such mere cavils of a man, who if he were not set on wrangling, might by heeding my words answer himself.  
5. Saith he, If it had been only for the present design, than Christ would have spoke but of those individual infants, and have said, Suffer those now to come: But it appears from the Text, 1. that it was not those individuals more than others that the Disciples were offended at, or disliked should be brought; but the species, or those infants because infants. 2. And that Christ doth not only speak against their hindering those individuals, but the species, and lays them down a rule and command for the future as well as for the present that they should suffer little children to come to him, and not forbid them.  
Answ. It is in all the Evangelists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which notes the children then brought, and no other, though I deny not but this fact and the reason thereof were a rule for the future as well as for the present, yet not either for the Apostles or any Successors to lay hands on them, or baptise them; but for them, if any more infants were thus brought to Christ's person, that his own hands might be laid on them, that they should permit it.  
6. Saith Mr. B. And he doth not command this upon the reason of any private design, but because of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.  
Answ. Mr. B. still mistakes me, as if I had said [private design] that is a design proper to those infants only; whereas my words were [present design] which I show before what it was, and thereby it may be easily conceived I meant such a design as tended to show his Office, readiness to do good, and interest that infants and such as were like them might have to the Kingdom of Heaven.  
7. Saith he, And where Mr. T. saith, It was not from any knowledge they had of their present visible title; I answer, Who said it was? Did Mr. Blake? No; but it was a thing the Disciples ought to have known, that infants are welcome to Christ, and that of such is the Kingdom, and therefore because of such is his Kingdom, they should not be kept from him? God will not be much displeased with men for being ignorant of that which they ought not to know.  
Answ. Mr. Blake in his Answer to my letter had said pag. 90. They (the infants brought to Christ) had a present visible title such as the Apostles ought to have known, and this he gives as the reason why Christ was so much displeased with the Disciples forbidding them to be brought. To which my words are rightly opposed. Nor is any thing put on Mr. Blake But his own words. If Mr. B. will not say that Christ's anger was from any knowledge the Apostles had of the infants present visible title, than he must acknowledge the Apostles had no knowledge of the visible Church-membership of infants then, or visible title to one Church privilege which shows that in Christ's Church no infants were then counted visible Church members, else these could not but know it. Nor is there any thing in the Text that shows that Christ was angry with them for not knowing this, nor did this teaching inform them in this, nor did Christ admit them as Mr. Blake saith, to a Church privilege, nor if it were true that the blessing were a Church privilege common to all Church-members, yet infants were as capable of baptism as of it, sith the institution of baptism is otherwise. To me it is a strong presumption that the Apostles understood not Christ's words and deeds as importing Church privilege conferred on those infants which did infer a title to baptism, as Mr. Blake imagines, in that the Apostles did not baptise them, which is confessed by some paedobaptists, and appears both in that no such thing is enjoined them by Christ, or related as done by them, and what was done to them is related as done by Christ himself who did not baptise John 4. 2. and it is said Matth. 19 15. when he had put his hands on them he departed thence, and with him his Disciples, as appears by the speeches of them upon occasion of the young man's conference with Christ, which presently followed. Now if the Apostles knew not such baptizability of infants there is no likelihood that Christ's words or blessing proved such baptizability. If they did know it, and yet did them not right, no doubt Christ would have been more angry for their not baptising them, then for rebuking those that brought them. And whereas Mr. B. blesseth Christ for his discovery concerning infants as he construes it, I bless God that hath showed me the frivolousnes of Mr. Bs. arguings, and I say of such as are led away with such trifling reasons, as the Apostles said 1 Cor 14. 38. If any man be ignorant let him be ignorant. As for his observation in the close of the chapter it's like the rest. For Christ's calling his Disciples little children and the Apostles so calling Christians shows love and tenderness, but not that infants are visible Church-members, no more than Christ's calling the same his Lambs and sheep, John 21. 15, 16, etc. shows that sheep and Lambs are visible Church-members. Thus much for answer of that chapter of M. B.   

SECT. XVIII.  
The 41. Chapter of Mr. Blakes Vindic. Foed. about Christ's speech of little children, Matth. 19 14. is answered, and my sayings in my Postscript vindicated.  
MR. Blake since the publishing of my Postscript to my Apology in reply to his Answer to my letter in his Book entitled Vindic. foed. c. 41, 43. sect. 1. hath published somewhat that is to be further examined. He saith, They looked upon Christ (as it seems) as a great Prophet highly in favour with God, and such were wont to bless in the name of God, and their blessing was highly prized, and hands were used to be imposed on persons in blessing, Gen. 48. 14. which I allow. He sets down six positions, the first of which having confirmed, he speaks thus of me. Mr. T. brought his reasons against this, to have nipped all in the bud, but those he hath quit, and is brought to confess that he contradicted himself in them, and hath not a word to excuse his false quotation out of Mark, concerning scandalising, only excusing himself that he delivered himself doubtfully in them. Apol. 149.  
Answ. It is true I brought in my Examen p. 146. Piscator's reasons in his Obseru. 11. on Matth. 19 14. to prove the little children Matth. 19 13. 14. not to have been infants, but boys who were capable of instruction, which it is true I say in my Apol p. 149. I d●d not stick to, nor need I sith at first I said Examen pag. 145. only, It is doubtful whether these were infants or no. Nor is it truly said by Mr. Bl. that I excused myself, as if I had been in a fault. For it is true which I alleged, not only Piscator conceiving they were not infants, but Estius also Annot. ad Marc. 10. 13. saying it is not certain that they were infants which could neither speak nor g●. Which very doubtfulness doth weaken the argument thence for infant baptism, yet I had no reason to stick to that, there being other answers sufficient besides. Not is it true which he saith, that I am brought to confess I contradicted myself in the reasons brought, and that they were my reasons, for I expressly said they were Piscator's reasons, and therefore though Piscator should contradict my exposition of Matth. 18. 5. in those reasons I need not own it, much less do I confess that I contradict myself in them, as Mr. Blake falsely chargeth me as one that cares not what he prints so he may fully me with a black coal. Nor was any false quotation out of Mark used by me, I only brought Piscator's words & de quali non scandalizando ibidem monet, which if he misapplied to infants, and thereby crossed my interpretation of Matth. 18. 5, 6. he opposed himself, though I think neither Piscator nor myself, were guilty of any self-contradiction, but Mr. Bl. of mistake and calumny. Mr. Bl. saith he knows not that any in print hath maintained it that little children brought to Christ were diseased so as to have need of cure. But there is now a Book in folio written by Mr. Samuel. Fisher entitled Baby baptism mere babism, in which p. 134: are these words, that he should touch them, and put his hands on them and pray, no question 'twas in order to healing, for 'twas at a time when he healed many others, if you compare this passage as 'tis in Matth. 19 with the first and second verses of the chapter: yea v. 15. 'tis plainly expressed what he did, i. e. he laid his hands upon them and departed thence; besides Luke says, they brought little children to him also that he should touch them: which [also] shows that others were brought too, as sick folks commonly were, because virtue went out of him, so that as many as touched him were made perfectly whole. Nor do I think Mr. Blakes reasons sufficient to countervail the other: For though the Disciples well knew that it was usual with Christ to cure those that laboured under infirmities of all ages, yet they sometimes showed their unwillingness to have persons trouble Christ about diseased persons as Matth. 15. 23. Luke 10. 39 and whereas Mr. Bl. saith, the Evangelist would never have concealed this reason and mentioned another, if he mean it of the reason why the Disciples rebuked the bringers of the little children, the truth is the Evangelists mention no reason at all of the Disciples rebuke, if he mean it of the reason why Christ would have them brought, such reason stands well with this, that the children were diseased, brought to Christ to be cured, and cured by Christ.  
I had said, there is no certainty only conjecture that they were the children of believers, Mr. Bl. sets down his third position thus, These were infants of such parents that were in Covenant with God, which he proves Matth. 19 1. & 15. 24, 26. Rom. 15. 8. This farther appears by that which they requested for these infants: This Mr. T. seems to yield; they came (saith he) to Christ upon the conceit that he was a Prophet, and so they might bring children to him to be blessed; And farther says, if this reason prove any thing, it is that the children's parents were Jews, Apol. pag. 150. which is all that we contend for; the Jews as yet were in Covenant.  
Answ. 1. The reasons of Mr. Bl. some of them prove rather the bringers to be Jews than the parents. 2. The proving the parents to be Jews (if any do prove it) is not a proof that they were believers, for there were a great part, if not the greatest part by much of the Jews unbelievers, John 12. 37, 38. And what he says, The Jews as yet were in Covenant, if he mean it of all the Jews, and of the covenant of grace in Christ it is palpably false, contradictory to the Apostles determination Rom. 9 7, 8. where it is expressly resolved that all the natural children of Abraham and Israel were not at any time children of the promise: If he mean it of any other covenant, or promise of God, or of some of the Jews, it would nothing avail him for his purpose, though his Proposition were granted him.  
His fourth Proposition is thus expressed, These infants themselves were in covenant, and stood in relation to Christ, bearing his name, and being of his people; and were not as Heathens in their present state without Christ, aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise. This is evident by their free admission by Christ, and the reason by him given. When this was pressed upon Mr. T. in solemn disputation, he took time to consider, and after more than two years in his Examen, we have an answer which shame will not suffer him to own. But in his Apology doth disclaim, yet not convinced by Mr. M. myself, or any other: it is enough with me, if the truth is confessed; if the truth may have the honour, I am satisfied.  
Answ. Were I nor sufficiently acquainted with Mr. Bls. charges without cause, I should be jealous of myself that there is some thing done by me which might occasion this imputation. What was pressed on me in the disputation in London, Anno 1643. and what time or for what reason I took time to answer after 10. years elapsed, I cannot trust in my memory to inform me. What answer I gave in my Examen which in my Apology I disclaim, and shame will not now suffer me to own, concerning this proposition of Mr. Bl. and its proof, it is such a riddle to me that I cannot yet tell how to understand it, except I have Mr. Bls. heifer to plough with. Sure I am, this kind of crimination which Mr. Bl. useth, is very unsuitable to a clear and solid disputant thus by dark flirts, and quips to abuse me; But I think it best to slight his charge, presuming intelligent men will be little moved with it. As for his position, the terms being ambiguous, and especially the term [in covenant] being used (as I often complain) in such variety of senses or rather sometimes nonsense by Paedobaptists, that it seems to be used by them to elude rather than to inform, it may be either granted or denied as the terms are explained, and if this did occasion me to take time to answer it I did therein prudently, and if after two or ten years my answers be various they are so upon due considerations; For present I grant, those infants (if they were infants) mentioned Matth. 19 14. were in the covenant of saving grace, stood in relation to Christ as chosen in him, and in that respect bore his name as his brothers, were of his invisible people, not as heathens in their present state without Christ being given to him, nor aliens from the Commonwealth of the Israel of God the invisible Church of the elect, nor strangers from the covenant of promise, that is, the covenant of promise commensurate with election of grace, and this I grant to be evident of those particular persons if not by their free admission to Christ, yet by the reason by him given, it being supposed that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of such] is meant of them as well as of those that were like them in humility. But if the position be understood of being in covenant either by their own act of covenanting, or that which is called by Paedobaptists in their nonsense or proper gibberish the outward covenant, or that it be meant that they stood in relation to Christ as visible members of the Christian church in their present state while they were infants, I deny it to be true, or that it is evident by their free admission by Christ, and the reason by him given.  
Mr. Bls. fifth position is, They were admitted upon a common right, equally belonging to all infants of covenanting parents, and not by virtue of any extraordinary privilege, peculiar to them, and not common to other. This is plain, saith he, 1. By the general admission which he gives to infants on this occasion; Suffer little children come to me, and (as Mr. T. more than once observes) Extraordinarium non facit regulam communem, here is a general Rule, all have admission, and therefore there is nothing extraordinary. 2. It was such a right that the Disciples of Christ ought to have understood, as plainly appears by Christ's sore displeasure conceived against them, for forbidding their admission to him, and that must be a known right, and not secret.  
Answ. 1. There is not a word in the Text to prove that they were admitted upon any right to their admission as due to them, and which might be claimed for them, but they were admitted out of grace. 2. There is nothing in the Text to prove they were the children of covenanting parents, or that they were admitted out of any respect at all to their parent's state, whatever it were. As for Mr. Bls. reasons. To the 1. I say, The words are a Command only for those little children, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Suffer the little children, to wit them brought to come to me; nor doth it appear by any after instance of Christ or his Apostles that this was understood as a general rule, that all should have admission. 2. Were it granted that this rule of Christ did reach to others besides those then brought, yet there is nothing in the Text to prove this rule of admission to be only of infants of covenanting parents or to these or any other by reason of right from their covenanting parents. Yea rather if any right be intimated it is the personal right of the infants, for of such is the Kingdom of God. 2. It is true, the Disciples of Christ ought to have understood they were to be admitted, But that this was the reason why they ought to know they were to be admitted because of their known right is imagined but not proved. And how or for what reasons they might know they were to be admitted is showed above in answer to Mr. B.  
Mr. Bl. adds, Mr. T. indeed says, They were not admitted out of any known right common to others, but a perculiar privilege as being elected, for which he quotes Piscator; when as he hath heard (and replies nothing) that Piscator syllogistically concludes the contrary.  
Answ. I said not, they were admitted out of a peculiar privilege as being elected, nor for this did I quote Piscator, and therefore in my animadversions in my postscript I made no reply to Mr. Bl. in this thing. My words in my Examen pag. 146, 147. were these. 4. Let it be granted they were the infants of believers and that it is said, of these is the Kingdom of God, it may be as Piscator observes referred not to their present estate, as if for the present they were in the Kingdom of God that is believers and justified; but that they were elect persons, and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God: in which I do not at all assign the reason why the little children were to be admitted to come to Christ, nor do I quote Piscator for it, and therefore Mr. Bl. mis●ecites my words, but show how it might be true that of those infants was the Kingdom of God, yet in their present estate they neither believers nor justified. Against which Piscator is so far from concluding syllogistically (as Mr. Bl. says) that disputing against the Lutherans affirming infants to be believers because of Christ's words, Matth. 19 14. in his Observe 11. out of that v. he saith thus, Deinde etiamsi ponatur, sermonem hic de infantibus esse: tamen non potest hinc certò concludi illos praeditos esse ●ide. Et●nim infantium potest esse regnum coe●orum, etiamsi non credant, dummodo sint electi: which are the effect of my words. And for the rest that follows in Mr. Bl. about Christ's design, and the Disciples duty to know it, and their sin in being ignorant of it: there is answer before in the answer to Mr. B. Nor is there a word in my writing that tends to this, that either they knew or were bound to know the election of those infants, or that Christ was angry with them for not knowing it: I have often said, it was either because they heeded not some particular intimation of his mind concerning those infants, or some general truth concerning Christ's Office, and his readiness to do good to all sorts of persons, as there was opportunity offered, from which he ought not to be hindered by them. I do not confess, as Mr. Bl. saith of me, that elect infants might be baptised, were they known: but that elect infants being actual believers, if they were known might be baptised, and therefore I need not fear Christ's displeasure for not admitting elect infants to baptism, no not though they were known to be elect, except they were known to be believers, much less for not admitting to baptism those that are neither known to be elect nor believers: But Mr. Bl. hath just cause to fear the displeasure of Christ for admitting to baptism those that are neither known to be elect, nor believers, but infants of Parents who are manifestly children of the Devil, covenant-breakers, etc. according to his Doctrine in opposition to Mr. Firmin Vindic. Foed. cap. 47. which is a higher degree of profanation of the Ordinance of Baptism, than many Paedobaptists fall into.  
Mr. Bls. sixth Position is, They are here admitted by our Saviour Christ to a Church-privilege. This appears Numb. 6. 22, 23, etc. to the end of the Chapter. The Israel of God are under the blessing, little ones are ordered to be received to this blessing, little ones therefore are of his Israel, Deut. 32. 9 These are the blessed of the Lord upon this account, Jer. 31. 23. children are within this number, they are the inheritage of the Lord, Psal. 127. 3. and consequently admitted by our Saviour Christ to this privilege of a blessing.  
Answ. 1. Mr. Bls. Position is ambiguous, 1. It is uncertain whether he mean it of Christ's laying on hands, or his prayer also, and blessing with it, which is the Church-privilege. 2. Whether he make it a privilege of the visible or invisible Church. 3▪ Whether he will have these to be a constant Church-privilege. 4. To whom he will have it a Church-privilege. 5. By whom it is to be done since Christ's ascension, whether by Apostles only, or Bishops, or Presbyters. All the proof he brings for blessing, as a Church-privilege, is the prayer of Aaron and his sons, for the whole congregation of the children of Israel, which how it proves Christ's laying on of hands, and praying or blessing of a few little children, (when Christ was neither Aaron nor any of his s●●s) to be a Church-privilege, such as was Aaron and his son's blessing, which belonged to the Levitical Priesthood, I see no●. Mr. Bls. arguing is like as if his wits went a woolgathering. This, saith he, appears Numb. 6. 22, 23, etc. What is that which he saith appears? It should be his sixth Position, They are here admitted by our Saviour Christ to a Church-privilege: but his conclusion is, Little ones therefore are of his Israel; and this is proved by a syllogism that is either faulty in that there are four terms, or else it is in the second figure of all Affirmatives. If it be said that Mr. Bl. infers from that and the rest his Position, neither is that true: for his conclusion is this, and consequently admitted by our Saviour Christ to this privilege of a blessing; which though not denied by me, yet is neither his sixth Position, nor any thing in the Texts he brings proves it, which are all impertinently alleged by him, and the last especially, which he seems to understand, as if they were said to be the heritage of the Lord, as if they were the Lords peculiar possession, whereas the meaning is Psalm 127. 3. that children are such a blessing to parents, that they are an heritage given by the Lord, as Ainsworth rightly expounds it; and so an house-privilege rather than a Church-privilege is there meant, as the words following show.  
Mr. Bl. had said, pag. 91. of his answer to my Letter, there is no direct precedent for baptism in particular, but for Church-privileges of which infants are capable, on which I inferred, if [but] be adversative, (which must be granted if Mr. Bl. speaks sense) then Mr. Bl. grants that infants are capable of Church-privileges, not of baptism. To this Mr. Bl. replies, 1. that I make a great triumph of his speech. 2. That I leave out that which would fully explain his meaning. 3. That his meaning is, this act of Christ is no direct precept for baptism, but of Church-priledges in general. 4. If I can make it good that baptism is no Church-privilege I have wrested this Argument out of his hand, and that this Text as to the Argument falls, otherwise it is of force and an undeniable consequence.  
Answ. 1. I said truly, that grant which Mr. Bls. words (if he understand himself) implies, overthrows all his dispute, and is a triumph (if it be to be so called) on a victory. 2. I left out nothing which being put in would have hindered the inference I make: but Mr. Bl. as if he were ashamed of his own words, leaves out in his explication the words [of which infants are capable] from whence I made my inference. 3. His own explication makes the matter worse. For, 1. if this act of Christ be a direct precept of Church-privileges in general, than it is of baptism in particular, being a Church-privilege, that which is said of the Genus being true (as Logicians say) of the species, Quicquid praedicatur de genere praedicatur de specie. Whence it follows Mr. Bl. speaks in consistencies. 2. It follows also, that if it be a direct precept for to admit infants to Church-privileges in general, than it is to admit them to the Lords Supper, to Ordination, for these are Church-privileges. If he mean no more than this, that they are to be admitted to prayer for them, and that is the Church-privilege he means, I should grant it, and accordingly when desired I do both publish the names, days of infant's birth, and pray for them. 4. What he would gather from hence, by necessary consequence I wrest out of his hands, I think easily, without gratifying Socinians, Antibaptists, (who if they triumph over Antipaedobaptists, and beat them down with their own weapons in the parts w●●re Mr. Bl. lives, the more shame for them, who betray by their unskilfulness so good a cause) with this, that baptism is no Church-privilege. His Arguments are thus form, cap. 43. sect. 1. They which are admitted to Church-privileges have right to baptism, the leading▪ privilege; but infants are admitted to Church-privileges, Mark 10. 14. Matth. 19 14. Luke 18. 16. Infant's therefore have right to baptism.  
To which I answer, if he mean by [Church-privileges] any other than prayer, and the laying of hands on them by Christ; I deny the minor; if he meant it of them I deny the major. And whereas he makes baptism the leading Church-privilege, I grant it is so in order to the Lords Supper, yet to be among the catechised, commended to God in prayer, may be antecedent Church-privileges to baptism.  
His other Argument is this, The children of the Kingdom, that with others make up the Kingdom of God, have right to baptism; but infants are the children of the Kingdom that with others make up the Kingdom of God, Mark 10. 14. Matth. 19 14. Luke 18. 16. Infant's therefore have right to baptism.  
To which I answer. The phrase [Children of the Kingdom] I find diversely used, Matth. 8 12. it is appropriated to the Jews, and it is spoken of them which shall be cast out into utter darkness. But Matth. 13. 38. it is meant of the elect, who shall be saved. In the former sense, the major is manifestly false, and the minor can be only true of Jews infants: in the later sense the major Proposition is true of children of the Kingdom who are visibly such by their profession of faith in Christ; and the minor is false; if it be meant of such as are invisibly children of the Kingdom, the major is denied, and the minor is granted.  
Mr. Bl. adds somewhat more about the meaning of the words of Christ, [of such is the Kingdom of Heaven] And first he saith, The particle [such] cannot here have reference to their qualification, that those that were qualified as these (in humility and meekness) had their interest; so are Sheep and Doves as well as infants, not proud nor revengeful.  
Answ. This reason is not of force to prove that [such] cannot here have reference to the qualification of meekness and humility. For being so expounded [such] notes others than the infants, to wit, men that are humble and meek positively, as infants are negatively, and this cannot be said of Doves or sheep, yet infants may be included as Beza doth Annot: in Matth. 19 14. talium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, horum & similium, ut supra. 18. which is plainly proved by our Lord Christ's own words Mark 10. 15. where [of such v. 14.] is [whosoever receiveth the Kingdom of God as a little child v. 15.] and so it is meant Matth. 18. 5. as I have proved above. Nor is Mr. Bls. reasoning of force, That which the Disciples took to be an impediment of force to hinder infants, and a just ground of those that brought them, is that which Christ understands in this reproof of the Disciples and admission of their infants▪ But it was their want of growth, their littleness, which the Disciples took to be a just impedinent, and which occasioned their reproof, Ergo. For the conclusion may be granted, yet this proves not that by [of such] is meant in respect of quantity only, not of quality, but only that in the words before [suffer little children to come to me] quantity is meant not quality, for in those words only is the reproof of the Disciples, and Christ's admission of infants. The other are a reason of his command, which is good if by [such] be meant likeness in quality as well as agreement in quantity. And for Mr. Bls. paraphrase, it is but his own conceit, that the little children had no need of cure, or that the Disciples rebuke was after his model. But enough of this before.  
Mr. Bl. excepts against me for saying, the Kingdom of Heaven is meant of the Kingdom of glory, and that on this hinge the answer to the whole argument turns. He saith, I had six exceptions against the orthodox interpretation of this scripture in my Examen, being hunted out of all the rest I think to find s●m shelter there. But this is his figment, for though I of mine own accord expressed some only as doubtful, and let pass others for more ample conviction of the invalidity of the vain arguing, called falsely Orthodox interpretation of this Text by paed baptists, yet I did not so much as relinquish one of the exceptions, much less have been hunted from them, as Mr. Bl. after his pedant que fashion talks. But in opposition to me he first saith, That all hangs not on this, appears, in that our Saviour had said enough in his order for admission of these infants on which we can build our conclusion. And then brings his argument, which being answered before there is no need of any more reply to this. Yet I add, that of the argument drawn by Mr. Bl. pag. 91. of his answer to my letter none that are int●ressed in the Church of Christ which is his Kingdom may be denied an admission to it by baptism, but infants have their interests in the Church of Christ which is his Kingdom, and therefore may not be denied admission by baptism; the hinge did turn on this point, that by the Kingdom of Heaven is meant the visible Church, into which he would have infants admitted by baptism; and my speech is true of that Argument.  
Mr. Blake adds, Secondly, for his Reasons there is not force in them, 1. Saith he, The kingdom of God must be understood Mark 10. 14. as it is v. 15. and Luke 18. 16. as v. 17. and Matth. 19 14. as it is in both those; This I prove, because our Saviour from their estate infers a likeness to them in others for the same estate, Apol. pag. 150. This Argument howsoever it carries more colour than usually is fou●d in Mr. T. his Reason, yet it is not conclusive. It may be taken more largely in Christ's argumentation, and in a more restrained sense in his words of instruction and application, as in a place much parallel I shall show, 1 Cor. 6 1, 2. There we have the Apostles reproof, v. 1. and his Reason, v. 2▪ as in the Evangelists we have Christ's assertion confirming his reproof, v. 14 and his application, v. 15. Now [Saint] in the Apostles reproof is taken more largely than it is taken in his Reason. A visible Saint is meant in the first place, a real and glorified Saint in the second; visible Saints may judge in small matters, for real Saints in glory shall judge the world, shall judge Angels; and so it may be here, infants have their present title to the visible Kingdom; and men qualified as infants, shall only enter the Kingdom of Glory.  
Answ. I see Mr. Bl. so pertinacious in what he hath said in this argument, that he is cedere nescius, he knows not how to yield to any thing against his dictates, though it be never so plain. He denies not Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. must be understood of the Kingdom of glory for the reason given by me in my Postscript The proposition being false, being understood of the visible Church; many proud persons entering therein, as Simon Magus, Diotrephes, etc. But denies it to be conclusive, and therefore must deny the major. But he answers nothing to the proof of it, because our Saviour from their estate infers a likeness to them in others for the same estate. Whence the argument ariseth. The same estate is meant Mark 10. 14. which is mean v. 15. This is proved from the inference of Christ which is, as of little children is the kingdom of God, so whosoever doth not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter into [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it] or the same estate, the relative particle plainly notes it to be the same. But the estate Mark 10. 15. is meant of the Kingdom of glory, which is proved, because otherwise the proposition were false: nor is it denied by Mr. Bl. therefore the argument is most plainly conclusive. Mr. Bls. answer is either upon a wilful or heedeless mistake of my argument as if it were only from the identity of the words in both verses, whereas it was taken from the sameness of estate gathered by the force of our Saviour's whether application of v. 15. as Mr. Bl. terms it, or inference from what he had said v. 14. and the relative [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it.] I deny not that it is frequent according to the figure in Rhetoric termed antanaclasis to use terms sometimes in the same verse elegantly in a different sense: but it cannot be so here for the reasons given. And yet Mr. Bls. instance 1 Cor. 6. 1, 2. is not right: For 1 Cor. 6▪ 2. the term [Saint] doth not note a glorified Saint. For the sense is this, know ye not these now despised Saints shall hereafter judge the world, and so though it be true that then they shall be glorified, yet the term [Saints] is attributed to them according to their present estate of debasement, in which the very Emphasis is put. Besides if it had been so that in the one v. it noted a visible Saint here, and in the other a glorified Saint hereafter, yet the same persons were meant in both verses: whereas if Mark 10. 14. were meant the visible Church, who are a number of persons, and v. 15. were meant an estate of glory, there would be a greater difference than in 1 Cor. 6. 1, 2. and therefore Mr. Bl. doth not rightly say, the one place is much parallel to the other.  
Mr. Bl. goes on. His second reason, that Christ directs his speech to the Disciples already in the visible Church, and therefore speaks not of the Church visible, I know not how to make up into a reason; if I understood it, I would either yield or answer it.  
Answ. The reason is thus form. The same is meant Mark 10. 14. which is meant v. 15. as is before proved. But by [the Kingdom of God] v. 15. is not meant the visible Church, Ergo, neither v. 14. The minor is thus proved. By [the Kingdom of God] is meant that estate into which the Apostles had not but were thereafter to enter into. For the speech is meant of them as well as others, and directed to them, Verily I say to you, and so where the same thing is said Matth. 18. 3. it is said to and of them, Except ye be converted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens. But the estate the Apostles were to enter into was not the visible Church, for that they had entered into already, but the Kingdom of glory. Therefore by [the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14.] is meant the Kingdom of glory.  
Mr. Bl. adds, The third reason, that the speech Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. is like Matth. 18. 3, 4▪ but there it is meant of the Kingdom of glory; Ergo, so here, is answered already. If Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. be like Matth. 18. 3, 4. yet Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. which we have in question is unlike Matth. 18. 3▪ 4.  
Answ. 1. If Mark 10. 15. be like Matth. 18. 3, 4. then also Mark 10. 14. is in like manner understood the Kingdom of Heaven, as Matth. 18. 3, 4. For it is understood of the same Mark 10. 14, 15. as is proved before. 2. Mr. B. conceived them like by putting them together in the chapter before answered, and the New Annot. and Diodati, whose Testimonies are alleged in my Postscript. pag. 151.  
Mr. Bl. adds, Thirdly, were it granted him, that the Kingdom of glory must be understood both in Christ's reason and application, yet he is nothing holpen. Infants have right to the Church visible militant, because they are in a capacity of entrance into the Church triumphant, Acts 2▪ 47. The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved; not necessarily saved, but now (having entered Covenant with God) they were in a capacity, and therefore added as visible Church-members. Infants standing in this capacity ought to have admission likewise.  
Answ. It helps me much to answer the arguments drawn from Matth. 19 14. for infants visible Church-membership, if by the [Kingdom of Heaven] be not meant the visible Church, For than it is not there affirmed, that infants are visible Church-members. Nor doth Mr. Bls. reserve regain the loss, to prove it by consequence, For his speech is not true, Infants have right (meaning of admission) to the visible Church, because they are in a capacity of entrance into the Church triumphant. Nor is it proved Acts 2. 47. where Mr. Bl. perverts the meaning of the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is in English [the saved] that is either [the saved from that crooked generation v. 40. by their effectual calling as 2 Tim. 1. 9 Tit. 3. 5.] or by an enallage of tense [such as should be saved] and that certainly or necessarily] as 2 Cor. 2. 15. not as Mr. Bl. they were in a capacity to be saved, (for so were those that were not called) and therefore added as visible Church-members. Nor is Mr. Bls. proposition gathered thence: for neither is there any thing in the words to prove that then all were added to the Church which should be saved, much less which were in a capacity to be saved, or on the contrary that all that were added to the Church should be saved: much less that their right to be added to the Church was from this, that they should be saved; It is said, the Lord added to the Church such as should be saved, it is not said the Apostles added them to the Church because they were to be saved, yea v. 41. it is said, that even of those that were to be saved, they gladly received the word; and then were baptised and added. So that if the Text be rightly looked into there is nothing to be gathered thence of the persons right to be added to the Church, or the Minister's duty to add to the Church by baptism, persons merely upon this consideration, that they shall be saved, but only that it is the course of God's providence to add to his Church such as shall be saved. I yet add that if Mr. Bls. proposition were granted him, they have a right to the Church-visible militant who shall be of the Church triumphant, yet this right cannot be claimed but by those who are elect, and therefore from these Scriptures so expounded Matth. 19 14. Acts 2. 47. it cannot be proved that any other than elect infants are to be baptised and to be added to the Church, not the natural children of true believers, who are many of them non elect; nor can a Minister gather thence, he ought to baptise any of them till he know they are elect, and shall be saved, and therefore they rashly and profanely baptise from hence them, that they have no knowledge of, that of them is the Kingdom of glory and that they shall be saved.   

SECT. XIX.  
Animadversions on Mr. Cobbets Just Vindic. part. 1. cap. 5. and the arguings of Dr. Homes, Mr. Bailee, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Sidenham, from the words and actions of Christ to little ones are answered.  
HAving answered Mr. B. Mr. Bl. my two eager Antagonists I shall add animadversions on Mr. Thomas Cobbet his Just Vindic. part. 1. ch. 4. sect. 1. 1. He says without proof that they that brought the infants mentioned Luke 18. 15. were pious minded parents. 2. He denies [of such is the kingdom of God] to be meant of the Kingdom of glory, the contrary whereof is proved in the next section before against Mr. Blake. 3. He supposeth, that these words [suffer little children to come to me] being granted to contain a rule of suffering little ones of that sort such as those are to come to him and the words [of such is the Kingdom of God] being expounded of the invisible Church it must be conceived that Christ must direct them to suffer members of the invisible Church to come to him, and then that they may be known. But this is his mistake; they that expound thus the words [suffer these little children and other little children in age if any hereafter be brought to my person to be touched, to come to me, and forbid them not as ye have done these. For however they are persons that are not fit to be my hearers; yet of these now brought and of some other infants which may be brought, and men of years like them in quality is the Kingdom of God, the invisible Church or the Kingdom of glory belongs to them] may avouch this exposition without supposing their election must come under the cognizance of men, nor need they say that only such who were elected, were, by this rule so expounded to be permitted, to come to Christ. 4. That Christ spoke of those infants not as an extraordinary inspired Prophet is said without proof; not is it likely, sit● such blessings were never given but by extraordinary inspiration, and Christ appoints not the admitting of little children to any, no not to his Apostles, but himself. 5. That he delivered an ordinary rule of ordinary practice and use afterwards is said without proof; nor is it likely, sith we read no more of that practice by any of the Apostles, nor any rule concerning it after this one act of Christ  
Sect. 2. H● denies that [of such is the Kingdom of Heaven might be spoken in reference to the future, that is that they were elect ones, and should in time be of God's Kingdom, that is believers, or that they were such as God would bless. For Christ's words are not, of such may, will or shall be the Kingdom of God, nor that they were of his Kingdom, because such as he would bless: but rather that they should not be hindered from being blessed of him, because of such is the Kingdom of God.  
To which I answer: that by [the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19 14. and the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14▪ 15▪ Luck 18▪ 16, 17.] must needs be meant the Kingdom of glory is proved before, & then the sense can be no other than of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, that is the Kingdom of glory belongs to such, as Mat. 5. 3, 10. and as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth of▪ signify as Mark 9 14, etc. And then it must needs be an enallage of tense, as Mat. 18▪ 1. as Pisc. sch. on Mat. 18. 1. est pro futurus est enallage temporis, or as Pisc. sch. on Matth. 5. 3. ipsis destinatum est & dabitur, and this is all one as to say they are elect, which is Piscator's term in his observation on Matth. 19 14. as I showed above in answer to Mr. Blake, and thus [of such is the kingdom of God] refers too the present estate as elect, to their future as possessors of glory hereafter. And so to Mr. Cobbets objection I answer, Matth. 5. 10. it is not said, theirs shall be the Kingdom of Heaven, but [is] and yet it must be understood of present title and future possession, so here. And for his exception at my words, that the reason may be given why these infants did belong to God's Kingdom, because they were such as Christ would bless, is not avoided by saying, they were blessed, because of God's Kingdom. For both ways the reason is good, they should not be hindered from blessing, because theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven the end of blessing, or they should not be hindered from blessing because he intended to bless them, and therefore theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven. Either way that I intended to prove Examen pag. 147. is evinced, that the reason why theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven is not from their parent's faith (which should have been if it were meant, as Paedobaptists would, of interest in the visible Church) but God's election or Christ's blessing.  
I have often said, that if Christ's mind had been that infants should be baptised, he would have commanded these little ones to have been baptised for an Example. To this Mr. Cobbet answers, that according to our principles they were elect, heirs of the kingdom of glory: now why should not or were not these infants at least baptised?  
Answ. Because though elect, yet were not believers or Disciples by profession.  
But You would allow, saith he, such to be baptised if of grown years.  
Answ. No, until they were believers or Disciples, not barely because elect and heirs of glory.  
But You say, saith he, that if by extraordinary revelation you knew an infant to be sanctified, you would baptise it, because the extraordinary revelation would authorise it, and the words of Peter, Acts 10. 47. and the institution, Matth. 28. 19 And then it would follow, 1. That persons may be Disciples without being outwardly taught. 2. It is agreeable to the rule that persons without personal profession of faith should be baptised. Albeit extraordinary things done besides rule cross not ordinary rule; yet neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily is any thing to be done, which is in itself contrary to rule. 3. It was the mind of Christ they should be baptised, as that they should be instructed, though it be not expressed.  
Answ. 1. It is true I grant in my Examen, p. 142, 158, 160. upon the grounds mentioned, that an infant regenerated, united to Christ, sanctified by the Spirit upon extraordinary revelation of this might be baptised; and the like is said by Mr. Blackwood Apostolical Bapt. p. 51. And for those that have the thing signified let them make it appear to any Church of Christ, and they cannot deny their baptism. But yet it follows not that these infants might be baptised which are mentioned Matth. 19 14. For though their election be mentioned, yet not their regeneration and sanctification. Now Praedestinatio nil ponit in praedestinato, and therefore it makes not Disciples or believers at present, but assures it as future: but we are to baptise actual Disciples and believers, not future.  
But However, saith he, they may be Disciples who are are not outwardly taught.  
Answ. Who denies it? yet they must be learners of Christ in their own persons.  
But then, saith he, a person may be baptised without personal profession.  
Answ. It is granted, when God supplies the absence of it by his revelation otherwise: nor is this contrary to the Rule, sith that is, to baptise known Disciples, who are ordinarily known by their personal profession, though in this case God's extraordinary act supplies that want. Yet Mr. Cobbets saying is not right, that neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily is any thing to be done, which is in itself contrary to rule. For Abraham's killing his son was in itself contrary to rule, yet upon extraordinary command it was to be done. And for the third, though it might be conceived Christ's mind, that the children should be instructed, though it be not mentioned, Luke 18. 16, 17. because it was a duty of perpetual equity by virtue of the moral Law: yet baptising infants being a mere positive rite, that hath no reason or warrant but institution, is not to be conceived Christ's mind, without some declaration, which he neither then when he had so fit opportunity, nor at any time else expressed.  
There are some more things in Mr. Cobbet censurable, as that he makes the infant's patterns as well of receiving the kingdom at least externally, as of the affection and disposition with which it is to be received; whereas, ●. the words Matth. 18. 3●4. do plainly make them patterns only of humility, and such good dispositions as are in children fit to be imitated. 2. In Mr. Cobbets sense the words of Christ would be false, [whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child externally by an initial seal or some other visible sign, as laying on hands, etc. shall not enter therein.] For then that Popish Doctrine, or rather more rigid than Popish must be maintained, that no unbaptized Martyr or other shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven. And in like manner it is gratis dictum, without proof said [of such like infants, like them in covenant, and Church interest in God is his kingdom,] there being not a word in the Text that leads to this paraphrase, and the plain meaning is before expressed.  
That which Mr. Cobbet saith in answer to the reason of Piscator, Why they were not infants because Christ called them; I conceive is not an answer. For what he saith, that things ascribed to the children are rather to be understood of parents, and he instanceth in Levi's paying Tyths in Abraham, Heb. 7. is not right. For, 1. that which is said of Levi is to be understood of Levi, not of Abraham; for it were neither good sense nor to his purpose, to say, Abraham paid Tyths in Abraham. 2. If things done by a parent and related by the Holy Ghost as mysterious passages are imputed to the children, yet it is absurd to understand in an historical narration of facts that to be meant as spoken to the parents, which was spoken to the children. Other things I let pass, which oppose not my dispute but others: and what things he speaks in answer to my Objections, and what concerns the answering the imaginary absurdities arising from our Doctrine in that chapter, I refer to another place. This is sufficient in answer to what he saith in opposition to me about that passage Luke 18. 16, 17.  
Dr. Homes in his Animad. on my Exercit. pag. 57, 58. argues thus, To whom indefinitely as such, Heaven and the blessing of and for Heaven belongs, to them as such the seal of converance, and confirmation of Heaven and that blessing belongs. For if the Land be mine the Deeds and Seals of Conveyance are mine. But Heaven and the blessing of and for Heaven belongs indefinitely to such little children, more, whiles little children; so the Text here expressly. To them belong, or (which is all one) of such is the kingdom of Heaven, and he took them in his arms and blessed them. Therefore to little children indefinitely belongs the Seal of Conveyance or Confirmation of Heaven, and the blessing of Heaven, which in the New Testament, according to the time Christ spoke, is baptism.  
Answ. Neither is it true, That baptism is the seal of conveyance of heaven, and the blessing for it, that I find in Scripture, but the Spirit, Ephos. 4. 30. Ephes. 1. 13. 2 Cor. 1. 22. Nor is it true, That heaven and the blessing of heaven belong to little children indefinitely as such, that is as little children. For than it should belong to all little children, nor to them as children of believing parents, for it should belong to all children of believing parents, but as they are elect. And to these I grant baptism belongs when they are called, and believe, not before; as a conveyance may be made to a child, yet he is not to have it in his hands till he come to understand it, and is fit to make use of it. So that the major may be denied if [the belonging of the seal] be meant in respect of present use or possession. And the minor is to be denied, if [as such] be meant [as little children, or children of believers] and the inference on the conclusion is denied, the seal belongs to them, Ergo, baptism. Other arguments of Dr. Homes are answered in my Apology pag. 102. though briefly yet sufficiently. Nor hath Mr. Geree in his V●ndiciae Vindiciarum ch. 10. brought any thing worth rejoining in reply to my answer to his sixth argument in my Apology pag. 101, 102. It is false which he saith, in admitting to ordinances we proceed not upon judgement of certainty but charity, nor is a judgement of charity grounded upon hope of what a person may be any rule to us in admitting to baptism, For if so, then hope of a profane persons amendment were enough to baptise him. Mr. Baille●'s reasoning in his Anabaptism pag. 149. [since imposition of hands a seal of Christ's grace and blessing, and of the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to infants; that therefore baptism a seal of that same kind, when once the Lord had solemnly at his ascension appointed it to be the ordinary seal of initiation into his Church ought not to be denied to them] is but dictates. 1. He says, baptism is a seal of the same kind with Christ's laying on hands, which he saith without proof, nor is it true. For. 1. Christ's laying on hands was an act extraordinary done by Christ himself as the great Prophet, but baptism was an act of ordinary ministration not done by Christ himself but his Disciples, John 4. 1, 2. 2. Baptism was the duty of the baptised, Acts 2. 38. not only the baptizers, but not so laying on hands by Christ. 3. If baptism be a seal of the same kind with laying on of hands, then laying on hands is a seal, and a Sacrament of the same kind with baptism, which is counted a point of Popery. 2. To shift off the objection, that Christ appointed not those infants to be baptised, he allegeth that Christ did after solemnly appoint it at his ascension, and since than it ought to be done: which intimates that infants were not to be baptised before, but after the ascension. But, 1. The appointment and practice of baptism was before, if not as solemn, and the same use and order of it, and therefore this reason is of no force why others should be baptised after, more than these before the ascension. 2. It will follow that Jews infants were not to be baptised till after the ascension of Christ, which overthrows his and other Paedobaptists argument about the seal and Covenant, which if of any validity, prove infant baptism as well before the ascension as after. 3. It is false, that Christ at his ascension appointed infant baptism any more than before, the commission of Christ and the Apostles practise show the contrary. Therefore I deny his argment in the words set down as being without proof or show of it. Mr. Thomas Fuller in his Infant's advocate ch. 18 hath these words St. John addeth ch. 21. 21. And there are also many other things which Jesus did which are not written, amongst which for aught appears to the contrary, the baptising of these infants might be one of them; wherein he runs to the Popish plea for their unwritten traditions, and forgets that besides what I have alleged before to show those infants were not baptised, there appears something to the contrary out of John 4. 1, 2. where it is said, that Jesus baptised not, but his Disciples, and therefore the baptising of those Infants could not be one of the things which Jesus did though not written John 21. 21. His argument, they were capable of a blessing, therefore of baptism; hath been often denied and answered before. There came to my hands also the Exercitation of Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham, in which ch. 10. he terms Antipaedobaptism denying infants with scorn a little water, and after, this Text Matth. 19 13, 14. if there were no more, will fly in the consciences one day of the most confident contemners of infants, and their baptism. To which I say, it shows too much youthful rashness u●fi● for a Teacher of a Church either to call Antipaedobaptists contemners of infants, and their baptism, and their denying infant's baptism (which they do for aught he knows out of tender conscience of not profaning Christ's ordinance) an act, of scorn, and to speak of the Texts flying in their consciences, who know that he had more reason to expect the flying of this Text in his conscience, who in this (as he doth in the rest of his pamphlet) makes the objection against his urging it for infant baptism so as that he might put it off with a slight answer, For whereas Antipaedobaptists object, if Christ hinted their right to baptism, why did he neither baptze them, nor appoint them to be baptised by his Apostles? Mr. Sidenham leaves out the later part of the objection, and answers. 1. He baptizeth none. 2. He did that which was an ordinance usually, in those primitive times, administered after baptism and equal to it in dignity, and so we may argue from this to baptism either inclusively or à majori from the greater, he did such acts to them as are equivalent if not supereminent. But doth Mr. Sidenham indeed think such petty arguings, which he knows not how to form in a Logic way, but in pathetic Rhetoric, likely to terrify our consciences so much, when he himself dares not positively assert, that the laying on of Christ's hands did include and presuppose baptism, yea he acknowledgeth it to have been extraordinary; and for his way of proving à majori, he either is ignorant in Logic or else might understand, that an argument à majori is not thus; there is conferred on such a one a greater thing, therefore the less; Christ's blessing therefore right to baptism; For then the argument were good, Christ blessed the infants which is the greater, therefore he gave them the Lords supper, or made them Apostles, or gave them the gift of tongues, which are the less. But an argument à majori is à magis probabili, and so it is not more probable that Christ would have them baptised, than that he would bless them, sith they were not meet subjects of the one as of the other. There is nothing else in that chapter but what hath answer before, this is enough to abate the insolency of this Scribbler.   

SECT. XX.  
The practice of infant-baptism is not proved Acts 16. 15. by baptising a household against Mr. M. Dr. Homes, Mr. Bailee, Mr. Cook, Mr. Sidenham, Mr. Fuller.  
ANother Text to prove the practice of infant baptism is Acts 16. 15. and the mention of baptising households elsewhere. From whence Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 40. (though the Assembly leave it out Confess. of faith ch 18. art. 4.) would gather examples of the new administration taking place just as the old, and so the practice of infant baptism by good consequence. To which I answered in my Examen at large, pag. 138. etc. 1. That the new administration is much different from the old, to wit, baptism from Circumcision. 2. That the practice of baptism in all the Evangelists is set down of singular persons. 3. That the practice in the Acts of the Apostles is differently set down, sometimes of singular persons sometimes of a City, sometimes of families. 4. Where households are said to be baptised there is no mention of an infant and the circumstances with other places do show that Luke doth understand only the believers of the house. What Mr. M. replied here to doth yield so much as shows there is no good consequence in this Argument. Households were baptised, therefore infants, sith he saith, It may be granted that a house is sometimes taken for the grown persons in that house. And what else he speaks that is to the point is briefly answered in my Apology pag. 100 And in my Postscript sect. 19 I have sufficiently answered Mr. Blake his arguing from households being the precedent of baptising, and what he saith vind. foed. pag. 416. is answered before in this part of the Review sect. 6.  
Dr. Homes in his Animadv. on my Exercit. ch. 8. pag. 71. tells us that the Syriak in the story Acts 16. 33. renders it, he was baptised and all the children of his house, and sure enough a son of eight days old is a son. And if sons of the house then some sons of the Father of the house. But he might consider that the same Syriak renders v. 32. they spoke the word with him, and with all the sons of his house, which cannot be said of infants. Nor is it true that the Doctor saith, that the sons of the house are the sons of the Father of the house. For as Tremelius in his note saith, it is an Hebraism, in which the son of the house is all one with the inhabitants in the house, servant's as well as children. As for the evasion which the Doctor and M. Cook in his Font uncovered, pag. 18▪ have, that it is said [all that were in his house, v. 32. not, of his house] so that the word might be spoken to the prisoners and others which ran in on the ●ame of the thing, and then he and his were baptised, v. 33. it is. 1. Without ground and unlikely, that the prisoners should be reckoned in his house when the prison is named distinctly from his house, as v. 30. & 34. compared show, and he took such care about securing the prisoners v. 28, 29. and then brought Paul and Silas out, v. 30. afore he spoke to them or they to him about salvation, nor is it likely that into the house of the Jailor could others get or would attempt it at that time of night. 2. Were it granted yet it no whit avoid the objection, which is, that either there were no infants in the house▪ or else they spoke the word to them, which were absurd. But saith, the Doctor, they spoke the word to the infants, because they should be the better for it, v. 31. To which I reply, this reason is most gross it being contrary to all use of writers and Grammar construction to say he spoke the word to infants, to whom he directed not his speech at all, only because the speech might be for their good. Besides he spoke the word to all in his house as he spoke to the Jailor, it was the same speaking and Preaching to the one and the other, and therefore if infants be there meant, the Apostle is made as ridiculously to Preach to infants, as Francis the Friar is by the Popish Legend to Preach to a brute. Besides the same Syriak renders v. 34▪ he exulted, and all of his household in the faith of God, and Tremellius hath this marginal note, to a word sons of the house as a little before. As for what Dr. Homes with Mr. Cook adds about rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all over his house, and rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he did skip as in a dance of a Galliar with triumph, they are such as having no other approved interprete● for their author, nor indeed agreeing with the gravity and seriousness of the business and the Jailor's condition, are justly rejected as mere shifts to avoid the plain evidence from that and many more places in my Examen pag. 139, 140. (which Mr. M. yielded) that under the term [household] persons of years only are meant by Luke. As for what Mr. Baillee in his Anabaptism pag. 146. tells us, that infants are not excepted; I answer, that infants are plainly excepted from being meant in those speeches, if the things spoken of the household cannot be said of infants. But then, saith he, they will be excepted from salvation if they be not comprised under the term [house] sigh Luke▪ 19 9 salvation is said to come to the house, and Acts 11. 14. Cornelius and all his house should be saved by Peter's words, and Acts 16. 31. upon the Jaylours' faith he and his house should be saved. I answer Though infants be not in those passages comprised among the saved, yet it follows not by this interpretation that there is no other Tex out of which we may conclude their salvation. And therefore all his inferences of wrong to infants ●s excluding them from salvation. because they are not included in the term [household] are but calumniatory And his other inferences shall be showed to be vain in answering Mr. B. As for Mr. William Cooks collections from Luke 19 9 Acts 16. 31. in his Font uncovered, pag. 18. 19 They require faith of the Jailor, that he and his family might be admitted into a saving estate. They said not that every one of his family must of necessity actually believe and profess, that so his household might be saved with him. So (as he did with Zacheus) God shows here by his servants that he would deal with the Jailor, not standing for the present on strict terms of actual faith of all in his house, If the Governor believe, it is enough to put the whole family into a saving estate inchoatively at least in respect of admission into Covenant, neither are any to be excluded, but such as by stubborn refusal of the Gospel offered deprive themselves of that privilege, I except against them 1. That he makes one sort of salvation to the believers, and another to his house in the same words and by the same means. 2. That he imagines a salvation inchoative that shall not be consummate. 3. That he makes a member of a family to have right to this salvation by the faith and profession of the head of the family, if they do not express their dissent or refusal of it. 4. That God at some time stands not on strict terms of actual faith of all in a house for salvation. All which are gross conceits and contrary to Mark 16. ●6. John 3. 17, 18, etc. In vain likewise doth Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham in his Exercit. c. 11. infer from these passages of saving and baptising houses, and instances in the old Testament of family Churches, as if God had cast by an eternal decree this platform, baptism to be administered to families, and so to children. And why not then to servants, and wives, and friends? Are not they of the household? And why doth not Mr. Sidenham take the whole nation into a Church, when the whole nation was taken in formerly in Abraham's posterity? Why doth he gather his Church with such choice distinguishing some from others? How doth Mr. Sidenham cross himself when he interprets Luke 19 9 the Covenant is not made with him only but with his house that is his seed, where he appropriates the term [house] to seed, and in the next page makes the term house a general phrase, which may sometimes comprehend more, and will have [all his, Acts 16. 33.] to note no servants, which cannot be meant of servants, who are our own as goods and lands are, but not of a man: but must firstly and primarily refer to his children who are begotten of him; and it may be secondarily to his kindred. In which his strange shift may be discerned, sometimes the term [house] must note the whole family of which servants and wives are a part, sometimes it must mean the seed, and then straightway it must be a general word comprehending more, and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must be meant not servants for they are a man's own but not of a man, and yet kindred secondarily must be meant, though they be not any more, no nor so much of a man as servants. But if we ask Mr. Thomas Fuller in his Infant's Advocate c. 16. he will tell us, For the Jailor; That children (if he had any) were comprised under the expression of all his, is sufficiently known by Satan's interpretation, Job 1. 12. of God's Commission, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; and Gods consenting thereunto, when permitting him by virtue thereof, to destroy all Jobs children; concerning which passage I say. 1. If [all his, Acts 16. 33.] must be expounded as Job 1. 12. all that is his, then must the Jaylours' sheep, and oxen be baptised as well as his children, for they were comprehended under [all that he had] 2. Though Jobs children were comprehended under [all that he had] yet there was never an one an infant: but such as did feast, and might curse God in their hearts. As for Dr. Homes his question, Is any Anabaptist sure there were no infants in these families? I say, 1. It belongs to him to prove, who brings it for infant-baptism, that there were, and that they were baptised. 2. Yet we are sure from the words none were meant but persons capable of hearing, and believers under the term [house, Acts 16. 32, 34.] Yea, but saith Mr. Sidenham, Those in his house are a larger term, but when he speaks of the baptised he saith all his or of him; But how doth it appear that [all in his house] is larger than [all his] or what can he gather from it but this, that he spoke to more than he baptised; but will Mr. Sidenham say, he baptised any to whom he spoke not? Yea, that a man may see with what raw conceits these Scribblers abuse people, who read such indigested Pamphlets with examination. His own observation excludes infants. For if [all that were in his house] ●e the largest term, than It comprehends [all his, v. 33.] But it notes no infant: For he spoke not the word to any infant. Therefore by his own observation infants are excluded. But enough of the janglings of these wrangling Baby-sprinklers about this Text.   

SECT. XXI.  
That 1 Cor. 10. 2. proves not the practice of infant-baptism against Mr. Bailee, Mr. Cobbet, etc.  
THere is another Text which is by Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Bailee, Dr. Homes, Mr. Philip's, and others produced for the practice of infant-baptism, and it is 1 Cor. 10. 2. Mr. Bailee in his Anabaptism, pag. 149. argues thus, Infants were baptised as well as their Parents by Moses baptism, Ergo, Infants as well as their Parents ought to be baptised by Christ's baptism. The Antecedent is the Apostles, 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2▪ The Fathers baptised in the Cloud, and in the Sea, were the whole People as well young as old; for no doubt the infants went as well through the Cloud and the Sea as their Parents.  
Answ. 1. The Antecedent may be denied, because it is said [our Fathers] not infants. But saith Mr. Cobbet, This is spoken of the Church Fathers to Paul and the Gentile Church-members, and the young ones were in after ages instruments to convey Church-truths and blessings.  
Refut. 1. It is not said our Fathers as we are a Church, none but Abraham that I know is termed a Father to the Church of Christ, he being only named the Father of the faithful, and they his seed: but either [our Fathers] notes simply the Ancestors that went before, as it is usual to call those our forefathers who were before us in former generations, though they begat us not; or else if it note their fathers in respect of natural generation, it notes as Grotius in his Annot in locum, the Fathers of us, to wit, Hebrews. But it may be said, that cannot be, ●ith Paul only was an Hebrew, and then it should be my Fathers.  
Refut. 1. It is not unusual to speak of persons in the second person by figure of Communication or Enallage of persons, when the thing is not true of them but ourselves, and when the thing is not true of us but others; as when we say, we have preached, it is meant of one person that speaks, and 1 Thess. 4. 17. it is said, [we which are alive, and remain] and yet none of those that wrote were such, and so [our Fathers] is no more than the Fathers. 2. But there's no need of a figure: For the Epistle was written by Paul and Sosthenes, 1 Cor. 1. 1. And for Paul there's no question he was an Hebrew, and Sosthenes being a Ruler of the Synagogue, Acts 18. 17. And in like manner Crispus, v. 8. and Apollo, v. 24. whom he mentions 1 Cor. 1. 14. & 4. 6. were Hebrews, and therefore he saying, [our Fathers] might well mean our Fathers as Hebrews. 2. It doth appear the infants were not meant in that they are only meant, who were in a state of pleasing or displeasing God, as appears by v. 5. but so were not infants. 3. They only are said to be baptised to whom the same thing was signified by the cloud, that is, signified by our baptism; but to the infants nothing was signified by the cloud and sea, and passing through or under them, for they were not subjects of instruction▪ capable to know a resemblance, Ergo, infants▪ were not baptised. But saith Mr. Bailee, They went through the Sea, Ergo, they were baptised.  
Answ. So did the beasts also, and yet are not said to have been baptised, but those that did or might understand the signification of it. 4. They that are said to be baptised, v. 2. are all said to eat and drink Manna and Water, and that it was or might have been to them spiritual meat or drink, v. 3, 4. But this is not to be said of their infants. For as Dr. Homes and Mr. Cobbet grant, the infants did not eat Manna cakes, nor is it likely they did drink water, having breast milk, much less is it true that they were spiritual meat or drink to them, or might have been, Ergo, they are not meant by the Fathers baptised.  
Nor is Mr. Bailees consequence good. For if the infants might be said to be baptised with Moses baptism, yet it follows not they are to be baptised with Christ's, sith Moses his baptism was not formal baptism, but similitudinary after a sort, they were baptised, that is, as Grotius Annot in locum quasi baptiz●ti, as if they had been baptised; but a Rule holds not from similitudinary to formal baptism. But Mr. Bailee would prove the consequence thus, The Reasons which may be brought for the exclusion of infants from being baptised with their Parents by Christ's baptism, militate as much against their being baptised with their Parents by Moses baptism. Therefore if notwithstanding they were admitted to the one baptism, they may as well be admitted to the other.  
Answ. The antecedent of this proof is false; for in that of Moses, the baptism is only similitudinary in respect of a fact or event, which was no duty: but formal baptism of Christ is a duty of the person baptised, Mark 16. 16. Acts 2 38. & 22. 16. which cannot agree to an infant though the other should. Nor is such kind of shadowy, typical, analogical, similitudinary baptism any more a rule about Christian baptism than Noah's Ark, which had the like resemblance, 1 Pet. 3. 21. And this Reason is confirmed from the Text. For if by [Fathers] are meant infants, v. 2. and they were baptised, and this must be a rule to us now about baptism of water appointed by Christ, which was said of haet similitudinary baptism, then sith the same are meant by [Fathers, v. 3, 4.] and they are said to eat the same spiritual meat and drink, which was Christ, which is manifestly meant of the Lords Supper, by the same reason which Mr. Bailee brings, infants must not be excluded from the Lords Supper. Yea, but saith Dr. Homes, They did not eat all the Lords Supper.  
Refut. They did all eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink, which if he deny to be meant of the Lords Supper he deserts Protestants and other Divines acknowledging it, and may be refuted from the scope of the Apostle, which is, to show that they had in a sort, in respect of signification and use the same Sacraments with ours, and yet were not secured thereby when they sinned. But Mr. Cobbet says, There must be a Synecdoche in the later, not all the Fathers simply being meant, but such as were capable of making a spirival use thereof.  
Refut. If [all our Fathers] must be meant Synecdochically, v. 3, 4. then also in v. 2. it being the same term in either, and the sense of them, v. 5. being meant of as many, v. 3 4 as v. 2. Yea, but there's a bar put against infants receiving the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 28.  
Refut. There are more bars, and more express put against infant's baptism, Acts 8. 37. Matth. 28. 19 Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 38. Ephes. 4. 5 etc. which it seems Paedobaptists will leap over, or break down, notwithstanding they are so plainly set up by Christ and his Apostles to prevent their infant-baptism.  
That which Mr. Ainsworth in his Dialogue brings out of Psalm 77. 17. to prove that the Israelites were indeed formally baptised with water, is upon mistake, that the water there poured out was on the Israelites, whereas his own Annotations on the places, and the words of the Psalm refer it to what was done to the Egyptians, Exod. 14. 24, 25. And thus Junius and others conceive it. Yet were it granted him, there must be a Synecdoche in the term [all the Fathers] for the reasons given, and otherwise beasts as well as infants must be said to be baptised.   

SECT. XXII.  
Mr. Blakes Argument from Gal. 4. 29. is answered.  
MR. Blake had in his Birth-privilege, pag. 9 argued from Gal 4. 29. for infant-baptism, and his passages in his arguing I censured as very gross in my Examen, part. 3. sect. 2. which he seeks to make good Answer to my Letter, cap. 4. to which I reply in my Postscript sect. Yet he hath thought good to reinforce his allegation of that Text, and in his Vindic. Foed. cap. 43. sect. 1. he argues thus. Fourthly, They that by birth according to the flesh are in the bosom of the Church have right to baptism; but infants by birth according to the flesh are in the bosom of the Church, Gal. 4. 29. Infant's therefore ought to be baptised.  
To which I answer, if he mean by [the Church] the Church Christian visible, and by [being in the bosom of it] having actual visible Church membership, I grant the major, and deny the minor, and for the Text Gal. 4. 29▪ alleged to prove it, am no more induced by Mr. Bls. arguings to believe that it makes to his purpose, than I am to think the Snow is black. For if it were to his purpose, the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should have this sense, even so now infants by virtue of birth according to the flesh, as being the children of a believer by natural generation, are visible members in the Christian Church, v. g. of Galatia, which is as far from the meaning of the Apostle as East from West, if either I or those Interpreters I meet with have not lost their common sense. This I prove from the true supplement which must make up the words complete sense. This will be understood by considering, that the whole verse is a compound proposition of that sort which Logicians call comparative, as 1 Cor. 15. 22. The terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do show it to be a comparative proposition, and therein are two parts, the first called the Protasis, than he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, that is (for I think Mr. Bl. will not gain say this exposition) Ishmael who was born after the flesh being the son of 〈◊〉 the bondwoman, persecuted (whether by mocking or by some crafty undermining device, (as Heinsius conceives) Isaac who was born after the Spirit, by Divine virtue according to the promise, as Grotius I conceive rightly explains it. The other part is called the Apodosis or rendering, wherein that which answers to the forepart first held out is expressed, now that always notes some agreement, correspondence, parity or likeness whether in quantity, quality, action etc. But according to Mr. Bls. apodosis or reddition, there is no such answerableness, or likeness as hath the show of a comparison of things equal or alike (as this is as the affirmative terms show) For who would conceive any better than nonsense in such a speech as this, even as Ishmael persecuted Isaac, so the children of Christian believers are visible members in the Christian Church, it were all one as to say even as Esau hated Jacob so godly men are heirs of Heaven, or have access to God, the absurdity of which is so gross that I am amazed Mr. Bl. doth not see it or will not confess it, there being no likeness, or show of answerableness either in the compared subjects or in the compared predicates. Not in the subjects. For in the forepart the term, he that was born after the flesh, is taken in the worse part, as a term importing debasement, bondage, a curse, but in Mr. Bls. own expression Vindic. foed▪ ch 40. the term [he that is born after the flesh] notes in the better part a natural seed that inherits outward privilges yea and that no small one to be a visible Church-member by virtue of birth after the flesh. And then in the predicates there is less answerableness. For what answerableness between persecuting him that was born after the Spirit who resembles the true believer, and having right to outward privileges as visible Church-membership and baptism by being born of a believer according to the flesh by natural generation, and this competent to infants? But the supplement is this. Even so now the Jew who is carnal seeking righteousness by observing the Law, and n●● through the Spirit waiting for the hope of the righteousness which is by faith, now persecuteth by words and deeds the Christian believer whether Jew or Gentile, who is born after the Spirit, that is who by the Spirit doth wait for the hope of the righteousness which is by faith Gal. 5 5. This supplement is cleared to be genuine from the scope and series of the Apostles Doctrine before, and deductions after and the constant exposition of interpreters. The Apostles Doctrine before is to dissuade the Galatian Christians from affecting to be under the Law, v. 21. as the false teachers endeavoured to persuade them. And to that end he teacheth them the allegory of Hagar and Sarah, and their children; Hagar and Sarah represent two Covenants, the one of the Law, the other of Righteousness by Faith; and the Children represent the one the Justiciaries that seek Righteousness by the Works of the Law, and are tenacious of that Covenant, the other bellevers in Christ, who seek Righteousness by Faith in him, and stick to the new Covenant of Grace, in which is promised the Just shall live by Faith. The former Covenant is a Covenant of Bondage, and the Children thereof are in bondage with their Mother, that is, they are not to inherit the promise of Righteousness; but the later Covenant is free, and her Children are freeborn heirs of Righteousness. And though the former Covenant had many Children while the Jewish Church stood, the greatest part resting in the Law, and expecting their righteousness in observing it, yet the new Covenant that was as barren, having none or very few that were born of it, there being but few that looked for redemption by the Messiah or the consolation of Israel, but followed the pharisees Doctrine, of conceiving themselves righteous by keeping the Law, now, being made known to all Nations by preaching the Gospel, hath many more children than the old, innumerable believers of the Gentiles as well as the Jews, embracing the Doctrine of the Gospel concerning righteousness by faith: and of this sort are we, saith the Apostle, v. 28. But it happens to us as of old, as Ishmael persecuted Isaac, so now the carnal Jews who are Justiciaties persecute us who are believers. And then follow deductions, one that it is God's sentence to reject Justiciaries, as not heirs of righteousness, v. 30. Another, the ass●rting the estate of believers to be a state of freedom, v. 31. and hereupon exhorts cap. 5. 1. that they should st●nd fast in their liberty wherein Christ hath made them free, and not be again entangled with the yoke of bondage, to wit, the Law and legal Covenant. And that the constant exposition of Interpreters is for the sense according to the supplement made by me, and not according to Mr. Bls. conceit, may appear by alleging some of their words, Hieronym. Comment. in Epist. ad Galat. lib. 2. cap. 4. thus paraphraseth the words, Sicut ergo tum major frater Ishmael lactentem adhuc & parvulum persequebatur Isaac, sibi circumcisionis praerogativam, sibi primogenita vendi●ans: ita & nunc secundum carnem Israel, adversus minorem fratrem de gentibus populum Christianum, sustollitur, infl●tur, erig●tur. Consideremus insaniam Judaeorum: qui & Dominum interfecere, & Prophetas & Apostolos persecu●i sunt: & adversantur voluntat● Dei: & videbimus multo majores persecutiones, quas nos, etiam historiae docent, à Judaeis in Christianos quam à gen●●bus concitatas. Chrysost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gorran. [It▪ a & nunc.] illi scilicet qui secundum carnem vivunt ut Judaei & haeretici per sequuntur eos qui secundum spiritum scilicet Christianos & omnes bonos. Perkins come. upon Galat. 4. 29. These words are an answer to an objection, on this manner. We are hated of the Jews, and therefore we are not the children of promise. The answer is two fold, one in this verse thus, No marvel, this is the old fashion; it was thus in Abraham's family. For Ishmael (born after the ●lesh) persecuted Isaac (born after the Spirit:) and so it is at this day. Pareus Comment. in Gen. 21. 12: Illusio Ismaelis adversus fra●rem significat, filios carnis persecutionem intent●re filiis promission●●. P●scator schol. in locum. Ita & nunc carnalis Israel spiritua em persequitur. Grot. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Sic & nunc Judaei illis ritibus addicti quos vultis imitari, maximo odio prosequuntur Christianos. Diodati. Annot. ad Gal. 4. 29. But as] this singular privilege hath a condition joined unto it like unto that which happened unto Isaac who was scorned by Ishmael, Gen. 21. 9 that is to say, that all Christians are likewise persecuted by the Jews. Di●son. Cum enim in Abrahami famil●a is qui naturae vi ordinariâ tantum genitus est, persecutus est eum, qui divinitus & spirituali ratione est genitus; Quid mirum, si idem nunc usu veniat nobis? Trapp. Com. on the place. Even so it is now] And so also it is now, may we say at this day. For what do Papists persecute us for else, but because we reject their justification by works? which being determined I infer that Mr. Bls. arguing includes many absurdities. 1. That when it is said, Even so it is now, and the term [they that are born after the flesh] is to be supplied, he by [being born after the flesh] means Birth by natural genoration of infants born of Christian Parents, in which are many gross absurdities. 1. That he understands this said of infants, which must then be said to persecute. 2. That he takes [being born after the flesh] in the later part to note natural birth: but that is clean besides the Apostles meaning, who considers persons born after the flesh, not as born by humane members and seed, but as born by a fleshly covenant. Otherwise it should import no Allegory contrary to the Apostles speech, v. 24. which tells us these things are an Allegory, that is, do speak or declare some other thing than the narration according to the Grammar-sense imports, and that is, to be born according to the fleshly covenant, that is, to embrace the Doctrine of that covenant. 3. That [to be born after the flesh] should import birth of Abraham as a believer, and so natural generation of each child of a believer in that respect, but than [to be born after the flesh] would be common to Isaac with Ishmael, to him that is born after the spirit, of the free woman, by promise, with him that is born after the flesh of the bond woman; for to be born of Abraham or a believer agrees also to Isaac, to him that is born after the spirit, of the free woman, by promise; whereas to be born after the flesh is taken in a sense from which Isaac and we, that is, Paul and other Christian believers are excluded. For he infers v. 31. Therefore brethren, we are not the children of the bond woman, which is all one with this, We are no● born after the flesh, as it is expressed, v. 23. whence it is apparent that [being born after the flesh] doth only import the birth of the bond woman, generation by Abraham being not considered in this thing. 4. Mr. Bl. doth quite pervert the Apostles intent in taking to be born after the flesh to import an honour, and that it implies two things: 1. A birth of nature, a child by lineal descent of such a father. 2. Outward Prerogatives that accompany such a birth, as his words are Vindic. Foed. cap. 40. whereas the Apostle mentions birth after the flesh as a debasement, takes it in the worse part, not as importing a descent from the father, but from the mother, and that mother a bond woman, and therefore the children servants or bond slaves by reason of their being born after the flesh. I will use the words of Cameron in his Conference with Tilenus, Die Dominica April 26. 1620. sect. 18. Contrà verò Ismael etsi patre libero attamen matre servanatus est, porro partus ventrem sequitur, nascendi ergo conditione servus fuit: tales scilicet sunt, qui Deo cultum exhibent servilem fusticiarii: where he explains the Apostles words, Gal. 4.  
Against this Mr. Bl. excepts Vindic. Foed. cap. 40. 1. That I make the Apostles parallel to look at the Allegory, and not at the History▪ when the Text makes it plain that the Apostle looks at the History, then and now are both Adverbs of time, and relate to Ishmaels' jeers in person, not to the malignity of men of the covenant of works against those of the covenant of grace: Here he is wholly silent, and answers in his Apology nothing at all.  
Answ. I conceived in answering the second I had answered this exception. But I now answer particularly. I conceived he meant by the history those words v. 22. 23. and the forepart of the 29. v. As then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit. And by the parallel he meant the later part of the 29. v. And the allegory to be that which answers to Ishmael, to wit, to seek righteousness by the Law, and to Isaac, to wit, to seek righteousness by faith: which may be seen in Bezas and Piscator's Diagrams, where Beza and Piscator make Ishmael 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to answer, or to be in the same rank as the type with the Justiciaries that seek righteousness by the Law, which answers ●o Hagar, whose gneration is after the flesh, that is, justification is by works, and are cast out of the family of God, excluded from the inheritance of life as Ishmael from abraham's, and Isaac to answer to believers by virtue of the Covenant of the Gospel answering to Sara, whose birth is after the Spirit, that is, whose justification is by faith, and so are in Abraham's house and heirs of eternal life. Now it is true I do make the history to be in the forepart of the 29 v. and the mystery or allegory in the later: not but that I acknowledge there is a history in both parts of the verse, as the Adverbs then and now show. But it is not the same history in the later part of the verse which is in the former. For then there should be nothing allegorized, yea there would be a mere tautology, if as Mr. B●. speaks, then and now both adverbs of time relate to Ishma●s jeers in person, than the speech of the Apostle is inept or rather false. For than it should be [As Ishmael in person then jeered Isaac, so now Ishmael in person jeers Isaac] which is I say still a gross absurdity. But the later part contains another history of what was done in the Apostles time, where in the terms [born after the flesh and after the spirit] are allgorized, and applied to other sorts of persons, and the term [now] relates the malignity of men of the covenant of works against those of the covenant of grace, as hath been fully proved before against Mr. Blake.  
2. ' ●M. Bl. excepted, that I shut out the literal sense both from the history and parallel, and bring in an allegorical sense in both, when the contrary is evident in the Text, for though Ishmael be a Type of one under the covenant of works, yet that Ishmael himself was a Justiciary, or that he sought righteousness that way, and persecuted Isaac under any such notion, as a man for Gospel-righteousness, Scripture hath no word, or so much as any colour. ' ●  
Answ. This exception is the same in effect with the former, and in answering this the former was answered in my Postscript, sect. 5. and now this is answered by answering the former, yet I find a necessity to add something by reason of Mr. Bls. unreasonable importunity. I take notice that Ishmael is confessed to be a type of one under the covenant of works, and whether he were himself a Justiciary is not material, though sure there is some colour for it. But this seems to be Mr. Bls. mind that in the parallel, Gal. 4. 29. there's no allegorical sense, because Ishmael himself was not a Justiciary: which reason rests on this conceit, that neither in the forepart nor the later part of v. 29. by [he that was born after the flesh] is meant any other than Ishmael himself or in person, which how it makes the Apostles speech tautological or false is showed before.  
Mr. Bl. goes on, To this he answers, he shuts not out the literal sense from the History but from the parallel, and that is so far from being contrary to the Text, that it is expressly said, These things are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Allegory. I desire the Reader to take notice, what kind of interpretation Mr. T. will put on this Text, and who will have him pass for an eminent Scripture interpreter? (when Mr. B. is a man in his high censure defective in it) Then and now are both Adverbs of time, and we must have a literal then and a mystical now, one of them to answer the History and the other the Allegory; if my interpretation be thus gross, I desire the Reader to disclaim it; either the History must be wholly looked at in the parallel, or else the Allegory, there is that harmony between the Apostles then and now that will not admit such divorce and separation.  
Answ. What I said of Mr. Bs. interpretations of Scripture in my Praecursor, sect. 3. appears by this writing to be right, and will appear more hereafter. Did he measure himself su● modulo ac ped●, he would be more cautelous than he is in expounding Scripture, and if he did take warning by my words the Church of God would have cause to thank me for them, however he or Mr. Bl. take them. I am sorry that the Reader and myself are troubled about such st●rtings rather than arguings, which Mr. Bl. here and elsewhere useth, which sure do ill become him, who should at the years he is now of rather weigh things than lightly pass ever them with satirical quips instead of arguments. He may take notice that I make no mystical Now, Gal. 4. 29. but in both parts the Adverbs of time are literal, and yet the terms [he that is born after the flesh, and he that is born after the spirit] are without any absurdity meant allegorically, as I have both said and demonstrated.  
3. Saith Mr. Bl. I have told him, that he makes two contradistinct species of birth, that both cannot be incident to one man, no more than a man be a brute beast, or a brute beast a bird; when it is plain that here is not a distribution of a genus into several species, but a distribution of a subject according to its several adjuncts, of which I give several instances.  
Answ. I said in my Postscript, that I not orely make birth after the flesh and after the spirit contradistinct but also contrary. Contradistinct species may be incident to the same person, the same man may b● lo●g and broad, just and temperate, but not contrary, as white and black, just and unjust; [Birth] distributed into birth after the flesh and after the spirit must needs be a genus, or an equivocal term, it cannot be any subject either quod or quo, it being neither substance, quantity nor quality, but either action or passion, action as from the mother, passion as in the person born. Now actions though they are capable of various modifications, yet I do not think any Logicians call them subjects, or their several modifications adjuncts: but the substance whose action or passion it is, is the subject both of the action and passion, and their degrees and modifications, and these are adjuncts of that substance.  
Mr. Bl. adds of me, He is pleased to deny that it is a distribution of the subject according to its adjuncts, and gives in the thing in dispute for a reason. Then the same person (he says) would be born after the spirit and after the flesh.  
Answ. I give in this reason I confess: but I did not think this was in dispute, but out of all dispute▪ the Apostle making them two sons born of two mothers, v. 22. two several ways, v. 23. born to two several estates, v. 24, 25, 30. the one persecuting the other, and all these diversities are in the persons which are Types, and in their Antitypes; and the Apostle thence inferreth, that the one are not the other, v. 31. whence it follows, that birth after the flesh and spirit are not adjuncts of the same subject, but contrary attributes of several subjects.  
Mr. Bl. proceeds▪ Presently he confesseth that Isaac was born after the flesh in the two senses I mention. And I am sure Mr. T. will not deny that Isaac was born after the Spirit, and then either truth is very absurd, or else Mr. T. hath quit me from absurdity; but then he says, It is untrue in the Apostles sense, for than he should be the child of the bond-mayd, not by promise, a persecutor to be cast out, not to inherit. To which I answer, that my sense is the Apostles sense, and Mr. T. his sense far from it: For though the Apostle doth indeed allegorise the Text, as Arias Montanus renders it, quae sunt allegorizata, yet the Apostle in the parallel looks at the letter of the history, as I have shown, not at the Allegory, which Mr. T. had not a face to oppose, either he must deny now and then to be Adverbs of time, or else he must allow of my interpretation, Ishmael did never as a Justiciary prosecute Isaac under the notion of a follower of Evangelical righteousness.  
Answ. I do confess Isaac was born after the Spirit, and that he was born after the flesh in the two senses of Mr. Bl. for one born of natural parents Abraham was his natural father, and in the sense more common in Scripture for the outward prerogatives that accompany such a birth (though I do not find the phrase, born after the flesh in this later sense in Scripture, not Phil. 3. 4. Rom. 9 3. 5. 2 Cor. 5. 16. where the term [flesh] is used and yet I think only in the first place importing prerogatives, no where the phrase born after the flesh in that sense) yet not in the Apostles sense, in which to be born after the flesh notes birth without consideration of the father as by a mother that was a bondwoman, and so no prerogative is intimated in it but a debasement or diminution and so Isaac was not born after the flesh, that is not of a bondwoman, by an usual way of generation, but of the freewoman by Divine virtue according to a promise to her when past child-bearing in the course of nature. And this to be the Apostles sense is proved before, and Mr. Bls. sense proved very absurd, and his reasons for it answered.  
Yet he adds of me. After some concessions in full contradiction to himself, I deny not (saith he) but legal Justiciaries may be in the visible Church as Ishmael in Abraham's house, though the Apostle make the parallel only in the casting out, that they might not inherit, Apolog. pag. 114.) he saith, if Mr. Bl. would gather anything hence for himself, he must prove that the Apostle makes some to be of the visible Church by virtue of being born after the flesh as their prerogative, which is as wide from the Apostles meaning, as the East is from the West, as far as the East is from the Sunrising, he should have said, that is the thing that I have proved, and do maintain, I laid down by way of Syllogism and have an Apology instead of an answer. Mr. T. hath a notable faculty in begging of the question in agitation. The Apostles full scope (I confess) is another thing; but I still affirm that he occasionally expresses that from whence this is evidently deduced, namely a distinction of births literal not allegorical, which Mr. T. never will be able with any reason to deny, till it can be proved that then and now look at the Allegory, not at the History; I can prove from Luke 13. 16. that the Israelitish women are daughters of Abraham, though it is plain that another thing there was Christ's main intention.  
Answ. Mr. Bl. continues to write at random. There's no show of contradiction much less a full contradiction in my words to myself. This may be true, Justiciaries may be in the visible Church, and this also, To be born after the flesh or to be a Justiciary doth not import a prerogative giving title to be of the visible Church, my speech was right, and needs not to be mended by any of Mr. Bls. fl●●ts. He hath a full answer to his Syllogism before, and so he had before in the Apology, the strength of his arguing being thus expressed here, The consequence is plain, birth of the flesh in the Church gave a Church interest, which is denied to be proved from Galat. 4. 26. and was denied before. And though being an answerer I need not prove, and therefore begging the question is charged on me frivolously by Mr. Bl. For he only begs the question who takes for granted that which he should prove (which is Mr. Bls. fault who useth to dictate when he should prove) yet did I prove that the Apostles scope is not only another thing than the asserting of a prerogative of visible Church-membership by being born after the flesh, that is, being the child of a believer by natural generation, but that he deduceth their casting out of the Church from it, and that the birth after the flesh is taken in the worse part as that which bringeth bondage not Church estate or Christian liberty, nor doth birth after the flesh respect the descent from a believer but the bondwoman, and that this birth is in the Antitype allegorical, and yet the Adverbs then and now are Adverbs of time, and a history is related in both parts of the 29. v. of Gal. 4. Generally interpreters take the words, even so it is now, as meant of the Jews, which cannot be true literally: for they were not born after the flesh, that is, of bondwomen, but of free-women, which were true Israelites, or daughters of Abraham, as Mr. B. here confesseth.  
Mr. Bl. proceeds. Secondly, he saith that I say, such are in the bosom of the Church, when the Apostle saith, they persecute the Church, and are cast out: I desire the Reader to consider, if this had any truth in it; whether it hold with greater strength for me or him? They are cast out, and therefore they were in, is my Argument: they are cast out, and therefore were never in, saith Mr. T. 2. The Apostle saith no such thing, that they are cast out; Ishmael was in the family when he persecuted, though afterwards he was cast out of the family; these are in the Church, though in case they continue persecution, they shall in fine be cast out; now in present they have a being in it.  
Answ. It is true that this was my second Exception against his gross perverting of the Apostles words, [even so it is now] as if the meaning were, that by virtue of being born after the flesh, some infants, to wit, those that are born of a believing parent are in the bosom of the Church, when the Apostle saith, 1. They persecute, which cannot be meant of infants. 2. In that they are born after the flesh they persecute the Church, therefore he ascribes no privilege to them, as accrueing to them, by the birth after the flesh, but a cursed practice. 3. That they persecute the Church, therefore while born after the flesh they were not in the bosom of the Church, that is the Church Christian visible. 4. That they are cast out, therefore not in the Church. To the two first of these nothing is answered, the consequence of the third is denied, he supposeth they did persecute the Church, and yet remained in; which is most palpably false: For this being apparently meant of the unbelieving Jews that sought righteousness by the Law, and acknowledged so by Interpreters, it is notoriously false, that they were in the bosom of the Christian Church, while they did persecute the Church; yea, Saul himself was not after his conversion taken in presently to communion with the Disciples at Jerusalem, till they knew that he ceased to be a persecutor, Acts 9 26. so that the words [even so it is now] expounded as Mr. Bls. words intimate [even so now by virtue of being born after the flesh, that is, by natural generation born of a believing parent, there are some even infants that are in the bosom of the Christian visible Church, as members of it, and remaining in it, do persecute the Church] are so false, and the Exposition so unsavoury, that it is a wonder to me, that neither Mr. Bl. nor the Prefacers to his Book take care to have it left out. That which Mr. Bl. answers to the fourth thing in this exception is of like stamp. 1. He saith, It follows not they were cast out, therefore never in. But my Argument is this, they were by reason of their being born after the flesh cast out, therefore not for this reason in the bosom of the Church. 2. That it follows, they are cast out, therefore they were in: which consequence I deny, being understood of the Church Christian visible, and the particular persons who are said to be cast out: for they are said to be cast out not from what they had, but from what they might have had or others had; as Matth. 8. 12. it is said, The children of the Kingdom shall be east out (of the Kingdom of Heaven, v. 11. in which others were, and they not) into outer darkness. He saith also, The Apostle saith no such thing that they are cast out, but mentions a command of casting them out. To which I replied, As if Gods dictum were not factum: if they were not cast out, why doth the Apostle allege that Text? My meaning was, God's speech of the casting out of Hagar and Ishmael was not a bare command, but such as included a sentence and decree of God, which he took course to execute, and that the Apostle allegeth the Text not to prove a duty, but to show an event, or fact of God. For as the Apostle allegeth it, the casting out is of the legal covenant, and the children of it those that desired to be under the Law, and their casting out is their rejecting from the inheritance of righteousness and being God's people: now this could not be any man's duty but God's act determining and accordingly accomplishing this sentence, that righteousness shall not be by the Law, nor Justiciaries his people, and therefore it is most absurd in Mr. Bl. to determine, that some by virtue of being born after the flesh have a right to be in the bosom of the Church Christian, when the Apostle determines they are for this reason rejected or cast out.  
I had, thirdly, excepted against Mr. Bl. as making those that are born after the flesh, Gal. 4. 29. Abraham's seed, wherein he joins with Arminius in calling them abraham's seed who sought justice in the Law. Mr. Bl. Vindic. Foed cap. 40. saith, I join with Arminius, and that he follows Mr. Bayne. For saith he, I interpret it of a natural seed that inherit outward privileges, and never reach the birth of the spirit, so Mr. Baines interprets it, the children of the flesh here, are those only who in course of nature came from Abraham, Baines on Ephes. 1. pag. 140. quarto.  
Answ. It is true Mr. Bayne hath those words, but yet he excepteth pag. 139. against Arminius as I do for calling legal justiciaries (who are meant by [they that are born after the flesh, Gal. 4. 29.]) Abraham's seed. For there he thus speaks. Beside that, though the sons of the flesh may signify such, who carnally, not spiritually conceive of the Law, yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoined is never so taken. It is true that Mr. Baines so interprets the term [children of the flesh, Rom. 9 8.] as Mr. Bl. hath cited him, which place he meant by [here] but not the te●m [he that is born after the flesh, Gal. 4. 29.] yea pag. 138. he saith, For though children of the flesh in some other Scripture (meaning Gal. 4. 29.) doth note out justiciaries, seeking salvation in the Law, yet here (Rom. 9 8.) the literal meaning is to be taken; a child of the flesh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh. So that this is the thing that I except against Mr. Bl. for that whereas by the consent of all, that I know, interpreters besides himself [they that are born after the flesh, Gal. 4. 29. in the apodosis there even so it is now] do note legal Justiciaries who are there called the children of the bondwoman, not called Abraham's seed (for those he had determined before to be those of the faith, Gal. 3. 9 Christ's v. 29.) nor to inherit, but cast out, he on the contrary, makes them Abraham's seed as Arminius doth in his Analysis of Rom. 9 And ascribes to them the inheriting of outward privileges as to be members of the visible Church in that they are born after the flesh. Whereas the term [born after the flesh] is taken in the worse part precisely from the birth from the bondwoman abstractively from generation by Abraham and importing no privilege, but a privation of privilege. As for Mr. Bayn, though he interpret [children of the flesh, Rom. 9 8.] of those only who in course of nature came from Abraham, and proves there that it notes not legal Justiciaries, because it is applied to Esau who is considered as having done neither good nor evil. Yet Mr. Bl. wrongs him in two things. 1. In that he saith, Mr. Baine interprets it of a natural seed inheriting outward privileges, whereas though Mr. Baine doth interpret [children of the flesh, Rom. 9 8.] of a natural seed, yet not as inheriting thereby outward privileges. 2. That he makes his exposition of [children of the flesh, Rom. 9 8] to be his exposition of [those that are born after the flesh, Gal. 4. 29.] whereas he expressly saith, though children of the flesh in some other Scripture (which can be no other than Gal. 4. 29. doth note out Justiciaries, seeking salvation in the Law. I confess Cameron in his Conference with Tilenus in the place before cited makes Ishmael not only a Type of Justiciaries, Gal. 4. 23, 29. but also Rom. 9 7, 8 9 and Isaac a Type of believers in both places, and Esau and Jacob Types not of Justiciaries and believers, but of uncalled and called, non-elect and elect, and so the resemblance to be different of the two former brothers from the later; which to me seems not right: for me thinks the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, have this sense, that the thing he had said before did not only appear in Ishmael and Isaac, but also more fully in Esau and Jacob, which me thinks imports, that the Apostle meant to prove the same thing by Esau and Jacob, which he did by Ishmael and Isaac, and me thinks the long Parenthesis he imagines from v. 10, to 30. agrees not with that expression v. 10. Not only so but also, they being connexive particles, and so not agreeable to a Parenthesis. But Cameron and all others I know, understand by [those that are born after the flesh, Gal. 4, 29.] legal Justiciaries. Mr. John Cotton Grounds of baptism, etc. pag. 158. By such as are born after the flesh (Gal. 4. 29.) the Apostle doth not mean such as are born by ordinary course of nature: but such as are born and bred of the carnal seed of the Covenant of the Law; which as it bego● by Ishmael carnal confidence of his own strength, (or else he would never have slighted and mocked the promised seed) so it begat in Cain and Saul and Judas an utter despair of grace and salvation.  
My fourth exception was, whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptising infants; to be born of Hagar, that is, to be in the covenant of works, should give a child interest into the Church of Christ. To this all that Mr. Bl. replies is this, If Mr. Tombs his Gloss (borrowed from Arminius) must stand for the sense of the place, that to be born of the flesh, is to be under the covenant of works, than it will hardly be avoided; but in case Mr. Baines interpretation may stand of a birth in nature, according to the flesh, than the Argument is valid.  
Answ. That Mr. Baines doth interpret no otherwise the term [born after the flesh, Gal. 4. 29.] than I do, is showed above: yet if it were true, that he did as Mr. Bl. misallegeth him interpret [born after the flesh, Gal. 4. 29.] of those only who in course of nature came from Abraham, yet it is false that either there or Rom. 9 8. he conceived this term [children of the flesh] to import a natural seed by virtue of it inherititing outward privileges, and therefore the Argument of Mr. Bl. is not valid, though Mr. Baines were granted to be rightly alleged by him. And for that he saith, I borrow my Gloss from Arminius: I answer, I have showed that I have deduced it from the Apostles own words, and have the concurrent judgement of many Divines of best note, to whom it is no disparagement, that in this Arminius joins.   

SECT. XXIII.  
Mr. Brinsley and Dr. Homes their conjecture from Hebr. 6. 2. to prove infant-baptism is refelled.  
THere is another Text, to wit, Hebr. 6. 2. from which Dr. Homes Animad. on my Exercit. pag. 58. and after cap. 10. would prove infant-baptism, and with him Mr. John Brinsley Doctrine and Practice of Poedob. pag. 76. etc. which if their arguing were good, would not only prove the practice of infant-baptism, but also that it is a principle of Christianity, and part of the foundation.  
The arguing is to this effect, If the Doctrine of laying on of hands put after the Doctrine of baptisms cannot be expounded of any other than the laying on of hands for confirming the baptised in infancy than the Doctrine of laying on of hands put after the Doctrine of baptisms presupposeth infant-baptism. But the Antecedent is true, Ergo, the Consequent. The Antecedent is proved by parts, 1. It cannot be understood of laying on of hands for healing or miraculous gifts of the Spirit. For then the knowledge of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit should be put among the Principles of Christian knowledge, which is absurd.  
To which I answered in my Exercit. pag. 22. that it is no absurdity to put that among the Principles of Christian knowledge, those gifts being though by extraordinary power, yet frequent in those days, and necessary to be known to confirm young Christians, that Jesus is the Christ, because the Spirit thus given was the great witness concerning Christ, that he was the Son of God, and showed that he was gone up to the Father, else the Spirit had not descended, it was it by which the world was rebuked, and the Saints established.  
To this saith Dr. Homes, that I by and by as good as confess it a eogent reason, because I go about to prove that imposition of hands here mentioned is for Ordination, because it was still in use, and to continue to be used.  
Answ. The Doctor misallegeth my words: for I do not say positively as he citys them, but comparatively thus; for it is more likely that imposition of hands for Ordination, which was still in use, and to continue to be used, should be there meant, than laying on of hands for confirmation after baptism of infants, which hath no Rule nor Example in Scripture.  
2. Saith Dr. Homes, Those gifts usual only in that little time of the Apostles were not to be joined with, and put among the first Principles of Christian Religion to be taught young ones to fit them for baptism, or to give an account of their faith after baptism.  
Answ. Those Principles Heb. 6. 1, 2. are not said to be taught to little ones in age, but in knowledge of Christian Religion, nor are they said to be taught to fit them for baptism, or to give account of their faith after baptism: they may be principles and a foundation, though they were taught them after baptism, and to establish themselves rather than to give account to others. Now for what reason the knowledge of these might be a part of the beginnings of the Doctrine of Christ to young Christians is given above. And there is in the Text that which may induce us to conceive the giving the spirit by laying on of hands meant, because v. 4. they that were enlightened, which many even of the Ancients understood of baptism, commonly called by the Greeks [enlightening] are said, to have tasted of the heavenly gift and to be partakers of the Holy Ghost, which seems to be meant in respect of these gifts, and Paul Acts 19 2. propounded this as a Catechism question to certain Disciples at Ephesus, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But I rested not on it, because the other of laying on of hands for Ordination seemed to me more likely then.  
2. Saith Mr. Brinsley, It's not likely to be meant of laying on of hands for Ordination, 1. Because that's not fit to be taught younglings, children, novices, as milk, Heb. 5. 12. If this be milk, viz. the Doctrine of Church-discipline, Church-officers, Church-goverment, etc. what shall we call o● count strong meat?  
To this was answered, that however all the Doctrine about Church-discipline might be unfit to be taught novices, yet laying on hands for Ordination being an outward ri●e of continued use, it might be needful to be taught younglings in Christian profession.  
To this Dr. Homes replies, that no ingenuous man weighing and pondering things will think that little children should be taught, as one of the first elements of Christian faith the imposition of hands to ordain Ministers.  
To which I say, many even of later Writers, whom me thinks the Doctor should not deny to be ingenuous men do refer the laying on of hands, Heb. 6. 2. to Ordination, Dicson on Heb. 6. 2. Ames Bell. Ener. tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 1. th'. 8. Cartwright Answ. to Rh. Annot. in locum. Thomas Hooker Survey part. 1. cap. 1. pag. 7. Noyes the Temple measured, pag. 70. Hudson Essence and Unity of the Church, pag. 9 and Vindic. pag. 22. Dr. Hammond of the Keys cap. 4. sect. 28. Chamier tom. 4. Panstr. Cath. lib. 4, cap. 10. sect. 38. recites the opinions of Papists, as differing, some referring to Confirmation, some to Ordination, some to giving the Holy Ghost. The New Annot. Diodati, speak as uncertain, to which to refer it, Grotius refers it to all rites besides baptism▪ and the Lords Supper, in Confirmation, Ordination, curing the sick, reconciling penitents, blessing the married: and therefore whether little children were taught the Doctrine thereof or no, many ingenuous men conceive it meant, Heb. 6. 2. 2. Though it might be conceived unfit for little children in age to be taught, yet it may nevertheless be fit to be taught younglings in Christianity meant, Heb. 5. 12. It seems to me to be as fit to be taught little children as the Doctrine of Confirmation, and may be as easily learned by them as the points about the Resurrection of the Dead, and eternal Judgement.  
2. Saith Mr. Brinsley, The very putting these two together [baptisms and laying on of hands] seems in calvin's judgement to import some relation that the one should have to the other, as in the other Principles which are by pairs.  
To this I answered, that baptism and imposition of hands might be fitly coupled, being both Ordinances for initiation, the one into the profession of Christianity, the other into sacred function.  
To this Dr. Homes replies, that imposition of hands initiated but few, and that long after they are Church members, and that Marriage might better be coupled with baptism or imposition of hands and the Lords Supper.  
Answ. If all this were granted, yet the answer stands good, that the joining proves not Mr. Brinsleys sense necessary, which is enough for my purpose to show the insufficiency of his Argument.  
But Dr. Homes thinks to blow away all by avouching his and Mr. Brinsleys interpretation, which he calls a naked and honest explication of the Text. And that is, that the Doctrine of baptisms is the Doctrine which the catechised of the heathens recited afore their baptism, and the Doctrine of laying on of hands was the Doctrine which infants of believers before baptised in their infancy, after they were past childhood, rehearsed before the Church, upon which they were received into the Church by imposition of hands.  
Answ: He may well call it a naked interpretation, because it is brought into the world without proof, there being nothing in the Text for it, and all the show of proof is only the opinion of some late writers mistaken about the practice of antiquity. Yea me thinks if the Doctor with his brethren of the congregational way, as it is called, did believe this interpretation to be genuine, they should admit their infant-sprinkled members by laying on of hands, which yet I hear not that they do. But against this interpretation are these reasons. 1. In it is supposed that the Doctrine of baptisms, and laying on of hands is not the Doctrine concerning those rites, but the Doctrine recited when those rites were used. But the Doctrine then recited being the Doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement, and the profession of repentance from dead works and faith towards God, if the Doctrine of baptisms and the laying on of hands be the Doctrine recited by the baptised, and confirmed at the use of those rites, it will be the same with the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement, repentance from dead works and faith towards God, and so those several principles will be confounded. 2. The Doctrine of baptisms was that which in those to whom the Apostles wrote was laid before, which is intimated in the words v. 1. not laying again. But they were Hebrews, therefore not, as the Doctor, Heathens that recited it at baptism. 3. There's no distinction in the Text as if some recited the Doctrine at baptism, and others who had been baptised in infancy recited it at laying on of hands, but the same persons had the Doctrine of both laid in them. 4. There's not a word of reciting the Doctrine at the several rites by the taught, but the laying of the foundation of the Doctrine of those rites by the Teachers. 5. The Doctrine of baptisms whether by them be meant those of John and Christ, or other, and of laying on of hands is more likely and more generally conceived to be concerning the use of baptism and laying on of hands. But the Doctrine of the use of these was not recited by either sort of catechised persons, though both sorts were taught both doctrines. 6. The placing the words [the Doctrine of baptisms and laying on of hands] in the middle between faith and resurrection of the dead, is against the Doctor's sense, sith the Doctrine of baptisms, being joined by apposition to faith and repentance, the sense must be, that repentance and faith were the Doctrine recited at baptism, not the resurrection of the dead, which comes after, if the Doctor's sense were right. 7. This order leads us to conceive, that the writer of that Epistle did orderly place the elements of Christianity in which Christians were instructed, to wit, repentance and faith before baptism, than the baptism of water, and the laying on of hands for the obtaining the Spirit by prayer after baptism, and then the declaration of what they were to expect, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement, wherein sentence should pass on them concerning their everlasting state. 8. The terms [of repentance, of faith, of the doctrine, of the resurrection, of judgement] are all governed of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the foundation] as if they were possessed of it (as the Grammarians speak) the word [Doctrine] is not joined by apposition to [faith] as if the sense were [which is the Doctrine of baptisms] which must be the sense if the Doctor's interpretation be right. 9 Those interpreters which are brought as giving us that sense which Dr. Homes and Mr. Brinsley allege are but late writers, and such as speak only by guess without proving the antiquity of the use they mention out of ancient writers, or alleging any ancient writer expounding the Text Heb. 6. 2. ●s referring to that use, Dr. Homes recites p. 59, 60. the words of Pareus, Calvin, Bullinger, Marlorat, Hoffman, Theophylact, Mr. Cotton, of all which there is none afore the 16. Century but Theophylact placed by Dr. Usher at the year 10 70. and his words with the words of Hoffman, and Marlorat do not at all speak of the use of laying hands on children of believers baptised in infancy, and Bullingers' words apply the laying on of hands to the ordination of Pastors. So heedlessly did Dr. Homes write his Animadversions that his own authors he allegeth are not for him, or else against him. And for Mr. Cotton he saith only, There be that conceive and that not improbable there was such an use, and that some judicious Divines have conceived that use to be the reason of reckoning the laying on of hands among the Principles, Heb. 6. 2. and he brings it to prove that then Elders were not without laying on of hands, for all Church-members had hands laid on them, and so might more freely lay hands on others: which speech if true, and the inference be good, than women who were Church-members had hands laid on them, and might more freely lay hands on others. But the New England Elders, of whom I think Mr. Cotton was one, if not the very Penner of those answers, in the Answer to the 32. Question pag. 69. say, If it were not so, than one of these would follow, either that the Officers must minister without any Ordination at all, which is against 1 Tim. 4. 16. Heb. 6. 2. So that there it is referred to the same laying on of hands which is mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. which is indeed a very common exposition of interpreters. It is true Calvin and Pareus refer it to the use Mr. Brinsley mentions: yet Chamier tom. 4. Panstr. Cath. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect. 39 allegeth with Salmeron, Justinian, Calvin, Beza, Aretius, Piscator, concerning the initial laying on of hands upon the catechised to prepare them to receive baptism, (for which use Dr. Hammond in his letter of resolute. pag. 195. brings some places of the ancients) and Calvin in his institutions l. 4. cap. 19 sect. 4. disallows Hieroms judgement, conceiving that the laying on of hands for confirmation was an Apostolical Ordinance. Beza saith, that the Doctrine Heb. 6. 1, 2. was delivered when they met either to baptise, or lay on hands on infants or adult persons; so that he speaks as one not fully resolved. And indeed interpreters, as is showed above, are not agreed whether to refer it to laying on hands on the baptised or the ordained, yet very few of the Protestants refer it to the laying on of hands for confirmation of them that were baptised in infancy, and the 25. Article of the Church of England makes Confirmation one of those things which have grown of the corrupt following of the Apostles.  
I said in my Exercit. sect. 14. that if Hierom. tom. 2▪ in his Dialogue against the Luciferians do assert that use of imposition of hands from Scripture, yet he allegeth not Heb. 6. 2. for it, but the Examples of giving the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands in the Acts of the Apostles.  
To this Dr. Homes replies, 1. That however the antiquity holds good, that imposition of hands was used to be after applied to them that have been baptised.  
To which I say, This being granted, yet as I show there and here the use of baptising infants is not proved thereby, nor doth Hierom confirm Mr. Brinsleys Exposition.  
2. Saith Dr. Homes, In that place he quotes other places than the Acts of the Apostles, and speaks to our purpose thus, and then reciting some words of Hierom, adds, so Hieronymus. Wherefore he supposeth imposition of hands may be on them that had the Spirit in baptism before: which is not denied by me, nor do I see what that is to Dr. Homes his purpose to prove that the laying on of hands Heb. 6. 2. is meant of believers infants before baptised, and then upon their own profession received into the Church by imposition of hands. Yet Chamier. tom. 4. Panstr. Cath. lib. 4. cap. 11. sect. 41. allegeth Hierom, as referring the imposition of hands to the time of baptism, not some years after.  
I said in my Exercit. pag. 23. but if it were supposed, that this imposition of hands meant Heb. 6. 2. were on the baptised; yet this proves not the baptism of infants in the Apostles days, unless it could be proved, that it was used after the baptism of infants only for a confirmation either of the baptism or the baptised. On the contrary, it is apparent out of Tertullian de corona militis, cap. 3. that in the primitive times the baptised did make his confession sub man●● antisti●is, the Minister laying hands on him.  
To this Dr. Homes says, 1. That the learned men before quoted gave us the sum of Antiquity. But how little to the purpose their words are, or how destitute of proof is showed above. 2. He citys in the Margin Tertul. de bapt. Cyprian. Ep. 3. & 70. August. Tract. 6. on Johns Epist. But none of the passages he citys prove the use of laying on hands after the baptism of infants, which is many years after baptism, but of laying hands presently after baptism. 3. He excepts against my allegation out of Tertullian, that he there disputes for receiving unwritten traditions, that he alludes to no Scripture authority, or to any approved Antiquity: Which doth no whit infringe my allegation: For notwithstanding these things his testimony is valid for the practice of what was done at baptism in his time, of which no doubt he was often a spectator.  
4. Saith he, [Sub manu] is a Phrase that hath so many senses as it is no ways certain, that here [Sub man] [under the hand] signifies imposition of hands. Haply it may rather signify the Ministers lifting up of his hand in prayer: as Pacianus hath it, We obtain, saith he, in Prayer pardon, and the Holy Spirit in baptism by the mouth and hand of the Antistes.  
Answ. The most likely sense is, the Bishop laying on his hand, as being nearest the use of the phrase. Dr. Homes his sense is not likely, 1. Because that which is said was done under the hand of the Bishop, to wit, the protestation of the baptised, intimates that the Bishop did not then lift up his hand in prayer, but hold his hand on the head of the Protestant. Nor is it likely he would then be praying when he should attend to his confession. 2. Dr. Homes shows not the phrase to be used elsewhere in his sense. For that which he citys out of Pacianus is a different expression, by the hand, is not all one with under the hand. And yet Chamier. Panstr. Cath. tom. 4. lib. 4. cap. 11. sect. 28. refers that obtaining by the hand to the imposition of hands at baptism.  
I added further. And to save labour in reciting testimonies Chamier may be seen, who in his Panstr. Cath. tom. 4. lib. 4. cap. 11. sect. 14. etc. at large proves out of the Ancients, that the imposition of hands, which was after made a distinct Sacrament called Cofirmation, was either a part or Appendix of baptism, and citys many passages to show, that it was when the baptised was to confess the faith, and renounce Satan.  
Against th●s Dr. Homes excepts, that Chamier quotes but few, and those not of credit. But though the Books some of them be not the Author's works whose names they bear, yet many of them are of credit, yea all for what they are brought, and for the purpose for which they are alleged however Dr. Homes scorn or score with his nails those Fathers▪ if I may use his own words of my doing which is more justly to be charged on himself. Dr. Homes grants there imposition of hands presupposeth baptism, precedent, though in men of ripe years, but he should have added at the same solemnity joined with it. The other testimonies are sufficient to show the practice in the Age in which the Writers of them lived. But for Dr. Homes to say, that Chamier doth not assert as from himself or from antiquity, that imposition of hands was to be conjoined with baptism, when he doth at large undertake to prove, it was a part or appendix of baptism, is too much boldness in the Doctor, much more to say, But rather tells us the contrary, partly from himself, partly from the Authors he quotes, as that men were reconciled in penance by imposition of hand●, Sect. 53. which is nothing to the business. For though imposition of hands in reconciliation might be unconjoyned to baptism, yet what Chamier says stands good, that imposition of hands for Confirmation was a part or appendix of baptism. And what the Doctor adds, Sect. 54. that though Confirmation belongs to the solemnities of baptism, yet after a while after baptism, is a plain confession of what I allege as averred by Chamier, that that imposition of hands which after was made a distinct Sacrament long after baptism, did formerly belong to the solemnity of baptism: which shows how little regard the Doctor had to his own allegations. But it is not Chamier alone who avers that anciently baptism and laying on of hands were together; Salmasius also a man of very accurate study in Antiquity in his Apparatus ad librum de Primatu Papae, pag. 84. speaks thus, Discat igitur in Aegypto & in Graecia & in toto Oriente confirmationem quae separata est à baptismo non fuisse notam. Unus idemque Presbyter in omnibus Orientis Ecclesiis simul & semel in baptismo conferendo etiam Chrismationem cum manuum imposition● ac signaculo Dominico dabat egressis è piscin● sive baptisterio: which he proves there▪ out of Severus Alexand●. Cyr●llus Hierosolymitanus, and refers to more testimonies in his Treatise De Chrismate. And he says, p. 1●4. Primis temporibus in Occidente Chrismatio & manuum impositio sequebantur post baptismum, posteaquam à baptismo separata est confirmatio aliquando in sola Chrismatione constitit, pag. 182. he proves in Tertisllians, Cyprians, and others times, that Haetres erant baptismi hoc est unius Sacramenti parts, lotio, unctio, & impositio manuum. Out of all which I conclude, that the laying on of hands for the confirmation of children of believers baptised in infancy, when they came to years, and professed the faith, was altogether unknown in the Eastern Churches anciently, and in the Western only in the declining times, and therefore notwithstanding Calvin and Pareus his conceits there was no such thing meant, Heb. 6. 2. as baptism of infants, and their receiving into the Church, many years after by laying on of hands, there being no such things known in the days of that Writer, nor some hundred of years after, and therefore Mr. Brinsley and Dr. Homes Argument from thence for infant-baptism is of no weight. I go on.   

SECT. XXIV.  
Dr. Hammond his way of proving infant-baptism from the Jews baptising Proselytes children is showed to be vain.  
DR. Henry Hammond in his Letter of Resolution to six Queries, in the fourth Quere, Sect. 23. speaks thus, But there is no need of laying much weight on this, or any the like more imperfect ways of probation, (meaning the example of Circumcision, Gen. 17. of baptising a whole household, Acts 16. 33. Christ's reception of little children, Matth. 19 14. Mark 10 16.) The whole fabric being sufficiently supported, and built on this Basis (the customary baptism among the Jews) and that discernible to be so, if we consider it first negatively, then positively. First negatively, that Christian baptism, which is an institution of Christ's, lightly changed from the Jewish custom of receiving of Proselytes by him appointed in his life-time, and settled a little before his Ascension hath nothing in the pattern, whence it is copied out, nothing in the copy itself, as it is set down in the New Testament, i. e. in the words of the institution, or in his or the Apostles practice, which doth any way exclude the Christians children from being part of that indefinite number, that aught to be baptised, or for whom baptism was instituted by Christ. That there is nothing exclusive of them in the pattern (the Jewish custom of baptism) hath been sufficiently evidenced by the several branches of that already insisted on.  
Answ. I like the Doctor's ingenuity in his waving the imperfect ways of proving infant baptism he mentions, and doubt not to show his own to be no better than those he relinquisheth. The substance of his proof is this, as I conceive. The Jews were wont when they admitted Proselytes to baptise them and their children, and this is discernible to be the pattern of Christian baptism, and that Christ's institution was but a copy according to that pattern, and therefore infants to be baptised, the Apostles and the first Churches practise showing it to be so. Concerning which I say, 1. It seems baptism was a custom of all nations as well as the Jews. Grot. Annot. in Matth. 3. 6. conceives that for as much as strangers washed, not circumcised, were obliged by those Laws only which God had given to all mankind, it is easy to be understood that baptism was among old institutions arising, as I think, after the great deluge in memory of the world purged. Whence that famous speech among the Greeks, The sea washeth away all the evils of men. Surely we read even in the Epistle of of Peter, that baptism is answerable to the deluge. And Annot. in Matth. 28. 19 yea with prosane nations it was of old used, that they who would be initiated were first washed all over their body, no doubt testifying thereby their purpose of innocency. 2. By the passages cited by the same Author in Matth 28. 19 Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and Augustin allegeth those nation's custom for their practice; nor do I know that ever Dr. Hammond 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, but some passages in the Fathers show rather that they took it as instead of Circumcision. Mr. Selden de Syned: Ebrae. Lib. 1. Cap. 3. pag. 40, 41. mentions some who have conceived that the jewish baptism in initiating Proselytes was in imitation of Christ's example, though he do not believe it; and that Schickardus conceives they added a certain Baptism to Circumcision to difference them from Samaritans, which I allege to show that notwithstanding the Doctor's supposition, that the whole fabric of baptism is discernible to be built on that basis the customary baptism among the Jews, yet many will conceive it needs more proof than the bare recital of passages out of Jewish writers. I for my part conceive that there was a custom of baptising proselytes afore Christ's incarnation among the later Jews, but that either it should begin from jacob's injunction to his household Gen. 35▪ 2. or God's Command, Exod. 19 10. for the Israelites to wash their clothes afore the giving the Law (though the Jewish Doctors allege these for it) I do not conceive, those places speaking of washing Jews by nature, not proselytes, whereas the Jews baptised not Jews by nature, as Selden l. 2 cap 4. de Jure not. ac Gent. juxta discipl. Ebrae. Saith, but by profession, nor do I conceive Mr. Seldens exposition in his Book the Syned, l. 1. cap. 3. that the sea was some vessel or receptacle of waters wherein they washed their bodies before the giving of the Law Exod. 19 10. but the read sea. For as the drinking of the rock, is a relation of an accident of God's providence for them, signifying to them the Lords supper, so their passing through the sea declares, not what they were enjoined to do, but what God did for them, that under the cloud they passed through the sea, to signify to them the same thing that baptism doth to us, our safe passage to life by Christ, nor do I think Dr. Hammonds exposition sect. 7. pag. 181. right, that they were baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea v. 2 i. e. were (by these two great solemnities, the cloud that gave them light by night, and a guard by day, and the sea that was a wall to defend them, and a devouring deep to their enemies) received and initiated into God's Cove 〈…〉 der the conduct of Moses, as since they are wont to be ini●●●●ed by baptism: For when it is said, our Fathers were baptised, it is not mea●t were baptised as si●ce Proselytes were baptised among the Jews, but as Christians were baptised, even as when he saith v. 3. and they did all eat the same spiritual meat, it is meant they did all eat the same spiritual meat, with us Christians, that is, they had Christ signified to them by the Manna they did eat, as we eat Christ spiritually in the Lord's Supper. There's no more an allusion to a custom of the Jews in the one then in the other, but a narration of what happened to them by God's providence, which the Apostle interprets as signs to them of the same thing that baptism, and the Lords supper are to us Christians. And therefore I conceive that the Scripture doth not make the customary use of baptising Proselytes by the Jews as a thing from God, or eyed by Christ as his pattern, but that the custom of baptising proselytes was a tradition of the Elders as the baptisms mentioned Mark 7. 3, 4. and many other things they held. Nor do I think it true that the customary use of the Jews in baptising proselytes and their children, was the pattern of Christ's institution of baptism, and the Apostles and first Churches practise. For according to the custom of the Jews set down out of Maimony and other Jewish Rabbins by Mr. Selden l. 2. de Jure nature. ac gent. etc. cap. 4 lib. 1. de syned. Ebr. cap. 3. John Baptist, and Christ's Apostles should have baptised no native Jews, but only Gentiles that embraced the faith, for after the baptism Exod. 19 10. the Jews did not baptise Jews but only proselytes. Whereas not only John Baptist, but also the Apostles both before, and after the ascension of Christ did baptise Jews as well as Gentiles upon their profession of repentance and faith in Christ, as being agreeable to Christ's institution Matth. 28. 19 2. Christ would not have avouched the baptism of John to be from Heaven, and not from men, if it had been in imitation of and conformity to the Jewish custom. 3. 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. 4. The institution and practice would have been conformable to it. But the contrary appears. 1. In their baptising no infants of the Gentiles at their first conversion: whereas the jews baptised only the Gentiles infants at their first proselyting, not the infants of those who were baptised in infancy. Selden l. 2. de jure not. etc. cap. 4. sed vero, non aliter atque Israelitae ipsi filii proselytorum circumcidendi tantum erant nec quemadmodum parentes sive illi sive filiae baptizandae. Nunquam enim solennis proselyti baptismus ille iterandus erat, nec in ipso qui primo baptizatus (tamet si apostata factus in ritus judaicos rediret) nec in posteris. So that if it be true that the Jewish baptism of Proselytes is the pattern of the Christian, than no infant of Christian race is now to be baptised, but such as were born when the first Gentile Ancestors were converted. Yea the Jews were so far from baptising any infants of proselytes born after the●r first convesion and baptism, that they resolved, as may be seen in Selden ubi supra, and Dr. Hammond himself allegeth sect. 109. if a woman great with child become a proselyte, and be baptised her child needs not baptism when 'tis born. So that whereas the Doctor brings the jewish custom as a pattern for Christian baptism so as that it may be reasonably thought to belong to all that among the Jews were usually baptised, his own arguing will prove that no infant of Christians now descerded from Christian Ancestors, or born of parents formerly infidels after the parents were baptised, should be baptised, because it is against the Jewish custom of baptising any child of a Gentle infidel born after the parents were become proselytes, and baptised; But secondly besides this first and main thing wherein the Doctor's pattern is incorgruous to Christian baptism there are many more disparities, which show that the jewish baptism of proselytes was not the pattern of Christian baptism, As v. g. 1. The baptism of males must be also with Circumcision and an offering. 2. There must be a kind of court of three Israelites skilful in Law to approve it or else it is void, Dr. Hammond sect. 114. Among the jews, saith the Gemara Babyl●▪ the infants used to be baptised upon the profession or confession of the house of judgement, the consistory, and the Gloss saith, the Triumvirs are set over baptism and are necessary to it, and so they become to him a father. and Maimonides, he must be baptised before the Triumvirs. 3. It was not to be on the Sabbath or feast day, or in the night. 4. The body must be washed not in a made receptacle of waters as a vessel or font, but a natural one as a river, pool, well. 5. No part of the body but must be washed, if any scab, or blood hardened or filth f●●ck on the body so as that water could not come to the whole supersicies it was not accounted right baptism, yet they allowed garments which separated not the water from the body. 6. While the proselytes stood in the water the precepts of Moses were recited by the three Israelites skilful in the Law, and he was to take on him the observation of them all not one excepted, or else not accounted a Proselyte. 7. A woman proselyte was placed in the water unto the neck by women which baptised her, while the three Israelites stood after the manner observing the baptism, yet they were to turn away their faces, and go away when the woman came out of the water. 8. Elder Gentiles were made proselytes according to their own choice, younger as males before thirteen years and a day old, females before twelve and a day old according to the mind of their father or the court to which they were subject were admitted to Judaisme. The same right was of a natural fool. Yet if a person under years when baptised did after as soon as he came to age renounce Judaisme, than he lost what privilege he had by baptism either by assent of the parent or the court. 9 The baptism did give them interest in the policy of the jews as other Israelites, except some things peculiarly reserved to natural Israelites. 10. Yet a servant without his Master's consent was not made free. 11. A blessing was to be used at baptism, but unless he were made free, not by the servant, but by the master. 12. A young one as an infant, whether taken or found, the Israelite that possessed it might baptise it, either into the state of an ingenuous person, or freed person, or a servant. 13. They taught that a person baptised was so born again, that lying with his own natural sister was no incest. 14 If the person be privily baptised, though before two, yet he was not counted a Proselyte. All which may be seen in Selden l. 2. de jure not. & Gent. juxta discipl. Ebr. cap. 2, 3. 4. lib. 1. de Syned. Ebr. cap. 3. So that if the baptism of Proselytes among the jews be the pattern of Christian baptism, baptising of women must be by women, no one single Bishop or Presbyter must baptise, but three at least, there must be no private baptism, no baptising in Fonts or Basins, no baptism without the whole body be washed, and so as that no filth or scab hinder the water from coming to the skin, there should be no infants baptised but at the first conversion of the parent, no jew should be baptised, none baptised in the night, on the Sabbath, or other Feast-day. In most of which Christ, john the Baptist, and the Apostles varied from the jews, and therefore they took not their baptism for their pattern, and if they did not make the Jews baptism their pattern in baptising, neither are we to do so, but to follow the rule of Christ's institution, and the Apostles practice, and not the jews use, which is not delivered in Scripture, and much of it according to the superstition and dotages of their Rabbins, and was not a meet religious Sacrament, but a kind of mixed rite partly religious, and partly civil, intitling to Civil as well as Ecclesiastical right, and done by persons Civil rather than Ecclesiastical, and so of a far different nature and use from the Christian baptism. I think Dr. Hammond were he a Bishop would censure such baptising as the jews used as irregular, and then he may well bear with Antipaedobaptists, though they reject his new conceit of making the jewish baptism our pattern, and thereupon grounding the baptising of infants. Himself in his Practical Catechism lib. 6. Sect. 2. allows of sprinkling, though the jewish custom was dipping, yea they so precisely require it, that it was not counted baptism, except the whole body were washed, and yet the Doctor confesseth, 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, and the words [I baptise thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost] he saith, Being by Christ prescribed to his Disciples must indispensably be used. So that when the Doctor pleaseth, the Jewish custom must be the pattern, and when he likes it not, or the Bishop's Canons otherwise order it, he may vary from it: in one thing which Christ did not prescribe, as the Doctor saith, nor did the Apostles that we find so conceive it, yet Christ's prescription must be indispensably used, yet in another thing though appointed by Christ, and according to the primitive ancient custom, a dispensation is allowed by the Doctor, because later custom varies from Christ's appointment and the primitive ancient custom. Such a Lesbian leaden Rule the Doctor dictates by, fit for such as have resolved rather to forgo Christ's appointment than the Bishop's Canons. It is conceived Christ instituted the Lord's Supper, somewhat like the Jews Postcoenium after the Passover Shall then the jews after-Supper be the pattern to the Christians in the Lord's Supper? If so, the Lords Supper must be in private, in the night, administered by the master of the house, no more to receive than were usually at the Passover, not many hundreds, etc. The Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 11. 23. in the use of the Lords Supper, sets down what he received from the Lord, without mentioning the jewish usage, which shows he would have Christians in that rite keep to what Christ appointed, not what the jews practised. And should it not be so in baptism also? It is conceived the use of laying on of hands in Ordination, and the term [Presbyters] were from the jews: Must we then or may we take Rules from their practice in Ordination, and not tie ourselves to the Apostles Canons and practice? One Presbyter or Doctor it's said, according to the ancient manner of the jews, might create another, and sometime by an Epistle or Books an absent person might be created, as may be seen in Selden de Syned. Ebrae. vet. l. 1. c. 14. Must these usages of theirs be a pattern to Christians? The use of Excommunication came from the jews discipline into the Christian, yet so as that the same manner & effect was not retained in both, saith the same Authorin the same book, c. 7. Out of all which I infer that in the use of those rites which were taken from the jews, and brought into the Christian discipline; yet our Rule according to which Christians are to observe those rites, is to be taken from the words and example of Christ and his Apostles, which I doubt not to make it appear do no whit serve for Dr. Hammonds purpose.  
Mr. Marshal in his Defence, p. 170, 171. thinks, this to be a good Argument, that baptism belongs to infants as well as grown men, because, baptism being in use before as an Ecclesiastical rite, though it begun to be a Sacrament of divine institution when john was sent to baptise into the name of Christ, there arespecial testimonies in the Talmud, which declare that infants both of jews and Gentiles were thus admitted, the male children by Circumcision and baptism, the females by baptism, etc. especially since there is not the least hint given in the word that when it was thus advanced to be a Sacrament it should not be applied to those persons to whom before it was, viz. infants as well as grown men.  
But I think Mr. M. cannot find in the Talmud the jews or their infants were thus baptised since the time of giving the Law, Exod. 19 10. I confess the Gentiles infants were baptised as is abovesaid; yet as Mr. Ms. learned men mentioned in his Defence, pag. 227. confess that the baptism of john and of the Pharisees was for a different end, so Dr. Lightfoot Harmony part. 1. pag. 138. saith, the jews baptism was clean of another nature from john's. And in the second part of his Harmony on john 1. 25. pag. 76. he shows sundry differences between them, and citys out of the jewish Doctors some of those differences before alleged; which are enough to show that our baptism is not to be regulated by their practice. Sure it is a wonder to me that Mr. M. engaged to reform the worship of God according to God's Word, and in his Sermon on 2 Chron. 15. 2. Admiring that ever mortal man should dare in God's worship to meddle any jot further than the Lord himself hath commanded, should yet in the point of infant-baptism follow the Talmud quite besides the Lords command. But I return to Dr. Hammond.   

SECT. XXV.  
Dr. Hammonds elusion of Matth. 28. 19 alleged against infant-baptism is refelled.  
SEct 25. Ubi suprà, he saith thus, And in the New Testament I cannot foresee any words that may come under suspicion of doing so, but those of Matth. 28, 19 Goteach all Nations, baptising them, etc. And those words being duly weighed are far from doing so. For the phrase which is there used in the original is a singular one, not duly expressed by our English [teach] It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, make Disciples, or receive into Discipleship all Nations, baptising them in the Name, etc. making this form of baptism their ceremony of receiving them. You may see the word explained in a parallel phrase John 4▪ 1. The Pharisees heard that Jesus makes more Disciples and baptizeth than John, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where to make Disciples and baptise is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where the baptising being immediately annexed to the making or receiving Disciples, and the receiving Disciples not supposing any precedent instruction, but, looking wholly on it as subsequent (in like manner as in this place v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [teaching] follows after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, baptising) all that are thus brought and received ad discipulatum, to be for the future instructed, and instituted in the Christian faith, may surely be received by baptism, the ceremony which is there prescribed by Christ, with which to receive Disciples.  
Answ. Though I conceive Dr, Hammond to ascribe more power to the Canons of Prelates about the Sacraments than is meet, being one who hath written in defence of the Common-prayer Book, yet by this allegation of Matth. 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, Sect. 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. But me thinks if the Doctor will stand to his own words elsewhere, he must acknowledge that by the precept of baptising, Matth. 28. 19 infants are excluded. For the Doctor saith, Sect. 55. Christ's institution makes dipping or sprinkling with water a Sacrament; which institution is Matth. 28. 19 and therefore the Doctor will have the words there indispensably used in baptism; and Sect. 92. he saith, Baptism is a Sacrament, that Sacrament an institution of Christ 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 Sect. 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 Practical Catech. lib. 6. sect. 2. he expounding Christ's institution, saith, that the words import that the person baptised acknowledgeth, maketh profession of believing in three, delivers himself to three, as Authors of his faith, and to be ruled by the direction of this Master, and this he will have to be meant by baptising into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Whence 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 into 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. Yea, if the positive will of Christ be the reason of baptism, they usurp upon Christ's prerogative, who baptise otherwise than Christ hath appointed & then if the precept of Christ doth not necessarily infer infantbaptsm (which the Doctor ingenuously acknowledgeth) it doth by manifest consequence deny it, sith he forbids that to be done otherwise han 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, Son, and Holy Ghost] 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. But let us consider what shift the Doctor makes to elude the force of Christ's institution, Matth. 28. 19 that it may not be thought to exclude infants from baptism. I grant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is best rendered [make Disciples] and like it well, that he acknowledgeth [makes Disciples, and baptizeth, John 4. 1.] is all one with [making Disciples, baptising them, Matth. 28. 19] But I deny, 1. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is well paraphrased by [receive into Discipleship all Nations, baptising them in the Name, etc. making this form of baptism their ceremony of receiving them] For by it the making Disciples is made the same with receiving into Discipleship or receiving Disciples, and baptism the ceremony of receiving into Discipleship, which is as truly the act of the baptised thereby professing or avouching his Discipleship. 2. That the making or receiving Discipleship supposeth not any precedent instruction, but looks wholly on it as subsequent. For 1. that which in Matthew is expressed by, Go ye therefore and make Disciples all Nations, is in Mark 16. 15. 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 Matth. 28. 19 supposeth precedent instruction. 2. Such as the making Disciples was joh. 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, Matth. 3. 1, 2, 5, 6. and concerning the Apostles, Mat. 10. 5, 6, 7. Ergo. Whence, 3. I further argue, That way the Apostles were to disciple all Nations by which they were to disciple the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but that was by preaching, Ergo, discipling supposeth precedent instruction. 4. From the use and notation of the word, which is so to teach as that they learn, and so is used Matth. 13. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is rendered [instructed] by our last Translators, and can be no otherwise rendered than [made a Disciple by teaching] So Acts 14. 21. it is said, Having preached the Gospel to that City, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and having taught or made many Disciples. Whence, 5. it may appear how the Apostles understood the Precept of Christ to preach the Gospel to persons, and thereby make them Disciples. 6. A Disciple and a believer appear to be the same by comparing Matth. 28. 19 with Mark 16. 15, 16. For as the way of making Disciples is more fully expressed by preaching the Gospel; so the Disciple to be baptised is expressed by [the believer] which is put before baptism. Nor is it against this that after baptism they are to be taught, Matth. 28. 20. For that teaching is expressed to be the teaching the observation of all that he commanded: But the teaching that makes Disciples is the preaching the Gospel. So that the plain order and meaning of Christ's words is this, that 1. the Apostles should not stay only within the Land of Israel, but go into all the World. 2. That they should by preaching the Gospel, declaring that Jesus was the Christ, make them Disciples, that is, taught concerning Christ, or believers in him. 3. That they should baptise them. 4. That they should then teach them to observe all his commands. Now infants are not made Disciples by preaching the Gospel, therefore by Christ's institution not appointed to be baptised, and therefore are baptised without his warrant, and consequently unlawfully.  
What Dr. Hammond saith sect. 26. were it all granted him, yet it would no whit avail to prove that an infant may be a Disciple appointed by Christ to be baptised. For 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. What he adds s. 27, 28. is not right. For 1. it is not true, that a Disciple and a Proselyte are perfectly all one. For a Proselyte 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, not to be taught but to enjoy privileges with other Jews, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical. There is no mention of the Disciples of the Priests, but of the Pharisees and Sadduces: But a Disciple of Christ is one that owns Christ for his Teacher and Lord only for spiritual benefits. Nor doth the Holy Ghost at any time call Christians Christ's proselytes but his Disciples, that we might not confound the notions of these terms. And though the origination of the word [proselyte] be from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to come to, and Christ saith, Suffer little children to come to me, and this infers their capacity of proselytism, and the next words [For of such is the Kingdom of God] suppose them particularly qualified for it, yet that coming and imagined proselytism being only for ablessing by prayer, and laying on of hands, not to be made Disciples or baptised, this will not prove them capable of being made Disciples according to Christ's appointment till by hearing the Gospel they own Christ as their Master. The like may be said of the entering into Covenant, Deut. 29. 10. which though in some sense it should be yielded, that infants may enter into Covenant, that is, by their parent'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, v. 15. yet this is insufficient to prove, that such an entering into Covenant makes infants Disciples or subjects of baptism according to Christ's appointment. For in it such a discipling is enjoined as is by Preaching the Gospel, and they only are Disciples to be baptised who are believers, and they only are appointed to be baptised who in their own persons do enter into Covenant, or engage themselves to be Christ's followers.   

SECT. XXVI.  
Dr. Hammond neither from 1 Cor. 7. 14. nor from Sayings of Ancients proves that the Apostles baptised infants.  
HEreto Dr. Hammond adds, to confirm his opinion of Christ's intention to include infants in the institution of baptism for all Nations, and not to exclude them from it, the passage 1 Cor. 7. 14. in which he imagines is a remain and footstep of the Apostles practice of baptising infants. 2. The practice of the first and purest Ages of the Church, which received infants to baptism, and either by so doing testify the Apostolical usage transcribed by them, or else affirm, that they received it by tradition from the Apostles. In both which how he is mistaken remains to be showed.  
First he sets down this, which he cais A brief Paraphrase, though it be too large for a Paraphrase, and takes in more than he can with any colour show to have any thing in the Text answering to it. His words of Paraphrase of 1 Corinth. 7. 12, 13, 14. are these.  
Vers. 12. If any Christian Husband hath an heathen Wife, and she be desirous to continue with him, he ought not to put her away, unbelief being no sufficient cause of Divorce by the Law of Christ.  
Vers. 13. And so in like manner, for the Christian Wife that is married to an Infidel, if he be desirous to live with her, let her by no means separate from him.  
Vers. 14. For (beside the command of Christ, Matth. 5. 32. which obligeth to this) other advantages there are of the believers living with the unbeleiver, worth considering. For by this means it hath oft come to pass that the unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer; and considering the efficacy of good example, 1 Pet. 3. 1. and seasonable exhortation and instruction on presumption of the great zeal (and consequent endeavours and diligence) that by the Law of Christianity the Husband will have to the eternal good of any so near him, as a Wife is, there is great reason of hope that still it may be so, that their living together may produce this effect in the unbeliever, and the intuition of that (more than possible) effect may reasonably move the Christian party not to forsake the other voluntarily. And this one consideration, viz. the probability that the conversation of the believer 1 Pet. 3. 1. should gain, i. e. bring the unbeliever to the faith, and the reasonable presumption that it will be so, is the reason why the young children of Christians, which cannot as yet be deemed believers, are yet admitted to baptism, because by their living in the family with Christian parents they probably, and by the obligation lying on the parents ought to be brought up in the faith, and kept from heathen pollutions, and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents) doth reasonably presume they will. And upon this ground it is, that though the children of Christians are, yet the children of heathens are not admitted to baptism.  
Answer. This Paraphrase is many ways faulty, and far from the meaning of the Apostle. 1. It puts in many things as explicatory of the Text, to which there is nothing answerable in the Apostles words. For, 1. there is nothing that answers to [by this means it hath oft come to pass] Nor, 2. to these words [by the company and conversation of the believer] yea the term [believer] is quite omitted by the Apostle, which considering the term [unbeliever] twice expressed seems to have been done wittingly, that it might not be taken, that he ascribed the sanctification to the faith of the one party. Surely when men specially in Arguments place the force of a reason in a term they use not to omit it, as the Apostle doth here, but to express it remarkably, and with Emphasis. 3. All the words [and considering the efficacy of good Example, 1 Pet. 3. 1. and seasonable exhortation and instruction on presumption of the great zeal (and consequent endeavours and diligence) that by the Laws of Christianity the Husband will have to the eternal good of any so near to him as a Wife is, there is great reason of hope that it still may be so, that their living together may produce this effect in the unbeliever, and the intuition of that (more than possibly) effect, may reasonably move the Christian party not to forsake the other voluntarily] are added without any thing in the least intimated by the words of the Text, but the contrary, even according to his exposition, who makes the term [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctified] refer to some past known Examples, and therefore the forepart of the verse hath not at all that which answers too [on presumption, etc. there is great reason of hope, etc.] which import a contingent event for the future, not a thing past, which is always certain. 4. The term [young children of Christians which cannot as yet be deemed believers] is more and otherwise than is in the Text, which hath only [your children] which is not restrained to infancy, nor doth it appear, that [your] doth imply they were considered as Christians, so as that there should be this construction [your children are holy, because they are children of Christians] distinguishingly from infidels, but [your children] that is, the children of you that doubt, who have had unbelieving husbands and wives, and have had or may have children by them. So that the term [your] only notes the particularity and individuation of the persons, and if considered in any respect besides, it is their doubting condition, or their having unbelieving yoke-fellows. 5. There is nothing to answer those words [because by their living in the family with Christian parents they probably, and by the obligation lying on the parents ought to be brought up in the faith, and kept from heathen pollutions, (and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents) doth reasonably presume they will] 6. Nor is there any thing answering to these words [your children] which his own Paraphrase applies to Christians children. So that the Doctor's Paraphrase is beyond measure culpable in respect of addition.  
2. It is unblamable also in omitting that which the Text expressly and emphatically mentions, to wit, the terms [Wife, Husband] when he saith, [the unbelieved party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer, and after, the probability that the conversation of the believer should bring the unbeliever to the faith] which may be meant of a companion, brother, father, mother, neighbour. 3. There is much faultiness in quite altering the importance of the Apostles words, by substituting instead of were or should be] in the Apostles words [aught to be, they will be] in the Paraphrase. Which is the more unblamable in that himself Sect. 82 pag. 257. doth more truly retain the force of those expressions in the Apostle, when he saith, [The method of the Apostle must needs be this, unless there were, etc. '●would certainly follow that their children were unclean] so that the pretended brief Paraphrase of the Apostles words is very faulty, far from the Rule of a Paraphrase, and instead of explaining doth quite pervert the meaning of the words.  
2. For many other reasons the exposition of the Doctor cannot be right. For 1. In his paraphrase of the Apostles resolution v. 12. he puts [aught] and of v. 13. [let her by no means] as if the Apostle did make it a necessary duty, that they must continue together, whereas the Apostle answerably to their doubt doth only resolve them of the lawfulness of their continuing together, not of the necessity of it, and so v. 14. is a reason of the lawfulness of it notwithstanding their doubt, which appears from the resolution v. 15. [If the unbeliever will depart let him depart] which cannot be expounded otherwise than thus, you are not bound to stay as you are not bound to cause her to depart or to relinquish him, you are at your liberty. For the very next words [a Brother or Sister is not under bondage in such cases] do show that the resolution was of liberty, not of duty, contrary to the Doctor's paraphrase. Now that resolution v. 15. is of the same form with his determination v. 12, 13. 2. He makes the resolution to be of a duty v. 12, 13. yet makes v. 14. to be a motive of the will, when he saith, [may reasonably move] as if the Apostle were not deciding a doubt, but persuading the will, and that from such a thing as cannot be reason of duty or liberty, but as it is by him expounded a persuasive to win on the affections, not to settle the judgement, and yet p. 207. he saith, [the unbeliever having been sanctified by the believer is used as an argument why they should live together.] 3. He puts [unbelieving Husband v. 14.] as if he were another than he that is mentioned v. 13. for v. 13. the unbelieving husband was at that present an unbeliever: But according to his sense expounding v. 14. thus, [it hath oft come to pass that the unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer] the unbelleving husband must be meant of one that was once an unbeliever, not so then. Now than the Apostle should after this exposition give a reason why the present believing wife need not leave her husband, because another unbelieving husband by another believing wife hath been brought to the faith. Which wherein it could tend to any satisfaction for them that doubted whether they might lawfully live together because of the present unbelief of the yoke-fellow I see not. 4. Such a reason will appear the more unlikely to be satisfactory, because as it hath often happened that the unbeliever hath been won by the wife, so it hath often happened to the contrary, and it is likely the persons whom he resolved had complained, that they had small hopes of their husband's conversion, and so the reason of their living together from experience would be more likely to be retorted back thus, You perswde us to live together, you tell us we may, because it often comes to pass that the unbeliever is brought to the faith: But our experience is to the contrary, we see many not converted, and our own are obstinate and hardened, and therefore this reason doth dissuade us, and resolve us that we may not live with him. 5. Hence another exception is against this exposition, that it makes the Apostle to resolve them of their duty or liberty by that which was a mere contingent event which might be or not be. For this exposition makes the reason of their living together to be from what had happened & might be: whereas a contingent event is impertinent to that end, to say, we may lawfully do such a thing, because its likely such a good effect may follow. A contingent event is unfit to resolve of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of a thing without some other rule, things being unlawful or lawful not according to disagreement from or agreement to Gods will of purpose what shall be, but his will of Command what he requires to be omitted or done. Besides this contingent event here was uncertain as appears v. 16. what knowest thou? implies, thou canst not tell whether thou shalt save thy husband? Perhaps thou mayst. Nor doth the Apostle mention any promise it should be so, but mentions it only as a contingent event that might be or not be. 6. Besides it is from such an event as is impertinent to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of living together. For the past conversion of others and the future conversion of our own yoke-fellows is merely extrinsical to our duty or liberty, though it be much to our conveniency, and therefore it is fitly urged v. 16. after the resolution of the judgement v. 12, 13, 14 15. Is there any show of reason why I should live with my own unbelieving husband, because another's unbelieving husband was converted by her, or because there is great reason of hope it will be so with mine? This would intimate that future events make our present state or acts lawful or unlawful, which is somewhat like the Turks conceit who judged, that pleaseth God which succeeds prosperously, 
Knolls History of the Turks in Solyman the magnificent.  and that to displease, which falls out unhappily. 7. According to this Exposition, v. 14. should be the same Argument with v. 16. and so there should be an unnecessary repetition of the same Argument. 8. By this exposition the sanctifying of an unbeliever should be ascribed to a woman, whereas (though I deny not that she is said to save, v. ●6. to win, 1 Pet. 3. 1. to convert, James 5. 20.) sanctifying is never ascribed to any but God and his Spirit. So 1 Cor. 6. 11. Ye are sanctified by the Spirit of our God. 9 The word [holy] is expounded in a sense no where else found, nor is there any reason of that sense by way of allusion or otherwise given by the Doctor, though according to him a known fact is expressed which had another appellation used commonly even in that Epistle, ch. 1. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. & 12. 13. For he expounds [holy] by [are admitted to baptism] and so makes the Apostle in narration of a fact to use a term to express what was in his conceit well known to them by a term not imagined to note the thing elsewhere, when there was another term [baptised] used in the same Epistle and familiar to them. 10. He makes the Apostle to infer the lawfulness or duty of living together from that contingent event, which might with like probability be brought to pass by another than the believing yoke-fellow, even by the endeavour of a Father, Mother, Brother, Sister, Companion, especially a Preacher of the Gospel. So that if this reason were of force to conclude husband and wife might live together, because one may bring the other to the faith, the reason might be as good for Father and Daughter, Son and Mother, Brother and Sister, Companions, Preacher and people to couple or live together, because it hath been and there is great reason to hope one may convert the other. 11. According to his exposition the Apostles speeches were not right. For according to him the meaning should be unless there were cohabiting, and there had been an unbelieving husband brought to the faith by the wife, and vice versa the Corinthians children could not reasonably be presumed to be admitted to baptism. 2. Upon this ground that an unbelieving husband was brought to the faith by the wife and vice versa, and there is great reason it might be so for the future the children of believing Corinthians unequally matched were admitted to baptism. Himself pag. 257. saith. This must needs be the method of the Apostles arguing, unless there were some hope, that the 〈◊〉 of a believer should be a means to bring an unbeliever to t●● saith 'tw●●l● certainly follow, their children were unclean, that is not admitted to baptism. Now I think all Paedobaptists will disclaim as manifestly false this proposition, That the believing Corinthians young children were not or could not be, or it could not be reasonably presumed they should be admitted to baptism, till the unbelieving yoke-fellow were converted, or without hopes or reasonable presumption, that he might be won to the faith by the believer. It is such a toy as I cannot imagine they will own when they discern it. If they do they must quite change their plea and practice about infant baptism, their plea being from the imagined federal holiness of the child of one believer without consideration of the others present or future faith, and their practice being to baptise infants of one believer, though the other parent died or should die in professed unbelief. And for the other proposition it is a like false, that whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, note as much as hoc. posito, upon this ground as the Doctor expresseth it, or to be an Adverb of time noting when their children were holy it is most false, that upon the ground of hopes of cohabiting and the conversion of the unbelieving, yoke-fellow, and experience of what happened, the Corinthian believers younger children no● deemed yet believers, were admitted to baptism, or were reasonably presumed to be admitted, or that they were then admitted to baptism when the unbelieving husband was converted, or likely to be converted by the believing wife and not before. This proposition I make no question other paedobaptists will disclaim, nor need I any other proof against his sense than his own words against another interpretation brought in as the Anabaptists, though I know none that so interpret it. I use his own words pag. 257. sect. 82. mutatis mutandis. Now I demand of this pretended interpretation, whether it be possible Saint Paul's argument should conclude in this sense? Suppose the Corinthian parents of these younger children had been one a believer, and the other an unbeliever, could it of them be concluded, if they did not upon the hope of doing good one upon the other cohabit, their children could not be holy by designation of the Church in baptism, to which when they are brought by the congregation and admitted by the Minister they are thus consecrated and devoted to God? This were absolutely to confine the Church's designations to holiness and the Ministers admissions thereto to none but the children of believers, as if the child of parents whereof one is a believer were not thus holy, and admitted to baptism without experience of what hath been done in converting the unbeliever by the believer, and hopes it should be so. It is known that admission to baptism depends upon Chrsts institution, not upon such accidental conditions as is the cohabiting of the parents, the experience of the converting some unbeliever by the believing yoke-fellow, and hopes so of theirs. 12. Unto all these I add, that I never read or heard any Expositor ancient or modern so expounding, as this Doctor or Dictator doth, nor do I think he can show any. Sure I am Augustin. tom. 7. the pec●. merito & remiss. c. 26. saith, Ac per hoc et illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit, quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo & p●ccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omninò non pertinet.  
But let us consider what Dr. Hammond brings for this Paraphrase, Sect. 32. he speaks thus, That this is the true importance of the Apostles words, and force of his arguing doth for the former part of it appear evident. First, by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath been sanctified, which must needs refer to some past known examples and experiences of this kind, or else there could be no reasonable account given of the Apostles setting it in the Praetertense.  
Answ. As Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase expresseth 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 than of putting it in the Present-tense in English.  
But saith he, It is put in the Praetertense in Greek.  
Answ. I presume the Doctor knows that enallage or change of Tense is frequent in Languages, even in the Greek, though it abound in Tenses above other Languages. In the same Epistle c. 11. 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Present-tense is put for the Future, even in the same Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is rendered by Dr. Hammond himself, Else were your chidrens unclean, so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & so an Enallage either of Tense or Mood, or both. And in the very next vers. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is manifestly put in the Praetertense for the Present, as all Interpreters I know render it, & the same enallage or change of Tense Camerarius conceives in the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And, which is chiefest, this sense seems to be●it it best, there being no plainer and clearer than this, Therefore the believer may live with the unbelieving yoke-fellow; because the Husband though an infidel, yet is to his own Wife, in respect of her, and to her conjugal use, a● if he were sanctified. But if it be in the Praetertense, yet it may be understood of a past thing yet continued, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, John 3. 18. notes an act still continued in force. So that notwithstanding the Doctor's conceit, yet there may be a very reasonable account given without understanding it of an Example of another person sanctified heretofore by another Wife, which is very far from the Apostles meaning, as I show before.  
Secondly, saith he, by the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by or through the Wife. This the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so ordinarilly signifies, that it cannot need to be farther testified, (in this notion it is that we here take it) whereas the notion which by opposers is here affixed to it, that it should signify to (that to which is a sign of the Dative-case) [sanctified to the Wife, (as meat to the believer) made lawful to her to live with] is never once found to belong to it, in the New Testament, nor can with any tolerable congruity or Grammatical analogy be affixed to it. All the places that are produced for this sense are commonly mistaken. So Matth. 17. 12. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is not fecerunt ei, they have done to him, but on him or against him: so as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is an ordinary acception of it. So Acts 4. 12. There is no name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is not [given unto men] but among men: and that is an ordinary notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for among, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Is God among us? and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ among us, and many the like. So 1 Cor. 7. 15. God hath called us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: It is not to, as the note of a Dative-case, but unto peace, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is again taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Ga●l: 1. 16. to reveal his own Son, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: It is not [to me] but [by or through me to others] as it follows, that I might preach him. And when it there follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is not [to but again among the Gentiles] And 2 Pet. 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is Add unto your saith virtue, etc. in the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto your faith, or over and above that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, superadd virtue, or fortitude, or constancy, that which in this time of persecution they stood so much in need of. And so still the rendering it [to the Wife] will be without any one example, and the turning it quite into another phrase, as if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which to do without any necessity or reason (save only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to serve the opposers turn upon the place, and support his false opinion, must needs be very unreasonable.  
Answ. I subscribe to this last speech: But all that the Doctor saith makes me not to recede from the rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 7. 14. [to] as noting the Dative case, and being redundant. Not out of any necessity to serve my turn: For if it be read [in the wife and expounded as Beza doth Annot. In locum respectu uxoris, in respect of the wife, expounding [is or hath been sanctified in the wife] thus, hath been or is enjoyed in conjugal use lawfully in respect of his wife, it will as well serve my turn. And in this sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is as much as ergà towards, apud with, and is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the sense that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used, 2 Cor. 13. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But it will not serve the Doctors turn unless he can prove that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] must be rendered [by] and notes the instrument, yea and [by the wife] must signify [by the company and conversation of the believer] which supplement is not yet proved, no● do I think can be proved to be necessary. The reason why I still adhere to the reading of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to] is, 1. Because it seems to me 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 so in himself unsanctified, yet in or to the wife or his wife he is as if he were sanctified, it's all one in respect of lawful conjugal use as if he were sanctified. 2. Because, though the Doctor deny it, yet I aver the notion of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to as a sign of the Dative case] is found more than once in the New Testament, and may with good congruity and Grammatical analogy be affixed to it. Of the which places the first he brings cannot be eluded. 1. Because the same speech which is Mat. 17. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Mark 9 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and rendered by Beza in the former place fecerunt ei they did to him. 2. whereas he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on him or against him, and that this is an ordinary acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I grant that it is an ordinary acception to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but not in the sense he here conceives, to wit as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes [on or against a person.] It had been meet the Doctor should have given at least one instance of such a construction, which I do not yet believe he can do. However if he could, yet me thinks it should satisfy that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, notes no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and is a sign of the Dative case, because Mark, who seems to have abbreviated Matthew, so expresseth it; and the common use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when it notes dealings of man to man whether good or bad is usually expressed by the Dative case: as Matth. 7. 12, & 18. 12. & 20. 32. & 21. 36, 40. & 25. 40, 45. There is another instance which I conceive cannot be eluded, to wit, Col. 1. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was preached in every creature. Where, 1. There is no other sense than that of the Dative case that hath any tolerable conguity or Grammatical analogy affixed to it. Mr. Den's conceit of preaching the Gospel in the Sun, Moon, etc. is so wild that I presume, it will be easily rejected. For let men imagine the most they can of God's grace discernible in the creature, yet the Gospel in which Christians hope and of which Paul was a Minister is not discernible thereby. Nor is here any place for those conceits of putting [in] for on, against, among, over and above or the like] For the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to preach, is commonly with a Dative case of the object, as 1 Cor. 9 27. 1 Pet. 3. 19 Acts 8. 5. & 10. 42. Luke 4. 18. I deny not but 1 Tim. 3. 16. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But our Translators have there rendered it [unto the Gentiles] the vulgar [praedicatum est gentibus] Beza [praedicatus est gentibus] as if there it noted only the Dative case. And if there it should be [among the Gentiles] yet it cannot be so Col. 1. 23. because the object is in the singular number: But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is for [among] is joined still to a noun of the plural. It is true 1 Thes. 2. 9 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but unto you is no more than to you, and shows not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also notes the same with the Dative case without either preposition. 2. That which puts, this thing out of all doubt the phrase Col. 1. 23. answers (as Beza Camerarius, Piscator, etc. conceive, and me thinks none should deny) to that Mark 16. 15. where our Lord Chrst bids 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, preach the Gospel to every creature, and there that which was expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. 1. 23. is expressed only by the Dative case without it Mark 16. 15. nor do I yet conceive but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 4. 12 is better rendered [to men] than among men.] 1. Because the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the several voices and other verbs of giving have most regularly and constantly a Dative of the person after them, as both Grammarians in their Syntaxes teach, & many instances in the New Testament prove, as Acts 3. 16. & 4. 29. & 5. 31. 32. & 7. 5, 8, 10, 25, 28. Besides many more there and throughout the sacred Writings. 2. Because if it had been [among mwn] it had been to be placed after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, other; for so the sense would have been clear, 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 not be read among men, but to men. 3. It seems to me not good sense, or not true, that Christ was a name given among men: for though he were among men, yet he was given from above. 4. To all which I add the words of Beza Annot. in Act. Apost. c. 4. v. 12. Inter homines, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beadam, id est, hominibus ut rectè convertit vetus interpres, & Ireneus quoque lib. 3. cap. 12. sicut insra 7. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non aliud declarat quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Camerarius renders it, Attributum hominibus. And for the other Text Gal. 1. 16. Me thinks the Doctor's exposition makes the Apostle tautologize ineptly, when he expounds when it pleased God to reveal his Son, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to me, but by or through me to others. For what is it to reveal his Son by him or through him to others, but to preach the Gospel to them? And is it not then to tautologize to say, when it pleased God, that I should preach the Son of God to others that I might preach the Gospel? Can preaching the Gospel be fitly said to be the end or consequent of preaching the Son of God which is all one with preaching the Gospel? And for 2 Pet. 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is no reason to imagine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sith the simple and compound are usually put with the Dative after them, as 2 Cor. 9 10. Gal. 3. 5. and in other Authors. Nor do I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in any Author, and what the Doctor observes, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes superadd, it rather confirms it, that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes over, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes to; no● is the Doctor I suppose ignorant of that Rule in Grammar, Verba addendi, supplendi regunt Dativum. Besides these I have alleged in the first part of this Review s. 11. pag. 96. out of the Septuagint. Deut. 28. 60. 2 Kings 7. 27. plain passages of putting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so as to note the Dative case, with the speeches of some learned men, whereto I add that Psal. 68 18. that which the Septuagint hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Apostle hath Ephes. 4. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I take to be more than enough to refute the Doctor's speech that the notion wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies To, which is a sign of the Dative caese is never once found to belong to it in the New Testament, nor can with any tolerable congruity or Grammatical analogy be affixed to it, and that he talks ad randum, when he intimates, that by construing it so, 1 Cor. 7. 14. there's a turning it quite to another phrase to serve the turn upon the place. The Doctor goes on thus.  
Thirdly, this appears most irrefragably, by the express words added on this Argument, v. 16. where [the unbelievers having been sanctified by the believer] (used as an Argument why they should live together) is farther explained by these words of an undoubted perspicuous sense; For what knowest thou O Wife whether thou shalt save thy Husband? Or how knowest thou O Husband whether thou shalt save thy Wife? where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, save. which ordinarily signifies to reduce, as it is 1 Pet. 3. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to gain) to repentance from heathenism or wicked life is set parallel to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sanctifying, and makes it clear what was meant by it.  
Answ. However the Doctor conceive, yet doth it not appear to me probably, much less irrefragably by express words, that v. 16. is added further as an explanation of the words, v. 14. The unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified in the Wife. For, 1. though some conceive v. 15. to be put parenthetically as Grotius, and that v. 16. belongs to the matter of v. 12, 13, 14. yet Beza, Piscator, and others conceive that v. 16. hath reference to the words v. 15. God hath called us to peace, that is, to live peaceably together, & as an encouragement thereto v. 14. is added: none that I know besides the Doctor makes v. 16. to explain the forepart of v. 14. 2. Nor is there likelihood that the Apostle doth use v. 16. as an explanation of the forepart of v. 14. it being not his wont to express a thing obscurely, and than presently to express it more plainly, or to use unnecessary repetitions in such short resolutions as are here, especially there being not any thing mystical in it, but matter of fact. 3. If he had made v. 16. an explanation of the words v. 14. The unbelieving husband hath been sanctified in the wife and vice versa, he would have usdd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Rom. 9 8. or some such like term; But he useth 1 Cor. 7. 16. the expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For how knowest thou? Which plainly showeth it to be a further argument to move them to live together, not an explanation of a former speech: for [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for] is a particle showing it to be a further reason of it. 4. It to me appears irrefragably, because according to the Doctor's exposition v. 16. doth not explain the forepart of v. 14. For according to him the word [hath been sanctified] must needs refer to some past known examples and experiments of converting of other unbelieving yoke. fellows by the believing parties, or else saith he, There could be no reasonable account given of the Apostles setting it in the Praetertense. But v. 16. For what knowest thou O Wife whether thou shalt save thy Husband? Or how knowest thou O man whether thou shalt save thy Wife? Mentions a thing to be, and that as a possible but not certain event, and that concerning one that is an unbeliever. Now that the words mentioning a possible uncertain event concerning others should explain the words that speak of a thing passed about others is out of my reach: Surely it seems to me ridiculous to paraphrase, v. 14. The unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified in the Wife, thus, For what knowest thou O Wife whether thou shalt save thy Husband? and therefore I take the Doctor's conceits in this to be his dotage.  
The Doctor adds, Sect. 33. Which being once yielded to be the true meaning of the first part, there will then be little reason to doubt but that this of the admission of the Christian children to baptism on this score, is the importance of the later part, that and no other being it, which exactly accords with the former reasoning, and it being not imaginable, that this should be here added in that argumentative stile [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas (or for) elsewhere, etc. if it were not an enforcing of the foregoing Position thus proved by him.  
Answ. It is true the style is argumentative, and [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, else were] shows the latter part of the verse, 1 Cor. 7. 14. to be an enforcing of the foregoing position of the same verse asserted, I say not proved by him. But that this exposition [else were your children unclean, that is, not admitted to baptism, but now they are holy, that is, admitted to Christian baptism] exactly accords with the former reasoning yielded, so as that the Doctor's paraphrase being once yielded to be the true meaning of the first part there will be little reason to doubt but that this, of the admission of the Christian children to baptism on this score is the importance of the later part, is so far from having any colour of truth, that in my apprehension the Doctor's exposition makes the Apostles words Are nam sine calce, sand without lime, that is without connexion. For what show of connexion is there in this consequence, If some other unbelieving yoke-fellow had not been converted by the faith, diligence and conversation of the believing party that then was, than the children of you who are believers, but begotten or brought forth by one that yet is an unbeliever had not been admitted to Christian baptism in infancy: but now, that is upon this score that some former unbelieving yoke-fellows have been brought to the faith of Christ by the faith, conversation and diligence of the believer, they have been admitted to baptism? According to the tenor of this reasoning these propositions should be included in the Apostles argument. The children of a believing yoke-fellow who is joined to an unbeliever had not been admitted to Christian baptism, if some other believing yoke-fellow had not been brought to the faith. The children of a believer by a unbelieving yoke-fellow have been admitted to Christian baptism by reason that it hath been usual that other believers have brought the unbeliever to the faith. Whence will follow. 1. That at the first conversion of a people, at whieh time there is no experiment of such events of the believing yoke-fellows bringing the infidel to the faith, than the infants of the believer were not admitted to Christian baptism: which is directly contrary to the Jewish batizing infants of proselytes, which is only at first conversion, which yet the Doctor will have the pattern of our Christian baptism. 2. That the Doctor derives a title to baptism of this believers infant children from the diligence and happy success which another believer hath had, which is a thing merely extrinsical to the institution of baptism. For where did ever Christ say, Baptise those or their children who are yoke-fellows to unbelievers, for some other believing yoke-fellows have had good success in converting their yoke-fellows to the faith? I can hardly forbear to call such reasoning à baculo ad angulum. On the other side, the Doctor's exposition makes the children of the believer joined to the unbeliever not capable of Christian baptism, if there had not been some experiment of a believer bringing to the faith the unbelieving yoke-fellow, and some hopes that the present unbeliever would become a Christian by the diligence of the other yoke fellow, which would exclude the believers child from baptism whose yoke-fellow is deceased in unbelief, and so the conversion of that person is hopeless. So that what ever pretences are made for infant-baptism, no children (according to the Doctor's exposition) of a believer can be rightly baptised without proof of such experiment of the converting of the unbeleiving yoke-fellow by the believer; it would not suffice that the conversion be by a Minister, etc. Now this being rare and hard to prove, it will certainly make questionable, if not void most of the pretended infant baptisms that are. Confident I am that no Paedobaptist ancient or modern besides the Doctor ever asserted Paedobaptism on this score, which is the only ground, if the Doctor's exposition of the Apostle be right. The Ancients did admit to baptism any one's child whether Pagans or Believers being brought to them, as I show in my Examen part. 1. sect. 8. But I need say no more to refute this exposition being the most unlikely of all that I have hitherto met with:  
He tells us Sect. 34. What is thought fit to be brought for the eluding and avoiding this interpretation will be most fitly considered anon in answer to the Anabaptists plea.  
Answ. The falsely so called Anabaptists have not allowed Dr. Jeremiah Taylour to make their plea, nor do they all, if any of them frame their plea as he lays it, yet it is showed above, that the Reply Dr. Hammond makes to overthrow their pretended answer overthrows his own exposition.  
But he goes on, Mean while for the confirming of it, it may be remembered, what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, holy is known to signify in the sacred dialect, not only an inherent, but a relative holiness, being separate or set apart to God, discriminated from common ordinary things, or persons, and as that belongs to higher degrees of separation, the office of a Prophet or the like, so the lowest degree of it is that of being received to be members of the Church, into which all are initiated by baptism. And accordingly, all visible professors, and not only those that are sincerely such, are in Ezra 9 2. the holy seed, and in the Epistles of the Apostles called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, holy.  
Answ. This being all granted confirms not Dr. Hammonds exposition, now they are holy that is admitted to Christian baptism. The Doctor knows its no good argument à genere ad speciem affirmative, the children are holy that is set a part for God, discriminated from common ordinary things or persons, Ergo they are set apart by the special way of baptism. And it being granted that all visible professors, and not only those that are sincerely such are in Ezra 9 2. the holy seed, and in the Epistles of Paul called holy (though that term Ezra 9 2. hath a far different notion, as I show in this Review Antipaed. part. 1. sect. 13, 25. from what the Doctor imagines) yet till the Doctor prove infants to be visible professors he hath not confirmed, that the taking of [holy 1 Cor. 7. 14.] for [infants admitted to baptism] is agreeable to the Apostles language.  
He adds Sect. 35. And secondly how the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unclean, is used by St. Peter, Acts 10. 14. for those that must not (as he conceived) be received into the Church, as [God's having cleansed] is God's reputing them fit to be partakers of that privilege. Whereby it appears how fitly receiving and not receiving to baptism may be expressed by those phrases.  
Answ. I deny not the fitness of the expressing receiving and not receiving to baptism by the terms of holy and unclean, if the Holy Ghost had so thought good. But su●e the Doctor is mistaken in the notion of unclean, Acts 10. 14. For it is plain from Acts 11. 3. that an unclean person is in that place one that was not only out of the Church, but also one that a Jew conceived he might neither go into, nor eat with him, yea though he were a Proselyte of the Gate, and owned the God of Israel. Now than if the same notion of unclean and holy be 1 Cor. 7. 14. as is Acts 10. 14. an unclean person is one that a man may not go into, nor eat with. which applied to infants is ridiculous; else if the unbelieving yoke-fellow had not been sanctified, that is, brought to the faith by the conversation and diligence of the believer your children had been unclean, that is, such as they might not go in to, nor eat with them, but now their infant's are holy, such as they might go in to and eat with them.  
Thirdly, saith he, how the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is ordinarily to sanctify, doth among the Jews (whence this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is taken) as when the high Priests washing his hands and his feet ten times on the day of Expiation is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ten sanctifications, Joma, cap. 3. sect. 3. which being the word which denotes the washing some part of the body, and distinguished in use from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the immersion of the whole body, may perhaps be an intimation, that the primitive baptisms were not always immersions of the whole body, but that sprinkling of some part the literal importance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications might be sufficient.  
Answ. If this reason were good, it would rather confirm this exposition [The unbelieved Husband hath been sanctified by the Wife, that is, the unbelieving Husband hath been baptised by the Wife or washed] than this, the children are baptised, for they are no● said to be sanctified, but to be holy. And then the Apostle relates it as a thing oft used among Christians, that believing Wives did baptise or wash unbelieving Husbands: which so expounded is a plain testimony for women's baptism of their own unbelieving Husbands, & so hath better ground from this Text than infant baptism. What the Doctor draws in besides the business, to put some colour on their sprinkling instead of baptism, is but a fig-leaf too narrow to cover the nakedness of their practice. The Doctor himself pag. 180. makes the baptism which was a Jewish solemnity, the washing of the whole body. And Sect. 71. pag. 185, 186. he saith, Jethro was made a Proselyte by immersion or baptism in waters, and the manner of this immersion is said to be that they should be set up to the neck in water. And pag. 184. Unless he be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptised he is a Gentile. And out of Arrian the Jewish Proselyte is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dipped, and he that is only so in show not in deed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a counterfeit baptised person. In his Pract. Catech. lib. 6. sect. 2. 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 ancient custom to be put under water three times. His words following intimating as if sprinkling were appointed by Christ instead of it, are his own figment. Pag. 35. he makes the ancient manner of putting the person under water, and then taking him out again, to denote dying and rising again, with more of the like confessions, and even in this place saith, the washing some part of the body is distinguished in use from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which answers to the Greek word Baptism) which is immersion of the whole body. And yet the Doctor is not ashamed to say, that primitive baptisms were not always immersions of the whole body, (which me thinks he should hardly believe himself in) and because the besprinkling of some part (which I think is not true, if sprinkling by water and not blood or ashes be meant, for the Priests in their sanctifications dipped their hands and feet in water; is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications, to intimate as if any kind of sanctification of a part of the body though but by sprinkling with water were baptism. It is a like abuse when Christ bids baptise, to sprinkle only or pour water on the face as it would be, when he bids to eat, only to chew in the mouth; or when he bids to drink, to wet the lips only. But that to sprinkle is not to baptise, is elsewhere asserted, Addition to the Apology, Sect. 22.  
The Doctor goes on in his dictating way thus. Fourthly, it is known of the legal uncleannesses, contrary to those their sanctifications, that they were the cause of removing men from the congregation, they that were so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unclean, might not partake of the privileges of the Temple, till they were washed and sanctified, and that is proportionable also to the notion here given of it, that the Christian children are holy, i. e. not inherently, (they are not capable) but in the account of God and men capable of separation for the service of God, of being entered into the Church, into Covenant, which denominates men holy, (as the Gentiles as long as they were out of it were unclean and unholy, Acts 10.) now are they holy, i. e. it is the present practice of the Church, that Apostolical Church of S. Paul's time, to admit to baptism such infant-childrens of Parents of whom one is Christian, though not of others.  
Answ. It is said without proof, that the uncleanness excluding from the Tabernacle and sanctification restoring are proportionable to the notion here given of children's being excluded or included in the Church. Why should Cornelius be counted out of the Church by God or men, when God saith, He was a devout man, and one that feared God, with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, aend prayed to God always, Acts 10. 2. It's true, he was excluded from the familiar society of the Jews according to their superstition, and so unclean, but not accounted by God to be out of the Church, but in it. That Christians children are denied to be capable of holiness inherently, will not be granted him, much less his paraphrase on the words [now are they holy] i. e. it is the present practice of the Church that Apostolical Church of S. Paul's time to admit to baptism such infant children of parents, etc. It will not stand with his own exposition, as hath been showed, and it makes the Apostle relate a matter of plain fact in obscure terms. Augustin did disclaim this interpretation Hierom and Ambrose gave another, and so did Tertullian de animâ, cap. 39 what he adds is frivolous. And to put all out of question, the aneient Fathers which certainly knew the sacred Dialect, call baptism sanctification. So Cyprian Epist. 59 Eum qui natus est bapt. zandum & sanctificandum, He that is born must be baptised and sanctified; where baptising is sanctifying of infants. So Greg. Nazian. Orat. 40. Edit. Bill. pag. 658. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 'Tis better to be sanctified without sense of it, I. e. baptised in infancy when they are not sensible of it, than to depart or die without the seal of baptism. And again pag. 648. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let him be sanctified from the infancy, I. e. baptised then. And many the like.  
For 1. That the Ancients of the third or fourth Century knew certainly the sacred Dialect especially the Latin Doctors, me thinks the Doctor should know them better than to assert it. He sure is not ignorant that in multitudes of things later writers do find their many mistakes about the sacred Dialect, and how few of them had any skill in Hebrew or Greek the Doctor is not ignorant I presume. 2. In this very thing if those Fathers certainly knew the sacred Dialect and from their use Paul must be interpreted, than the word [sanctified] not the word [holy] (for the Doctor doth not show they used the word [holy for [baptised] but the word [sanctified]) must be 1 Cor. 7. 14. as much as [baptised] and then the sense is, The unbelieving husband is baptised by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is baptised by the husband, of the absurdity of which interpretation I need say no more.  
The Doctor proceeds sect. 37. thus▪ This passage than being thus interpreted, is a clear proof of the point in hand. And were not this the importance of it there were no privilege imaginable, no sanctity, which could be attributed to the infants of Christians which would not belong to the infants of heathens also, which yet is here distinctly affirmed of the one and denied of the other by the Apostle.  
Answ. How absurd the Doctor's interpretation is hath been showed before, yet were it granted him it would not be a clear proof for infant-baptism, unless [your children] were all one with [your infants] which will not be cleared till it be showed that the Corinthian Christians had then no children but infants, or that he meant no other under that term then the infants. Which sure is not according to the Jewish pattern, in which they baptised Proselytes children if females under twelve, if males under thirteen, not according to their will, but of the Father or court to which they were subject, I add, if the Apostle should by [holy] understand a privilege where upon they were baptised he should conceive otherwise than the Jews did, who conceived all unclean, whom they baptised, till by baptism they cleansed them and made them holy. And for what he saith that no privilege imaginable etc. I answer, 1. By denying that the Apostle there attributes a privilege or sanctity belonging to the infants of Christians, which would not belong to the infants of heathens. I have I conceive in the first part of this Review demonstrated the contrary against Mr. M Mr. B. etc. 2. If there were a privilege attributed yet it might not be baptism. For. 1 That belonged according to the Father's opinion and practice to unbelievers children also, if they were brought as I show examen part. 1. sect. 7. 8, 2. There are other imagined privileges or sanctities belonging to them, as, by some real actual inward holiness, by others federal external holiness, by others holiness in hope and expectation.  
He goes on. And as this evidently concludes such a custom, known and acknowledged among Christians at that time: so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practice, in which Christ founded his institution, hath laid the foundation of, in baptising Proselytes and their children, and to which the primitive Church conformed. And so though that Judaical practice taken alone were not deemed any demonstrative evidence, that Christ thus instituted his baptism for the Gentiles, yet being taken in conjunction with this Testimony of the Apostolical practice, and the primitive usage it brings all the weight with it, which a Divine Testimony imexpreted by practice can afford, which is as great as any such matter can be capable of.  
Answ. 1. It is false that Christ founded his institution in the Jewish practice of baptising proselytes and their children. If he had done so he would have bid the Apostles, baptise Disciples and their children as the Jews did. There is not any thing that is brought by the Doctor that proves it, yea if it were the mind of Chrst to baptise Disciples and their children, as the Jews did Proselytes, it would utterly overthrow all use of baptism of water after the first conversion of Progenitors to be Christ's Disciples, none but they and the children then born should be baptised, all Disciples and their infants which descended from the first baptised should not be baptised with water being clean or holy without baptism. For they baptised because they were unclean till baptised, not because holy before. Nor did they baptise any of the posterity of the first baptised though born but a few months after their first baptism. So that this conceit of the Doctor would help much for the Socinian conceit, as if water-baptism belonged only to the age of the Apostles. 2. 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 as was among the Jews of baptising the Preselytes and their infant's. Nor do I think ever any of the Fathers did interpret the Apostles words as this Doctor doth. Tertullia's words in his Book de anima cap. 39 are not as the Doctor saith an exact parallel to the Apostles speech 1 Cor. 7 14. as the Doctor renders and interprets it The terms candidati sanctitatis or designati sanctitatis, or candidati side●, in Hieromes Epist. 153. to Paulinus do note, not that they were baptised as the Doctor interprets [Holy 1 Cor 7. 14.] bu● that they were in expectation, as they that were seekers for Offices in Rome, while they stood for the Offices were candidati in Wh●e so the infants were as it were in expectation of being believers and baptised, Quod veluti ambiunt, & expectant baptismum as Erasmus in his note on Hierom Ep. 153. to Paulinus, or designed that is intended ●o be holy by the parents, that is to ●e bred up to profess the Faith, and so to be baptised. Both which senses do indeed oppose the Doctor's assertion and show that they were not baptised in infancy. And for that which the Doctor talks of Tertullian as saying they were holy that is baptised ex s●minis praerogativa from the prerogative of their birth, it is a manifest mistake as the very reading the words show. For. 1. The holiness he ascribes to believers children was not only by prerogative of birth, but also ex institutions disciplina, 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 particularly recites. There is no one of the Fathers interprets Paul as the Dr. Ambrose and Hierom interpret the words of legitimation in birth, Augustin, what way soever he go, ●aith expressly, the words belong not to baptism. 3. I is false that the Jewish practice in baptising Proselytes and their children laid the foundation of infant-baptism; neither the Scripture gives any hint thereof, no● any of the Ancient Christian writers, no not any of those the Doctor citys ever derives it from the Jewish practice: But the speeches of Tertullian de bapt. cap. 8. of Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 40. de baptismo, dissuading from it except in case of necessity by reason of apparent danger of death, the very decree of the Council in Cyprians 59 Epistle, the speeches of Augustin, Hierom against the Pelagians, the words of the counterfeit Authors of the Book of Questions and answers to the Orthodox imposed on Justin Martyr qu. 56. The questions ad Antiochum imposed on Athanasius cue 114. the words of the Author of the Ecclesiastic Hierarchy imposed on Dionysius Areopagita, the story of the baptism of Gregory Nazianzen, the intended baptism of Augustin, when in da●ger of death, tom. 1. confess. lib. 1. cap. ●1. and other evidences d● show that the Fathers took the baptism of infants not to have foundation in the Jews practice, but in the conceit they had that baptism did regenerate, give grace and save, and that it was necessary for them to enter into the Kingdom, and that they were in danger of perishing if they were not baptised, and therefore they practised baptising of infants in that ca●e. Which thing the Papists avouch at this day, and in order thereto women's baptising. The Protestant reformers who composed the Common Prayer Book, do appear to have had the like conceit, in that in the preface before public baptism they use the old reason from John 3. 5. Rom. 5. 12. for infant-baptism, affirming infants to be regenerate, and undoubtedly saved dying baptised, allowing Midwives to baptise, till the words [lawful Minister] were added in the Rubric after the conference at Hampton Court, where had not King James overruled them the Bishops had not yielded to that reformation; yet still they kept private baptism, with that ridiculous use of propounding the questions of repentance and faith to the infant, to which the sureties must answer in the child's behalf, with profession of the child's desire to be baptised into the faith recited, though the child were then crying when the words were spoken; and for the sureties they had no desire to be baptised; and the Bishops and Presbyters requiring it would have censured them as Anabaptists had they indeed minded baptism according to Christ's mind: which thing was a mere mockery, as Chamier calls it. Yet in the Rubric itself in the Common prayer Book in the title of Public baptism it is confessed that the Ancient custom was of baptising only at Easter and Whitsuntide, & baptising is acknowledged to have been by dipping: sprinkling or pouring water on the face I do conjecture by reports and such writings as I have seen, was most after the conference at Hampton Court. Dr. Hammond himself in his Practic Catech. lib. 1. sect. 3. pag. 23. saith, All men were instructed anciently in the foundamentals of faith before they were permitted to be baptised. 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 in my Examen part. 1. and my Apology sect. 16. I presume those that are not willing to be deceived will not be swayed with Dr. Hammonds, Mr. Bs. Mr. Ms. friends, or any other citations from them, some being of mere counterfeit Authors, as Justin Martyr, Pope Hyginus, Dionysius Areopagita, Athanasius, some suspected as origen's words, some misinterpreted as Irenaeus and Tertullian, some the very Authors show that they maintained infant-baptism but in the case of danger of death, as Tertullian and Nazianzen▪ Cyprian as he avouched infant-baptism, so he did rebaptisation, and that as from the Apostles. Augustin as he avouched infant-baptism by Apostolic tradition, so he did also infant-communion. But of these things if God will more hereafter if it appear necessary. This I take to be sufficient for the present to answer Dr. Hammonds new device which he vainly boasts to have all the weight that a Divine Testimony interpreted by practice can afford, and is as great as any such matter can be capable of.  
FINIS.   

Errata.  
Page 1. line 7. read my Apology. p. 4. l. 8. r. Areo. p. 8 l. 15. r. Church. p. 13. l. 10. r. in tersering. p. 17. l. 1. r. mens. p. 18. l 30 r. not. p. 22 l. 3. r. materially. p. 23. l 1. r. is. p 24. l 23 r. did. p 25 l 31. r. that. l 32. r. Circumcision. p. 26. l. 11. ●. he. p. 27. l. 33. r. 17. 12. p. 28 l 8. r. 12. p, 31. l 19 r. 15. p. 45. l 3. r. keep. p. 46. l. 33. r. superiors. l 35. r. ●o. p. 47. l 3. r. excommunication. p. 50. l 6, 7. deal will be proved. p 51 l. 22 deal not. l. 25 r. paria, p. 52. l. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 38. r. Mathematicis. p. 53. l. 3. r. malits. l. 5. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 61. l 31. r. ●esute. p. 63 l. 16. r. Janu 1. or in. p. 64 l. 38. r. is, or. deal can. page 65. line 2. r. he. page 68 line 6. r. Anti. page 69 l. 29. r. actus. p. 70. l. 6. r. Bishops. page 76. line 4. r. fearful. page 86. line 20. r. gentes. page 87. line 4 r. pe●cipitur. p 88 l. 21. r. arbitror. p. 99 l. 23, 24. r. renewing. p. 104. l. 29 r. There. p. 112. l 2. is it. p. 119. l. 1. r. miraculous. p. 126. l. 2. r. serve. p 148. l. 16. r. 28. l. 20. r. accept. p 153. l 34 r. Disciple is. p. 162 l. 31. deal not. p. 170 l. 28. deal not. p. 171. l. 9 deal in, l. 10. r in locum. p. 175. l 38. deal not. p. 179. l. 2. r. I find. p 182, l. 16. r. heating. p●91 ●91, l, 18, r, 19, p, 195, l, 37. r, peculiar, p, 197, l, 9, r, relation, p. 220, l, 37, r, use of, p, 226, l, 9, r. them, p, 265, l, 35, r, oft, p, 276, r, without, p, 279, l, 1, r, the, p, 290, l, 9 r, 29, p, 294, l, 17, r, in, p, 306, l, 18, r, right, that the sea, 1 Cor. 10, 1, 2, p, 308, l, 28, r, before, p. 314, l, 17, r, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 321. l. 6. read them, p. 329. l. 29. read v. 16.  
To be added after many, p, 220, l, ●9, what Dr. Ward and Dr. Davenant have said for Regeneration and Justification of infants by baptism hath been accurately examined and enervated by Mr, G●taker in Latin.