The Anabaptiss ANOTAMIZED and SILENCED in a public Dispute  

The manner of the Anabaptiss Dipping  
Their Laying on of Hands  
Their Washing of feet  
The Disputation    

A public DISPUTE Betwixt 

JOHN TOMBS, B. D. Respondent.  
JOHN CRAGGE, and HENRY VAUGHAN, M. A. Opponents,   Touching INFANT-BAPTISM, The fifth of September, 1653. in the Church of St. Mary's in Abergavenie in Monmothshire. Occasioned by a Sermon Preached the day before, by Mr. Tombs, upon St. Mark. 16.16. He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned. Also a Sermon preached by Mr. Cragge, the next Lord's day following, upon the same Text: Wherein the necessity of Dipping is refuted, and Infant-Baptism asserted.  
LONDON, Printed for H. Twyford, N. Brook, J. Place, and are to be sold in Vine-Court Middle Temple, the Angel in Cornhill, and at Furnivals-Inn-Gate in Holborn. 1654.   

To his Reverend Friend, I. T. P. Grace, Mercy, and Peace be multiplied.  
SIR,  
I Received your Letter, full of Zeal, and Christian Piety, the Contents whereof may be reduced to these six heads, wherein you desire resolution; first, what my sense is of the Anabaptists; secondly, when was the spring and rise of them; thirdly, what is the cause of this present growth, and increase of them; fourthly, why they are permitted; fifthly, what I think of Disputes and Conferences had with them; sixthly, a true Relation of that had with us of late, (which you say is variously reported) of all which briefly I'll endeavour to give satisfaction. For the first, I refer you to the Sermon, and Conference here following, to the Harmonies and Confessions of the Reformed Churches, of all Churches since the Apostles, especially the Western, where you shall find universality, Antiquity, and Succession (besides many pregnant places of Scripture) pleading for Infant-baptism; And that (as Austin says) which the whole Church holds, was never begun by any council, but always observed, cannot otherwise be believed, but that it came from the Apostles. For the second, the spring and rise of Anabaptism, as all errors, so it had its beginning after Truth, the Husbandman first sowed good Corn, than the Enemy Tares; No Age was free: In the first hundred years arose the Ebionites, Chiliasts, and gnostics; In the second, the Marcionites, Valentinians, and Montanists; In the third, the Novatians, Sabellians, and Manichees; In the fourth, the Arrians, Donatists, and Eunomians; In the fifth, Nestorian, Eutychians, and Patripassians; In the sixth, Jacobites, Armenians, and Monothelites; in which time the mystery of Iniquity began more fully to work, which was first nascent, then crescent, then regnant, then triumphant.  
And no sooner appeared a Reformation in Luther's time, but there were Herod's that sought the life of this Babe, Dragons watching while the Woman was travelling, to devour the Child; Amongst whom the Anabaptiss of Germany were most venomous; The first Author whereof was one Nicholas Stock, than Phipher, Knipperdoling, Munster, with their Tayler-King John Beccold of Leyden, who gave out that he had a Commission from Heaven to destroy all Nations that would not submit to his Gospel, and be rebaptised; raging with sword and persecution, till he was taken, and being examined by exquisite tortures, confessed he received his Doctrine from an impure spirit; there you have the spring and rise of it.  
Now for the third, the present growth, and increase of it, the reasons may be many; 1. Times of division, wherein the hedge of Discipline is broken down; Liberty in Religion is like free conversing without restraint, or watch in time of pestilence, one house easily infects a whole City. 2. Satan's malice, like a River, the further it goes, the deeper, and fiercer. 3. The corruption of man's nature, more inclinable to error than truth. 4. The fitness of the engine for devastation, and ruinating all former Churches, under colour of first-baptisms' nullity, gathering of new ones (after their own mould) out of the old ruins, by rebaptising. 5. The pretence that Children are uncapable of Church-membership, or Communion of Saints, 
And that by washing, as the Proselytes and Jews Children were initiated.  as if there were not the same capacity under the Gospel, which was under the Law. 6. False allegation that Infant-baptism is occasion of loose living, as if the native Jews that were sealed when Infants, were more dissolute than the Proselytes. 7. To limit it to ripe years, increases Piety, as if Jews, and Turks, and their own rebaptised converts, were not more frequently guilty of apostasy and hyprocrisy. 8. Not understanding that infant's Church-membership in the Old Testament, is not repealed, but confirmed in the New. 9 A carnal estimation that the Covenant made with Abraham was partly carnal, of which Circumcision is a part, as if Godliness in both Testaments had not the promise of this life, and of the life to come 10. That Circumcision was the seal of righteousness of Faith to Abraham, and not his Posterity. 11. That the Covenant was made with Abraham, and his Spiritual Seed only, and not with visible Professors. 12. That there is no such thing as National Churches, though Christ says, Make Disciples of all Nations, and Isaiah says, All Nations shall flow in, &c. yet (they say) all Churches must be gathered by actual profession, as well in Christian Nations, as amongst Turks and Pagans. 13. Because we have no particular instance in terminis, that any Infants were baptised, and because they are not expressly named in the precept, as if generals did not include particulars, as well for Infants as Old Men. 14. Denying equivalencies, and necessary consequences from Scripture. 15. A vilifying of the judgement and persons of all godly and learned men of this present, and former ages, building up their rotten foundations upon their ruins. 16. Temporal interests of the lowest of the people, which while they dream it's countenanced by men in power, cry Hosanna to day, and perhaps crucify to morrow. 17. A pretending to the Spirit of God; Numa Pompilius feigned that he conversed with the Goddess Egeria, Minos with Jupiter in the Cave, Solon with the Delphian Apollo, Mahomet with the Angel Gabriel; Montanus, and the Shakers, with the Holy Ghost; the white Witches, with the Spirit in the shape of a Dove, and all but to palliate their unfound opinions and practices. Let not his Soul prosper that does not acknowledge and thirst after the true Spirit of God, yet let us try the Spirits, and not believe every lying Spirit. 18. The learning, subtlety, and industry, of some Anabaptiss, to gain Proselytes; Arrius, Pelagius, Martion, were not wiser in their generation than they, to inveigle the poor simple people, especially Women and inferior tradesmen, which in seven years can scarce learn the mystery of the lowest profession, think half seven years enough (Gained from their worldly employments) to understand the mystery of Divinity, and thereupon meddle with Controversies, which they have no more capacity to pry into, than a bat to look up into the third Heaven. These, and many more, are the causes of the increase of Anabaptism. Now, for the Fourth, you inquire why they are permitted, and their Books printed, and published, seeing those of Arrius of old, Dr. Pocklington's, and Mr. Archer's of late (more innocent) were burned? To satisfy you in this, something is to be imputed to the Providence of God, something to the wisdom of the State. The Providence of God, who suffers errors, 1. That Truth by opposition may more diligently be searched out. 2. That the sincerity and constancy of the faithful may be tried. 3. That the impenitent, and proud in spirit, may be blinded and hardened. The wisdom of State, who like wise chirurgeons, will not lance a turgid Ulcer, till it be ripe; a skilful Physician, that will not purge some floating humours, till they be settled. Therefore the late Parliament declared, that they would not have them cudgelled, but persuaded out of their errors. The two Lights of our Goshen (though they differ in judgement from them) endeavour not to force them, 
Mr. Cradock, and Mr. Walter. Monmothshire.  but by sweet insinuations and arguments to win them; Besides, some of them have been esteemed Godly, amongst which Mr. Tombs may be ranked; who knows but that may be verified of him, that was of Cyprian, Non videt haec, ut videat meliora, he sees not these things, that he may see better things? God, it may be, suffers him to fall, with Peter, that his rise may be more glorious, Tu conversus, confirma Fratres, that being converted, he may strengthen his Brethren; will burn his Stubble, Hay, Wood, with the Spiritual Fire of the Word, or affliction, that his Gold may be the purer. Fifthly, you inquire whether it may be fit to dispute, and confer with them, seeing their Doctrine eats as a Canker, for which cause the Empress would not suffer her Son Theodosius to discourse with the heretic Eunomius. To which I answer; the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, is the only Weapon to wound the hairy scalp of False Teachers; with this, Christ confounded the Sadduces; St. Peter, Simon Magus; Athanasius, the Arrians; Austin the Pelagians, and Manichees. There are none that speak against seasonable Disputes, but either those that understand them not, or with spiritual pride storm against those that are gifted with that faculty above them, or they that cannot endure that their errors be unmasked, and their Soars galled; Camels, conscious of their deformity, trouble the water, Foul Faces love not the Looking-glass. True it is, we ought to receive the weak in faith, not to doubtful disputations; but when False Teachers have infused poison, may we not apply an Antidote? when they have sowed Darnel, and Cockle, may not we weed them out? This is to set Towns and Cities on fire, and to deny Buckets to quench them; to suffer Invasions, and to permit none to rally together an Army to resist them. The Disputes at Bewdly, Hereford, and Ross, have been successful to astonishment; and in this last at Abergavenie (though tumultuary, and on a sudden) hath appeared the Finger of God; he that with spital, and Clay, opened the Eyes of the Blind, overthrew the Walls of Jericho with the sound of Ramms-horns, with these weak means hath wrought strong effects, that no Creature may glory in the Arm of Flesh.  
To the relation whereof (in the last place) and the occasion of it, I come now; which was thus; Mr. Tombs for several months together being importuned by Letters and Messengers, came at length to water that, which Mr, Miles, Prosser, and others had planted, or (as some think) to confirm a Child lately baptised in London; when he entered the Pulpit, great expectation was, what Mountains would bring forth; his Text was Mark. 16.16. whence he concluded, that Infant-baptism was a nullity, a mockery; no Baptism but by Dipping, or Plunging, was lawful; all that would be saved must be rebaptised, or baptised after profession; that there was no such thing as Infant-baptism in the Primitive times, but that it came in with other corruptions, upon unsound grounds; and challenged the whole Congregation to speak, if they had any thing to say to the contrary. There were many well learned that heard him, especially two, Mr. Bonner a neighbouring Minister, and Mr. Vaughan Schoolmaster of the Town, formerly a Fellow of Jesus College in Oxford, who both for the present kept silence, only Mr. Bonner closed with him in the way to his Lodging, and told him, that he had delivered some things contrary to that he had read in the ancients, and other things that grieved his spirit to hear, and desired therefore to confer with him thereabout the next morning: He slighted the grave old Gentleman, with as much contempt, as Austin the Monk did the British Commissioners at Bangor, yet told him, that he would tarry in the Town till such an hour; In the mean time, the greatest part of the People were offended, staggered, or scrupled, some not knowing what to think of their own, their Children, and their ancestors salvation. The Anabaptiss that night, and especially the next morning, triumphed, saying, where are your Champions now? some of them are struck dumb, others dare not show their faces, whilst Master Tombs is in the Town, naming Mr. Cragge, another neighbouring Minister; the report whereof being brought unto him, he repaired instantly to the Town, and meeting with Mr. Bonner; and Mr. Vaughan, they went all together to Mr. Tombs, where he was at a private house; little was said there, by reason of the throng of people pressing in; but it was agreed upon, that they should meet in the Church, or public Meeting place, at one a Clock, which was done accordingly; Mr: Tombs took the Pulpit, the Opponents a Seat over against it: Mr. Bonner was preparing to give the On●et, but a Gentleman dissuaded him, by reason of his age, and bodily infirmities, lest it should impair his health; Mr. Vaughan began, Mr. Cragge succeeded, continuing the opposition betwixt them for almost five hours. When the Dispute was ended, Mr. Cragge was desired by many Godly Persons to preach upon the same Text Mr. Tombs had done, the Lord's Day following, which he did accordingly; I send you here enclosed the sum of all; a Copy of Mr. Vaughan's Conference, which a Friend procured me from his own hand, Mr. Cragge's Sermon and Dispute, I took from his own mouth by Short-writing; you have the Disputations first, than the Sermon; the Lord bless them to you, and you to his glory, which shall be the prayer of him, who is  
Yours to serve you in the Lord Jesus, J. W.   

To the Reader.  
Courteous Reader,  
TO please myself, and perhaps thee, I shall displease many; First, my Friend, for making his private token a public frolic. Secondly, Mr. Tombs, for bringing him in this last Catastrophe wounded in the heel by Troilus and Paris, who vaunts that in former Scenes, (like Achilles, so far as he was dipped in the River by his Mother Thetis) he hath been unpierced by the Weapons of the stoutest Hector's. Thirdly, Mr. Cragge, and Mr. Vaughan, for exposing their Disputes, conceived in an hour and an half, and the Sermon contrived in a day and a half, to long censure. Fourthly, the Anabaptiss (as they will deem) for too uncourteously galling their sores. Fiftly, their Adversaries the Paedobaptists, for too courteously, or (as they will fancy) partially concealing Mr. Tombs harsh language, and his Favourites Incivilities. Sixtly, the Learned in general, for bringing these Nilus-like hatched Births in a moment into the open amphitheatre with those Elephants that have been ten years in conception. My apology for the whole is as followeth; The bulk of this Manual is small, some may reach to the price of it, that cannot of those larger Volumes; may have time to read it, that cannot them. The method of this is facile, the language plain, some will understand this, that cannot them. Besides, we naturally love the transactions of those, whose persons we know; Some heard them transiently as they were delivered, and would be glad deliberately to read them; Some heard them not, but at the second hand, as they were variously reported (according to the judgement and affection of the Relator) who would be willing to know the business truly stated. If any of the Parties cencerned find themselves aggrieved, and intend to bend their stile against me, I'll answer them at the Day of Judgement, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed: In the mean time, if Truth may be advanced, error discouraged, Godliness countenanced, hypocrisy unmasked, thou edified, God glorified, I have mine ends. Farewell.  
Yours in the Lord, I. T. P.   

A relation of a conference had between Mr. John Tombs B. D. and Henry Vaughan M. A. in St. Mary's Church in Abergevennie, Sept. 5. 1653. touching Infants Baptism, briefly, and punctually set down to the sense of both.  V. 
Infant's may lawfully be baptised; for they may be admitted into the covenant of grace now by Baptism, as they were before, and under the Law, admitted into the same covenant by Circumcision.  T. 
I deny your consequence.  V. 
You must deny it, either because the covenant of grace made with Abraham, and his seed, is not the same in substance with that which is now actually in force with believers, and their Children, or Secondly, because Baptism succeedeth not in the room of Circumcision.  T. 
I could deny your division: yet I say, to gratify you, for both those reasons.  V. 
For the Former. That the covenant made with Abraham, and his seed, is the same which is now actually in force with believers, appears by comparing Genes. 17.2. with Galat. 3.14. where it is clearly set forth, that the promise made to Abraham, came unto the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.  T. 
Here he distinguisheth of a towfold seed of Abraham, the natural, and spiritual, and saith, that the covenant was made with Abraham's spiritual seed, and not the natural.  V. 
Even all the children of Abraham were Circumcised, and consequently admitted into the covenant, not one excepted; for every manchild was to be Circumcised, Gen. 17.10. It appears by what happened to Moses for not circumcising his Child, Exod. 4.24. Even Ishmael was circumcised, Genes. 17.23: who belonged not to the promise, but was of the natural seed.  T. 
Ishmael, and the natural Children of Abraham were admitted to the external part, namely outward privileges, and temporal blessings, and not to the internal, or spiritual part thereof.  
By the internal part he must needs mean that part of it expressed Gen. 17.7. in these words, To be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee, and in the end of v. 8. I will be their God.  
To justify this his distinction, he referred us to Rom. 9 and I think v. 8. where the Children of the promise are contradistinguished from the Children of the flesh, or the natural Children of Abraham; So that the covenant was made not to the natural Children of Abraham, but to such of them as were elect, and faithful.  V. 
This covenant was made alike in the same extent, and latitude, promiscuously with all the seed of Abraham; and those that lost the promise, and the benefit of this covenant (which men you call the natural seed) lost it not because they were not at first comprehended in the covenant, but because of their own unbelief, Rom. 11.20. I confess that the Children of Isaac are, Rom. 9 called the Children of the promise, not in regard of any peremptory election, or designation to faith, and Salvation, or on the contrary▪ of any absolute reprobation of the seed of Ishmael.  
For if it had been Paul's design to declare the Children of Ishmael, yea the greatest part of the Jews, to have been rejected by a certain absolute decree, why should he v. 1.2. so much lament their incredulity? wish himself accursed for their sakes, v. 3. and Rom. 10. v. 1. desire, and pray for their conversion? since upon such an absolute decree of reprobating them, all that happened to them was inevitable.  
But the Children of Isaac are called the Children of promise, First, because they only were to inherit the land of Canaan; and Secondly, because Christ according to the flesh was to descend from the progeny of Isaac, not of Ishmael.  
I might have added, that if none but the elect, and faithful, can be admitted into the covenant, there is no subject left for the ordinance of Baptism, it being impossible for man to know who are elect, spiritual, and true believers. Neither can you baptise with right, or safety, all such grown persons as you baptise, since you cannot be assured that they are elect, spiritual, or true believers, (Revel. 2.17.) nor have any light to guide you, save that of charitable opinion, and conjecture.  
Again, it being admitted that none but the Spiritually, elect, and believing, can be baptised, the same charity that sways your judgement for grown persons, must much rather move you to hope the best of innocent infants, guilty of no actual sin, since it hopes all things, and thinks no evil, 1. Cor. 13.2. They may have faith (in semine & habitu) in the seed (as they have the habit of principles, and reason) tho they cannot exercise it till ripe years. 3. Though they have not actual faith, yet the faith of their parents may, and doth, put them into a capacity of being admitted into the covenant, nor is it news that the parent's faith advantageth the Children. Joh. 4.50.  T. 
I could wish you could prove that Infants of believers might be admitted to Baptism by virtue of their parent's faith.  V. 
They were admitted into the same covenant by Circumcision, into which we are admitted now by Baptism, but Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11, 12. Whence it will follow, that either they had the righteousness of faith inherently in themselves, or that of their parents imputed to them (Choose you whether) or else it will follow that Circumcision was a false seal.  T. 
It is not said there that Circumcision was the seal of righteousness of the children's faith, but only of Abraham's own faith in particular.  V. 
But the covenant, or promise, was the same and alike to Abraham, and his seed, Rom. 4.13. Gen. 17.7. and alike to us believers, and to our Children, Act. 2. 39  
2. This truth appears yet further from. 1. Cor. 7- 14. Where we find that the faith of either of the parents makes the Children holy, at least in that degree of holiness (which is the meanest imaginable) to be in capacity of being admitted into the same covenant with their parents.  T. 
The scope of the Apostle here, is to satisfy a scruple of the Corinth. viz. whether the believing yokefellow might live in the enjoying and use of the unbelieving yokefellow? he resolves them in the affirmative, saying, The unbelieving husband is sanctified in (as 'tis in the Greek) or to (not for, or by) the wife, &c. That is, he may lawfully use, and enjoy her, and she enjoy him— and their Children holy, that is, legitimate.  V. 
But here is certainly some special privilege set forth to the Children of believers accrueing to them from the believing parents. Besides, it had been no news to tell them they might have the lawful use of one another, and that their Children were legitimate, and no bastards. For where both husband, and wife were unbelievers, no man ever doubted but their enjoyment of one another was lawful, and their issue legitimate.  T. 
The case is meant where both parties at their entrance into marriage were unbelievers, but afterwards one of them happens to be converted, whether then they might cohabit, and enjoy the use of one another.  V. 
Though this were granted (which I shall not contend about) yet the Apostles sense can not be of the lawful use, and enjoyment of each other, for the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} sanctified, never denotes to be lawful. Or if ever you show me that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which is rendered holy, signifies lawful, I shall urge no further.  T. 
there's that acception of the word 1. Tim. 4.4, 5. Every creature of God is good, and not to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) by the word of God, and prayer here sanctified is for lawfully used, as standing in opposition to that which is refused.  V. 
The sense is, that such use of the creature is pleasing to God, as acknowledging him the author, and sender; for suppose a sinful man eat his meat without invoking God for a blessing, hath he not a lawful use of the creature?  T. 
His next instance was 1. Thes. 4.3, 4, 7. Where sanctification is used for chastity, and might hear that sense in this place, 1 Cor. 7.17. in agitation.  V. 
I deny it, for sanctification is there used in its full latitude, as appears by the context.  
But I will descend to prove the second ground of my consequence, at the beginning, which you denied, viz.  
That Baptism succeeded in the Room of Circumcision.  
Mr. Tombs had told us that it was impossible, for then women should not be baptised, because they were not Circumcised, [which is Bellarmine's Argument] To which I answered, that indeed the males only were mentioned in the covenant of Circumcision, for in the eyes of all laws whatsoever, the women are but as ignoble creatures, and therefore the usual stile of laws, and covenants is, Si Quis and Qui in the masculine [except such as particularly respect their sex]  
2. That they are included in the word Seed, and because descended from man, did partake of the privilege, and promise annexed to the covenant. [I thought also to have told him, that I well knew that before Christ's time, Baptism and Circumcision were both practised on the proselytes called Proselitae Justitiae (as I could have showed out of several authors) yet that hindered not, but that Baptism now under the gospel should be the sole means to admit us into the same covenant, into which the Jews were admitted by Circumcision. Even as the bread and wine were taken by the Jews at the eating of the Passeover, and now that the Jewish Passeover is abrogated, the bread and wine were only by Christ retained to commemorate his passion, the true Passeover. 1. Cor. 5.7.  
And in like manner when Circumcision was abolished, yet was Baptism retained to admit the Infants of Christians, as Circumcision admitted them of the Jews; But the time, and his close manner of disputing not permitting this Enlarging by recourse to the original, and institution of Baptism, which served more to illustrate than convince, I kept to the tedder allowed, and came at length to prove that proposition] from Col. 2.11.12. Where 1 the circumcision of Christ is set in opposition to the Jewish circumcisition made with hands. 2. An explanation of what is meant by the circumcision of Christ in these words, being buried with him in Baptism.  T. 
Paul here dissuades them from the use of Jewish ceremonies (which some would have introduced amongst them) and particularly of Circumcision, because all those were but shadows, but the body and reality was of Christ.  V. 
'tis confessed the Apostle speaks here against imposers of Jewish (and also Pythagorean) doctrines, and practices:  
But see ye not here a double Circumcision, and the Circumcision of Christ described by being buried with him in Baptism. The word buried implieth but the resemblance betwixt Christ's death, and resurrection, with what is done in Baptism, where there is an Immersion or plunging in the water, to shadow his burial, and Emersion or rising up out of the water, to represent his resurrection, which resemblance is more fully set forth Rom. c. 6.  T. 
Here Mr. Tombs interrupted me, and desired the people to take notice of my ingenuous confession, that Baptism was then practised by plunging. He read also a passage out of Casaubons annot. on the New Test. where he saith that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to Baptise, denoteth a plunging of the whole body &c. Had he read out the passage, he might have found how that great scholar affirms this to be a slender Argument against such as only sprinkle at Baptism, for saith he, the virtue and efficacy of Baptism consists not in that, meaning the manner of washing.  V. 
I shall satisfy the auditors herein anon, in the mean time I desire Answer to my Argument, the analogy between Circumcision and Baptism being so evident in this place; But receiving none, I addressed myself to the people, according to promise, saying, That indeed it seemed to me that for some Centuries of years, that Baptism was practised by plunging: For sprinkling was brought first in use by occasion of the clinics (as Cyprian Epist: a Magnum relates) being men which deferred their Baptism till some extremity of sickness, who then in such case were only sprinkled with water, lest the plunging of their bodies might over-offend them in that feeble desperate condition.  T. 
Here take notice that sprinkling took its rise from a corrupt custom.  V. 
Though plunging be confessed the more ancient way, yet is this no ground for that over-uncharitable speech of yours, in your sermon yesterday: That our Baptism, meaning of Infants, and by sprinkling, was but a nullity, and Mockery, which concludes ourselves, and all our ancestors, even all in the western Church for 1500. years, under damnation.  
For the Church hath power upon the sight of any inconvenience, and for order and decencies sake, to alter the circumstantials and externals of any Ordinance.  T. 
What have they to do to alter any thing from the form of Christ's institution?  V. 
That they have such a power is confessed by all divines, and he is none that denies it, yea I believe it is acknowledged by your own practice.  T. 
Wherein?  V. 
In the administration of the Lord's supper, which was done by Christ in the Evening, and also then by his Apostles after their Love-feastes: The whole Church of God, (and yourself I suppose) take it in the morning, which custom hath taken place, and obtained everywhere for very many ages, even from their days who immediately succeeded the Apostles.  
Thus advising him to be wise to Sobriety, and cease to embroil the Church of God (so infinitely torn already) and to submit to the judgement, and scarce-interrupted practice of the Western Churches, even for 1500. years, To which God's providence could not be so far wanting, as to suffer them to fall into such an error of admitting and retaining a Baptism (which in his account was none) we broke off,   

A relation of the dispute had between Mr. John Tombs B. D. respondent, and John Cragge Mr. A. opponent, in St. Mary's Church in Abergevennie, Septemb. 5. 1653. touching Infant-Baptism.  
Mr. Cragge having briefly expressed that he was forced to undertake this task, on a sudden, and unprovided, against so experienced a champion; desired, first, if he should fail, the cause might not suffer prejudice in men's opinions for his sake.  
2. That liberty might be granted of a premeditate, and treatable dispute hereafter, not doubting that if he should but study the Question so many hours as Mr. Tombs hath done days, so many days as he hath done weeks, so many weeks as he months, or so many months as the years, the truth was so evident on his side, he would not fear (Maugre all opposition) to make it clear. In the mean time trusting to God's assistance, (whose cause it was) he would attempt it, beginning with this Enthymema.  C. 
Some Infants may not be baptised, therefore some Infants may be baptised.  T. 
Having repeated, he denied the consequence.  C. 
Which he proved thus, Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true. But these, viz: (some infants may not be Baptised, some infants may be baptised) are Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter. Therefore they may be both true.  T. 
Having repeated the Syllogism, he said there were four terms in it.  C. 
He inquired where?  T. 
He answered in these words (may be both true) in the premises, and (are both true) in the Conclusion.  C. 
He returned, that was Mr. Tombs Syllogism, none of his, reciting that distich of Martial.  
Quem recitas meus est o Fidentine logismus, Sed male dum recitas, incipit esse tuus.  T. 
Repeating it over again after him, said that,  C. 
Which he took thus away; That which proves the thing denied, is sufficient; But that Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true, proves the thing denied, that some infants may not be baptised, some infants may be baptised; Therefore it is sufficient.  T. 
He denied the Minor, tho it be an Axiom, Subcontrary propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true, yet it was not consequent that these subcontrary contingent propositions (some Infants may not be baptised, some Infants may be baptised) may be both true.  C. 
Which was proved thus. That which is affirmed and predicated of the Species, may, and is affirmed of every Individuum, and particular under that Species: But it is affirmed of the Species, that Subcontrary Propositions in a Contingent matter may be both true, therefore it may be affirmed of these particular Propositions (some Infants may not be baptised, some Infants may be baptised) that they may be both true,  T. 
He said it was a fallacy, he went about to entrap him, in confessing that subcontrary Propositions may be both true, where the subject is capable, but here the subject, (to wit infants) are not capable of Baptism.  C. 
Then replies he, they are not Contingent (which is here required) but Necessary Propositions, in materiâ necessaria, if the subject be not capable, but we speak of Contingent Propositions, the Predicate whereof may be affirmed or denied of the subject without contradiction; which while he was framing into a Syllogism,  T. 
Mr. T. interrupted him, saying, what would the man say if he could speak?  C. 
You love not to hear truth speak, but would strangle it in the birth, like the Egyptian Midwives; but to give you further Satisfaction, I will prove that they are actually both true, especially that some infants may be baptised, for of the other there is no controversy. Which he did thus, To whom belongs the Essence of Baptism, they may be baptised; But to some infants belongs the Essence of Baptism; therefore some infants may be baptised.  T. 
He denied the Minor, that the Essence of Baptism did belong to some Infants.  C. 
Which was proved thus; To whom belongs the definition of Baptism, to them belongs the Essence; But to some infants belongs the definition of Baptism; Therefore to some infants belongs the Essence of Baptism.  T. 
He answered first to the Major, (to whom belongs the definition of Baptism, to them belongs the Essence,) it was idem per idem, proving of the same thing by the same.  C. 
To which was replied, why then says Aristotle, that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the definition is a manifestation of the Essence, and Logicians describe a definition, to be explicatio rei Essentiae, the expression of the Essence of a thing, now that which expresses a thing; and which is expressed, are two distinct things. Then he denied the Minor, which was proved thus.  C, 
The definition of Baptism, as of all other Relations, is made up of the fundament, correlative, and termini. But all these three fundamentum, correlatum, & terminus, belong to Infants; Therefore the definition of Baptism belongs to Infants.  T. 
He denied the Major, that Baptism was a Relation, or was made up of those ingredients.  C. 
He replied, that seemed strange to him, seeing all the Divines, and Logicians that he had read, affirmed Baptism to be a Relation, and it was evident, it could be put in no other Predicament, (as might be proved by Induction, but that the people understood it not) seeing the whole nature of Baptism is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Relation to another.  T. 
He said he cared not for authorities, but bid him prove it.  C. 
Which he did thus; Every Sacrament is a Relation; But Baptism is a Sacrament; Therefore Baptism is a Relation.  T. 
He said he might deny both Propositions, first The Major, for any thing he knew, every Sacrament was not a Relation; And the Minor too, that Baptism was a Sacrament, for the word Sacrament was an invention of man, not grounded upon scripture.  C. 
Which both Propositions together were proved thus; That which is an outward, and visible sign, of an inward, and invisible grace, is both a Relation, and a Sacrament; But Baptism is an outward and visible sign, of an inward, and invisible grace; Therefore it is both a Relation, and a Sacrament.  T. 
He denied the Minor, that Baptism was an outward, and visible sign, of an inward, and invisible grace.  C. 
He told him, it was St. Austin's definition, avouched by learned men in succeeding ages, confirmed, and approved by the Church of England in the old Catechism.  T. 
Mr. Tombs said he looked for artificial or divine Arguments, not human Testimonies, at which answer while Mr. C. seemed to be astomished, he took occasion to triumph, contumeliously saying he never heard such an Argument.  C. 
To which he replied, Nor Alexander ever saw such a knot, as the Gordian, which made him cut it, when he could not untie it; you teach me by experience to know that there is no disputing against them that deny all Principles; as where you think the people do not understand, you make no scruple to deny clear truths in logic, and divinity; Therefore I see I must go to plain scriptures, that all the people may understand the absurdities. Now that the Definition of Baptism (which was the thing denied) belongs to Infants, I prove thus.  
If God institute Baptism for infants, Christ merited it for them, and they stand need of it, then to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism; But God instituted, Christ merited, and Infants stand need of Baptism; Therefore to infants belongs the Definition of Baptism.  T. 
He denied the Minor, that God did not institute Baptism for infants, Christ did not merit it for them, nor Infants stand in need of it.  C. 
Which he promised to prove in order, First that God did institute Baptism for infants. He that appointed infants Church-members under the gospel, did institute Baptism for them; But God appointed Infants Church-members under the gospel; Therefore God did institute Baptism for infants.  T. 
He said first the Major might be questioned, because, to be Church-members (whereas he should have said Church-members under the gospel) and to be baptised, were not termini convertibiles.  C. 
He confessed it, for infants under the Law were Church-members, and yet not baptised, but Circumcised, and before the Law Church-members, and yet neither Circumcised, nor baptised; but under the gospel they were so convertible, that all that were baptised, were Church-members, and all that were Church-members were to be baptised, which is that which he affirmed now, and is a truth, a truth so clear, that Mr. Tombs confesses it all along in his Books, and upon that confessed ground, Mr. Baxter goes in many of his Arguments.  T. 
He would have denied it, till a Gentleman told him, that he heard him affirm the same in his Sermon the day before, Then he denied the minor, that God did institute infants Church-members under the gospel.  C. 
That I'll confirm (Says he) with a threefold cord, which will not easily be broken, before the Law, under the Law, under the gospel, which he framed into an Argument thus Those whom God did promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, actually receive into covenant under the gospel, those God did appoint Church-members under the gospel; But God did promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, and actually receive Infants into Covenant under the gospel; Therefore God did appoint Infants Church-members under the gospel.  T. 
He denied the Minor, That God did not promise before the Law, foretell under the Law, and actually receive infants into covenant under the gospel.  C. 
Which was proved in order, first that God did promise before the Law that infants should be in covenant under the gospel, thus.  
That which God did promise to Abraham, was before the Law; But God did promise to Abraham, that infants should be in covenant under the gospel; Therefore God did promise before the Law, that infants should be in covenant under the gospel. The Minor being denied, he proved out of Gen. 17.7. I will establish my covenant between me, and thee, and thy seed after, thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant. to be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee. Thus framing his Argument; He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham, and his seed after him in their generations, promised that infants should be in covenant under the gospel; but God makes an everlasting Covenant with Abraham, and his seed after him in their generations; Therefore God promised that infants should be in covenant under the gospel.  T. 
He denied the Major, saying, that everlasting signified only a long time, not that it should be so under the gospel to the world's end; and was to be interpreted by the verse following, I will give unto thee the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and yet the Jews are now dispossessed of Canaan.  C. 
They are now dispossessed, but shall be possessed of it again at their conversion, and so have an everlasting possession, in the type to the end of the world, in the Antitype for ever, but that the covenant that God made with Abraham is to continue to the end of the World appears in that it is a gospel covenant; That which is a gospel covenant is to continue to the end of the world; But the covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed to all generations, is a gospel covenant, Gal. 3.8. and the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen, through faith, preached the gospel before to Abraham, saying, In thee shall nations be blessed; Therefore it is to continue to the end of the world.  T. 
Without repeating, he confusedly answered thus, that it was an everlasting covenant, and to continue to the end of the world, but not to infants.  C. 
He told him first that it was a denying of the Conclusion, then took away his answer thus; If God command infants to stand before him, in covenant, than it is to continue to infants; But God commands infants to stand in covenant before him; Therefore it is to continue to infants. Deut. 29.10, 11. ye stand this day all of you before the Lord, your God, your Captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones.  T. 
He said that he should have proved that it should continue to infants to the world's end, for he did not deny but that infants in some sense were in covenant under the Law, but not under the gospel.  C. 
Yes under the gospel; If Christ hath obtained a more excellent ministry, and is a Mediator of a better covenant, which is established upon better promises, then if infants were in covenant under the Law, they are in covenant under the gospel; But Heb. 8.6. Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministry, was a Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises; Therefore if infants were in covenant under the Law, they are in covenant under the gospel.  T. 
He denied the consequence of the Major, that tho the covenant of the gospel was a better covenant than that of the Law, yet infants were not in covenant as well under the gospel, as under the Law.  C. 
Which was thus taken away; That which unchurches the one half of Christendom, and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation, can not be a better covenant; But to deny infants to be in covenant, unchurches the one half of Christendom, and leaves them no ordinary means of Salvation; Therefore it cannot be a better covenant.  T. 
Without repeating the Syllogism, or denying either of the premises, or formally applying any distinction, he said, the covenant under the gospel was made only with the spiritual seed of Abraham.  C. 
Which was thus disproved; If the covenant was made in the same manner, and extent, to the Gentiles, as to the Jews, then under the gospel it was not only made to the spiritual seed; But it was made in the same manner, and extent, to the Gentiles, as it was to the Jews; Therefore under the gospel it was not only made to the spiritual seed.  T. 
He denied the Minor.  C. 
Which was proved by this Enthymema: The partition wall is pulled down, and Jewe and Gentile are all one in Christ-Jesus; Therefore the covenant is made in the same manner, and extent, to the Jew, and Gentile.  T. 
He denied the consequent, that, tho the partition wall was taken down, and both Jew and Gentile are all one in Christ-Jesus, seeing the gospel was offered to all nations; yet under the gospel the covenant was only with the Elect, and believers.  C. 
Which was confuted thus; That which is made with the whole visible Church, is not only made with the Elect, and true believers; But the covenant is made with the whole visible Church; Therefore not only with the Elect, and true believers.  T. 
He denied the Major.  C. 
Which was proved thus; That which is made to the kingdom of God upon earth, is not only made to the Elect; But that which is made to the whole Church visible is made to the kingdom of God upon Earth; Therefore it was not only made to the Elect.  T. 
He denied the Major, that, that which was made to the kingdom of God upon earth, is not only made to the Elect.  C. 
Which was proved thus; In the kingdom of God, that is in the Church Militant, there are not only Elect, but reprobates, Saints, but hypocrites, for all that are outwardly called, are of the kingdom of God in this sense, and many are called, but few chosen, The kingdom of God is compared to a field, where there are tares, as well as wheat; a fouled; where there are goats as well as sheep; to a noble man's house, where there are vessels of dishonour, as well as honour; And if the Church in regard of outward administration of ordinances (which is the Question) were only the Elect, than it would follow that there were no visible Church upon earth, the Jews had no more visible Church than the heathens, the distinction of the Church visible, and invisible, were frivolous, for no man, nor angel, knows who are Elect, nor any but God.  
To which issue the first branch of the Argument being brought, Mr. C. referred the judgement of it to the people, And proceeded to the second, that God foretold under the Law, that infants should be Church-members under the gospel.  T. 
Mr. T. perceiving that the people apprehended that he was brought to an apparent absurdity, would have waded into a large discourse to wind himself out.  C. 
But Mr. C. told him, that it was his office (being Respondent) to deny or distinguish, but not authoritatively to determine the question, as if he were the Dr. of the chair; And with much ado (the Anabaptists crying let him have liberty to speak on) brought him to dispute again, and to turn to Esay. 49.22. Whence he framed this Argument. He that foretold that he would lift up his hand to the Gentiles, and set up a standard to the people, and that they should bring their sons in their arms, and their daughters shall be carried upon their Shoulders, foretold that infants should be Church-members under the gospel; But thus saith the Lord God, Behold I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people, and they shall bring thy sons in their Arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders; Therefore God foretold that infants should be Church-members under the gospel.  T. 
He denied the Major; And said the meaning was, that the Jews should bring the Gentiles children.  C. 
To which he replied, God says I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and they, that is the Gentiles, shall bring thy sons, and Mr. Tombs says the Jews shall bring thy sons; Then a Gentleman read the words, and said it is the Gentiles shall bring, &c.  T. 
Then Mr. T. recollecting himself said, the meaning was, the Gentiles should bring the Jews children from captivity; And that it did not point at the time of the gospel.  C. 
To which was replied, the contents of the Chapter says that it points at the time of the gospel; Mr. Tombs says it points at the time of the Jews captivity, whether shall we believe? and repeated the contents: Christ being sent to the Jews, complaineth of them to the 5. verse, he is sent to the Gentiles to the 13. verse, God's love to his Church to the end; then the people laughed, &c.  
The pith of which was framed into an argument thus; That which is the judgement of the Church of England ought to be entertained before the groundless assertion of one private man; But that it points at the time of the gospel is the judgement of the Church of England; Therefore it ought to be entertained before the groundless assertion of one private man.  T. 
He denied that it was the judgement of the Church of England.  C. 
Which was thus proved, If the Church of England causes it to be printed, and commands it to be read before the Chapter, than it is the judgement of the Church of England; But the Church of England causes it to be printed, and commands it to be read before the Chapter; Therefore it is the judgement of the Church of England.  T. 
Mr. T. said it was not commanded to be printed, and read so before the Chapter, for he knew not what kind of Bible his was.  C. 
He told him, it was the same with the great Church Bible, which was not only authorised with a Proclamation, but an Act almost fifty years ago, and will Mr. Tombs without giving of a reason condemn a whole nation to have slept in such an error all that while? Then Mr. Abbet's preacher resident there, one who hath been dipped, being in pulpit with Mr. Tombs, stood up and said, the words were, They shall bring thy sons in their Arms; To which Mr. C. replied, what then? may they not be God's sons by adoption, and their own by natural generation?  
Mr. Tombs fell upon expounding the Chapter from verse to verse. Mr. C. told him, that they came not to hear him expound, but dispute, and repeating the last Argument, wished him to answer; at which Abbets stood up again, and said the words of the text were, that they, that is, the Gentiles, shall bring thy Children, that is the Jews. To which Mr. C. replied, that was an addition to the text, for there is no mention of the Jews; But grant it were, must it be therefore meant of the captivity? the 20. and 21. verses of this Chapter confutes it, intimating that the Jews after Christ's coming shall lose their own natural, and the Gentiles Children shall be adopted, and engrafted into their place; They, that is the Gentiles converted, shall bring thy sons, thine by a kind of adoption, and spiritual succession, for the Gentiles Children were engrafted into the stock of the Jews Children broke off; And this is so clear from the Context (compared with Rom. 11.) That with reason it could not be denied; But he was to speak to Mr. Tombs who understood the nature of a dispute, and not to him, and if he would take upon him to moderate, it was fit that he should have another.  T. 
Mr. Tombs asked Mr. C. what he understood by standard, what by kings, what by nursing Fathers, &c.  C. 
He told him, that it was not his place to dispute Socratically by asking of questions, but to answer ad Appositum. But to give him Satisfaction (which he needed not) by Standart he understood some visible gospel ordinance, as Baptism; by Kings supreme magistrates, by nursing Fathers, and nursing Mothers, patrons, and protectors of the gospel.  T. 
He said that it was a metaphorical speech, and that nothing could be gathered from it.  C. 
He replied, that he would grant him that it was more than a metaphorical speech, (for a Metaphor consisted but in one single trope) but it was a continuation of several tropes, and therefore allegorical; yet it does not follow, that nothing could be gathered from it, for than nothing could be gathered from any Parable in the gospel; Nay nor any part of the New testament; for there is scarce a sentence without some Tropes in it.  T. 
Mr. T. said it was fulfilled in Hester's time, which was a nursing Mother to the Jews:  C. 
To which was answered; Hester was a Jew, and a friend to the Jews, what is this to the Gentiles bringing Children upon Shoulders? And tho that should be waved, and Hester granted to be a nursing Mother in the type, yet in the Antitype it aims principally at the times of the gospel, else gross absurdities would follow; for what Kings, or Queens in Hesters-time did bow down to the Jews with their face towards the Earth, and lick up the dust of their feet? verse 23. Isles are summoned in the first verse, which must be meant of the time of the gospel: Christ is promised to be given for a light for the Gentiles, that he may be their Salvation to the end of the earth. 6. King's shall see, and arise, Princes also shall worships. 7. And the holy Ghost, quotes verbatim, and applies to the time of the gospel the 8. verse, and that expressly 2. Cor. 6.2. There is an employed cutting off to the Jews, 20. An engrafting in of the Gentiles, the Children of the wild olive into the stock of the natural olive, 21. And a Bringing of Children to visible ordinances, 22. All which he offered to frame into Arguments.  T. 
But Mr. T. prevented it, saying, that though it should be understood of the times of the gospel, yet by sons in arms, and daughters upon Shoulders, was meant grown men, for any thing he knew, and men women and of a hundred years of age might be carried upon arms, and upon shoulders.  
Which indeed is the same answer Mr. T. gives in his sceptical exercitation; (like foxes, and badgers being beat out of one hole, hath another to fly unto:) Where (as Mr. Hussey quotes him) he uses the same words, that Mr. Abbets, and he found fault with in Mr. C. Major proposition, for these are his words, It is foretold that Gentiles should bring their Children in their arms, therefore the Prophet foresaw the Baptism of Infants; he might have seen the beam in his own eye, turpe est doctori, &c. But to return to Mr. T. answer.  C. 
Which Mr. C. took thus away; Them that they should bring in their bosoms were Infants; But it was foretold that they should bring them in their bosoms; Therefore they were Infants.  T. 
He inquired where it did appear that they should bring them in their bosoms.  C. 
Out of the text, for the word in the original (which is translated arms) is bosom, and so the Septuagints read it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, intimating that they should bring sucking Children hanging upon their breasts.  T. 
Then Mr. Tombs said it was an analogy, and performed when the Gentiles persuaded their Children to embrace Christ.  C. 
Well then, it is their Children, not thy children, oportet esse memorem; But not that neither; for that Scripture which in the letter suits with many other Scriptures, but in the pretended analogy with no other, can not be the meaning; But to interpret it literally of bringing Children to Christ in the bosom, suits with many scriptures, and to persuade them to come to Christ, with no scriptures; Therefore it can not be the meaning.  T. 
Mr. T. could not name one text of scripture, where to bring in arms, or bosom, was to persuade to come to Christ.  C. 
So Mr. C. referred the judgement of it to the people, and named another text, Es. 65.20. There shall be no more thence an Infant of days, &c. But the child shall die an hundred year old.  T. 
Mr. Tombs bid him read the rest of the words, and the verse following.  C. 
He said he had read as much as he intended to raise his Argument from.  T. 
Take notice (says he) he will not read that which makes against him.  C. 
Not so; for nothing of it makes against me, but that an Argument must be terminus simplex, and homogeneal, and that you know well enough, but that in place of solid Satisfaction you must say something to deceive the people. The Arguments I raise hence are two, the first is this, There shall be no more an Infant of days, that is, Infants shall not be uncapable of the seal, while their age is measured by days, as the Jews Infants that might not be Circumcised till a week had passed over them; Therefore Infants new born are capable of the seal; The secund Argument is this, The child shall die an hundred year old, that is, as an hundred year old, or as well a Church-member as if he were a hundred year old; Therefore Children may be baptised under the gospel:  T. 
Mr: T. found fault with that interpretation, shall die an hundred years old, that is as if an hundred years old.  C. 
He answered, to take it literally would imply a contradiction, for it was impossible to be a child, and a hundred years old, and was better than his, and the Anabaptists exposition of 1 Cor. 10.2. they were baptised under the cloud, that is (say you) as if they were baptised under the cloud, when nothing hindered, but they were really baptised under the cloud. And Rom. 11.19. the branches were broken off▪ that is (say you) as if they were broken off, when it was both possible, and apparent, that they were broken off.  T. 
Then Mr. T. said it was not meant of the times of the gospel.  C. 
To which was replied; Mr. T. will still be wiser than the Church of England; and read the Contents of the Chapter; The calling of the Gentiles v. 1. the Jews rejected 17. the blessed state of the new Jerusalem to the end.  T. 
Mr: T. said it was verified Zacha: 8.4. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, there shall yet old men, and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age, and the streets of the city shall be full of boys, and girls playing in the streets thereof.  C. 
To which was replied; what is this to an Infant of days, or a child dying a hundred years old? when it is apparent both from the Contents, & Text, that this of Zachary is meant of the Jews return from Captivity, & more apparent that that of Es. is meant of the state of Christ's kingdom under the gospel which I prove thus; That Interpretation that brings with it▪ absurdity, untruth, blasphemy, is not to be admitted; But to interpret it of the Jews return from captivity brings with it absurdity, untruth, blasphemy; Therefore it is not to be admitted.  T. 
Mr. Tombs denied the Minor.  C. 
Which was proved in order; first that it brought with it absurdity, To apply the 25. verse to the return from Captivity was absurd, that the wolf and the lamb should feed together, and the Lion should eat straw with the bullock, and dust should be the serpent's meat; Therefore it brought with it absurdity. Secondly that it brought with it untruth; But to apply the 19 v. to the return from Captivity brought with it an untruth, that the voice of weeping should be no more heard in Jerusalem; for it was twice destroyed after, once by Antiochus, then by Vespasian, and Titus; Therefore it brought with it an untruth.  
Thirdly that it brought with it blasphemy; for to interpret the 17. verse, (Behold I create new heavens, and new earth, and the former shall no more be remembered, and come into mind) of the second temple, is blasphemous; Therefore it brought with it blasphemy, for it crosseth St. Peter's interpretation 2. Pet. 3.13. We according to his promise look for new heavens, and a new Earth; For can any rational man think, that the new temple built at Jerusalem in Cyrus his time, was this new heaven, and new earth, that the former should be no more remembered? When the ancient men are said to weep, because the glory of the latter temple was short of the glory of the first, Ezra. 3.12. [It was inferior to Solomon's temple, first in respect of the building, that was lower, and meaner; secondly, in respect of the vessels, before of Gold, now of brass; thirdly, of five things that were lost, first the Ark of God, secondly, the Urim & Thummim, thirdty, fire from Heaven to consume the Sacrifices, fourthly, the glory of God between the Cherubims, fiftly, the gift of prophecy, for after the second temple there was no prophet.]  T. 
Mr. T. fell to his wonted course of impertinent exposition, wherein Mr. C. told him he violated the rules of dispute, and did lasciviously wanton it out into a wilderness of words, that the truth might be obscured or lost, and like a lapwing carry the hearers far from the matter. Then C. P. an Apothecary began to interpose, as he had done once before, till a gentleman of authority, told him, that it was not fit for a man of his place, and calling, to speak; Yet Mr. Tombs would not be satisfied, but went on saying that Dr. Prideaux in Oxford, when a place of Scripture was cited, was wont to give a large exposition.  C. 
Mr. C. replied; that Dr. Prideaux was Doctor of the Chair, and Judge of the controversy, and might do that which a Respondent may not do, whose office is only to repeat, deny, distinguish, and when a Text is quoted, to give a brief exposition, that the Opponent may have something to fasten upon; And what Dr. Prideaux did, he knew not; but what Dr. Collins, and Dr. Ward did, he could tell him; but that it was not to the present purpose. And that his judgement in this, was but the same with his own University of Oxford, as he knew of late by a sad experiment.  T. 
Mr. tombs Asked what that was?  C. 
He told him an explosion, not for disability (for his dispute was plausible enough) but that he would neither be satisfied with D. savage his answer, nor the Doctor of the chairs determination; but fell to repetitions, and extravagances, as now.  Mr. 
tombs launched into a tedious discourse to vindicate himself, till he had tired the Auditors, who cried out this is but to waste time; And a learned Gentleman spoke aloud, this is but to spend the time in parling, that he may avoid the gunshot, for he is afraid the great thunderbolt is behind: and so with much ado, he was brought to dispute again, where Mr. C. falling upon the third branch of his Argument, That God did actually receive Infants to be Church-members under the gospel, began thus.  C. 
Those whom Christ commanded his disciples to baptise, they may be baptised; But Christ commanded his Disciples to baptise Infants; Therefore they may be baptised. The Minor being denied, was proved thus; He that commanded his Disciples to baptize all Nations, commanded them to baptise Infants; But Christ commanded his Disciples; Matth. 28.19. to baptise all Nations; Therefore Christ commanded them to baptise Infants.  T. 
Mr. T. denied the Major.  C. 
Which was proved by this Enthymema; The whole includes every part; Infants are a part of Nations; therefore he that commanded to baptise all Nations, commanded to baptise Infants.  T. 
He denied the consequent, though the whole included every part, and Nations were the whole, and Infants were a part of Nations, yet it did not follow that Infants were to be baptised.  C. 
He returned, that, that saying of Aquinas (posito toto generali, pars ejus negari non potest, a general whole being granted, no part of it can be denied) was an axiom both in logic, philosophy, and Divinity, as Psalm 117.1. praise the Lord all ye Nations, is interpreted by another Psalm, Old men, and babes, young men, and maidens, praise ye the Lord.  T. 
Mr. T. Said it was an axiom that the whole includes every part, where there is no exception, but here is an exception.  C. 
He replied, Saint Ambrose upon the place says there is no exception, Qui dixit omnes, nullos exclusit, neque parvulos, &c. He that said baptise all Nations, excepted none, no not Infants.  T. 
Mr. T. Pished at it, slighting Ambrose his Authority.  C. 
Then said Mr. C. whether we shall obey Ambrose Bishop of Milan with Scripture, or Mr. Tombs Vicar of Lemster against Scripture, judge you. But that there is no exception thus I prove, If Infants be excepted from Baptism, it is either because they are not named in the text, or because we find no instance that any were baptised, or because they are not capable; But for none of these three; Therefore Infants are not excepted.  T. 
Mr. T. denied the Major, and said that a fourth reason might be given, because they were not Disciples,  C. 
He told him that in this answer he showed himself to be no good Logician; for it is an axiom, that in no division, one member can be affirmed of another, because they are opposite, now to be Disciples, and capable of Baptism were not opposite but subordinate; And to be Disciples, if it made them not capable, it was no exception at all, if it made them capable, it was the same with the third, to which Dilemma when he could receive no answer, he demanded where it was required that those that are to be baptised, must be Disciples?  T. 
He said out of the Text, for that which is translated Teach all Nations, is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} make Disciples of all Nations.  C. 
He replied; at Ross you found fault with me for that translation, asking me, was I wiser than the translators? and now when it seems to make for you, you urge it. Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo? I confess it is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in the Aorist, ye shall make Disciples, for it must be interpreted by the future, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, baptising, or by baptising in the present tense; as if Discipling were the end, and baptising the means, and required no qualification before (as learned men with great probability press) but I will not insist upon that now, But that which you denied, I prove, that Infants may be Disciples, from [that place Rom. 15.10. compared with the 5. verse, for so Mr. C. said, mistaking it for] Acts 15.10.  T. 
At which Mr. Tombs insulted, saying he was a good text-man.  C. 
He replied, he was in haste, and did not think of this before, but that his answer did drive him to it, and he in his elaborate books did oftentimes quote one place for another, than how much more might he, that was extemporal, it had been enough to have said, as our Saviour to the Tempter, it's written: but to leave these catches, and come to the proof. They upon whom the Pharisees would have laid the yoke, were Disciples, verse 10. Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples; But many of them were Infants; Therefore Infants are Disciples.  T. 
He denied the Minor, that many of them were not Infants.  C. 
Which was proved thus; The yoke was Circumcision verse 5. the Pharisees saying, that it was needful to Circumcise them; But they upon whom the yoke was to be imposed by Circumcision, were only Infants amongst the Jews, and Infants together with Parents amongst the Gentiles; Therefore many of them were Infants.  T. 
He denied the Major, and said the yoke was not Circumcision.  C. 
He replied it was apparent, by comparing the 5. and 10. with the foregoing verses. 1. verse Certain men came down from Judea, and taught the brethren, except ye be Circumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved; where observe that Circumcision is the subject of the Question. In the 2. verse they determined that Paul, and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles, and Elders, about this Question, to wit Circumcision. In the 5. certain of the Sect of the Pharisees said, that it was needful to circumcise them. In the 6. the Apostles came together to consider of the matter, that is Circumcision, and when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up in the 7. and determined the Question in the tenth verse, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples?  T. 
Mr. T. Said, that Circumcision could not be the yoke, that neither they nor their fathers could bear.  C. 
He returned, that it was a bloody, and a heavy yoke, therefore the Israelites had a dispensation for 40. years in the wilderness; Moses neglected the Circumcision of his child probably for this cause; and his wife (when the Child was Circumcised) called him a bloody husband. The Sichemites were slain, as unable to defend themselves, while they were sore of the wound of Circumcision.  T. 
Mr. T. Said, that the Doctrine of Moses was the yoke of which Infants were not capable.  C. 
He replied; that Circumcision was principally meant, and the doctrine of Moses only as an Appendix of it, and children were as capable of the doctrine then, as they were in Abraham, and Moses his time, when all in the moment of Circumcision were tied to the observation of the doctrine, tho they of ripe years (to use Vossius his distinction) were taught the doctrine antecedenter, before Circumcision, infants of eight days consequenter, after Circumcision, when age made them capable; I know (Says God) Abraham will teach his Children; So it is apparent all those upon whom Circumcision with the doctrine of Moses was to be imposed, were called Disciples; But some of these were Infants, for only Infants were Circumcised among the Jews, and Infants with the Parents among the gentiles; therefore some Infants are Disciples.  Mr. T. 
Without any distinct answer would have broke through the pales to rove abroad again.  C. 
But he pressed him to keep within the lists, urging this Argument. They to whom is the promise, they may be baptised, it's the Apostles own inference, Acts 2.28. Be baptised, for the promise is to you; But to Infants of believing parents is the promise, the promise is to you, and your Children; therefore Infants may be baptised.  T. 
He denied the Minor, that to Infants of believing parents is the promise.  C. 
He told him, it was the words of the text, The promise is to you, and your Children.  T. 
Then Mr. T. Said they were not believers yet.  C. 
Mr. C. replied, they were believers in fieri, tho perhaps not in facto.  T. 
That's Latin (says Mr. T.) what do you understand by it?  C. 
He said, I mean this, they were believers by outward assent, and disposition, sufficient to make them members visible; but perhaps not believers by inward assent, and habit, to justify them. For I know you will not say that none are to be baptised but they that have a saving faith, which none but God is able to discern. Ministers must act according to rule, which in adultis, is outward profession, or a willingness to receive the Ordinance, and that they were thus qualified (which is sufficient) it is apparent.  T. 
Mr. T. denied that they were sufficiently qualified.  C. 
Which was proved thus; They whom the Apostle commanded to be baptised, were sufficiently qualified; But the Apostle commanded them to be baptised; Therefore they were sufficiently qualified.  T. 
Then Mr. T. Without repeating the Syllogism, or applying any distinction, inquired where the Apostle commanded them to be baptised.  C. 
He told him verse 38. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, be baptised every one of your.  T. 
Yes (says Mr. T.) Upon condition of Repentance, repent and be baptised.  C. 
That is a condition of your own making, and an adding to the Word of God, for where does the Scripture, either expressly, or implyedly say, that Repentance is a condition of Baptism? if it be meant of complete repentance, true it is, it was their duty both to repent, and to be baptised, to repent in relation to crucifying of Christ, to be baptised in relation to Judaism, which they were to put off, and Christianity which they were to put on; But that they must have complete repentance before Baptism, it is not so much as hinted at. And if you mean incomplete repentance (which is Indeed all that is required) they had that already, for they were pricked in conscience, saying, Men, and brethren what shall we do?  T. 
Mr. T. Said that was not all that was required, nor was it a sufficient qualification for Baptism.  C. 
Against which answer was concluded thus; That upon which the Apostles baptised three thousand the same day, was a sufficient qualification; But the Apostles upon that baptised 3000. the same day; Therefore it was a sufficient qualification.  T. 
He denied the Minor, and gave his reason from the 40. and 41. verses, And with many other words did he testify, and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation, than they that gladly received the word were baptised,  C. 
It was replied, that this was but a recapitulation, or reciting of the heads of Peter's Sermon that he preached to them, before they were pricked in conscience, or were exhorted to be baptised, and no new act; which was a thing usual in Scripture, as Gen. 1. God having expressed the creation of Man, and God's blessing of him, and all creatures to him, by a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} recites the manner of his creation in the second Chapter. But howsoever it made nothing against him, for whether it be taken thetically without any condition, or hypothetically upon condition of repentance, the Children were to be baptised together with the Parents, the promise is to you and your Children, and that was all that he contended for; from whence ariseth this Argument, To whom the promise of Grace belongs, to them Baptism belongs also; But the promise of Grace belongs to Believers and their Children; Therefore Baptism belongs to both.  T. 
Mr. T. said, the Promise of Grace belonged to Believers, and their Children, when their Children actually believed, and not before.  C. 
He replied, there were two Arguments in the text to overthrow that: The first might be drawn from the Indicative predication in the present tense, the Promise is to you, and your Children, is, for the present, as well to your Children, as to you. The second, from the opposition betwixt you and your Children, and them that are afar off. They, and their Children, which are, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, near (as the Greek Scholiast, and the Syrian Interpreter says) are opposed to them that are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, afar off. The Jews were near, and in Covenant, for to them is the promise in the present tense, but the Gentiles were afar off, Rom. 2.15. Ye who sometimes were afar off, are made nigh by the Blood of Christ, therefore it is expressed in the future tense, as many as God shall call; So that to the Jews being called, their Children were in Covenant with them; when the Gentiles shall be called, their Children shall be in Covenant with them.  T. 
Mr. T. said, he granted that Children were in Covenant, and might be baptised  C. 
Well then observe, good People, the Dispute is at an end, he grants that Children are in Covenant, and may be baptised.  T. 
Yes, but by those Children are not meant Infants, but Grown Men.  C. 
He replied, there are many circumstances in the text overthrows that; first, the word is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which comes from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, to bring forth, given sometimes to Children in the womb, for the most part to them that are newly born, or young.  T. 
Mr. T. said, it was also given to Men of ripe age.  C. 
Yes sometimes, by a figurative speech, (as that of Julius Caesar to Brutus in Plutarch) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and thou my Child. And well might he call him his Child, for he had adopted him the night before; but properly it signifies a young Child, and so it ought to be taken here, unless some convincing reason can be given to the contrary, according to that rule, Omne analogum per se positum, stat pro famosiore significato. Mr. T. gave no answer, but with a jeering echo repeated the last words, pro famosiore significato.  
The second circumstance in the text, is the substantive verb {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, is, the promise is to you, and your Children, not is to you, and shall be to your Children; now what Children had they at this present, but young Children? unless Mr. T. will imagine that they were all Old Men and Women that were present, and their Younger Men and Women were absent.  
The third circumstance in the text is the finis cui, the end to whom the promise is, to you, and your Children; the Jews Children under the Law were in Covenant with their Parents, the Charter is confirmed under the Gospel to them and their Children. The Jews when they crucified Christ, called for a Curse upon themselves, and upon their Children, here the Apostle gives them a Remedy as large as the Disease, the promise (that is, of freedom from the curse) is to you and your Children.  T. 
Mr. T. still kept his Conclusion in despite of the premises, that it was to their Children when they actually believed, and not before.  C. 
Yes, and before they actually believe, which I prove thus: The blessing is as large as the curse; But the curse extended even to children, before they could actually believe (his blood be upon us and upon our children) Therefore the blessing.  T. 
Mr. T. answered to the Major thus: If by blessing was meant the inward and spiritual part of the Covenant, it might be true; but that was nothing to the present purpose, seeing it was not known to us: But if the outward, and visible part, he denied that Infants were capable of the blessing, as well as liable to the curse.  C. 
Which distinction was took away thus: They that are holy with a Covenant-holiness are capable of the outward and visible part; But Infants of Believers are holy with a Covenant-holiness; Therefore they are capable of the outward and visible part.  T. 
Mr. T. denied the Minor, and said that Covenant-holiness was gibberish, which they that spoke did not understand themselves.  C. 
Mr. C. replied, it was the language of learned men of all ages, amongst whom were Vossius, Bullinger, and Hugo Grotius; and that Children of Believing Parents were holy before Baptism, and that Baptism did not make, but declare them to be Christians.  Then cried out a cobbler, [I. E.] (that hath been dipped) this is Blasphemy. C. 
Well, you discover of what spirit you are, and your ignorance; Are not these the words of the learned assembly of Divines in the Directory confirmed by Ordinance of Parliament? That Infants are Christians, and federally holy before Baptism, and therefore are they baptised [Pag 12.] And that Infants of Believing Parents are thus holy, with a federal, or Covenant-holiness, I thus prove from, 1 Cor. 7.14. Else were your Children unclean, but now they are holy.  T. 
That says Mr. T. Is meant of matrimonial holiness, or a lawful use of the Marriage-bed, that they are no Bastards.  C. 
That Answer I thus infringe. That which in Scripture is taken almost six hundred times in a distinct sense, and not so much as once for matrimonial holiness, cannot be so meant here; But it is taken in Scripture almost six hundred times in a distinct sense, and not once for matrimonial holiness; Therefore it cannot be so meant here.  T. 
That Argument (says Mr T.) I will retort upon you, That which in Scripture is taken six hundred times in a distinct sense, and never Once for Covenant-holiness cannot be meant here; But it is taken six hundred times in a distinct sense, and never once for Covenant holiness; therefore it cannot be meant here.  C. 
To which was replied, this is to invert the order of the dispute, you are to answer, and not to oppose.  T. 
I may oppose by retorting of an Argument, and I will answer anon.  C. 
Well, to satisfy you, I deny your Minor, for it's taken oft in Scripture for Covenant-holiness.  T. 
Where?  C. 
The proof lies upon you, that it is not, yet I'll give give you one instance, or two, Rom. 11.16. if the first fruits be holy, the Lump is also holy, and if the root be holy, so are the branches.  T. 
That is not meant of a covenant-holiness.  C. 
Yes, it's as clear as the light, and so you yourself interpreted it at Ross, as there are hundreds that will witness, which was upon this occasion. I pressed that if the immediate parents were holy, the children were holy with a Covenant-holiness; you denied the inference, and said the meaning of it was, that Abraham the father of the faithful was the first fruits, and root that was holy, and therefore his posterity was holy, and in covenant [And in this exposition, as he agreed with truth, so with Beza, who says that children are holy, that is comprehended in covenant from the womb, and with bowls who saith, that they are holy with outward holiness, by which they are judged to be in covenant]  
But to return from whence, by your retortion, we have digressed. I am to prove that holiness is never taken in Scripture for matrimonial cleanness in opposition to Illegitimation. Not in that place Ezra 9.2. the holy seed have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands; which is either your only, or principal hold, (as far as I can gather out of your books) therefore in no place.  T. 
He denied the Antecedent.  C. 
Which was proved thus. If it be meant of matrimonial cleanness, than this must be the meaning of the words; The holy seed, that is the lawfully begotten Jews, have mingled themselves with the seed of those lands, that is the bastards of those lands; But that cannot be the meaning, for happily there were some Bastards among the Jews, and in that sense not holy, and no Bastards among the Nations, but all, or the most Legitimate, and therefore in that sense not unholy; Therefore it is not meant of matrimonial holiness.  T. 
He denied the Major, affirming that both Jews, and Nations, were holy before their mixture, but then, both they, and their Children became unclean, because God had forbidden them to marry with the Nations.  C. 
To which was answered, they that are Saints are not unholy; But some Saints have been begot by this mixture, or unlawful bed, as Jepthah, who Hebr. 11. Is said to be justified by faith; Therefore they are not unholy.  T. 
He denied the Major, saying, they may be unholy by their natural Generation, and first birth, and yet holy by Regeneration, and new birth.  C. 
This strikes not home; Moses had children by his Ethiopian woman, but they were not illegitimate; therefore those that were begot by mixture with the Nations were not Illegitimate.  T. 
Mr. T. Said, that was before the Law was given.  C. 
Well, that Answer will do you little service; after the Law was given, Solomon had children by Rahab, who was a Cananitish, and Boaz by Ruth, who was a Moabitish woman; and yet they were not Illegitimate, or unholy, as you would have it.  T. 
They became proselytes, and received the Religion of the Jews.  C. 
Well then, while they were not of the Jews Religion, tho no Bastards, they were unholy, when they embraced the Jews Religion, (by your own confession) they became holy; what is this but a covenant-holiness which you have opposed all this while, and now grant it?  T. 
Mr. T. Used many words to clear himself, but with little satisfaction to the greatest part of the hearers, and still denied that children were holy, and in covenant.  C. 
Which was further proved thus, They that Christ took up in his arms, blessed, said, the Kingdom of God belonged unto them, pronounced a curse upon those that despised, and would not receive, are holy with a covenant-holiness; But Christ took up little children into his arms, blessed them, said, the Kingdom of God belonged unto them, pronounced a curse upon those that despised, and would not receive them; Therefore little Children are holy with a Covenant-holiness.  T. 
Mr. tombs began to be nettled, as if something in this Argument galled him, saying it was a fallacy, and that he went about to entrap him by sophistry.  C. 
What fallacy?  T. 
A heaping of many things together that belong to several matters.  C. 
I confess they were spoken upon several occasions, but they all concentre in my Conclusion, that children are holy, and in covenant; I am in haste, and named them all together, but if you will have patience, I'll prosecute them severally.  T. 
I am willing to continue till midnight, but I like not this kind of arguing.  C. 
You like it not, because it does jugulum petere, cut the throat of your tenet.  T. 
No not so much as touch the skin of it, says he.  C. 
Well I beseech you in the spirit of meekness to answer.  T. 
It is a fallacy of heaping many particulars together.  C. 
I confess there is a fallacy they call {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  T. 
Take notice, he confesses it is a fallacy.  C. 
No such thing, for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is an asking of many Questions, which is your usual fallacy, Socratically to ask, when you should solidly answer, but in my Syllogism there is not so much as one Question.  T. 
It is a Copulative proposition says Mr. tombs, and if one member of it be false, the whole is false.  C. 
It is not an explicit Copulative proposition (Says Mr. C.) neither is any member of it false, (for every branch of it is Scripture,) Instance in any of the particulars that you think m●kes the least for me, and I'll begin with that; then he mentioned Matth. 18.2. Which words being read, from thence he raised this Argument. They to whom belongs the Kingdom of Heaven, are holy, and in Covenant; But to little children belongs the Kingdom of Heaven; Therefore little children are holy, and in Covenant.  T. 
Those little Children were not Infants.  C. 
They are called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, because they could scarce speak.  T. 
What are these called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}?  C. 
If not here, elsewhere, and of other Evangelists, and here they are called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, by the diminutive, which the great Master of the Greek Hippocrates interprets, to signify a Child under seven years of age, and therefore not capable of actual faith, when the Apostles themselves were yet ignorant about fundamentals.  T. 
They were converted verse 3. Except ye be converted, and become as little Children, &c.  C. 
The meaning is not that the little Children are converted, but it hath relation to the Disciples in the first verse, who must be converted from their actual sins, and become as little children which have no actual sin.  T. 
O how unhappy are the people that are seduced with these toys, are you not ashamed?  C. 
I see you have learned of that man in Lucian to cry out {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and to vilify that Argument you cannot answer, and besides that, I see nothing that is shame-worthy.  
He hath answered nothing at all (Says one under the Pulpit) but shifts and denies all.  T. 
Thou art an impudent, brazen-faced fellow, whosoever thou art, I have answered all, confuted all my adversaries Books, and amongst them one of my greatest Antagonists, I have turned Mr. Richard Baxter the most of his Arguments against himself.  C. 
Sir, let that worthy man alone who is absent, you are now to answer me.  T. 
Here is nothing to answer, is it not in the sixt verse, Who so shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me? were they not believers?  C. 
Yes, the Disciples were believers, which are here meant, and not the children; which the grammatical construction will tell you, for it is in the masculine gender, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, one of these little ones, meaning {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} disciple, not in the Neuter Gender to answer to {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, little child; so that my Argument remains unanswered.  T. 
I am weary of this pedantry, and looking upon his watch, said, I promised but one hour, and it's above four hours; with that he clapped his Book together. [T. J.] Good Mr. tombs (says an Anabaptist) continue a little longer for satisfaction of the people; he gave no answer, but put on his hat.  C. 
Well, Sir, I will not press you any further now, I should have urged John 3.5. Rom. 11. and other places, to prove infant's Church-membership, and have come to the second and third branches of mine Argument, that Christ merited it for them, and Infants stand in need of Baptism; but those I must leave to another opportunity; Therefore I desire that we may have a set day about a Month hence, seeing I was hurried to this extemporal discourse through importunity.  T. 
No, I will have no more dealing with you, unless it be by writing, that what both of us shall set down, may be read in the public Congregation.   
MARK. 16.15, 16. 
15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, & Preach the Gospel to every Creature.  
16. He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned.  
THese two verses hold out the rich Charter of the Gospel, which our Saviour delivered to the Apostles after his Resurrection; The parts are two, First a Precept, in the former verse, Go ye into all the world, and Preach the Gospel to every Creature; Secondly a Promise, with a Commination in the latter, He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.  
In the Precept, we have two particulars, First a Mission, he sends them, Go ye into all the world; Secondly a Commission, he authorises them, and Preach the Gospel to every Creature.  
In the latter verse, or promise, we have First the thing promised, laid down affirmatively, shall be saved; Secondly the qualification, and that either absolute, he that believeth, or conditional, and is baptised; he that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved; Or a Commination shall be damned, with a qualification negative, and absolutely without any limitation, he that believeth not, he that believeth not shall be damned.  
we'll only hint at the former verse for introduction to the latter. And he said, (that is Christ,) Observe, that it is only God, Christ God and Man, that can give Mission, or Commission to Preach, and ordain Sacraments. Math. 28.18. All power is given me in Heaven and Earth, Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations. Go ye into all the world, there is the largeness of their Commission, to all the world, as he, to all Nations as Matthew. Hence observe, the Apostles, and by them the Evangelists, had an extraordinary Commission which extended through the world, but our Commission ordinarily is limited to certain places; True it is, there may be itinerants upon special occasions, (and they also confined within their verges,) But as Doctor Buckeridge observes well when Christ speaks to Apostles, he says, Go ye into all the world, but when to ordinary Pastors, and Teachers {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} he fixed some to be Pastors, and some Teachers.  
And Preach the Gospel to every Creature, there is the Commission, wherein we have First the Act Preach, that is proclaim, Secondly the object of the Gospel, which in the Original, and other languages signifies good news, or a good speech; from the connexion between the Mission and Commission coming from the same author Christ, and extended to the same persons, the Apostles, and their successors, observe, that none may Preach as Church Officers, but they that are sent in a Gospel way; our adversary in the common cause spoke so home to this, that we need not press it further. The last thing is the extent of the Commission, and that a very large one, unto every Creature, as here, to all Nations, as Matthew.  
Now the Quaere will be, what is meant by every Creature? Some limit it to every rational creature, Angels, men, Devils, as Origen, & his misericordes Doctores who held the Devils and reprobates should be saved; but that cannot be; for 2. Pet. 2.4. They are cast down to hell, and reserved to judgement. Some more strictly restrain it only to man, and that when he is come to age, and understanding, excluding Children; this is too strict, True it is, Infants are not capable to be taught of men, but they may be taught of God; they cannot actually understand the Gospel, but they may actually receive the benefit of the Gospel; a noble man's Child hath interest in his father's Patent, and pardon; a sucking Infant (though he knows it not) may be joined in a lease with the Parents. Some extend it, and it is conceived more fitly according to the Letter, without any Synecdoche, or figure, to every creature, as if he should say, Go and proclaim the benefit that comes by Christ to every Creature; for as by the first Adam all creatures were accursed, so by Christ the second Adam, all creatures shall be blessed, Rom. 8.22. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} every creature groans, desiring to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God, answerable to this, Preach the Gospel {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to every creature, telling them, that they are now by Christ to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God.  
Object. But the creature cannot hear, nor understand.  
Answ. It's true not properly, no more could John Baptist in his mother's Womb, and yet {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Babe sprang for joy; Nay the Holy Ghost ascribes a hearing to the creature, Hosea 2.21. And it shall come to pass in that day saith the Lord, I will hear the Heavens, and they shall hear the Earth, and the Earth shall hear the Corn, and the Wine, and the oil, and they shall hear Jezreel. Hence observe, that every creature in a sense is sensible of the benefit they have by Christ; but every one in their kind, men come to years, and discretion, are capable of actual understanding, actual profession, actual faith; Infants only in actu primo, are capable of the first seeds of understanding, of profession of Faith, which will show itself in the fruits when they come to years; The rest of our fellow creatures as by a natural instinct they groan for the curse, so by an other instinct, they lift up their heads in expectation of the blessing, and that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, with an earnest expectation, or a stretched out neck as the word in the original signifies, Rom. 819.  
Thus we have paraphrased upon the first verse for introduction to the second, wherein is First, a Consolatory promise, he that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved; Secondly a comminatory Curse, he that believeth not, shall be damned. In the former, we have first the qualification, and that either absolute, he that believeth, or conditional, and is baptised.  
Q. Now the Quaere will be, what belief is here meant?  
Sol. First the event tells us, that belief that saves us, he that believes shall be saved. Secondly the opposition, its contrary to that unbelief that damns; Observe that a saving Faith is necessary to salvation, without Faith it is impossible to please God, all they, and only they that have a saving Faith shall be saved; so that you see that Faith is a necessary, and absolute condition.  
And is baptised, that is upon supposition, if Baptism conveniently may be had; hence observe, that Baptism is not absolutely necessary by necessity of means (as they call it) as if none could be saved without it, but by necessity of Precept, if conveniently it may be had. The Israelites for forty years in the Wilderness were not Circumcised. Bernard, that saw not all things could see this, that, non absentia sed contemplus Sacramenti damnat, not the want, but the contempt of the Sacrament damns: Valentinian the Emperor died, as he was going to be baptised in Jordan, and Ambrose being asked what he thought of him, answered, that he was Baptizatus volo, & voluntate, etiamsi non reverà aquae lavacro, baptised inwardly with wish, and will, though not outwardly with the laver of water, Austin is conceived here to be mistaken, who denied salvation to Infants unbaptised, hence he is called durus Pater Infantum, a hard Father of Infants; and many of the Doctors of the Church of Rome, who hold that Infants that die unbaptised, are kept in limbo Infantum in a Purgatory of Infants, where they shall never behold the beatifical vision.  
Object. But here is first placed believing, and then baptised, so that from the order of placing the words, some would gather that we are first to believe before we be baptised.  
Answ. That will not follow; for Mark 1.4. There is placed first baptising, and then Preaching, and repentance after, whence they might as well gather that we must be baptised, before we can hear the word Preached, or repent; Repentance in Scripture is oft placed before Faith, and yet is a fruit, and effect of Faith; some of the Evangelists place Judas his receiving of the sop before the Sacrament, some after it; it is a rule in interpreting of holy Writ, that Scriptura nescit prius, & posterius, the Scripture does not always observe the precise order in which things were done.  
Q. But I beseech you consider what Faith it is that is here meant?  
Sol. A saving Faith; Must then a saving Faith be the rule of our Baptism? and must we baptise none, but of those we know have a saving Faith; then we must baptise none at all; never any Minister upon that ground had ever Commission to baptise any, no not the Apostles, for they did not infallibly know that those they baptised had a saving Faith; nay they actually baptised many that were hypocrites, as Simon Magus, Alexander, Hymeneus, Philetus, and others; hence observe, That no rule for baptising in general can be gathered out of this Text, And to say that none are to be baptised, but they that have a saving Faith, which is the Faith that is only here meant, or none but they which make an outward profession of Faith (which is not here meant) is an untruth not gatherable from this Scripture, and an adding to the word of God, against which he hath proclaimed a solemn curse.  
The Commination, or curse follows in the last words, He that believeth not, shall be damned; he does not say, he that is not baptised shall be damned.  
For though the contempt of it is dangerous, yet a man may be saved without Baptism; he does not say that he that is not dipped over head is damned, that is a thing indifferent, any washing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is Baptism; he does not say, that he that is not rebaptised, or baptised again, is damned, for that is the invention of Man, never heard of (in that sense) before John of Leydens' time, who confessed at his execution, that he had that, and the rest of his poisoned Doctrine from Satan. Hence observe, That all unbelievers, though Baptised, shall be damned; men believing though (through invincible necessity) unbaptised, shall be saved; thus we have given you the lively meaning of the Holy Ghost in the Text.  
Having laid this foundation, we'll make further inquiry into two things which are in controversy, First what is meant by Baptism, or baptising, Secondly whether Infants ought to be baptised, or no.  
First, Baptism in the Original, signifies nothing but a washing, as Pareus upon the Hebrews says, Baptismus Graecis est quaevis ablutio, Baptism is in Greek any washing, whether by dipping, or sprinkling, to baptise is to dip, or sprinkle says, Ravenel; so says the Churches old Catechism dipped, or sprinkled in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; so the Directory, baptise the Child, by pouring, or sprinkling of the water on the face of the Child, without adding any further Ceremony. And as many kinds there are of washing, so many there are of baptising, whereof the Pillars of the Greek Tongue, Hesichius, Budeus, Stephanus, Scapula, Arius Montanus, Pasor, mention four; First tingere, to die, or tincture, Secondly mergere, to drown, or plunge, Thirdly madefacere, to wet, or moisten, and lastly abluere, to wash, or cleanse.  
I confess there are some that distinguish betwixt {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to rantise (as they call it) or sprinkle, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which is to plunge to the bottom, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which is to swim upon the top, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which is, as they criticise upon it, to swim betwixt the top, and bottom; these three last are mentioned by Casaubon in his notes upon the third Chapter of St. Matthew, as was quoted by our adversary, but with what fidelity, or advantage to his cause, I leave it to the Godly, and learned to Judge, for he left out the last words, wherein the whole state of the question is determined by Casaubon against him, for thus he concludes, horum sententia jampridem meritò est explosa, &c. the judgement of those men is deservedly long since exploded, and trampled down, that would have baptising to be by dipping, and he gives a reason, x non in eo posita sit mysterii hujus vis, & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, seeing the force, and efficacy of Baptism, this mystery, consists not in that, that is the manner of washing. Which is confirmed by Aquinas, Immersio non est de necessitate Baptismi, dipping is not of the necessity of Baptism, And Dominico sotus, Ablutio est de essentiâ Baptismi, washing is of the essence of Baptism, but the manner of washing, whether by dipping, pouring, or sprinkling, is accidental.  
Many places of Scripture confirm this, 1 Cor. 10.2. there the Israelites were baptised in the red Sea, when their feet did but touch the water, not as if they were baptised, when they were not (as the anabaptists gloss upon this place) and that the Egyptians were really baptised, for the Egyptians were not baptised in their sense, but sunk to the bottom like stones. Exod. 15.5.  
Baptised under the Cloud, not that the Egyptians were baptised, and the Israelites as if they were (as they descant) under the Cloud, for the Egyptians were never under the Cloud, for the Israetites went before the Egyptians, and the Cloud, part of it was over the Israelites, part of it went before them.  
There is mention made in the Gospel of baptising, or washing of themselves when they came from Market, of Cups, of Vessels, of Tables, which cannot be meant of plunging, in water, so often, where that Element was so scarce, but rincing.  
John's baptising in Jordan, Philip's going down to the River with the Eunuch proves nothing at all; for what strange consequence would this be, especially from the Anabaptiss (that must have express Scripture for all things) John baptised in Jordan, 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or to the water.  Philip went down into the water with the Eunuch, therefore, they were dipped, seeing it might as well be by pouring, or sprinkling of water upon them, for any thing that appears out of the Text.  
Object. John baptised in Enon, because there was much water.  
Answ. This will seem to be no wonder in those hot Countries, where there are many miles without a Spring of water, especially seeing Geographers, and Travellers tells us, that Enon is a little Brook that one may stride over, scarce Knee deep, and therefore not capable of dipping.  
Object. But Baptism, say they, must resemble the death of Christ, Rom. 6.4. We are buried with him by Baptism, which is not by sprinkling, but dipping.  
Answ. I answer, the scope of the place is to show, that one end of our Baptism is to Seal our Communion with Christ in his death, but to press a necessity of resemblance by descending into the water, and coming out again, we see no ground in Text, and if our abiding under the water must answer Christ's Burial in exact representation, then as Christ lay three days, and three nights in the Grave, so they must lie three days, and three nights under the water, which if it were put in execution, the dispute would quickly be at an end.  
But should we grant this resemblance, I appeal to any man, whether our pouring on of water in Baptism, does not more resemble our Christian Burial, which is by pouring on of Earth, or Dust, than by plunging over head.  
Thus you see it proved, that baptising is any kind of washing, In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; we do not deny with Master Perkins, that if we were to baptise converted Turks, or Pagans of ripe age, in hot Countries, we might baptise them by dipping, Provided that their Garments were not first baptised, or washed, for that is conceived to be no less superstition, than baptising of Bells; Baptism (says Vossius) non est immersio vestium, sed humani Corporis, is not a washing of the Garments, but of the Body; we account the Church of Rome Idolaters, for presenting that worship, First to the Image, which is terminated in Christ; the Garments are first washed, or dipped, and the Body but at the most wet, or moistened through them.  
But to affirm that no Baptism but that which is by dipping is lawful, is a will-worship, much more, that Baptism otherwise is a nullity, and those that are baptised so, aught to be baptised again, or rebaptised, which the Senate of Syrick understood well, when they made an Act, that all that did presume to rebaptise such as were baptised before, should be drowned.  
So we have resolved the former doubt, that baptising is not dipping, and come to the latter, that Infants may, nay ought to be baptised. And (Brethren) I beseech you to give me leave a little to speak for Infants, those poor Souls, that cannot speak for themselves.  
And before we come to the Question, take with you these two Considerations; First, that those truths that were not in controversy in the Primitive times, the Apostles were not so punctual in pressing of them, seeing there was no need; Solon being asked why he made no Law against murderers of Parents, answered, because he conceived none would commit that unnatural Act; If the Apostles had been asked, why they did not put down Infant-Baptism in plainer terms, I suppose they would have answered, that they thought none would have denied it.  
Secondly observe, that those things that are pressed often in the old Testament, are mentioned more sparingly in the New, as the Sabbath, and Magistracy in the old Testament, line upon line, and precept upon precept, but scarce a Syllable for a Christian Sabbath, or a Christian magistracy in the new. Nothing is more clear than infant's Church-Membership in the old Testament, therefore not so clear in the New, and yet clear enough to those that have eyes to see it, as will appear by these reasons following.  
1. Arg. First, those that are in Covenant with God, aught to have the Seal of the Covenant, which is Baptism.  
But Infants of believing Parents are in Covenant with God.  
Therefore Infants ought to have the Seal of the Covenant, which is Baptism.  
The former Proposition is firm by Confession of all Divines, even our adversaries, Haec est fundamentalis ratio paedobaptismi (Says Daneus) this is the fundamental reason of baptising of Infants, that they are in Covenant, Esse foederatum sufficit ad accipiendum signum foederis, says Davenant, to be in Covenant is sufficient to receive the sign, and seal of the Covenant, Omnes foederati sunt Baptizandi, says Wendol, all that are in Covenant are to be baptised, Si in foedere sunt, impiè agunt, qui eis signum foederis negant, saith Ferus, if they be in Covenant, they do wickedly that deny them the sign of the Covenant; in a civil contract (Says Mr Perkins) the Father, and the heir make but one person, and the Covenant's for himself and his posterity.  
The Minor proposition that Infants of believing Parents are in Covenant, is grounded on many Scriptures, Genes. 17.7. Where God establishes a Covenant, not only with Abraham, but with his seed after him in their generations, for an everlating Covenant, everlasting, and therefore to last to the end of the World; as Cornelius à Lapide says, absolutè aeternum est in semine spirituali fidelibus, It is absolutely everlasting in the spiritual seed to the faithful. Galat. 3.8 The Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel to Abraham; therefore if Isaac was in Covenant with his Father when he was but eight days old, and had the seal by virtue of the Lamb to be slain, much more the Children of believing Parents, by virtue of the Lamb that is already slain. Deutero. 29.11. When all the people stood in Covenant before the Lord, their little ones are mentioned amongst the rest, which is further confirmed, Acts 2.38, 39 Be baptised every one of you, for the promise is to you, and your children; to say that they were not yet believers, is but a shift, the Text makes it clear, as soon as they were believers, their Children were in Covenant with them, and to be baptised.  
Arg. 2. Such as were Circumcised under the Law, may be baptised under the gospel.  
But Infants of believers were Circumcised under the Law. Therefore they may baptised under the Gospel.  
Huic Argumento non omnes Anabaptistae resistent (Says learned Whitaker) all the Anabaptists shall not be able to resist this Argument; the Minor, that Infants under the Law were Circumcised, is confessed.  
The former proposition is only questioned, that Baptism under the Gospel to Infants, does not necessarily follow from Circumcision under the Law; Augustin is clear for it, saying, Mutatis signis manet eadem gratia sine aetatis discrimine, the outward visible signs being changed, the same grace remains without any difference of age, and he gives a reason, because the grace of God is not straighter in the new Testament than in the old; Therefore Christ, Hebr. 8.6. Is said to be Mediator of a better Covenant, but how were it a better Covenant, if all poor Infants that were in Covenant under the Law, were out of Covenant under the Gospel? Titus. 2 12. The grace of God hath appeared unto all, and therefore surely to Infants; as Ireneus says, Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est, Christ became a little one, for little one's sake, that he might redeem the little ones. Little ones were the first Martyrs that suffered for Christ, in Rama, was a voice heard; and that Baptism came in place of Circumcision, the Apostle clears it, Coloss. 2.11, 12. Ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands; How is that? buried with him in Baptism. Hence arises another Argument.  
Arg. 3. Those that were once in Covenant, had the Seal of the Covenant, and were never disfranchized, and put out of Covenant, have title to the Covenant, and Seal of it still.  
But Infants were once in Covenant, had the Seal of the Covenant, and were never disfranchized, and put out of Covenant, Therefore Infants have title to the covenant, and seal of it still.  
Let any man show one syllable, one tittle in Scripture, that ever Infants were put out, and we'll yield the gauntlet; nay, the gospel is so far from expressing of them that they are put out, that it gives them large commendations beyond them of riper years, making them the rule of our perfection, as new born babes, receive the sincere milk of the Word. Unless you be as little Children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of God; which is a case so clear, that even Bellarmine himself encludes, Nullum est impedimentum, &c. there is nothing that hinders, but that Infants may as well be baptised under the gospel, as they were Circumcised under the Law; for neither hath God forbidden Ministers to give them this Sacrament, neither are they uncapable to receive it.  
Arg. 4. That which God hath commanded may lafully be practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ.  
But God hath, commanded Infant-Baptism.  
Therefore it may lawfully be practised by the Ministers of Jesus Christ. That God hath ommanded it, appears, Matth. 28.19. Go baptise all Nations; it's a general command, and (as Aquinas says) posito generali mandato pars ejus negari non potest, a general command being given, no part of it can be denied; Infants are a part of Nations, and included in them.  
Object. But here is no mention made of Infants.  
Answ. No, nor of them of age; we might retort it upon our adversaries, there is no mention made of Dippers, no, nor of them that are to be dipped, therefore they ought not to dip, nor be dipped. General's include particulars in all laws; Psalm. 117. Praise the Lord all ye Nations, Nations includes old men, and babes, young men, and maids, all without exception, as another Psalm interprets it.  
Now if Infants be excepted, contrary to that saying of Saint Ambrose, Qui dixit omnes, nullum excepit, neque parvulos, &c. He that commanded all to be baptised, excepnone, no, not little ones. If (I say) they be excepted, it's either because they are not named, or because we never read in Scripture that any Infants were baptised, or, because they are not capable; (that fourth cavil, being the same with the third, I'll take away anon) but for none of these three; therefore Infants are not excepted from Baptism.  
Not for the first, because they are not named, for so neither old men, nor nobles, nor Ministers are named. Not because we read not of their Baptism, so we neither read of the Baptism of the Apostles, nor of the Virgin Mary, yet we piously believe that they were baptised; De negatione facti ad jus non valet consequentia, such a thing is not mentioned, that it was done; therefore it was not done, or was not done, therefore it ought not to have been done, is no consequence; Christ did, and said many things that are not written; so did his Apostles.  
Not for the third, because they are uncapable, which is denied; for if Infants be uncapable, it is either because they have not repentance, and faith in act, which cannot hinder them; Christ was baptised, had not repentance, for he had no sin to repent of, had not faith, for faith presupposeth one lost in himself, that depends upon another for salvation, Christ is that Rock of Salvation, upon whom all mankind being lost depends; Neither because they cannot hear the Word preached; then they that are born deaf should be excluded from Baptism; Or because they are not otherwise qualified; but that cannot hinder them, for God requires no more of them that are in Covenant, and born of believing Parents, but a pure capacity, and receptability, which Divines call Potentiam objectivam; as God in the beginning created the World of nothing, so in the beginning of the new creature he does regenerate, and recreate us of nothing; upon this account it is, that we read of many whole families baptised, not excluding, but rather including Infants, Cornelius was baptised with his household, Acts 10.47, 48. Lydia, and her household, Acts 16.15. Crispus, and all his house, Acts 18.8. and the household of Stephanus, 1 Corinth. 1.16. the jailer {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, all that were his, Acts 16.31, 32. His Servants, his Children; for can we imagine so many families without a child?  
Arg. 5. They that are capable of the Kingdom, and the blessing, which is the greater, are capable of Baptism, which is the lesser.  
But Infants are capable of the Kingdom, and the blessing, which is the greater.  
Therefore they are capable of Baptism which is the lesser; forbid not (Says our Saviour) little Children to come unto me, for unto such belongs the Kingdom of God; for surely, if the Kingdom of Heaven receive them, the Church may not exclude them; for the Church must receive such as glory receives, Acts 2.47. There were daily added to the Church such as should be saved. Now for proof of this Argument, take these places, Mark. 10.13. to 17. Mark. 9.14.36, 37. Matth. 18.2, 3, 4. Matth. 19.13, 14, 15. Luke 9.14, 15. Luke 18.15, 16. Which tho they be spoken upon several occasions, all prove Infants to be Church-members, and capable both of grace, and glory; we'll instance in two, Jesus called a little child unto him, the word is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which (as Hippocrates in his distinction of ages says, and Beza seconds him,) signifies a child under seven years, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, that is, endeavour to be free from actual sin, as they are, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.  
The other is that of S. Luke 18.15. wherein observe, First a Precept, Suffer little children to come unto me.  
Secondly, we have a prohibition, and forbid them not.  
Thirdly, his displeasure against his Disciples, for hindering them from coming to him, he looked on this act with indignation, and was much displeased at it.  
Fourthly, he adds a reason why little ones should be brought to him, because to such belongs the Kingdom of God, that is, the Kingdom of grace here, and glory hereafter; they are visible members of his Church, and Kingdom, and therefore none may hinder their access to him.  
Fiftly, he confirms this reason, à majori, from the greater to the less, God's Kingdom doth not only belong to them, but I tell you more, whosoever will come into this Kingdom, must resemble Infants in Innocency, humility, simplicity.  
Sixtly, he adds his benediction of them, he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them; and tells us that their Angels always see the face of his Father, which is in Heaven; and the danger of them that offend one of these little ones; and all this recorded by three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, as if it were of purpose to check the sacrilegious insolency of these latter times that denies them the seal. Christ is not more punctual by his Spirit, in declaring his own Birth, Passion, Resurrection, than he is in this precious Truth so much trampled under foot.  
And if any object, these were not young Children, the text easily confutes them, they were {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Children under seven years of age, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Children that could scarce speak, they did not lead them, but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, they carried them unto him; Christ is said twice in S. Mark, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, to take them up in his arms, and embrace them; Christ was already instructing the people that were able to understand, the Apostles were offended for bringing of Children which could not understand.  
Well then, doth Christ take Children in his arms, and would he have them all put out of his visible Church? would he have us receive them in his Name, and yet not to receive them into his visible Church, nor as his Disciples? How can Infants be received in Christ's Name, if they belong not visibly to him, and his Church? Nay, doth Christ account it a receiving of himself, and shall we then refuse to receive them, or acknowledge them the subjects of his visible Kingdom? will it not follow then that whosoever refuseth them, refuseth Christ, and him that sent him? For my part (to use the words of a godly, and learned divine) Seeing the will of Christ is that I must walk by, and his word that I must be judged by, and he hath given me so full a discovery of his will in this point, I will boldly adventure to follow his rule, and had rather answer him upon his own encouragement for admitting an hundred Infants into his Church, than answer for keeping out of one.  
Argument 6. All Disciples may be baptised.  
But Infants of believing parents are Disciples.  
Therefore some Infants may be baptised.  
The Major, or former proposition, is granted by our adversaries, who translate that place, Matth. 28.19. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, go make Disciples of all Nations, which is in our last translation, Go teach all Nations, confessing, as soon as they are Disciples they may be baptised.  
Now for the Minor, that Infants are Disciples, is evident from Acts 15.10. Why, tempt ye God, and put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples? this yoke was Circumcision, and the attendants of it, as will appear by comparing it with the fift verse, and the context from the beginning of the Chapter. Now among the Jews, children were only to be Circumcised, and amongst the Gentiles, children together with parents when they were converted, and became proselytes. To say that not only Circumcision, but the Doctrine, and Observation of the whole Law, by the yoke is meant, is but a shift; Circumcision was the Seal, or Ordinance by which the Jews were bound to observe the Doctrine, and the Law, and all those upon whom the yoke was laid by Circumcision, are called Disciples; whereof Infants were a great part.  
And if it be objected, that children are not capable of instruction, as it is nothing to the purpose, so it contradicts Scripture, Esay 54.13. And all thy Children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy Children. And if any one carnally interpret this of the Jews return from captivity, as they do other places of Esa. our Saviour checks them, John 6.45. And It is written in the Prophets, And they shall all be taught of God.  
Arg. 7. All that have faith may be baptised.  
But some Infants have faith. Therefore some Infants may be baptised.  
The proposition none will deny, the Minor may be proved by several reasons.  
First, Christ expressly calls them Believers, Matth. 18. He attributes humility to them, and faith; and commands Elders to imitate them; and that you may see they were Infants, Mark 9.36. tells us they were such as Christ took up in His arms.  
Secondly, they are said to receive the Kingdom of God, Mark 10. that is, the grace of God, Remission of sins, and life eternal; now the Kingdom is not received, but by faith in Christ.  
Thirdly, they please God, therefore Christ blesseth them; but without faith it is impossible to please God.  
Fourthly, either faith must be allowed them, or salvation denied them; but the latter is cruel, and impious; therefore the former must be godly, and pious; faith only purifies the heart, but no unclean thing shall enter into Heaven.  
Fiftly, tho Infants cannot make actual profession of faith, yet they may have inward roots of Sanctification, and faith.  
John Baptist and Jeremy were sanctified in their mother's wombs; let carnalists say what they will, that is the principal meaning of that place, Esay 65.20. There shall be no more an Infant of days; The Jews thought they were not sanctified, unless a Sabbath went over them; the child shall die an hundred year old, that is, as well in Covenant with God, or a visible Church-member, as if he were a hundred years old. Therefore Pareus says, infants Ecclesiae etiam ante Baptismum censentur sideles; Infants of the Church, even before Baptism, are judged faithful. Hommius says, infants have faith, in semine, in the seed, tho not in mess, in the harvest; Beza says, they have faith {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in power, tho not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in operation. Faith (says Treleatius) is twofold;  
1. Active which the Elder have by hearing the Word.  
2. Passive, and by imputation, which Infants have by virtue of the Covenant, and Divine promise. Pelagius asks Austin where he places infants baptised? he answers, in numero credentium, in the number of believers, and adds, nec judicare ullo modo aliter audebis, si non vis esse apertè haereticus, neither may thou presume to judge otherwise, if thou wilt not be a plain heretic. we'll conclude this with that of Vossius, As in naturals, so in supernaturals we must distinguish these three things, power, habit, and act; there is the power of reasoning in Infants, the habit in men sleeping, but the act, and exercise, in them that are waking; the power answers the seed, the habit the tree, the act, and exercise, the fruit; the seed of Faith may be in Infants, the habit in men of age, but the act, and exercise, in them that work according to the habit.  
8. Arg. Those that are Holy, with a Covenant-holiness, may be baptised. But Infants of believing Parents are Holy with a Covenant-Holiness. Therefore Infants of believing Parents may be baptised. For the former Proposition, foederatis competit signum foederis, (says Vossius) the sign of the Covenant belongs to them that are in Covenant; Holiness is twofold (says Bullinger) either of Faith, or of the Covenant. Ezra. 9.2. Ye have mingled the holy seed, that is them in Covenant, with the Nations, that is them that are out of Covenant. Thus you see, that Covenant-holiness is no gibberish, but grounded upon Scripture, and avouched by learned men: as shall more fully appear.  
The Minor, that Children of believing Parents are holy with a Covenant-holiness, is clear from 1 Cor. 7.14. Else your Children were unclean, that is, not in Covenant, but now they are holy, that is, in Covenant, thus (besides the ancients) Sharpius, and Peter Martyr interpret it, and Hugo Grotius himself, Non loquitur Apostolus de Sanctitate naturali, &c. The Apostle (says he) speaks not of natural holiness, and inhering to the nature of Children, but of an holiness adhering to them, that is, the holiness of the Covenant, for the Children of believers are comprehended in the Covenant of grace, and therefore accounted holy of God. To interpret it (as the gross Anabaptists do) that they are holy, that is, no Bastards, is a new holiness not heard of in Scripture, and as (Doctor Featly says) a Bastard exposition; and Pareus gives the reason, if the Children of believers be therefore holy, because they are no Bastards, the Children of Pagans are as well holy, for they are also no Bastards. If the first-fruits be holy, the lump is holy, and if the root be holy, so are also the branches. Rom. 11.16. The first fruits and the root, that is the Parents; the lump, the branches, that is the Children, and posterity.  
And, Rom. 11.17. if the Jews were broken off, and the Gentiles graffed into their place, it will follow, that if the Jews were broken off, Parents with Children, than the Gentiles shall be graffed in, Parent with Children.  
But the Jews were broken off Parents with Children. Therefore the Gentiles shall be graffed in, Parents with Children.  
9 Arg. If Infants should be out of Covenant under the Gospel, many dangerous absurdities would follow.  
First, Infants would be losers by the coming of Christ, and be put in a worse condition than the Jewish Infants were; they with the Parents were admitted to the Seal of the Covenant, which was Circumcision, and not Children with Parents to Baptism.  
Secondly, if Infants should be in Covenant then, and not now, Grace would be larger under the Law, than under the Gospel.  
Thirdly, there would be no difference betwixt the Child of a Christian, and of a Pagan, but all the Infants of Christians would be as vile as the Children of Turks, Tartars, or Cannibals.  
Fourthly, they would be without God, without Christ, without hope in the world; not the Children of God, but of the Devil; would all be damned, for out of Covenant, and visible Church (ordinarily) there is no salvation.  
10. Arg. Lastly, that which hath continued since the Apostles times with blessed success, must needs be lawful.  
But Infant-Baptism hath continued with blessed success since the Apostles times.  
Therefore Infant Baptism is lawful.  
we'll begin with the first century, or hundred years after Christ. Dionysius the Areopagite whom the Apostles converted at Athens, says, Holy men have received a tradition from the Fathers, that is the Apostles, to Baptise Infants. Clemens (who is recorded by some of the ancients to succeed Peter in his Ministry at Rome) says {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Baptise your Infants.  
Ireneus (who lived in the second Century) says, Christus pro parvulis parvulus factus est, Christ became a little one for little one's sake, that little ones might be received into Covenant.  
Origen that lived in the beginning of the third Century says, The Church received a tradition from the Apostles to baptise Infants, and gives a reason, because they are born in impurity of sin; nay Pelagius, a great Scholar, who lived in the latter end of this Century, though he denied Original sin, yet confessed Infant-Baptism, for when they pressed him with this Argument, if Infants had not Original sin what need they Baptism, he answered, that Christ appointed, and the Church practised Infant-Baptism, not to purge sin by past, but to prevent it for the time to come.  
Cyprian in the fourth Century confirms it in his Epistle to Fidus, and gives an account of a Council of sixty six Bishops that decreed that Infants should be baptised. Ambrose says, because every age is liable to sin, therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament of Baptism. Nazianzene says it is better to Seal Infants with Baptism, (though they know it not) then to leave them unsealed. Austen is conceived to go too far, who denied possibility of salvation to them that died unbaptised, pressing that place John 3.5. Except a Man be Born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.  
The Millevitan Counsel in the fifth Century decreed, That whosoever should deny that Infants, even taken from their mother's wombs, might not be baptised, should be accursed. All Churches, all ages since, agree in this; the Harmonies of confessions of all Reformed Churches, the Church of England in the apology, the old Catechism, The twenty seventh Article, the Directory, the greater and lesser Catechism composed by the Assembly of Divines, the late Parliament by a further Declaration, all confirm it; The Canons of our Church did not only in former times declare, but the laws of our Land did punish Anabaptists as heretics. Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments approves of the Albigenses, Waldenses, Wickliffists, Lollards, Poor men of lions, Brownists, Barrowists, as members of the Reformed Churches, but wholly excludes the Anabaptists, as erring fundamentally.  
I'll say no more for confirmation of this polemical discourse, but wind up all with a word of exhortation; I beseech you brethren consider what a dangerous error this is, that robs the Scripture of its truth, Infants of their right, parents of their comforts, the Church of its members, Christ of his merits, God of his glory; That is the mother of many other errors; hence sprung the Ranters, Socinians, Antitrinitarians, Shakers, Levellers, they that are above Ordinances, Antiscripturians; An error that God hath expressed many signal judgements against, as Sleiden and Gastius in Germany, and some of our worthies in England have declared. As reverend Mr. Cotton tells one of his Aposta●ed flock, that had his house burned, and his children in it, No wonder that fire seized upon his house, and God denied water to quench it, who denied that water should be brought to baptise his Infants.  
Secondly, consider that much benefit redounds both to parents, and children, by Infant-Baptism.  
First, much comfort comes hereby to the parents, when they consider God's free grace to them, and theirs, that he is not ashamed to be called their God, and the God of their seed after them. Hebr. 11.16.  
Secondly, much benefit comes to Infants by Baptism, (which the devil knows well, when he causes witches to renounce their Baptism, when they enter into Covenant with him) for they are thereby admitted into the bosom of the Church, devoted, and consecrated unto God, his Name is put upon them, they wear his royal badge, and by it they are distinguished from Heathens. And this so clear from Scriptures, truly, and spiritually understood, That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.  
Now the God of Peace and Truth, by his Spirit, lead us into all truth, keep us pure, and unspotted in this hour of England's temptation, and trial, keep us faithful to the death, that so we may receive a crown of life.  
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
FINIS.