Infant-Baptism ASSERTED & VINDICATED By SCRIPTURE And ANTIQUITY: IN ANSWER To a Treatise of Baptism lately published by Mr. HENRY DANVERS: Together with a full Detection of his Misrepresentations of divers Councils and Authors, both Ancient and Modern. WITH A Just Censure of his Essay to Palliate the horrid Actings of the Anabaptists in Germany. AS ALSO A Persuasive to Unity among all Christians, though of Different Judgements about Baptism.  
By OBED WILLS, M. A.  
 Christus Infantes ad se venire jussit, ità nec Apostoli eos excluserunt à Baptismo, & quidem dum Baptismus Circumcicisioni aequiparat, Paul. Col. 2. apertè indicat, etiam Infantes per Baptismum Ecclesiae Dei esse inserendos, etc.  Magdib. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. p. 354. 
LONDON, Printed for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1674.   

THE PREFACE.  
THere is a New Treatise come forth concerning Baptism; the Design whereof is to prove the Baptism of Believers, and to disprove that of Infants. There is great Cracking about it, and some cry it up for a None-such; that it is unanswerable, and as I hear the Author himself, Ixion-like, falls in love with his own shadow, and being Philautia nimis inflatus, puffed up with the excellency of his performance, glories much, and pretends that he hath not only proselyted many of the Vulgar sort, but some also of the Ministry. And it is very certain, that at its first appearance last Summer, divers persons were Dipped in these parts, and as I have been informed, 7 or 8 in a day in the City of Bristol; and in all likelihood we may hear of many more this Summer: for those who are inclinable to the Way, are now grown so politic as not to profess their Faith till warm Wether. This I do assure the Reader, that the Book (as to any thing material in it) hath been many times answered before ever it came forth, and that's the reason belike we have heard of no Reply since it hath seen the light, which is now about twelve Months. All the Mediums he useth to maintain his Opinion, are such trite and outworn things, that they have been in effect trampled upon, and confuted again and again. Nevertheless such is the Clamorousness of some men, that they affect to have the last word, when in modesty they ought to be silent, and consider, that it is their duty to unlearn a darling Error, and no dishonour to strike sail to convincing Reason. Great Endeavours have been used to undeceive the Antipaedobaptists; and 'tis the unhappiness of many Godly and Learned Divines, instead of meeting with answerable success, to have their Pains contemned, and their Persons loaded with Aspersions. The Author of the Treatise I am to examine, hath only affixed H. D. to the Title-page, that is, as appears by a Second Edition lately come forth. Henry Danvers; although in regard of the principal Materials, the Book hath more reason to pretend to J. T. that is, John Tombs, for its Author. For although H D. hath for some years lived a solitary contemplative Life, and hath had opportunity for study, yet owneth he not so much Scholarship (if they say true that know him) as to compose such a Piece; nor is he so well acquainted with Fathers, Councils, Schoolmen, had not most of it been prepared to his hand. Indeed I find he is somewhat versed in the Magdiburgensian History, though he hath made very ill use of it; But for the Argumentative part, especially the Opposition made against Infant-Baptism, both the Method and Matter of his Treatise declares where he hath been fishing; for I find very little in it, besides what is borrowed from Mr. Tombs his Exercitation and Examen, long since answered by M. Marshal, Dr. Homes, Mr. Gerce, Mr. Blake, Mr. Baxter. But forasmuch as the Contest hath taken a Nap for about 20 years, it was thought fit to give it one lusty jog more, and awaken it again. And in regard those Polemical Discourses are rarely found in Vulgar hands, but are thrown aside into Corners, and lie solitary, as neglected things, in Studies, and Booksellers Shops; the Author, and his Coniederates (out of their dear love to their Darling Opinion) thought meet to make some good improvement of the late Liberty granted by his Majesty's gracious Declaration, and to take up the Gauntlet again, and fall to the old Trade of Wrangling. For some men are of a restless Spirit, and if their Hands be tied up from fight, they will do it with their Tongues and Pens. The Preface is made up of Invectives against the Assertors of Infant Baptism, but mostly against Mr. Baxter, by reason of some Passages of his in a late Book called The Christian Directory, against which he seems to have a very great zeal, but I fear his envy against his Person doth exceed it. For do but compare the Preface, with the Epilogue of our Author's Treatise,, and you will find he seems to entertain a better opinion of John of Leyden, then of him. I understand Mr. Baxter will speedily write something for his own Vindication, and I long to see it, that so nothing that he hath said in his Christian Directory may prove a Stumbling-block to the Weak, and more confirm the Antipaedobaptists in their Error. The truth is, those people are very sensible how much he hath wounded their Cause, and are glad with an occasion of wounding his Reputation. But I profess, I could not but smile, to observe how he seems to bewail the Indiscretion of Mr. Baxter, and rebukes him for Printing his Judgement in some Points that refer to Baptism, and other things, at such an unseasonable time; as if he had hit upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the fittest opportunity to declaim against Infant Baptism. But doth he take this to be a fit time of the day (to use his own Phrase) to widen Differences, and set us at farther distances, when we are almost sinking under fears and daily expectations of troubles? Is it a fit season for us to be wrangling, when God's Rod is shaking over all our Heads? Must he at such a time enter upon the old Obfolete Controversy, and inveigh against children's Baptism, which evermore hath occasioned heart-burnings and fruitless contendings, especially when 'tis disputed against with a lofty, bitter and disdainful Spirit, of which we perceive too much in this last attempt. Ah! what a restless Genius is there attending some Opinions, and how careless of the Church's Peace are the Abettors of them? What the Author himself speaks, pag. 308. from Clopenburg's Epistle, of the Anabaptists, heretofore in Germany is too true of some of those in England, viz. That they suffer not the pure Reformed Churches to be edified without daily conflicts. For not only heretofore in times of Liberty, but even now under restraint, some hot-spirited Persons, publish their Tenants, with such a rigid and condemning Spirit, that it proves the greatest hindrance of Union and Conjunction amongst us in this Nation. The Opinion of Antipaedobaptism, having been (as Mr. Sydenham observes) always Ominous, and of a wondrous strange influence to destroy Unity, and Peace amongst Christians, accompanied also with the most Retinue of Errors, since the first Embryo of it was brought forth; Whether by a secret Judgement of God, or from the natural and secret Connexion with other Principles of Darkness, I will not, saith he, determine: Only God hath showed some black Characters of it in every Nation where it hath prevailed; though we cannot but say many Saints are under the power of it. Yea, and I do also farther attest, that there are some very worthy Persons, and eminent Christians of that way, whom I exceedingly honour for their Gifts and Graces, Moderation and sweetness of Spirit, and Liberality towards all Christians; such as these I prise as much as any Christians in England that are Paedobaptists, and could as willingly embrace them and entertain Christian Fellowship with them, as with any that are of my own Judgement in the point of Baptism. We ought to put a difference between humble and heady Men, between factious Persons that affect Singularity, and decline Communion with us, because we differ from them in some Circumstances about an External Administration; and such as disown Infant-baptism out of simple Persuasion, looking on it as a Corruption, and without Scripture ground, 
Mr. Gerce Vind. Paedobaptismi.  and so cannot submit unto it, lest thereby they defile their Consciences (as they conceive) with Will-worship: when notwithstanding, if other Christians be of another mind, they can own them as Brethren, and not divide in regard of Christian Affection and Communion. Some such there are, though few: and such a frame of spirit was there in that Man of God (Mr. Jessey) as may be seen in his Book entitled A Storehouse of Provision in sundry Cases of Conscience. He, to my knowledge, was an Antipaedobaptist of long standing, as holy, I conceive, as any of that Judgement, of good Learning, and of a very tender Conscience, and of so healing and uniting a Spirit, that he esteemed it his Duty (and pressed others to it) to keep up Christian Communion with those that feared God though they differed about Baptism: We have his Arguments for the same published in Print, and grounded upon Rom. 14.1. which are so clear, and have in them such strength of Evidence, that I never yet could hear them answered, nor do ever expect it. I wish there were more such Antipaedobaptis as he, and have good ground to believe many of them would come off from their Rigidness (were they not afraid of offending their weak Brethren, and fettered with some engagements at first entrance into their Churches) and would readily afford us the right hand of Fellowship. I know what a dangerous thing it is to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an accuser of the Brethren, and whence that Spirit comes, and can appeal to Heaven that I now appear in the defence of what I conceive to be the Truth, without a malevolent mind against any of our Dissenters. I have had an intimate and friendly Correspondency with many Antipaedobaptists, both in this place where I now inhabit and elsewhere; by reason of which some have thought I comported with them in their Opinions: But this is a mistake: I own what I see of God in them, and in all Professors of Religion whatsoever, and would have none to engross Religion to themselves. And if I know my own heart, where ever I see aliquid Christi, any thing of Christ, it attracts my Affection; God's People being all alike equally dear to me, as they are his, and have a Conversation becoming the Gospel. My Love is not confined to a Party, but extensive to all Saints. And though some may count me an enemy for telling them the truth, and withdraw their Affection, it is no more than I expect, and shall encourage myself with what I long since learned from a Heathen, viz. Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates; sed magis amica Veritas. I foresee how likely I am to purchase the displeasure and dispraise of those that cannot endure to have their Opinion spoken against; at which I hope to be no more dejected, than elated, if others shall own my poor performance under the Notion of Approbation: well knowing that all Polemical and Controversial Discourses carry a face like that of a Picture, suitable to the situation and light the Beholders stand in, or are guided by.  
Nor do I so much as hope to reduce any of our Opposites: for the men of their Way are inflexible, and seem to be as much assured the Truth is on their side, as they are of the divine Authority of the Scriptures. I have heard of some Quakers that have been turned, but could never yet hear of one of them that changed his Opinion, unless he happened to fall into some worse Error.  
And certainly it is a strange Presumption, no less  than Prodigious, for men to assume a Prerogative of judging those to be in the dark (as is the common humour of our Opposites) that differ from them in this point of Baptism, when they cannot but confess, that in other things they are of more clarified Intellectuals than themselves, and have a deeper inspection into Scripture: And yet their Understandings at least must be condemned, whilst they impose the scanty Measure of their own, as an unquestionable Standard, for others to submit to. Forgetting in the mean while, that many who were of their own Judgement, have (at the long run) espoused some gross Errors, and renounced Water-baptism, as a low, contemptible Ceremony, and owned no other Baptism but that of the Spirit. It was long since observed that some of the hottest Zealots against Infant-baptism, have grown so cold, as to turn Seekers, and to deny the lawful Administration of Ordinances. So common is it for men to run from one Extreme to another.  
But though I despair of gaining over to us any of those who are so riveted in their Opinions (considering withal how successless politer Pens have been) yet do I hope, by what shall follow, to put some Remora and stop to weak and wavering Souls, that they be not overhasty in coming over to the Tents of our Opposites: and to establish and confirm others that are at present satisfied in the practice of Infant Baptism.  
And because some of both Parties may take offence at what I have done; for as Aristotle saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is difficult, if not impossible, to please all, I am obliged to signify some Reasons amongst others that moved me to enter the Lists of a public Dispute.  
1. Because the Pompous Treatise of my Antagonist being put into my hand, by one of his Judgement, and cried up for an incomparable and unanswerable Piece. I read some part of it cursorily, and confess I was amuzed at the Multitude of Quotations, from Fathers, Councils, ancient Doctors of the Church, Schoolmen, besides Modern Writers; together with the Testimonies of Waldenses and Old Britain's; and all against Infant-baptism, and being shortly after upon some occasion at Oxford, I took the opportunity to examine his Quotatitions in the Public Library, and upon searching found it so fallacious a Piece, that I thought myself bound in Conscience, for the honour of Truth, and Love to my Country, to make discovery thereof, that the Credulity of illiterate and well-meaning Persons might not be imposed upon by such Forgery.  
2. I have been somewhat provoked to bear Testimomony to the Lawfulness of Baptising the Children of Believers, by the Audacity of one, that sometimes preacheth amongst the Antipedobaptists who told me to my Face, that I could say nothing for Infant Baptism, to whom I said but little, as judging him uncapable of understanding the strength of an Argument.  
3. After I had communicated a few Sheets to some Learned Men, they did album calculum addere, and incired me to proceed.  
4. Because no body else had published any thing to confront this daring Champion; and I see no cause to repent of my Undertaking, unless it be that I have not defended the Truth as it ought to be.  
I was never before engaged in these Olympian Games, nor do I delight in such Exercises, and do find by experience that these Polemical Contests are but barren things, and cannot but much approve of the Saying of Zuarez, who (though a Jesuit) professed he found more benefit in that time which he did every day set apart for the examining the State of his Soul, than in all the Voluminous Books of Controversies which he had written.  
I would now advertise the Reader, that my Answer refers to Mr. Danvers his First Book, it being in the Press before his 2d. Edition came to hand; in which I find no Retracting or Rectifying Mistakes, but in stead thereof a numerous Addition of more: some of which, I have taken notice of in the Recapitulation of the Magdeburgensian History, concerning Infant Baptism, affixed to my Answer.  
There are many egregious Faults I charge Mr. Danvers with, which are made good in the Answer. For I quote the Chapter and Page of the Authors that he abuseth; that so those who are Scholars, if they please, may see whether I wrong him. The Books are extant, and we have no Index Expurgatorius here in England to relieve him.  
1. He hath much injured that famous History of the Magdiburgenses in very many places, by misrepresenting what they say; as that they tell us that in the first Century, the Apostles baptised Only the Aged, which is false; for he hath himself added the Word [Only] as is shown Capt. 7. Part. 1. pag. 2. of our Answer. Then he saith they tell us that the Custom of Dipping the whole Body into water was changed into Sprinkling in the 3. Cent. See this pag. 113. and citys the Magdeburgenses for it, Cent. 3. pag. 125, 126. where they say no such thing, but the contrary, and gives Cyprian's Testimony for it (who is calculated to live in the days of those that saw the Apostles) that Baptism is valid whether it be by Immersion or Sprinkling Cent. 3. c. 4. and Chap. 7. part. 1. pag. 8. of the Answer. Look the Examination of the Magdiburgensiam History and there you have the rest of his Misrepresentations.  
2. After the same manner hath he served the Fathers both of the Greek and Latino Churches; Quoting some Passages out of them as if they had been for Believers Baptism, in opposition to that of Infants, when not one of them was so, no not Tertullian or Nazianzen absolutely, but both for it in case of danger of death; yea, the latter without respect to that. See Chap. 7. Part. 1. pag. 13. of the Answer, and the 3. Century in the Recapitulation at the end of the Answer.  
There be two ways he takes to blind the Reader with respect to the Fathers.  
1. By Traducing that which is spoken in reference to Pagans, and misapplying of it against Infant Baptism: thus he serves Chrysostom and Austin, p. 76. of his Treatise, whom he brings for his eminent Witnesses for Believers Baptism; and then again the same men to be for Infant Baptism, pag. 121. of his Treatise. See how this Contradiction is reconciled in our Answer to his 2d. Chap. part. 2. About Infant's Baptism. 2. By curtailing and leaving out part of the Sentence, as pag. 65. where he citys these words of Bazil; Must the faithful be sealed with Baptism?— Faith must precede and go before. There Mr Danvers stops whereas he should have gone on with what follows, Quid de infantibus ais?— num & illos baptizemus? Maximè— These are the next Lines to what we have above.— What say you to Infants which know nor good nor evil, must we baptise them? Yea, etc. See Chap. 7. part. 1. p. 13. of the Answer.  
3. The Councils have no better measure from him; for he quotes those 3. the Bracaren, that of Constantinople, (he writes it Constance) and that of Toletan. All which, he produceth for Believers Baptism in opposition to that of Infants, p. 78. of his Treatise, and quotes the Magdiburgenses for it, Cent. 7. p. 146. Whereas they give us to understand that they were for Infant Baptism, Chap. 7. part. 1 pag. 29, 30. of our Answer. See this more fully in the Recapitulation affixed to the Answer, under Century 7.  
4. He brings in the Doctors of the Romish Church very ridiculously, as eminent Witnesses for Believers baptism, that is, in opposition to Infant Baptism, or else he says nothing; As for Instance, Haimo, Rabanus, an Abbot, Remigius a Monk, Smarugdus, etc. See how little truth there is in this, Chap. 7. part. 1. p. 33. of the Answer, and much more fully in the Recapitulation at the end of the Answer, under Century 8, 9, 10. Here our Author hath used his wont subtlety in quoting some passages out of these Popish Doctors for Believers Baptism, meant by them only in respect of Pagans.  
5. By the same Artifice are ignorant persons deluded with the say of the Schoolmen, which were so great and stiff assertors of Infant-baptism, that they ascribed too much to it. See how we have discovered the Author's Sophistry, Chap. 7. part. 1. pag. 34. of our Answer: But more fully this is spoken to, in the Recapitulation under the 12th Cent.  
6. His great Witnesses against Infant-baptism, namely Waldenses, Novatians, and Donatists, and Ancient Britain's fail him.  
1. For the Waldenses, he hath brought 4 Confessions, as against it, when they have not a word of that import, as any ordinary Reader may perceive. See pag. 282, 283. of his Treatise; and how fully we have made it appear by other Confessions that they were expressly for it: See Chap. 7. part. 2. of the Answer.  
2. Neither were the Novatians for it, though they denied Original Sin, and were for Rebaptisation of such as were baptised by Heretics (though there were few greater than themselves;) and therefore Novatus the Head of them was condemned by 66. wishops, in the year 255. Fox, Act. Monum. vol. 1. So the Magdiburgenses speak of his being condemned by a Council at Rome for his Heresies, Cent. 3. c. 9 p. 193. They writ of his Heresies, and among others, that he did de Deo prophanissimam doctrinam subintroducere, introduce most profane Doctrines concerning God; but not a word of his denying Infant Baptism, Cent. 3. cap. 5. p. 99 De Haeress Novatiorum. Neither doth Danaeus, in Austin's Catalogue of Heresies, make mention of any such thing, Danaei Opusc. p. 678.  
Nor did the Donatists deny Infant Baptism, as appears from the Magdiburgs, Cent. 4. cap. 5. p. 375. De Donatistarum haerefis; though they were for Rebaptisation of such as were baptised by Heretics, yet there is not the least hint of their being against Infant-baptism.  
3. The Ancient Britain's were not against it; and the Mistake of the Author is grounded upon Fabian's paraphrastical Translation of Bede, as is shown in our Examination of the History of the Britain's.  
7. He hath manifest Contradictions to himself; first showing such persons to be for Believers Baptism, and then afterward citing the same men for Infant-baptism: thus we have him mentioning Bede Pro and Con p. 7. and p. 78. of the first part of of his Treatise compared with p. 130. Thus he served Austin and Chrysostom, as was noted before. And so he leaves them to clash, and his Reader, in the dark; whereas the Distinction of Ecclesia Collecta and Colligenda would reconcile all very well. In the same manner hath he dealt with many of our Modern Divines, as Calvin, Piscator, Perkins, Paraeus, etc. as we have shown Chap. 1. part. 1. p. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. of the Answer.  
8. Notorious Plagiarism; for I have noted him borrowing from Mr. Tombs his 2 Books, Exercitation and Examen in no less than 49 places, and all the while concealing his Name, contrary to the Laws of Ingenuity. But that which is most prodigious, and for which he deserves to carry away the Bell from all Plagiaries, is (as we have noted, p. 154. of the 2. Part. of our Answer Chap. 2. beginning at his Exceptions against our Argument from Federal Holiness) that for 43 pages together he hath taken the Substance of it all out of Mr. Tombs his Exercitation and Examen, excepting what he quotes from Dr. Owen and Dr. Taylor. And I must acquaint thee, Reader, that he hath served others in the same manner, transcribing out of their Books very la6rgely, without taking the least notice of their names: for I have met lately with a Terra incognita, since part of my Answer was printed; one Book put out by William Allen called Some Baptismal Abuses newly discovered, and the other by Henry Haggar, named The Foundation of the Font: but I must spare him for the present, or my Preface will be too large. I see if every Bird had his own Feathers, Mr. Danvers would be left naked.  
9 Shameful Oscitancy, such I think as the like was never known: We have it p. 209. of his Treatise, where he brings Calvin, upon Gen. 17.7. interpreting the Seed to whom the Promise was made, to be the Spiritual, and not Carnal; when he speaks no such word, but all along to the contrary; as, Clara est Pauli doctrina de naturalibus Abrahae filiis— St. Paul 's doctrine, Rom. 11.16. is evidently to be understood of the Natural sons of Abraham: and again; Nihil certius est, quàm Deus foedus suum pacisci cum filiis Abrahae, qui naturaliter ex eo gignendi, Nothing is more sertain, than that God's Covenant was made with the Natural Offspring of Abraham. And indeed the words which he fathers upon Calvin, are Estius the Jesuite's, spoken against the Interpretation of Calvin upon Gen. I have showed how Mr. Danvers came to be guilty of the mistake, pag. 196. of the 2d part of my Answer.  
10. He doth vilify and contemn all that stand in his way, Episcoparians, Presbyterians and Independents, yea fearfully reproaching those who are Antipaedobaptists that are come off from their former Rigidness, and for a large Communion with all Believers as Believers. As appears by his dealing with Mr. Bunion, Mr. Allen and Mr. Lamb in his Postscript.  
Notwithstanding all these Piacula, and more that may be named, the Credulous Party will believe nothing against the supposed Incomparable and most Authentic Piece of Mr. Danvers: I must prepare for their Censures, and begin to hear already the insultings of some of them over me, that I should dare presume to encounter such a Goliath; they are many of them illiterate, and incapable of examining the things written in the Latin Tongue, and it cannot be expected they should believe me before such an Antesignanus. But since it cannot be remedied, I shall leave them to their Credulity, to be edified by his Melody. I know the Learned, upon search; will acquit me from Slander, and for the rest I am of Austin's Mind, Non curo Ceusores, qui vel non intelligendo reprehendunt, vel reprehendendo non intelligunt. Reader, I have only two things more to advise thee of.  
1. That having received some Sheets, I find the Printers Errata are many, which I hope thou wilt 〈◊〉 charity correct, some of which thou wilt find taken notice of. I hope thou art not of Mr. Danvers ●is mind, who taking the Printers Errata to be Mr. Baxter's, and not taking notice that Mr. Baxter desired the Reader to correct them, reflects odium upon him, and makes this ingenious Apology for himself being told of it, viz. That no man is bound by any Law that he knows, to read and study Erratas; you have it ●n his 2d. Edition, pag. 383. I shall therefore be beforehand with him; (for I hope he will read my Preface if he makes a Reply) and do hereby signify that ●here is a great Error pag. 7. of the first Chapter of my Answer, where the word [only] is wanting; for it ●hould be thus— It can never be proved that this was the Only manner of the Jews Baptising. This by the way ●o prevent Carping. Likewise the Sheets are not rightly paged, ocasioned by being Printed at two Houses.  
2. That notwithstanding all the Flourishes Mr. Dan●ers makes, and the numerous Quotations he hath ●etched from the Magdiburgensian History, Chapt. 7. From the first Century to the end of the 12th, there are but two Persons to be found against Infant-baptism, Adrianus and Hincmarus; the latter appears to have recanted, and was again restored to his Bishopric: ●nd for the understanding of Church-history about infant-baptism, I refer thee to the Recapitulation at ●●e end of the Answer, which contains some things ●●at were omitted in the Answer, and I assure thee is faithfully collected.  
Farewell. O. W. ●vizes, June 20. 1674.   

Mr. BAXTER'S EPISTLE.  
Christian Reader,  
THough thou art entertained with these Contoversies, which are unpleasing to many good and peaceable men, it must be considered, 1. How far they are Necessary; 2. And who makes them so. This kind of work is more costly and bitter to peaceable Authors that are forced to it, than it is to the Readers. And it's pity that the Ministers of Christ should, for 1500 years be taken up so much with a work that is so unpleasant to almost all. It is unpleasant to the Adversary, to have his Ignorance, Errors, Falsehoods and Injuries to the Truth and Church, made known to his disgrace; and to have that proved an odious Error which he taketh to be a Beam from Heaven, and of a Divine Offspring, and perhaps necessary to Salvation, or at least some excellent thing which the Church cannot spare. It is unpleasant to the sober pious Writer, to think that he must thus displease and exasperate his Brother, and all that are of the way which he oppugneth: and that thereby he must provoke so many to esteem and defame him as an enemy to the Truth. And it is not pleasant to think, what hard study and labour it must cost us to procure this bitter fruit, when by Ignorance, Sloth or treacherous Silence, we could have kept our peace, and such men's Love. And it is unpleasant to the best of Readers, to find men's Minds thus manifesting their dissensions, and to think of the Exasperations and wrath that will ensue, and to see such Wars kept up among those who should be notified to the World by an Eminency of Love: But it will be pleasant to those Hypocrites, whose Religion consisteth in Opinions, Parties and Disputes, if they be of his mind whose Works they read; and it will be bittersweet to those wise and pious men that find it Necessary.  
For Necessary it may be, and too oft is: It's hard keeping our own or the Church's Peace, unless both Parties will consent: As much as in us lieth, and if it be possible, we must live peaceably with all men: But when it is not possible, we must lament the want of what we are not able to obtain. For all Christ's Ministers to stand by and see well-meaning ignorant people, called as in God's name, to sin against him, and flattered or frighted from Truth, Duty and Privileges, and to let such work go on to the danger of Souls, and distracting of Christ's Churches without contradiction, will hardly consist with our Ministerial Fidelity.  
Therefore as unnecessary Wars, are the greatest complicate sins in the World, and yet necessary Wars are the means of Peace; so it is in these Theological Wars: And as the valiant Defenders of their Country in necessary Wars, have right to the praises given them by all; so those that necessarily defend God's Truth and his Church's Rights, deserve acceptance. Among whom I judge the Reverend Author of this Treatise to be worthy of the Church's thanks, on several accounts. It is no contemptible Privilege which he vindicateth. The Interest of all Christians Children in the World, in the Covenant and Visible Church of Christ, is a matter of greater moment, than most that acknowledge it do duly lay to heart, much more than the unthankful Rejecters of it understand. The Title given to the Pelagians was Ingrati, the Unthankful, because they disputed against God's Grace, which they themselves did need as well as others: Such Cicero thought those Philosophers that disputed against the Immortality of Man's Soul: And Mr. Tombs was long ago angry with me, for giving that Title to them that so vehemently dispute all Infants out of the visible Church and Covenant. But let the Evidence of the Cause well considered inform us, and it will be too sure, that Public Repentance would far better beseem such Writers as Mr. Danvers, than stiff persisting in this unthankful Error.  
I have written somewhat myself, upon Mr. Danvers vehement instigation, once more on this Subject, partly in answer to Mr. Tombs and partly to himself. But let not the notice of that hinder you from reading this Treatise: For I have dealt with Mr. Danvers only on the account of his pretended Witnesses for a thousand years after Christ, and his quarrels with myself; having neither leisure, nor will, nor patience (all things considered) to meddle with his Arguments (or the rest of his History) while I know how sufficiently they stand confuted in my own and many other men's Writings long ago.) But this Reverend Author hath dealt with him more particularly, and answered his Arguments satisfactorily, and searched into those and all the rest of his pretended Antiquities, and not only done that which I have passed by, but the same also, in a full Confutation.  
And it is so sad a Case, that after all our dreadful Warnings, we should still be haunted with this unquiet Spirit which hath been exorcised or laid so oft; and that under all our other Trials, we should have the addition of these vexatious dividing Wranglings, to turn men's hearts against each other, that we own the more thanks to such as the Author, for bringing so much water to quench these flames: especially in a time when so many disaffected Persons are ready, to impute to Presbyterians, Independents or any such other, that they desire to defame, the Errors of all about them, whom they do not confute; yea too oft also those that they do confute; while some others betray the Cause by silence, or silly unsatisfactory Arguings. Pardon (or choose) a man that offendeth all Sects by plain dealing, for telling the World, That if the Anabaptists had been no better confuted, than the Papists and the Silencers have confuted them, I verily think that so great a part of the conscientious (though injudicious) Vulgar would have followed them, as would have made work and trouble for us all. Farewell.  
At the door of Eternity, Rich. Baxter. June 24. 1674.   


CHAP. I. The Author's first Argument, That Believers Baptism is the only true Baptism, drawn from Christ's positive Institution and Commission. Mat. 28.18, 19 Mark 16.16. Examined and Confuted.  
THese are the prime Texts, upon which Antipaedobaptists lay the greatest stress, as conceiving they have sure warrant from hence, for their practice, and that from the same places Ours is condemnable. Out of this Armoury do they fetch their keenest Weapons and most triumphant Arguments; And indeed all that they say besides is, vox & praeterea nihil, a great sound of words to little purpose. This is the Palmarium argumentum, their victorious and unanswerable Argument, as they imagine so; None are to be Babtized, but those who are first taught, but Infants are not teachable, Ergo they ought not to be baptised; and again, he that Believeth and is Baptised, Infants cannot believe, therefore must not be Baptised. We (say they) follow the Rule of Institution, you who are Paedobaptists cross it, and cannot acquit ourselves of Will-worship. And I confess this is a plausible way of arguing and very taking with Vulgar capacities, and I wonder, no more of weak understanding and tender consciences are proselyted to their way. They have the advantage of us, to gain upon such. Yet notwithstanding their great confidence, that they have both Scripture and Reason on their side, I hope, to make it appear to those who are not overgrown with Partiality and Prejudice that their Arguments weigh light in the Balance of the Sanctuary. For as Mr. Sydenham observes the words of Christ in both these places of Matthew and Mark, 
sydenham's Christian sober and plain Exercitation on Infant Baptism.  do not hold forth the proper Subjects of Baptism, or the form or manner of baptising, being delivered in general, and indefinite terms— As all Nations, every creature by transitive words, Teach them, Preach the Gospel. Wherefore if these be the prime Institution of Baptising, from which they exclude Infants, when Christ useth such universal and comprehensive expressions, we shall desire (saith he) but to deal with them, on their ground, and the same Text will serve to prove our positions more demonstratively than theirs. But that we may the better understand the import of both places, I shall a little explicate them by way of Paraphrase, premising only this, that neither of them do contain the first institution of Baptism, but only an enlargement of the Commission in reference to the Gentiles, upon the Resurrection of Christ.  
First for that in Matthew— Go ye therefore and teach all Nations. Beza observes that in the ancient Copies [therefore] is wanting and instead of it he finds the particle [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] now, in one of most Ancient date, which Circumstance of time is of great remark. For now the Commission of baptising the Gentiles was to be broken up, now Christ was risen, Circumcision, which was the old seal of the Covenant of grace, under the former Administration, was broken and abolished, and the Lord ordains a new one, viz. Baptism, to take place instead thereof, under the Gospel-Administration [go now] Now I am risen, before which time neither Gospel nor Baptism was to be offered them; For the command was, Go not into the way of the Gentiles. [And teach all Nations] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Discipulos facite, Disciple them as Antipedobaptists will have it, and we own it as the right Translation of the word, for it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifies Teach ye; and so the Participle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is rightly rendered in the following words added to the charge [Teaching them to observe] Let us now come to see what improvement our opposites do make from hence to exclude the Infants of believers out of Christ's Commission to be Baptised, and that the Baptism of Believers is the only true Baptism. Their Argument in form runs thus, viz, Ministers ought to follow their Commission: But to make Disciples before Baptising, is the Minister's Commission. Ergo.  
To this we answer, That the Assumption is Ambiguous; for making Disciples may be taken two ways.  
First, For an immediate present making only; and so it is not Christ's Commission, If you take it exclusively, as if none must be baptised but those who immediately in their own persons are made Disciples.  
Secondly, For a Mediate remote making also; and thus must the Commission be understood. The meaning is, Baptise those whom you find to be in a State of Disciples, whether presently by you, or formerly by some body else, whether personally by themselves, or Seminally by and in their Parents. Let them be in State of Disciples, and then, if not baptised before, baptise them. It is the State of a Disciple, not the time when, nor manner how, which the Baptizer is to look on. Ananias finding Saul in the State of a Disciple must baptise him, though neither he, nor any Minister else before did make him so; however he being a Disciple, though not made by man, must be baptised. Thus then take the Assumption, as it ought to be taken, and we grant the Argument; for it concludes not against Infant-Baptism, for they are Disciples not of man's, but Gods making, vouchsafing graciously in their believing Parents to accept them also into his Covenant, and so into the State of Disciples, and consequently by Christ's own Commission they are to be baptised.  
That infants of Believers are Disciples is evident.  
1. Because they were so under the old Testament-Administration, and why not then under the new? The Proselytes in the Jewish Church coming in, brought their Infants into the same capacity or state of Proselytes; therefore believers coming in to be Disciples, bring in their children to the same state too, or else the state of the Gospel is worse in regard of outward privileges than the Law.  
2. By conferring that of Mat. 10.42. with that of Mark 9.41. it appears, that to belong to Christ, is in Christ's dialect the same with being a Disciple, but Infants of Believers do belong to Christ.  
3. To put all beyond doubt, we have an express word for it, Act. 15.10. Where the Pharisees pressing that it was needful to Circumcise the Gentiles after the manner of Moses, (that is, to be Proselyted by Circumcision) is called a putting a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples. And since the manner of Moses was to circumcise Proselytes, both Fathers and Children, and the pressing the continuance thereof among all Gentiles Proselyted to Christianity, is termed the putting a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples, the children as well as the Fathers must be meant by the Disciples. There is no evasion of this, though I find Mr. Tombs keeps a great stir about it; for as Mr. Sydenham argues, if they say it was meant of the Fathers, and of the Doctrine of Circumcision, yet they must grant the Yoke was on their Children as to the Act, and if the Doctrine was so burdensome, much more the Practice, which the poor Infants are under; And they are called Disciples indefinitely, either by themselves or with their Parents; if any distinction be made, it must be in the manner of laying on the Yoke, viz. on the Parents Doctrinally, on the Children actually, but there can be no Restriction of the word Disciple from these, on whom that Yoke was laid, as is expressed in that Chapter.  
But it may farther be objected, The Commission itself shows what kind of Disciples Christ means in these words [Teaching them to observe] so as Infants are not concerned as Disciples in it, being in no capacity to be taught or to observe. But let it be withal considered, That Christ adds those words to his charge in regard of the condition of the persons, to whom he was sending his Apostles, viz. to Nations, All Nations, that is, the Gentiles who were Aliens; All Nations here, being put in immediate Opposition to that one Nation of the Jews. They were sent to them that were not in a State of Disciples, and therefore they were to be made so, by present actual teaching. As the Nation of the Jews and the Proselytes that came into them were first taught and then Circumcised, but their children were circumcised before they were taught. So then in this commission we must distinguish the substance from variable circumstances. The substance is to baptise Disciples, but whether by Precedent, Teaching, or not, depends on variable circumstances of the State of the Persons, to whom Christ's Ministers are sent, be they such as the Apostles were then sent to, they must be Discipuli facti, made Disciples by Preaching, and then be Baptised: But be they the seed of Disciples, they are Discipuli nati, born Disciples by the Relation of the covenant, and so may have the seal set on them, without any preceding teaching.  
4. Lastly, not to insist upon that, that Infants are Christ's Disciples, because all Nations must be Discipled, and Infants are included in those Nations; we conceive we have no obscure ground for the Baptising the Children of Believers, because as Mr. Ainsworth on Gen. 17. 
Mr. Tombs saith in his Examen, pag. 89. That it is well known, Baptism was in use among the Jews in the initiating Proselytes for many years together, with Circumcision; & quotes Selden and Ainsworth for it.  and Mr. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron, lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 10. do inform us, Baptism was in use as a kind of Initiation among the Jews, though it was not a Sacrament till Christ his Institution, and therefore this Rite seemed no strange thing unto them, as appeareth by their coming to John, questioning not so much his Baptism as his Authority, by what authority he Baptised, John 1. 25. For (as the Learned Dr. Hammond observes) the Institutions of Christ (who came first Messiah to that people, was born of that Nation, lived regularly under their law, and observed their customs) were by him drawn from their former practices in the old Testament, and so were lightly changed and accommodated to his own purposes; he instanceth in divers things, and at length comes to this of Baptism, or Washing; a known right for initiating the Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant of the Lord. For he doth abundantly show out of the Talmud and Rabbis, that the way of entering into the Covenant, was by Circumcision and Baptism: so says Mr. Godwyn also in the place before mentioned. And as the Natural Jews were thus entered, so were the Proselytes, and as the Proselytes of age, so also were their Infant-childrens Baptised. So the Gemara Babyl. tit, Chetub. c. 1. They baptise the little, or young stranger, or Proselyte, as the Hebrew hath it: And Maimonides in tit. Isuri bia. c. 13. They Baptise the Infant or little Stranger, upon the knowledge of the house of judgement. i.e. on their desire in behalf of their Children. From all which it appears that the Jewish Ceremony of Baptising, was accommodated by Christ to the Right of our initiation of the Profession of Christ; whereof (saith he) we have as little reason to doubt, as that a Picture was taken from that Face, which it resembleth to the life. And from hence we have (as he conceives, and that very rationally) a clear foundation for our practice, namely, to baptise, not only those who make a profession of their Faith in Christ, but likewise their Children with them. And though some men of late years have denied the warrantableness thereof, and darkened the truth by their arguings against it; yet one may well suppose it was clear and obvious enough to the Apostles (from the knowledge they had of the former administration, which took-in the Children with the Parents into Covenant) for if it had not been Christ's mind, believers Children should be sealed with Baptism under the new administration, he would certainly have given some intimation thereof, and given his Apostles some such caution as this (when he sent them to Disciple all Nations, and Baptise them) See that you do not baptise Children. Lastly, we may from hence also gain light, that the Essence of Baptism doth not lie in being immersed or plunged under water, for it can never be proved that this was the manner of the Jews Baptising persons or things. I shall shut up this with a passage of the Learned and Godly Bucer, upon these words, 
Sane dum non habent locum quo praecipitur tantum doctos baptizari nihil, roboris suae sententia hinc adferent; etenim nos docemus antequam baptizemus. Ne quid vel his, vel iospiam alibi Scripturarum habetur neminem baptizari debere, nisi ille Doctrinam Christi per se quoque perceperit. Bucer in locum.  Go teach all Nations Baptising them. Since the Anabaptists (saith he) have no place of Scripture that commands us to Baptise none but those that are taught, they cannot strengthen their opinion from this Text: For we ourselves do teach [i.e. Adult-Aliens] before we do baptise, neither can we from hence or any other Scripture prove, that no one ought to be Baptised, unless he shall understand or learn the Doctrine or Christ.  
The Evangelist Mark varies the words of the Commission thus; Go ye into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature: The one hath it Nations, the other World, and the terms are equipollent, signifying the same, Rom. 11.15. But what must they do in all the World? preach the Gospel, i.e. publish abroad to all without exception, the freeness and fullness of God's rich Grace in the New Covenant, even that same Gospel that was preached long before to Abraham, Gal. 3.8. And this blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles, ver. 14. And this is to be Preached, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to every Creature, i.e. with a distinction to every humane creature, which the opposers of Infant-Baptisme may do well to consider, since they stand so rigidly upon the Syllabical Letters of every word in the Commission, so as they will not allow us liberty to draw out the sense of some places that relate to Infant-Baptism, from the Letter, by rational deduction and consequence, and according to the Harmony of Scripture, but we must superstitiously adhere to the very Syllables of the Text, whereas whatsoever appears truth, from the Analogy of Faith, or by just consequence is as practicable and obliging, as if it were written with a Sunbeam, in so many Capital Letters. It would be a senseless undertaking indeed to Preach the Gospel to every individual creature in the World; and therefore it is to the understood restrictively of mankind, poor lost man for whom Christ died. Lastly, the Connection too, he, he that believeth and is Baptised, shall be saved; hath some difficulty in it, and the sense is not so obvious to every capacity: for if it had, many of those controversies between us and the Papists had never been, as, Whether Baptism be of absolute necessity to salvation; which Protestants deny, and many Papists affirm. And let the Antipaedobaptists well consider that this Evangelist doth as closely conjoin believing and being Baptised, to Salvation as the other doth, teaching and being baptised; and if we must so exactly stand upon the Order of words to prove the Institution. We may (saith Sydenham) argue from Mark, as well as they from Matthew, as none must be baptised but they who are taught, so none but those who believe and are Baptised shall be saved; and consequently our Children cannot be saved, because they cannot believe. The same condition being required to precede Baptism, that is required to precede Salvation. You see whether the Argument may be carried, and what little ground of comfort such doctrine affords in the death of our children. To conclude then, whereas they argue from this place of Mark, we must believe and be baptised, but Infants cannot believe, therefore may not be Baptised; will it not as directly follow, that since they can't believe, they must be damned; let them frame an answer to the one, and then they have answered both; for look (saith Mr. Martial) by what distinction they will maintain the Salvation of Infants against this Argument, by the same will I more clearly justify the Baptism of Infants against this Argument.  
Having thus cleared the Texts from the false glosses, Antipaedobaptists put upon them, we shall next examine the passages out of Authors, which my Antagonist quotes for his opinion.  
The first he brings is Mr. Baxter, who having so notably wounded their cause in his plain Scripture proof, for Infant Church-Membership and Baptism, is become the man of their indignation; and Indeed I fear the Author, with whom I have to do, is possessed with a malevolent spirit against that Learned and Godly Divine, and is glad of any occasion to wound his reputation, as appears by his dealing with him in his Preface, and divers other places in the Treatise. Mr. Baxter (saith he) doth fully acknowledge in his Book called, the second Disputation of Right to Sacraments, pag. 149, 150. Where he saith, This (speaking of the Commission of Christ to his Disciples) is not like some occasional mentioning of Baptism; but it is the very Commission itself of Christ to his Disciples, and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and orders. Their first Task is to make Disciples, which are by Mark called Believers. The second work is to baptise them, whereto is annexed the promise of their Salvation. The third work is to teach them all other things, which are after to be Learned in the School of Christ; to contemn this order (saith he) is to contemn all Rules of Order, for where can we expect to find it, if not here. I profess my Conscience is fully satisfied, that the Minister must expect a profession of Faith before Baptism.  
To discover the Craft, and Sinister dealing of our Opponent, I must first acquaint the Reader that Mr. Baxter disputing with Mr. Blake, who was for a large Admission to the Sacraments, explains the Thesis in his second disputation thus, viz. That Ministers must not Baptise the Children of those that profess not saving faith, upon profession of any Faith that is short of it; these are his very words, pag. 53. And after it, nine lines lower, that he might not be mistaken, hath this by way of caution, viz. That he would have the Reader to understand that all along in the discourse of the whole Book, the dispute is about the aged themselves, whether they may be baptised; so that it is none of our work at this time (saith he) to defend the Subjects [as to their age] against the Anabaptists, but our present business is to inquire what that faith is, that quallifieth persons to be just subjects of Baptism, or to be such whose children may receive it upon the account of their faith or profession; Disp. 2. p. 4. Moreover in his fourth Disputation he hath this passage; We take it for granted that the Right of Infants is upon the account of their Parent's Faith, therefore we manage this discourse with respect to the Adult. P. 351. What could any man in the World say more, to prevent the Cavils of unworthy persons? And certainly he had not said so much unless he had known how our opposites lie at the Catch, and yet we see this would not do, for we have found a man of so much dis-ingenuity as to traduce and pervert the say of this worthy person to countenance his error. I have been the larger in setting down Mr. Baxters' words, that it may leave some impression on the Readers Memory, when he finds any thing quoted out of Mr. Baxters' Disputations, about the Right to Sacraments, that so it might be as a Key to open his meaning, in all those numerous passages the Author hath pikt up out of that Dispute, which indeed fills up many pages of his Book.  
Next we have Mr. Calvin, introduced as speaking something in favour of their opinion, 

Ergò ut se ritè ad Baptismum offerant homines, peccatorum confessio ab illis requiritur; alioqui, nihil quam inane esset ludicrum tota actio. Notandum est de Adultis his verba fieri, Calv. in Mat. 3.6.  
Verùm quia docere prius jubet Christus, quam baptizare & tantum credentes ad Baptismum vult recipi, videtur non ritè administrari baptismus, nisi fides praecesserit, etc.  
Eos qui fide in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus, cum sua sobole censeri in Christi membris, & in salutis haereditatem simul vocari. Nec modò seperatur hoc modo Baptismus a fide & Doctrina, quia licet pueri Infantes nondum per aetatem fidem babent, Deus tamen eorum parentes compellans. etc.   whereas few ever wrote so smartly against them; it is from that same passage of his, on Mat. 6. etc. Therefore that men may rightly offer themselves to Baptism, Confession of sin is required, otherwise the whole action would be but Sport.  
The words indeed are Mr. calvin's, so that I confess my Antagonist speaks truth, but he should have done well to have spoken the whole truth, For Mr. Calvin also cauteously adds,— It is to be Noted, that these words are spoken of Adult persons. And that we may see his judgement, fully take notice of his Paraphrase upon the 28. of Mat. 19 and that other Text, Mark 16.16. But because (saith he) Christ commandeth us to teach before he commands us to Baptise, and he would have believers only admitted to Baptism; it seems Baptism is not rightly administered, unless faith goeth before. From this place (saith Calvin) the Anabaptists oppose Infant Baptism. To which he presently answers, That those whom we see by a Profession of their Faith, to be admitted into the Church, we are to look upon them (together with their offspring) as the members of Christ, and to be jointly called to the inheritance of the Saints, neither is Baptism hereby separated from Faith, and Teaching; because though children have not yet faith by reason of their Age. Nevertheless God taking their Parents into Covenant, they themselves are also to be embraced in the same Covenant.  
After Calvin, comes Piscator, to as little purpose, whose words on Mark 1.4. are these; It is called the Baptism of Repentance, because John Preached remission of sins to the penitent Believers. But why should this worthy Author be thus curtailed, whenas he farther expresseth himself thus, Baptismus nulli adulto conferendus est, nisi prius ediderit confessionem peocatorum, i.e. We must not Baptise any person that is grown up, unless he first make a Profession of his Faith, etc. If we would know his mind more fully, we may see it in his Comment upon the 28. of Mat. 19 It was (saith he) the Duty of the Apostles to Preach the Gospel all abroad throughout the World, to all Nations, 

Apostolorum officium fuit Evangelium-praedicare passim in orbe terrarum, etc. Veron pastorum illis suceedentium est Evangelium praedicare apud certam Ecclesiam a quae peculiaritèr sunt vocati; & praterea Infantes qui in illa Ecclesia noscuntur, per Baptismum Deo consecrare. Piscat. Observe. in Mat. 28. p. 746. Edit. 2. Herbornae Nassoviorum  
Porrò ad Ecclesiam pertinent non solum adulti Credentes ac fidem profitentes, sed etiam ipsorum liberi, ut patet ex verbis Apost. 1 Cor. ●. Quare dubium videri non debet quin illi quoque (liberi inquam & Infants fidelium) baptizandi sint, etsi fidei non sunt capaces.   and by Baptism to incorporate them into the Church, who make Profession of their Faith, etc. And it is the duty of all Pastors that succeed them, to preach the Gospel to that particular Church, whereunto they are called, and farthermore to consecrate to God by Baptism, those Infants which are born in that Church; And then adds— Not only Adult persons, that do believe and profess their Faith, belong to the Church, but also their Children as appears from the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy, where (saith he) the Apostle calls their children holy that were born, though but one of the Parents were a Believer, forasmuch as they belong to God's Covenant made with his Church, and by consequence they belong to the Church; wherefore we need not doubt, but they also, (I say the Children or Infants of Believers) are to be Baptised, although they are not capable of Faith, even as the Infants of the Jews were circumcised, belonging likewise to the Covenant and to the Church.  
And as if all our eminent Divines had heedlessly spoken something in favour of their way, he hath the confidence to bring in more still. Mr. Perkins (saith he) in concurrence here with these words, Teaching all Nations, Baptising them, saith, I explain the terms thus; Mark, first of all it is said, Teach them, (1.) make them my Disciples by calling them to believe, & repent. Here we are to consider the Order which God observes in making with men a Covenant in Baptism. First of all he calls them by his word, and commands them to believe, and to repent. Then in the second place, God makes his promise of mercy and forgiveness. And thirdly be seals his promise by Baptism. They that know not, nor consider this Order which God used in Covenanting with them in Baptism, deal preposterously, overslipping the Commandment of Repenting and Believing.  
Who would not think by this, that the Renowned Perkins were of his side, a down right Antipaedobaptist; whereas not a word of what he saith is intended against Infant-Baptisme, but only to show in what order Baptism is to be Administered to Aliens and Pagans, as appears by what he saith upon the same Text. Mat. 28.29. Which is disingeniously concealed by the Author, Go teach all Nations, Baptising them, etc. In these words (saith Mr. Perkins,) the Baptism of Infants is prescribed, and the Apostles by virtue of this Commission Baptised whole Families, Act. 16.15, 33. As knowing Gods former Administration to his people, the Children were taken into Covenant with the Fathers, as the Israelites, both Old and Young, were baptised into Moses in the Cloud, 1 Cor. 10.4. As the Nation of the Jews were first taught, and then they and their Infants, being confederates, were circumcised; so saith our Saviour, Do you go Teach and Disciple the Nations, and then Baptise them.  
The last quoted in this Chapter is the famous Paraeus: and what saith he? he tells us (saith the Author) in his Comment on Mat. 3.5. That the Order was, That confession as a testimony of true repentance go first, 
Hoc enim damus Anabaptistis in Ecclesiam fuscipiendos non esse nisi praeviâ confessione fidei & paenitentiae, quem morem, & vetus servavit ecclesia, & nostrae hodie observant si vel Judaeus, vel Turca Adultus, etc. Paraeus in Mat. 3.5.  and then Baptism for Remission of sins afterward. Very good, but is this all? No certainly, for he presently adds, this we grant to the Anabaptists, that persons are not to be taken into the Church, and be Baptised (speaking of Aliens, or those that are without as the Apostle phraseth it,) unless a Profession of Faith and Repentance hath gone before; which custom (saith he) the Ancient Primitive Church kept, and ours at this day still observe, when a Turk or a Jew that is grown, is to be initiated by Baptism. Thus Reader, I have given thee a taste of the ingenuity of my Antagonist, and I leave thee to judge of it.   

CHAP. II. Containing his second Argument to prove the Baptism of Believers the only true Baptism, and that is (if we will believe him) from the Apostles Doctrine teaching the same.  
Reply.  
ALthough what we have before said to invalidate his main Argument drawn from the Institution of Christ, be sufficient to overthrow whatsoever is brought in the two following Chapters; yet we shall further add, that it is not to be denied, that the Apostles assert Believers Baptism to be a true Baptism, but that they teach us that it is the only true Baptism is utterly false, and we have only the Author's word for it. The Texts cited out of Act. 2.37. Act. 8.36, 37. Act. 10.42. Act. 16.29. prove, that grown persons unbaptised ought to be required to believe before their Baptism, which we grant; but to infer thence, that the Children of Baptised Believers are not to be Baptised, is more than these Texts (or any else that I know) can yield. We read of none de facto that the Apostles Baptised, 
A non dicto ad non factum, non valet consequentia: Because it is not expressed in so many words therefore it was not done, is not Logical.  but Believers; therefore none but such, de jure ought to be Baptised, is a sorry way of arguing. The words of Dr. Taylor in his Discourse of Baptism, part 2. pag. 34. are very weighty, viz. A Negative argument for matters of fact in Scripture, cannot conclude, etc. And therefore supposing that it be not intimated that the Apostles did Baptise Infants, it follows not (saith the Dr.) that they did not: and if they did not, it does not follow that they might not, or that the Church may not. The Scripture speaks nothing of the Baptism of the Virgin Mary, and of many of the Apostles; therefore they were not baptised, is a weak arguing. The words and deeds of Christ are infinite which are not recorded, Joh. 20.30. and 21.25. Many things Christ did, that were not written; and of the Acts of the Apostles we may suppose the same in their proportion; and therefore what they did not, is no rule to us, unless they did it not, because they were forbideen: So that it can be no good Argument to say, The Apostles are not read to have Baptised Infants, therefore Infants are not to be baptised; but thus, We do not find they are excluded from this Sacrament and Ceremony of Christian Institution; therefore we may not presume to exclude them.  
Now since all contradiction against Infant-Baptism, depends wholly upon these two grounds; The Negative Argument in matter of fact, and the pretences, that faith and repentance are required to Baptism; since the first is wholly nothing and infirm, upon an infinite account; and the second may conclude that Infants can no more be saved then be baptised, because faith is more necessary to Salvation then to Baptism; it being said, he that believeth not shall be damned; and it is not said, he that believeth not shall be excluded from Baptism; it follows, that the Doctrine of those that refuse to Baptise their Infants is upon both its legs weak and broken, and insufficient. Thus far the Learned Doctor. To conclude this, whereas the Apostles Preached up faith and Repentance before Baptism, it was requisite they should do so, according to their Commission, having to do with Aliens grown up, (as not only the Gentiles, but the Jews were; in reference to the new Administration;) for these being the first subjects of Baptism, it was necessary they should make profession of their faith before they were admitted to it, but not so in their Children to be Baptised, no more then in Isaac and the Children of the Proselytes to be Circumcised. Abraham believed first, and afterward was Circumcised; Gen. 17.24. And why so? Because he was the first subject of that Ordinance, and therefore could not be admitted to it, but by his own faith. But as for Isaac his Son, he was Circumcised before believing, and so was it with the Proselytes and their Children; when any Gentile was converted to the Jewish Faith, he had a personal Right to be circumcised, and his Child likewise was Circumcised at eight days old, as was the custom of the Jewish Church, by virtue of God's Covenant, giving it a parental Right.  
The Author is very unhappy at Citations, for usually they serve not his purpose. He acquaints us out of Bede, that men were instructed into the knowledge of the Truth, then to be Baptised as Christ hath taught, because without Faith it is impossible to please God. Magdeburg. Cent. 8. pag. 220. But this, Bede himself tells us was the method used amongst the Inhabitants of this Island, when Paganish— In initio nascentis Ecclesiae apud Britannos, Beda lib. 2. Angl. Hist. cap. 14. When a Church first of all began to be planted amongst the Britain's; and he tells us it was at that time when Gregory sent from Rome, Austin, and forty other Preachers, and afterward Paulinus, who converted Ethelbert the Saxon King; but of this we shall speak more hereafter, when we shall show how Bede himself was for Infant-Baptisme, notwithstanding the Author so perverts his words.  
His other Citation is Erasmus, who in his Paraphrase upon Mat. Observeth (and 'tis a great Observation indeed,) That the Apostles were commanded first to teach, and then to baptise, etc.  
Every Child that can read observes the same; 
Probabile est tingere Infants institutum fuisse ab Apostolis, etc.  but if you would know his judgement about Infant-Baptism, you may read it in his Ratio concionandi, lib. 4. where he conceives it probable, that the Apostles ordained and practised it.  
And truly amongst other probable reasons this seems to be one, if it be not a Demonstration; namely, because we do not read of any children of believing Parents who were Baptised when they came to years of discretion. That they were Baptised I presume (saith Brinsley) our Adversaries will not deny; and if so, 
Note, No Children of Believing Parents Baptised afterwards to be found from John the Baptist to John the Evangelist ending his Ministry, which was about 60. years. An Argument sufficient, if not to convince the Adversary that they were Baptised in Infancy, yet to stop their mouths: Brinsley Doctrine and Practice of Paedobaptism, pag. 75.  let them show where, and when. For this let all the Sacred Register be searched, from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministry, to the time that John the Evangelist ended his, (which was about 60 years, during which time thousands of Children of Believing Parents were grown up to maturity;) and if in all that time they can but show any one instance of any child born of a believing Parent, whose Baptism was deferred till he came to years of discretion, and that then he was Baptised, we will then acknowledge there is some strength in their Negative Allegation, viz. We read of no children Baptised, therefore There were none.   

CHAP. III. Containing his Argument, that Believers Baptism is the only true Baptism, from the example of Primitive Saints.  
Reply.  
TO this there needs no more than what we have before said. 
sydenham's Christian Exercitation, pag. 7.  For as Mr. Sydenham says, all that they urge as to Examples of actual Believers, being baptised all along the new Testament, especially the Acts, (and that if thou believest thou mayst,) We can freely grant without any damage to Infant-Baptism: For,  
1. We say as they, Professing Believers, grown men were first Baptised, and so they ought to be who are to be the first subjects of the Administration of an Ordinance; instancing as before in Abraham, etc. he was 99 years old when circumcised, and he must be first Circumcised before he could convey a right to his seed; now you may as well argue, Abraham was first circumcised, when so old, therefore old persons are to be Circumcised and none else; as because grown persons were Baptised, therefore not Infants, when they must be first Baptised themselves; for children are Baptised by the promise first to them, and in them to their seed.  
Now, for as much as all the Examples brought by the Author out of Act. 8.12. & 18.8. & 22.14. Speak of grown persons that were the first subjects of Baptism, and Jews that were Aliens too, as well as the Gentiles, in regard of the new Administration; it makes nothing against Infant-Baptism, that being of another circumstance, and the disagreeing of it from them, argues not the unlawfulness of it, and as the same Author farther argues.  
2. An Affirmative Position is not exclusive of subordinate's; because Believers were said to be Baptised; Ergo, not their Seed, is not true reasoning; for their seed were comprehended with them in the same promise as before, and as we shall more fully show hereafter.  
Let us now see what his Quotations of Authors or Testimonies will amount unto in this Chapter.  
His first Testimony is from Luther, de Sacrament. Tom. 3. fol. 168. where he saith Luther hath these words, viz. That in times past it was thus, that the Sacrament of Baptism was Administered to none, except it were to those that acknowledged and confessed their faith, etc. The which when I read, I was not well assured, but that my Antagonist might be guilty of Forgery, knowing Luther to be a most fierce and zealous opposer of their way, wherefore I did very carefully examine the third Tome of Luther concerning Sacraments. I read the 168. pag. and read it again with a friend, and do profess that there is not one syllable to the purpose, for which the Author brings him, no nor in any page thereabout. The next that he Cites, is Bullinger, who (it ●●ns) hath such words as these in his house●●k: 48 Sermon. Baptism hath no prescribed ●e by the Lord, and therefore it is left to the ● choice of the Faithful.  
I have not the book by me to examine the ●●th of this, but however I am certain there ●othing in that passage against Infant-Baptism, ●hat this testimony can do us no hurt; and we ●●w very well how large a book Bullinger hath 〈◊〉, Contra Anabaptistas', against the Anabaptists. ●hat I wonder the Author should bring him 〈◊〉 The Reader may observe how zealous an ●rtor of Infant-Baptisme this Learned and ●●ly Divine was, by that one passage of his in 〈◊〉 Compendium of the Christian Religion. de ●cto Baptismo, ac de Infan●s Baptizandis, lib. 8. pag. 〈◊〉 viz. 
Quoniam autem Christianorum liberi, in faedere Dei suni, & Christus etiam Infantium salvator est; cumque ad ipsos pertineat ut, veteris ac novi Testamenti literae testentur-Baptismus (Faeperis figillum) iis negari non debet.  That because the ●dren of Believers are in ●●nant with God, and 〈◊〉 is their Saviour, and promise's also belongs to 〈◊〉 (as both the Old and 〈◊〉 Testament do wit●●●● Baptism (which is the 〈◊〉 of the Covenant) is not to be denied them, 〈◊〉 And after this, concludes, Horror autem & ●●omnes pios ac verè Christianos, ut studiose ●●terque sibi, a contentiosa & venenata Ana●● arum sectâ caveant, quae externa specie qui●● & Hypocrisi splendet, reverà autem paestilen●● est haeresis, atque plurimas baereses quibus o●●te aliquot secula Ecclesia Chrsti turbata, & lacerata fuit, in se complectitur, illisque plurimos homines inficit; I forbear to English it, out of respect to some which I believe are Godly, and yet opposite to the Baptism of believers Children.  
Lastly, The Author quotes a great deal out of Mr. Baxters' Disputations with Mr. Blake, about Right to the Sacraments; but we have before spoiled his Market, by giving the Reader a Key out of the same Book, by which he may understand him. So that all those Examples from John, the Samritans, the Eunuch, Paul, Lydia the Jailor, Crispus, etc. doth but mind us again of the Author's dis-ingenuity in traducing that Worthy Divine.   

CHAP. IU. Wherein he labours to prove Believers the only Subjects of Baptism, from the Spiritual ends of the Ordinance; where he gives us an Induction of the particular ends of Baptism, as follows.  
1. THe first end of Baptism (saith he) is, that the Baptised might have that represented in a Sign or Figure, and Preached to his Eye, in the Ordinance, which had been Preached to his Ear and Heart by the word and Spirit; respecting the whole Mystery of the Gospel, and his duty and obligation therein. A Sign being (as Paraeus observeth) some outward thing appearing to the sense, through which some inward thing is at the same time apprehended by the understanding.  
Repl. I.  
I deny this to be the primary end of Baptism. For not to insist upon that which hath given too great advantage to Antipaedobaptists, That the first end of Baptism is to give a solemn entrance or admission into the Church, I conceive it to be more true to affirm, That the first and chief end of Baptism is to be the Initiatory sign or seal of God's Covenant and favour to us in Christ. For as Dr. Ames observes in his Bellarminus enervatus, Tom. 2. lib. 2. unless persons are to be reputed Members of the Church, 
Nisi habendi tales essent (viz. fidelium infants) pro membris ecclesiae, non deberent Baptizari: Baptismus enìm suâ naturâ est sigillum insitionis jam factae in Christum, atque adeò in Ecclesiam. Act. 10.47, 48.  they ought not to be Baptised; for Baptism in its own nature is the seal of our being already engrafted into Christ, and so consequently into the Church, Acts 10.47, 48. He speaks concerning the Baptism of the Children of Believers, and affirms they ought not to be Baptised but under this consideration, that they are members of the Church, which we shall hereafter make good in its proper place.  
2. I acknowledge that to Adult persons Baptism reprefents (in a sign) that to the eye which is Preached to the ear, respecting the Mysteries of the Gospel, etc. Although I see not how it can be so in the way of Dipping, for how can persons under water see, apprehend, or hear any thing during that time, when, and whereby the Senses and Understandings of men are so confounded, that they have no power to exercise their faith, or reason as they should; and since plunging over head and ears puts people into such an amazing condition, not without frights (especially in the more tender Sex) some being near throttled or drowned, it is to be susspected to be none of Christ's appointments; for one would think, that at such a juncture of time, especially, when an Ordinance is celebrated, representing so many Gospel Mysteries, it is requisite the mind should be in a more omposed posture than theirs are like to be in, whose heads are under Water. We grant Baptism to be a sign of spiritual Mysteries represented to the eye of such as are grown up, and rightly Baptised. As Circumcision was a sign of the same import to Abraham, and it is of present and immediate use to the aged, Rom. 4. Abraham reeived the sign of Circumcision, as the Seal of the righteousness of Faith, and we acknowledge also both the Sacraments are of immediate and present use to the aged, and in this sense we are to understand Paraeus, speaking of Sacramental Signs: but let it be considered that the children of Abraham received the sign of Circumcision as well as Abrabam, and yet they were void of understanding and judgement, and knew no more of the spiritual Mysteries represented therein, than our Infants do in the Ordinance of Baptism. Circumcision represented the same Mysteries that Baptism doth, and yet those poor Israelitish Babes that were Circumcised, knew not that the cutting-off the foreskin, shadowed out the corruption of nature, and the nature of Mortification, the blood shed in the act also held out the mystery of Redemption by Christ's blood, of all which Baptism is as proper a sign, when given to our Infants, as Circumcision was to theirs.  
3. What though Infants are uncapable of understanding Gospel Mysteries figured in Baptism, as they were heretofore of the same shadowed forth in Circumcision, yet their Baptism is a Sign of what God will do for the future (to as many of them as belong to his Election,) if they shall arrive to years of discretion.  
4. Though it be no Teaching sign at the present, yet if the Infant live, and be instructed in the use and ends of his Baptism, it may prove as Operative and Beneficial to him, as if it had been delayed till he came to full age.  
Thus David, who though Circumcised in Infancy, yet strengthened his faith by it, when he came to years of discretion, 1 Samuel 17.26.  
5. Though Baptism be not for the present a Teaching sign to Infants, neverthelses it is a distinguishing fign to distinguish those that are Within, from those that are Without, as the Apostle phraseth it, 1 Cor. 5.12, 13. And it is even to Infants a sign of God's Covenant as before is hinted (as Circumcision was to Infants under the Law, and for this reason it is by a Metonimy called by the name of the Covenant, and did distinguish the Jewish Infants from Gentile ones, that were without the Covenant, or strangers to the same, Gen. 17.20. Act. 7.8.  
5. It is also an Engaging sign (as Circumcision was to the Jewish Infants, though they undertood it not when they were the Subjects of that Ordinance) whereby our children are obliged to the Profession of Christ, into whose name they have been Baptised. I shall shut up this with those weighty words which I find in Mr. Baxters' Scripture proof for Infant's Church-Membership and Baptism. pag. 112. Tell me (saith he) what operation Circumcision had on all the Infants of Church-Members formerly. It was a sign of the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, etc. and yet they had no more Faith, nor Knowledge of the Significancy, than ours have now— Christ himself was circumcised in Infancy, when by the course of nature he was uncapable of understanding its Ends and Uses. Not (saith he) that I am now arguing for Baptism from Circumcision; but this fully answereth their Objection [that Infants should not be baptised, because they are not capable of understanding its Use, and so being wrought on by it.] They are as capable of Baptism, as they were of Circumcision, and its Ends: They therefore that will yet say, It were better let it alone till they are more capable, do but exalt their own reason against Scripture, and speak as men that would teach God.  
The Second End, hinted by the Author, is, That the party baptised might thereby witness his Repentanee, Matth. 3.11. called therefore the baptism of Repentance, Mark. 1.  
Repl. 1.  
It cannot be proved from these places, that all those whom John Baptised, did manifest their Repentance; and we do not find those Pharisees and Sadduces that are branded with the name of Vipers, gave the least indications thereof, which if they had the Baptists would not have spoken so harshly of them, and yet these (for aught we can learn to the contrary from the Text,) were baptised.  
2. Grotius in his Annotations upon the nineteenth of Matthew 14. Speaketh well to this, whose Words are these— Neither aught that to be any hindrance to the Baptism of Infants, 
Neque obstare debet quod non omnia quae itidem per baptismum significari solent, in istam aetatem propriè congruerint, etc.  that all things which in like manner are signified by Baptism cannot agree properly to that Age; for Repentance also (which we know is signified by Baptism, etc.) had no place at all in Christ, when John baptised him; who as Tertullian notes, was not baptised as a Debtor to Repentance, because he never sinned.  
3. The End of Baptism nominated by the Author, is, to evidence present Regeneration, whereof Baptism is a Sign, Titus 3.4. John 3.  
Repl.  
If this Argument were good, it would have overthrown the Circumcision of Infants; for that also was a lively Sign, or Symbol of Regeneration, and it might have been objected (according to our Antagonists phanfie,) Infants are not regenerated, or show no signs thereof; and (Regeneration being the end of Circumcision) therefore They ought not to be circumcised.  
2. According to such arguing, none ought to be admitted to Baptism; for none know by a judgement of certainty and infallibility, who are regenerated; for Simon Magus made a great show, and yet was in the Gall of bitterness and no doubt many come up out of the water as rotten hypocrites as they went in.  
Thirdly, Mr. Tombs himself grants that Infants may be regenerated (as John was in the Womb;) and faith, 
Pet. Martyr. loc. common. cl. 4. c. 8. pag. 821, 823. Non excludimus eos (Infants) ab eccle siâ, Sed ut ejus partes amplectimur, benè Sperantes, quòd ut sunt secundùm carnem semen sanctorum, ità etiam sint Electionis divinae participes & spiritum sanctum habent. Neque audiendi sunt qui hâc de re movent scrupulum, ac dicunt, quid si Minister fallatur? quia idem cavillus esse poterit de adultis.  that if he knew such or such an Infant were regenerated, he would not scruple to Baptise it, according to which arguing, he must also forbear Baptising grown persons upon profession, for he knows not that they are regenerated.  
4. If the whole Species of Infants be excluded from Regeneration, then are all Infants (so dying) certainly damned; for all Infants are born in Original sin, and by nature unclean, and no unclean thing shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, But I suppose our opposites dare not exclude all Infants from Salvation: Well then, I conclude some Infants are elected, Regenerated, and in Covenant with God, or else they are saved without Election, Regeneration, Christ or Covenant; which is most absurd.  
5. And whereas nothing can be said against us but this, de occultis non judicat Ecclesia, the Church cannot judge of secret things, but is to act according to appearance, and it is unknown whether such particular Infants are regenerated, they cannot make any profession, and Baptism is to be given upon that. I answer, we have as much reason if not more, to look upon the Infants of Believers to be sanctified, than we have to esteem grown Christians to be such; because our owning of these, as such depends upon their own testimony only in a visible profession, which may be counterfeit. But such Infants are to be accounted Saints upon a Divine Testimony, for we have the word for it, 1 Cor. 7.14. else were your children unclean, but now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they are Saints or holy, it being the same word the Apostle useth in his Dedications and directions of his Epistles to the Churches of Rome, Corinth, etc. where he styles them Saints, and our Saviour tells us that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, and they are to be no other than Saints, and we are warranted by a Divine Testimony to look upon them as such, which in their present Infant-state they cannot be liable to any suspicion of defeating by Hypocrisy, as grown persons may.  
The Author brings in Dr. Taylor (whom he looks upon as his dear friend, and he hath reason for it, having helped him to a great part of his Book;) The said Dr. (saith he) tells us very elegantly in his Lib. of Prophecy, pag. 242. That this is truly to be Baptised, whatsoever is less than this, is but the Symbol only, a mere Cere money, an opus operatum, a dead Letter, an empty shadow, an Instrument without an Agent to manage, or force to actuate it.  
Repl.  
The Dr. wants not words, but this signifies nothing against Infant-Baptism, for all this may be as truly said of those that are Baptised when grown up, that have not truth of grace. But because I observe with what Reverence this Doctor is mentioned (as if all were Canonical which he saith in their behalf, and I find the Author's Book to swell with his Sesquipedalia verba,) I shall (for prevention of delusion) inform the Reader with some news which may be worth his hearing. Know therefore that the said Doctor put forth a Book about 20. years since, entitled, The Liberty of Prophecy, in which he pleads for a Toleration, as for others, so also for those that descent from Infant-Baptisme. There he personates an Anabaptist, and tells us he will draw up a Scheme or Plea for them, and (saith he) though they be deceived, yet they have so great excuse of their side, that their Error is not impudent, lib. of Proph. p. 223. and therefore may be tolerated. Then doth he show what they may say for themselves— and concludes, Thus far the Anabaptists may argue, and they have been encouraged in their Error, more by the accidental Advantages we have given them by our weak arguings, then by any Truth of their cause, or excellency of their wit. The Doctor therefore having a mind (it seems) to show the excellency of his own wit, 
A worthy Testimony to be brought against Infant-Baptisme.  hath said more for them then ever they could before or since say for themselves: so that his strong arguings for them, hath eventually proved a greater encouragement to them then ever any of our weak arguings did before. And yet after all the goodly Harangue he makes in their behalf, he at last shuts up with this, viz. The use I make of it (never dreaming what use H.D. would make of it) is, That since there is no direct impiety in their opinion, they are by all means Christian, fair, and humane, to be convinced and instructed; but if they cannot be persuaded, they must be left to God, (and I am of his mind.) And lastly adds, for his own part he believes Infant-Baptism to be a truth; but because some have thought the Doctor had spoke more in their behalf, than he himself could well answer (as Conjurers sometimes raise spirits they cannot lay,) he hath since put forth an Excellent piece, styled, A Consideration of the practice of the Church in Baptising Infants of Believing Parents, and the Practise justified: 
Printed by J. Elesher, for R. Royston, at the Angel in Ivy-lane, M. DC. L. II.  in the Preface to which we have this account, That as for those Arguments which in The Liberty of Prophesying, Sect. 18. are alleged against Paedobaptism; and in the opinion of some, do seem to stand in need of answering, he had it once in thought to have answered them: but upon these considerations he forbore.  
1. Because those Arguments are not good in themselves, or to the question precisely considered, but only by relation to the preceding Arguments there brought for Paedobaptism, they may seem good one against another, but those in the Plea for the Anabaptists, have no strength but what is accidental (as he conceives.)  
2. Because in this Discourse (for Infant-Baptisme) he hath really laid such grounds and proved them, that upon their supposition, all those arguments in the Liberty of Prophecy, and all other which he ever heard of, will fall of themselves.  
3. Because those Arguments to his sense are so weak, and so relying upon failing and deceitful Principles, that he was loath to do them so much reputation as to account them worthy the answering,  
4. Because he hath understood that his very worthy friend Dr. Hammond, 
Dr. Hammonds Letter of Resolution to 6 Quaeties, Printed by J. Elesher for R. Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane, 1653.  hath in his Charity and Humility descended to answer that Collection. I have transcribed all this, that the Reader may mind this Information when ever he meets with any thing quoted out of Dr. Taylor, as he shall at least eighteen times, and sometimes very largely whole pages, nay two pages and more at a time by our Antagonist in his Treatise of Baptism. And truly a man would wonder at his weakness, that since the Doctor in his Lib. of Proph. doth profess himself for Infant-Baptisme, notwithstanding all that he says against it, personating an Anabaptist as he confesseth, and since he doth so vilify them for their error and weakness, the Author should undervalue his cause so much as to make use of such fallacious reasonings, as the Dr. himself calls them.  
Next, we have him again at Mr. Baxter, wronging both him and his Reader in what he citeth out of his Disputation with Mr. Blake as formerly; Mr. Baxter (saith the Author) in his [10 Argument, pag. 117, 118. speaks to the same purpose, viz. Christ hath instituted no Baptism, but what is to be a sign of present Regeneration, etc. Here he curtailes Mr. Baxters' words on purpose to blind the Reader, for Mr. Baxter adds [at least to men of age.]  
The 4. End is signally to represent the Covenant and promise that the Believer enters into hereby, viz. to die to sin, and live to Christ, for which he citys Mr. Perkins, Baxter, and Dr. Taylor; the two former we have spoken enough of, in the first Chapter, where we find them most professedly for Infant-Baptisme, and have condemned the Author for wresting their sense, they speaking of Adult persons or Aliens, and not in opposition to the Baptism of Believers children, and for that of Dr. Taylor, That Baptism is called the answer of a good conscience towards God, 1 Pet, 3.21. which saith he, can by no means be applied to the Infant, since they are not capable thereof, till they know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.  
Repl. I.  
To this Dr. Hammond answers, namely, This is as true of that Baptism which belongs to children as to any other, only the duty of it is not required till they come to years and ability to perform it, and then if they keep not a good conscience it will be little available. And if this be of any force against Baptising Infants, it will be of the same force against Circumcising them, since S. Paul, Rom. 2.28. doth as much invalidate the external part of Circumcision, as St. Peter here doth that of Baptism.  
2. 'Tis therefore a mere Parologisme so to argue; for the Apostle Peter speaks of the Adult that could give a reason of their faith, and not of Infants; for the Apostle had then to deal with such, who upon their being Baptised were to make profestion of a good Conscience. And this (as we shall hereafter show out of the Magdeburgenses) was the practice of the Primitive Church in this Case; for having to deal with Infidels, they first Catechised and Taught them the first Elements and Principles of the Christian Religion, whereupon they were called Catechumeni (i.e. persons that were to be Catechised;) that being done, and they brought to some competency of knowledge, they then openly declared and testified their Repentance and Faith, before the Congregation where they were to be baptised: And this they did by answering to some questions proposed by the Minister. To this the Apostle seems to allude when he calls Baptism, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. The answer of a good Conscience towards God, so our Translation renders it, though (as Beza notes upon the place) not so fully expressing the force of the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifies an Interrogation or questioning; so the vulgar Latin renders it, Interrogatio bonae conscientiae, The Interrogation of a good Conscience. Beza translates it, Stipulatio bonae conscientiae, The Stipulation of a good Conscience. Now Stipulation is properly an Answer to a Question, when one being demanded concerning a thing, he returns Answer, and by his answer engageth himself to do somewhat that is required. Now this practice of giving an account of ones faith, by way of answering to questions (as Beza notes upon this place of Peter) was drawn from the Primitive use in after ages, out of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Beza Annotat. in 2. Pet. 3.21.  a perverse imitation, and applied to the Baptism of Infants, not so fitly (as he conceives,) they being not able to answer for themselves.  
3. Nevertheless though children cannot personally and actually answer for themselves, I see no reason to the contrary why they may not be said to Stipulate passively in and by their parents who accept the Covenant, not only for themselves, but for their little ones. The people of Israel did by God's appointment enter their children into Covenant with God, as appears from Deut. 20.10, 11, 12. and doubtless the interest of Believing Parents in their Children, 
Dr. Taylorr consideration of the Church in Baptising Infants.  is as great now as then, and God as gracious to accept such covenanting under the Gospel, as he was under the Law.  
4. In Civil Contracts it is usual with Parents to Covenant and engage for and in behalf of their Children, and they are obliged to the performance of the Agreement when they come to years of discretion, though they did not give their actual consent whilst in their Minority, when the Agreement was made. The very law of Nature teacheth Parents to Covenant for their Children, when 'tis for their good. 
Mr. Eaxter.   
5. Let Dr. Taylor in his latter discourse, wherein he justifies the practice of Baptising Infants of Believing Parents, confute what himself says in his Liberty of Prophecy. He speaks his judgement concerning the point, page 53, 54. thus. It were well saith he, speaking of the engagement or promise made for Infants in Baptism,) if men would rather humbly and modestly observe that constitution of the Church, then like scorners deride it, in which they show their own folly, as well as immodesty; for what undecency or incongruity is it, that our Parents should stipulate for us when 'tis agreeable to the practice of all the Laws and Transactions of the World, an effect of the Communion of Saints, and of Christian Oeconomy: For why may not Infants Stipulate as well as we? All were included in the Stipulation made with Adam, he made a losing bargain for himself, and we smarted for his folly: And if the faults of Parents, and Kings and Relatives, do bring evil upon their Children, and Subjects, and Correlatives, it is but equal that our children may have benefit also by our Charity and Piety.  
But concerning making of an agreement for them, we find that God was confident concerning Abraham, that he would teach his Children. Further Joshua did expressly undertake for his household, I and my house will serve the Lord. And for children we may the better do it, because till they be of perfect choice, no Government in the world is so great as that of Parents over their children, in that which concerns the parts of this Question. And it is a rare art of the Spirit to engage Parents to bring them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord; They are persons obliged by a superinduced bond, they are to give them instructions, and holy Principles as they give them meat, etc.  
The 5 End of Baptism, is to be a Sign of the Covenant of God's part of washing away a Believers sin, by the Blood of Christ, and to give spiritual Life and Salvation, Act. 2.38, 39 Act. 22.16. 1 Pet. 3.21.  
This also is as true of that Baptism which belongs to the Children of Believers, as that which is given to Believers themselves. Repent and be Baptised every one of you, for the Remission of sins, for the promise is to you and to your seed, etc. And Baptism (even to Infants) is a seal of Gods pardoning grace in doing away the guilt of Original sin, in regard of those that belong to God's Election (if not also actual, which afterward shall be committed if they live to age.)  
The 6. End mentioned by the Author is, That it might be a signal Representation of a Believers Union with Christ, called therefore, a being Baptised into Christ, and a putting on of Christ; for which we have Dr. Taylor quoted, Which cannot be, (says he) of those who remain in their incapacities, etc. Which he saith, is the case of Children. But we shall see by and by the said Dr. confuting himself in his latter discourse of Baptism.  
1. To this I reply in the words of Wendeline, 
Wendelin Christ. Theo. lib. 1. c. 12. p. 166.  upon the Text, viz. Apostolus loquitur tantùm de Baptizatis fidelibus tùm enim Adulti, ex Judaismo; & Gentilismo recèns conversi baptizabantur; i.e. The Apostle speaks this of Believers that were Baptised; for then Adult persons, newly converted from Judaisme and Paganism were Baptised.  
2. Though children cannot put on Christ by an external Act, yet they may be an infused seed of grace, and we have good ground to believe all elect Infants dying, have in their infant-State, done so. And farther, if Adam's sin be imputed to them for sin, why may not Christ's Righteousness be also imputed to them for Righteousness? Surely it must be so, or else there is no way how Infants can be saved.  
3. Dr. Tailor in his last discourse of Baptism, gives a good Rule for the understanding Scriptures of this sort, which if attended to, would bring us and Antipaedobaptists a little nearer together: which is this, viz. That when the Scripture speaks of the effects of, or dispositions to Baptism, it speaks in general expressions, as being most apt to signify a common duty, or general effect, or a more Universal event, or the proper order of things: but those general expressions do not supponere universalitèr; that is, they are not to be understood exclusively to all suscipients, or of all the subjects of the proposition. And he makes it clear by divers passages of Scripture. There are many Synecdoches in the word, where many only are to be understood, when it speaks of all. The secret effects of Election, and of the spirit are in Scripture attributed to all that are of the outward Communion. 
1 Pet. 1.2.  So Peter calls all the Christian strangers of the Eastern dispersion, Elect, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. And Paul saith of all the Roman Christians, and the same of the Thessalonians, that their Faith was spoken of in all the world, and yet among them it is not to be supposed, that all the Professors had an unreprovable faith, or that every one of the Church of Thessalonica was an excellent and charitable person; and yet, saith he, 
2 Thes. 1.2.  your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all towards each other aboundeth. So to the question before us. As many of you as are baptised into Christ, have put on Christ. That is, so it is regularly, and this is the designed event: but from hence we cannot conclude of every person, and in every period of time, This man hath been baptised, therefore, now he is clothed with Christ, he hath put on Christ; nor thus, This person cannot in a spiritual sense, as yet put on Christ, therefore he hath not been baptised; that is, he hath not put him on in a Sacramental sense.  
To conclude, We cannot understand the Apostle in those words of putting on Christ, to intent a saving union to Christ, or a putting on of Christ spiritually and effectually, in regard of all that are Baptised; for all these Galathians did not so put him on, and innumerable persons that are Hypocrites (when baptised at age,) do not so put him on. Wherefore the words are to be understood Sacramentally, as 1 Cor. 10.4, 5. Heb. 10.29. And thus Infants put on Christ as well as grown persons.  
7th. End of Baptism (saith he) is, that the Baptised person may orderly thereby have an entrance into the visible Church, etc. For as Circumcision heretofore was the visible door of entrance into the old Testament-Church— So also was Baptism such a door, and visible entrance into the New Testament-Church, etc. Act. 2.41, 42. They who gladly received the word were baptised, and the same day there was added to them about 3000. souls; and they continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers. So that after baptism, not before, the believers were said to partake of all the Church-priviledges.  
Posito uno absurdo mille sequuntur. Upon this false Hypothesis do our Opposites build their dividing Practices. Wherefore we deny that Baptism doth give formality, or make a man a member of a Visible-Church; it is not that which gives entrance into it, as the Author would have it: so, as if only by its Administration, and in their own way too, persons must be Baptised, or else they are not to be reputed Church-Members, or to be admitted into the participation of Church-priviledges. But for this we have divers of our Divines quoted; as Vrsinus, The Assembly in their Catechism. And lastly, Mr. Baxter, with whom he is again at Hocus Pocus. Mr. Baxter (saith he) in his plain Scripture proof, pag. 24. As a Soldier before listing, and a King before Corwning, and taking his Oath, so are we Church-Members before Baptism. But as every one that must be admitted solemnly into the Army, must be admitted by listing, as the solemn engaging sign; so every one that hath right to be solemnly admitted into the visible Church, must ordinarily be admitted by Baptism. But mark (Reader) the Author's ingenuity. Baxter's words are, So are we and Infant's Church-Members; But being quite out of charity with those Innocent Babes, this man leaves out Infants, and one would think by the partial Citation, that Mr. Baxter also did shut the Church-door against them. It cannot be denied that Orthodox Divines have frequently termed Baptism, the Sacrament of our initiation into the Church, and have ascribed our Admission or entrance into it thereunto, and hereby have given the Antipaedobaptists some seeming ground for their rigidity. And yet I find that they are not agreed among themselves about the point; for Mr. Paul a great Zealot against Communion with any that are not Baptised in their way, doth in his serious reflections disown the Position, That Baptism is an initiating Ordinance, and tells us in that Diminutive Volume of his, p. 3. That he knows none that asserts it to be the inlet into praticular Churches, though it prepares them for Reception. Mr. Kiffin it seems is of the same judgement, for he bestows an Epistle upon the piece. Of the same judgement is John Bunyan a more moderate Antipaedobaptist, that is, for Union and Communion with Saints, as Saints, and condemns the Rigidity of his Brethren, and maintains in his Answer to the scurrilous (not serious) Reflections of Paul, That differences in judgement about Water-baptism, aught to be no Bar to Communion, 
Printed for John Wilkins in Exchange Alley.  which is the Title of his Book, and sees no cause to repent after severe checks from his Brethren, to call them Babes and Carnal, that attempt to break the peace and communion of Churches, though upon better pretences than Water, and declares God never made Water-Baptism a Wall of Division between us. And whereas Paul denies Baptism to be an initiating Ordinance, he retorts very rationally upon him, that if it be not that, but another, and if visible Saints may enter into Fellowship by that other, and are not where forbidden so to do, because they have not light into Water-baptism, it is of weight to be considered by all unprejudiced persons. Mr. Tull also, a moderate and very ingenious Antipaedobaptist, is of Mr. Bunyans judgement; But Mr. Henry Jessey (of precious Memory) hath published his judgement to the same purpose, grounding it upon Rom. 14. v. 1.3.7. such as are weak in the faith, receive you, etc.  
From whence he argues most strongly and convincingly, that it was the duty not only of the then present Church at Rome, to whom the Epistle was writ, as also to all beloved of God, called to be Saints at that time, ver. 7. But also of all Churches and Saints, Beloved and called, throughout the world in succeeding ages, to receive into Church-communion and Fellowship, such whom we have ground to believe God hath received into Communion with himself. For that's the Argument or Motive verse 3. God hath received him, and saith he, if it be a good Argument to receive such as are weak in any thing whom the Lord hath received; Then there can be no good Argument to reject for any thing for which the Lord will not reject them. The like argument we have chap. 15. ver. 7. of Christ's Receiving, Receive you one another as Christ hath received us, etc.  
Then that holy man breaks out into pathetical strains, Oh! how is the heart of God the Father and the Son set upon this to have his children in one another's hearts as they are in his, etc. and 'tis the work of the Devil (saith he) to divide them: Thus much to show how they differ amongst themselves about this Position, that Baptism gives formality, or makes a member of a visible Church, which the moderate party amongst them utterly deny; now that it gives neither essence or being, either to a Church or Membership, further appears by these Arguments.  
1. If there be a Church, 
That dividing Principle, That Baptism forms a Church or makes Church-Members, refuted.  and so Members before Baptism, than Baptism cannot give the formality or essence, because forma is causal, and so is in nature before formatum.  
But the Church considered as totum essentiale, is before Baptism, for Ministers are before baptism. And there must be a Church of Believers to choose a Minister lawfully; for none but a Church can give him a call, and without a call he cannot administer, as Mr. Hooker argues in his survey of the sum of Church-discipline, cap. 5. part. 1. pag. 55. adding moreover, that if Baptism cannot be without a Ministerial Church, nor that before a Church Congregational, which must make choice of a ministry, than such a Church is much before Baptism. Besides let it be supposed (saith he) that at the coming of some Godly Zealous Christian and Scholar into the Country, and a company of Pagans (many) are converted to the Faith, I ask whether these may not join in Church-Fellowship, and choose that man Pastor, and whether that choice was not lawful according to God? Therefore here is a Church before a Minister, and so before Baptism. The demand which Mr. Jessey makes upon the same arugments is somewhat like this; if Baptism (saith he) be the manner of forming Churches, how would it suit a Country, where many are converted and willing to be Baptised? but there being no Church to be baptised into, how shall such a Church-State begin? The first must be baptised into no Church [that is particular] and the rest into him as the Church, or the work stand still for want of a Church.  
2. A Church may be without Baptism, and yet as real a Church as the Israelites were so long in the Wilderness without Circumcision, which without dispute was the initiating Ordinance, according to Divine Institution, Gen. 17.13.  
3. One Argument I shall borrow more from Mr. Hooker, and that is, If Baptism give the form to visible-membership, then while that remains valid, the party is a visible Member; for where the form is, the formatum must needs be, if the principles of reason may take place.  
But there is true Baptism resting in the party who hath no visible Membership: as in an Excommunicate, in him that renounceth the fellowship of the Church, or when the Church is utterly dissolved, than all Church-Membership ceaseth; for Relata mutuò se ponunt & tellunt; And yet Baptism is valid. And as it is an undeniable position, That, that which gives the form or being to a Church, must cease when the Church ceaseth, or when a member ceaseth to be a member, it must cease with it; so it follows that that must be renewed, namely Baptism, as often as Membership is renewed, so shall we have a multiplication of Baptisms, as often as the person is cast out of the Church and taken in again upon his repentance.  
As for those two Scriptures which the Author brings for his opinion, they will hardly be found to serve his turn.  
1. The main place stood upon is, Act. 2.41, As many as received the word gladly, were baptised, and there was added that day about 3000. souls. Hence they conclude they were added by Baptism, and that they were only added this way.  
Sol. 1. It is more than the Text affords for to conclude that they were added by Baptism, much less can it be argued from thence, that they were only added this way, the words say not, they were added by Baptism, but puts a full point or stop after that sentence, As many as gladly received the word, were baptised. There that sentence ends, as Mr. Sydenham notes upon the place: And the Apostle goes on a new account, and saith, There were added that day 3000. souls, but doth not at all show the manner of their adding; so that these words are rather a recapitulation and summing up the number of Church-Members added that day, than any description of the way of their taking into the Church, and the former reasons prove it cannot be interpreted as our Author would have it.  
The other place that he urgeth for his opinion is, 1 Cor. 12.13. We are all baptised into one body; hence 'tis concluded Baptism embodies Members.  
1. In answer to this, let it be considered what those of their one party say, that are for Dipping. The Text (saith Mr. Bunyan, that treateth of our being baptised into one body) tells us expressly it is done by the spirit. For by one Spirit we are all baptised into one body. Here is the Church presented as under the ●●tion of a Body; here is Baptism mentioned, by which they are brought or initiated into this body; Now that this is the Baptism of Water, is utterly against the words of the Text; For by one Spirit are we all Baptised into one body. So Mr. Jesse, The Baptism intended in the Text is the Spirits-Baptism, and not Water-Baptism, and the Body the Text intends is not principally the Church of Corinth, but all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, being Baptised into one Mystical Body, and the reason why it cannot be meant of Water-Baptism, is, because all the Body of Christ, Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, partook not thereof. Thus here we see how they clash amongst themselves as touching the sense of the place.  
2. We add, That, (as we conceive) the Apostle speaks there primarily of the Baptism of the Spirit, not of Water; so by one spirit we are baptised into one body, is not so much of Baptism by Water; and yet supposing it to be meant of Baptism by Water. Yet (as Mr. Sydenham observes) it proves nothing that Baptism is the form of that body, 
sydenham's Christian Exercitation, cap. 20. pag. 168, 169.  which hath its matter and form, holiness and union before Baptism; baptised into one body, doth not here show the essential constitution of a Church, but the confirmed union, and the argument is inserted more to prevent Schism, then to express the way of first imbodying or constitution of Churches, as the whole context demonstrates.   

CHAP. V.  
Containing his fifth Argument; That Believers Baptism is the only Baptism, from the New Testament-dispensation, so differing from that of the old.  
THe Argument is taken from the New-Testament-Dispensation, so different from the Old. The Old Testament-Church (saith the Author was National, consisting of the Natural and Fleshly seed of Abraham, therefore were Infants by Circumcision added thereto; but the new Testament-Church was by Christ's appointment to be a separated people out of all Nations, consisting only of the spiritual seed of Abraham, and therefore Believers upon profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptism were added thereto.  
Repl. 1.  
What of all this? If there any ground from hence that Believers Baptism is the only true Baptism? 'Tis true, the Church Dispensation is altered, 
Mr. Baxters plain proof for Infant's Church-Membership and Baptism.  but the Covenant of Grace is not altered. The Dispensation differs under the new Testament, only in regard of Ceremonial accidents, as Temple, Priesthood, Sacrifice; but the Essentials of the Covenant still remain, viz. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, and this is the grand Charter of Church-Membership, which takes in the Child with the Parent, and consequently entitles it to Baptism, as shall be hereafter shown; for if their Church relation can be made good, their Baptism will follow upon it. If therefore the Author could have proved that the covenant had been altered as to its essentials, he had said something worth a hearing.  
2. Whereas he says the old Testament Church was National, it is a Truth; and yet the Nation of the Jews was not the Church of God, as they descended from the Loins of Abraham by Natural Generation, according to the Flesh, but only with reference to God's gracious Covenant, made with Abraham and his seed, (which I wish the Opposers of Infant-Baptisme would consider:) and as this Covenant was made with Abraham and his seed after the flesh, so likewise is it still the same with Believers, and their natural seed under the Gospel-Dispensation, by virtue of the same gracious covenant made to them and their seed, Act. 2.39. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off: [the Gentiles.]  
3. Antipaedobaptists may do well to consider yet farther, what Mr. Baxter makes good in his plain proof, viz. That Infant Church-Membership did take place as an Ordainance of God, before Cirscumcision was enjoined, or the Ceremonial law Instituted, and why then it should cease with it, is more than ever yet could be shown. He makes it appear it was no part of the Typical Administration of the old Testament; but a moral Institution of God, even from the beginning of the World. God ever made a distinction between the seed of the faithful, and the seed of the wicked, as visibly belonging to two several Kingdoms, the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of Satan, Mal. 2.15. therefore are they called a Holy Seed, and a Holy Seed are Members of the Church, and so consequently the Subjects of Baptism, the Seal of Admission thereunto.  
4. Notwithstanding the Dictates of H. D. that the Baptism of Believers is the only true Baptism; we shall retain our practice in Baptising our children, and thankfully own and acknowledge it as a Gospel-priviledge, till the opposers thereof can produce some clear proof out of Scripture, that the Old Ordinance of the Church-Membership of Believers is repealed. We see how imperiously another sort of people do impose their conceits, and how confidently they call for our subscription to their Light as they term it, as if it were a duty to deliver up our Reason captive to their absurd imaginations. We respect Antipaedobaptists as a more sober people, yet strangely overgrown with self-conceitedness, as if the word of God came out from them, and it came to them only in regard of the true knowledge of the spirits mind in it.— Let them produce but one plain Scripture that. God hath made void the Ancient Charter and Grant, and we will readily yield up the cause. But we have Scripture and reason, as well as they, and are the more confirmed in what we hold by observing how weakly they dispute against it.  
All the Reason the Author brings to make good his Assertion is,— Because under the New Testament dispensation, Christ hath appointed the Church to be a separated people out of the Nations, consisting only of the spiritual seed of Abraham, and therefore believers only upon profession of faith are to be admitted to Baptism, and so added to the Church.  
To which I answer, First, That under the New Testament-Dispensation, Christ hath appointed the Church to be a separated people out of the Nations, is a certain truth; but that this Church consists only of the spiritual seed of Abraham is false. Qui benè distinguit, benè docet, He that distinguisheth well, teacheth well. What our Antagonist says is true, in regard of the Invisible Mystical Church of Christ, which is a company of real Saints, that have spiritual Union and Communion with Christ, and with one another, but not so with respect to the outward visible Church, which is the Society of those that profess true faith, for the exercise of Church-union and Communion among themselves, and many of these are Hypocrites and shall perish. Dr. Ames (an excellent person that understood what the New Testament-Church was, a little better than our Author) Med. lib. 1. c. 32. art. 9 tells us the same. And such, saith he, was the Church of Corinth and Ephesus, wherein all held not Communion for life, and of such Christ spèaks, Joh. 15.2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit. And hath these words in Opposition to what Bellarmine falsely chargeth on Protestants, viz. Falsum est internas virtutes recuiri a nobis ut aliquis sit in Ecclesia, quoad visibilem ejus statum; It is false that inward virtues [Grace] are required of us to put a man into the Church, according to the visible state of it. The Lord Dupless is in his Excellent Treatise of the Church distinguisheth aright— The Invisible Church, containeth none but good [or in the Author's Dialect, the Spiritual seed of Abraham] The Visible both good and bad; that only the Elect, this all those indifferently that are brought into her by the Preaching of the Gospel. By all which it is evident that the Author stragles out of the Road of Protestant Divines, and is fallen upon the confines of Thomas Collier's General Epistles. or the wild Notion of Mr. del, who in his Book entitled, The way of Peace, pag. 6. gives this definition of the Church, viz. The New Testament-Church is a spiritual Invisible Fellowship gathered up into the Unity of Faith, Hope, and Love, and saith, it is no outward visible society gathered together into the consent and use of outward Forms and Worship. Now although both are out, yet I acknowledge the Author is more sober than Dell, for he is for an External Visible Church under the New Testament-Dispensation; for he tells us, Believers upon the profession of faith are to be Baptised, and added thereunto, and yet take him in his own sense he cannot be excused from error and confusion, for by Believers, he means the Spiritual seed before mentioned, not such as are Believers Equivocally, or Analogically, by profession only, but in reality, or truth, as appears by the following words [upon Profession of Faith, by the Ordinance of Baptism were added to the Church] As if when mention is made in the Acts of so many thousands that believed, it did imply they were all of the Spiritual Seed Regenerated persons, Annanias, Saphira, Simon magus, [who is said to believe;] whereas it denotes no more than a visible profession of faith, which is all that the Apostles and Primitive Churches had cognizance of, and this is seen in Hypocrites who are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham. And this H. D. might have learned as well as other things from Mr. Tombs, who in his Examen, pag 159. tells us, Profession of Faith and holiness is a sufficient warrant to Baptism. And in good earnest one would think (by observing the lives and conversations of some of their Proselytes) they took them in upon easier terms.  
2. 
sydenham's Exercitaon, c. 3. p. 25.  We further argue, That if none but the spiritual seed of Abraham be the subjects of Baptism, then visible believers, or such as make a profession of Faith are not the Subjects of Baptism; for they may not be more the spiritual seed; i.e. Godly, than infants.  
3. Nay according to this Reasoning none must be Baptised at all, for who can tell who are the spiritual seed, who belong to Christ according to Election and saving Faith. Nor will that evasion serve their turn, we have charitable ground to believe they are such, because of their profession, which is enough to satisfy the Church; for if according to the Author the New Testament-Church is made up only of a spiritual seed, it is necessary the Church should not only have a judgement of charity, but infallibility to determine who are the spiritual seed.  
4. And since the Author and those of his way disclaim all pretence to Infallibility, and are contented with the judgement of charity, to distinguish of the spiritual seed, knowing nothing to the contrary, Hanc veniam petimus, pray give us leave to act a like charity towards the children of Believers. For first, they may be capable subjects of Election, Jacob was such a one in his Mother's Womb, Rom. 9, 11, Neither was it his singular privilege, but what is common to all that are Objects of Election, which is free without respect to any thing wrought or to be wrought. 2. They may be capable of sanctification; Christ himself whilst in the Womb is termed [The Holy thing] which proves the nonage of Infants makes them not incapable of grace, supposing Gods will, and it shows God would have it so, that some of them should be sanctified because Christ passed through each age to sanctify it to us. 
Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, & infantibus infans factus sanctificans Infants, in parvulis parvulus sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem, simnl & exemplum illis pieatis effectus, & justitiae, & s bjectionis.  As Irenaeus that lives near the Apostles, speaks; John was filled with the Holy Ghost, and what is that but the graces of the spirit, although he was no more enabled to exert or put forth any act of Grace, than he was able to put forth an act of reason, nevertheless his soul wanted not the faculty of reason, from his Mother's Womb; and what though we may not say all Infants of Believers are a like filled with the Holy Ghost, as John was, yet may we truly say that are all as capable thereof as John. 3. They are also capable of Glory, of Salvation, or else it would be sad, but Christ hath told us of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; that is, Specifically as you shall see proved hereafter. 4. God calls them holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. and so may we. By what hath been said I suppose it is evident to the impartial Reader, that the Infants of Believers are as much the spiritual seed of Abraham, as visible professing believers, and we have as much ground if not more, to look upon them as such, as we have for grown Christians, until they manifest the contrary; for as for the former we own them as Godly, and admit them into the Church upon their own Testimony only in a visible profession, which may be deceitful; but the Infants of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents, and are visible Church-Members, and hereby come to have right to Baptism.  
For the two former, we have an express Divine Testimony, and that they were once accounted such, and the Covenant being the same as to the essential spiritual privileges of it, none of which can be made appear to be repealed; It will follow that Believers Children must not be denied the sign and seal of the Covenant, they having altogether as warrantable a Right thereunto as grown Christians or Believers. This is Bucers' arguing on Mat. 19.13, 14. 
Si jam ad Ecclesiam pertinent, etc. Cur eye signum Baptismi, quo in Ecclesiam Christi, qui ad eam pertinent, recipi solent, negaremus? Bucer an Mat. 19.13, 14.   
Let us now hear what is said to the contrary, in what follows. He conceives the seed of Believers have no right to Baptism; Why?  
Because, (saith he) Though the Jews had right to circumcision, as Abraham's natural seed under the old Testament, yet this would not serve the turn under the new, Mat. 3.9. John Baptist dischargeth them of that privilege (of Abraham's Natural Seed) that admitted into the Old Church, from any such right in the new. Think not to say that ye have Abraham to your Father, that ye are the Children of a Godly Parent, That which served their turn under Moses, would not avail under Christ. Nothing now but the fruits of Repentance give right to the Bapisme of repentance, etc.  
And must we take all this for Gospel? We shall upon examination find no weight in it, and nothing prejudicial to the Baptising the children of Believers. For  
1. Let it be considered, that these Jews to whom John spoke were to come under a New Administration of the Covenant, and the first subjects of this Administration must be persons able to give an account of their faith and repentance, and Christ the Messiah was now come who was the chief blessing of the Covenant, yea the substance of it; and therefore 'twas necessary that as these Jews relied on the Covenant of Abraham, so they should hold forth their reliance on Christ in whom the Covenant was confirmed to them and their seed. 
Cottons Dialogue of children's Baptism. p. 130.  For as Mr. Cotton observes, The Axe was laid to the Root of the Tree, even to the stock of Abraham, and all the Branches that grew upon it, and were engrafted into it, so that now if they brought not forth this good fruit, to believe in Christ who was then come (whom the Jews generally rejected as an Impostor) they and their children were cut off from the Covenant of Abraham, and must say no more, We have Abraham to our Father, but if they held forth Repentance and Faith in Christ, than the Covenant that was made to them and to their Children before, did still continue to them and to their children; and that's the ground and meaning of Peter's exhortation, Act. 2.38, 39 Repent and be Baptised every one of you in the Name of the Lord, for the promise is to you, etc. Now what prejudice can this be to the Baptism of Believers Infants, who are admitted in the right of their Parents, laying hold on the Covenant for themselves and their seed, now under the new Administration, as Members of the Church of Christ and in Covenant with God.  
2. Neither will we take the Author's word, for what follows,— Nothing now but fruit meet for Repentance gives right to Baptism, without some qualification. For first, I demand what fruit of Repentance John saw in that great multitude which he then Baptised, viz. Jerusalem, Judea, and all the Regions round about Jordan, ver. 5. which could not be less than some thousands of whom he could have no cognizance, as to their fruits of repentance. 2. I farther demand whether he could judge this great multitude which were strangers to him to be all the Spiritual seed of Abraham? And since the Author observes from John's words, they had no right to Baptism from being Abraham's natural seed, neither could he look upon them all as the spiritual seed; let him tell us on what account he baptised them? 3. It is like he will tell us they confessed their sins, ver. 6. and so were Baptised. But will any man think they did all do so, or is it said he baptised no other but such? It will be hard for any man to prove that John did impose this upon them. We find, as Mr. Marshal notes, that he Baptised them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Repentance, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as state in Actual Repentance, and his calling upon them for Repentance, and Preaching the Baptism of Repentance, shows, that this was the lesson which they were all to learn, not that they all manifested it before he Baptised them. For aught we can find from the Text, the Pharisees and Sadduces were Baptised by him, and had they been such Penitents, it had been great uncharitableness to call them Vipers.  
We have the Author over-lashing again in the next words, for he lies open every where. Nothing (saith he) short of the spirits birth can orderly admit to Water-birth, and Spiritual ordinances.  
But since you are not Infallible, let it be supposed you have been mistaken in your judgement, and have baptised a person, which afterward appears to be unregenerate. Did you admit him orderly or no? you will say you did, because he was Baptised under the apprehension of being regenerate: The Church looked upon him as such, and saw nothing to the contrary. Very good, now you are come about to what I would have; and indeed if the New Testament-Church did consist only of the spiritual seed [real Godly ones] how abominably is the Ordinance profaned, when it so happens (as it often doth) that any Hypocrites are Baptised, and when it appears that the Title which they had to Baptism was but seeming, will it not follow that all that was done in reference to them was a Maladministration, and Null ab initio; 
Mr. Blakes Covenant sealed.  and as God looks upon them as unbaptised (though they have been dipped) so ought the Church to look upon them, and if these Hypocrites shall repent and be converted, are they not bound to offer themselves afresh to Baptism, and can the Church refuse them, and thus according to the Author's principle there will be need of a Multiplication of Baptisms.  
He concludes this Chapter with the say of two Doctors as wide in judgement from each other as the two Poles, yet it seems he can make them meet to serve his purpose. The first is Dr. Owen who is much engaged for his Elegy, but nothing at all for wresting his sentences from his intention. 'Tis well known the learned Dr. (like to the rest of his Brethren of the Congregational way) is a zealous Assertor of Infant-Baptism, and the import of what he says in his Catechism, is no more than what all Congregational men hold; namely, That the matter of the Church is a Society or Fellowship of visible Saints, and this, according to the singular dexterity of this Antagonist, (who beats us still with our own Weapons) is found to be point blank against Infant-Baptism. But we shall clear this point in the next Chapter, under which it falls properly to be spoken of. The other Gentleman is Dr. Taylor: we have said enough of him before, how much he was for Infant-Baptism, notwithstanding he plays the Orator, and tells us he will act the part of an Anabaptist, and show what may be said for them though they are in an Error; but let us hear what he says, for according to the Author he doth rarely accommodate that which he thinks is truth, when as it is only by bestowing a few compliments upon an error; we shall seldom meet with such a parcel of affected words, delivered in such a strain as did notably fuit with the Genius of the times when he writ them; that is, before the turn of times, when men were high flown, and above Ordinances. The Baptism of Children (saith he) is an outward duty, a work of the Law, a Carnal Ordinance; it makes us adhere to the Letter without regard to the spirit, to be satisfied with shadows, to return to Bondage, to relinquish the mysteriousness, the substance, the spirituality of the Gospel, etc. This is brave stuff indeed, high towering language; I never met with the like, unless it were in Mr. Saltmarsh his shadows flying away, and beams of Glory. And is not the Baptism of Believers think you bravely accommodated with these Rhetorical Flowers? Is there one grain of Logic or Reason in all he saith? And then at last the Doctor doth so well accommodate that which H.D. calls the truth, that he attempts to maintain it by two gross errors delivered in one breath; for, saith he, if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol, yet it always accompanies it, but never follows it in order of time. But first I would fain know who told the Doctor that Grace always accompanies Baptism? (for that I take to be the plain English of Mystery and Symbol without the help of a Dictionary.) No doubt he learned this good Doctrine from the Schoolmen, who maintain, that Baptism conferrs grace: We may know the mind of them all by that passage of Suarez, 
Suarez in tertiam partem Thom Tom. 3. quest. 68 Disp. 24. Art. 4. sect. 2. pag. 250.  Per Baptismum datur gratia, si aliquis est rectè dispositus ad effectum Baptismi consequendum, in instanti quo receperit Baptismum recipiet gratiam. By Baptism grace is given, if any man be rightly disposed to receive the effect of Baptism, in the instant that he receives Baptism he shall receive grace. These men speak as if they were acquainted with the Cabinet Council of Heaven. They can tell (if you will believe them) the Punctum temporis, the very moment when the spirit will breathe, and quicken a soul. And then again the Doctor is as peremptory in that which follows— Grace, (saith he) never follows Baptism, which at first found is enough to scare tender souls from meddling with it; for if the Doctor says true, you that are for Dipping upon the profession of Faith, look well to yourselves: for, if you have not grace when you are baptised, you are never like to have it afterward; grace, saith he, never follows it, you are like to live and die graceless.  
This we deny not but God may (if he please) make use of Baptism to confer grace; but look upon it as a Popish error, that grace is in separably annexed to it, and a grosser one that Baptism confers grace ex opere operato. The Ancients themselves as highly as they speak of it, did not hold that grace was an inseparable companion of it. Austin lib. 4. contra Donatistas', hath this saying— Quid prodest Baptismum, etc. What profits Baptism to them that receive it, unless they be inwardly changed? And yet though it may not profit at the present, yet it may for the future, and not only the Adult, but Infants too may receive good by it.  
To conclude this, I shall oppose to what the Doctor speaks in derogation of Infant-Baptism, the judgement of a more Orthodox Divine, viz. Mr. Daniel Rogers, who speaks more warily thus— I see no cause to deny that even in, and at, and by the Act of Baptism the Spirit may imprint grace on the soul of an Infant.   

CHAP. VI  
Containing his sixth Argument, That Believers Baptism is the only true Baptism, from the constitution of the Primitive Churches, which were not (saith he) form of ignorant Babes, but professing men and women, with an answer thereunto.  
Jest we should contend in the dark, it is necessary we agree upon the terms. By [Constitution] must be meant the essential nature of the primitive Church, and in this I suppose we are one; and whereas he saith these Churches were not form of ignorant Babes, that is, of those alone; for so we must understand him, in regard of the Antithesis which follows, viz. [but of Men and Women] it is very true, the primitive Churches were not of this make, that is, form only of ignorant Babes; for if they had, they would have been but sorry Churches. But whatever sense his words may bear, we know his meaning is, that Children are not included as Church-Members in the Constitution of the New Testament-Churches, these being form (as he imagines) altogether of professing men and women; which he attempts to prove by Christ's Commission, where Teaching goes before Baptising: By the practice of the Apostles in planting Churches, and by the Dedications and Contents of the Epistles, etc. To which I reply.  
1. That we must mind the Author with what is before said in the first chapter, namely, That the import of Christ's Commission to his Apostles was, de Ecclesia colligendâ, to direct them how, and in what manner they should gather Churches; they being at first sent out to preach only to such as were Aliens in respect of the New Administration: And we acknowledge all persons under such a Circumstance, are to be Taught before they are to be Baptised, or admitted into the Church. But in Ecclesia collectâ, a Church actually gathered, wherein there are Infants, the Case altars; for such are to be esteemed as Portions of their Parents, as being one with them in a moral account, and belonging to the Church, of which their Parents are Members. And to avoid repetition, the same answer may serve for what is urged from the example and practice of the Apostles, in planting the New Testament-Churches at Jerusalem, Acts 2.41. Samaria, Act. 8.12. Caesarea, Act. 10.47, 48. Philippi, Acts. 16.14. and elsewhere. But I must follow him, having to deal with a sort of people, who take all of theirs, which is not particularly answered, for unanswerable.  
By which Scriptures (saith he) it manifestly appears, that the New Testament-Churches were form only of Baptised Believers, wherein we neither find one ignorant Babe, etc.  
But what demonstration doth he bring to make this good? The Argument (if he had used any) must have run in form thus, viz.  
If we have no examples of any other that were Members of Churches, under the New Testament-Dispensation, but professing believers, than no others are to be accounted Church-Members but such: But we have no examples of any other, etc. Ergo.  
The consequence of the Major proposition is unsound, and the Minor proposition is false.  
1. The consequence is not sound; for, suppose it be granted under the Gospel, the Scripture makes no mention of any children's being Church-Members: Yet to conclude from thence there were none, is no good argumentation. Because mention is made of the Apostles taking in professing men and women into the Church, Act. 8.12. to argue thence that therefore the children of such belonged not to the Church, is childish arguing. But this is a more Masculine, or Logical way of argumentation, namely, The children of the faithful were Members of the Church before Moses time, before the law, and why not after Moses, now under the Gospel? God took them into his Covenant with their Parents, and for the space of 2000 years, from Abraham to Christ, they were Church-Members, and since Christ is come in the flesh, we find not this gracious Ordinance repealed. There is not the least hint of any such thing in the New Testament, therefore it is not repealed, and the children of Believers continue Members still.  
2. The Minor also is false; for we have intimation given us, that the children of Believers are Church-Members, and the Apostle writes to them as such, as appears Eph. 6.1, 2, 3. Col. 3.20.  
And to make this yet more evident, I shall produce an Argument or two. The first shall be that of Mr. Baxter, in his plain Scripture-proof of Infant Church-Membership, and Baptism, viz. If God have repealed the ordinance, and revoked this merciful gift of Infant's Church-Membership, than it is either in mercy or in justice, either for their good, or for their hurt. But he hath neither repealed it in mercy for their good, nor in justice for their hurt, Therefore he hath not at all repealed it.  
The sufficiency of the enumeration in the major Proposition, even Mr. Tombs himself could not deny in that famous dispute at Kederminster; for it must needs be for the good or hurt of Infants that they are put out; and so must needs be in mercy, or justice; for God maketh not such great alterations in his Church and Laws to no end, and of no moment, but in mere indifferency.  
The minor, Mr. Baxter proves in both parts: 1. That God hath not repealed this to their hurt in justice: for, if God never revoke his Mercies, nor repeal his Ordinances in justice to the parties hurt, till they first break Covenant with him, and so procure it by their own desert; then he hath not in justice revoked his mercy, to the hurt of those that never broke Covenant with him. But it is certain God never revoketh a mercy in justice to the hurt of any that never broke Covenant with him: Therefore to such he hath not revoked it.  
1. That Church-Membership is a mercy, and of the Covenant, is plain: Deut. 29.10, 11, 12.  
2. That God doth not in justice revoke such to any, but Covenant-breakers, may be proved. 1. From the merciful nature, and constant dealing of God, who never casteth off those that cast not off him. 2. From his truth and faithfulness, for else we should make God the Covenant-breaker, and not man, which is horrid blasphemy. 3. His Immutability and Constancy, his gifts and calling being without repentance. Now this is also certain that many Jews did believe and not forsake the Covenant of God, even most of the Apostles themselves, and many thousands more: and how then can these or their Infants be put out of the Church in justice to their hurt, who did not first break Covenant with God. Mr. Tombs was hard put to it, how to extricate himself from the difficulties of this Argument, although a man of great Dexterity, and a very Oedipus in the controversy, yet it is said he was near to a nè plus ultrà, but at length took Sanctuary in this Answer; and mark it well, Reader, viz. [That the Ordinance was in mercy repealed for their good.] To which Mr. Baxter gives a neat reply— It can be no mercy, to take away a mercy, except it be to give a greater instead of it: But here is no greater mercy given to Infants instead of Church-membership: Therefore it can be no mercy to them that it is revoked.  
Other Arguments besides this, that are invincible, may be drawn from that place, Rom. 11.17. A Scripture, which I perceive was too hot for the Author's fingers to meddle with, and therefore he gives not one touch upon it, throughout all this Treatise of Baptism; whereas he knows very well, that this is the principal Text that gives clear evidence that Children are yet Church-members with their parents; and if they have a Church-relation, they must not be denied Baptism: because the same thing which qualifies any persons for Church-membership, qualifies them also for Baptism. But to the Text before us.  
There are three things which the words do plainly hold forth.  
1. That though the Collective body of the Jews or the generality of that people were broken off from the Church through unbelief, yet all of them were not broken off; for it is said, [If some of them were broken off] not all of them: for as was said before, most of the Apostles and thousands of Jews believed.  
2. The Believing Gentiles are engrafted in their place— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in amongst them, so Grotius hath it, positus es inter ramos illius arboris, thou art set amongst the branches of the Tree, referring to those words, if some be broken off. implying that some remained still, and the believing Gentiles were inoculated amongst them, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Beza and Piscator, pro ipsis, instead of them, or in their place and room, in ramorum defractorum locum, into the place of the branches broken off.  
3. The Jews shall be restored again to the Church at the latter end of the world, they shall be in statu quo priùs, become the Church and people of God again, as formerly, but in a more glorious manner. From all which issueth three unanswerable Arguments for the Church-membership of believers Infants still continued.  
The first we have already insisted upon, namely, That the same Jewish children which were visibly of the Church immediately before their Parents became Christians at the first, continued to be so after. And the reason is, because they were not under the dischurching Cause of as many of the Jews as were discharged, and that was unbelief, of which they could not be guilty by any Act of their own, 
More of this may be seen in a late Book called A Persuasive to Peace and Unity among Christians. Sold at the Three Pigeons in Cornhill.  or of their Parents, as imputed to them. Because of Unbelief, saith S. Paul, they were broken off. If it be said (saith the Author of that ingenious and pious piece, entitled A Persuasive to Peace and Unity) they were dis-churched in the dissolution of the Jewish Church-State in general: it is but an evasion which will not help them: for the forecited Text is flatly against them. For all that were not broken off by unbelief, did continue unbroken off; that is, they still kept their place and standing in the Church of God. And therefore to assign any other cause of dischurching any, than the Scripture hath assigned; or at least, any other without this here assigned, and determined by the Apostle, is too great presumption, and such as will not satisfy an impartial mind; and, as Mr. Baxter enforceth the Argument very strongly, They who kept their Station, kept also their privileges for themselves, and their children, if they were not broken off, their children were not broken off; for, as the Infants came in with their Parents, so they are not cast out whilst their Parents continue, except when they are grown up they cast out themselves by their own personal unbelief. It is not to be conceived, that God should cast out the child that came in for his father's sake, while the Parents remain in the same Church.  
2. Those Jews who were broken off from the Church, their children also being before Members, were likewise broken off; therefore it follows, Believing Gentiles and their children are engrafted in: for the engrafting must be proportionable to the breaking off; they succeeding in the place of the former, must enjoy the privilege they lost.  
3. If after the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, the Jews shall be grafted in again, not with a diminution, but addition to their glory, and one part of their glory was, that they and their seed were God's visible Church, than so shall it be with them when they are called. This we have ver. 26. All Israel shall be saved. Which cannot be understood but from their broken off State, they shall be grafted into the Church again as before; for as Mr. Marshal notes in his Defence of Infant Baptism, pag. 134. At their first grafting in, they and their children were grafted in: at their casting out, they and their children were broken off; and when they shall be taken in again, they and their children shall be taken in. This Mr. Tombs himself grants, that the Jews and their seed were rejected together, yea, and that they shall be taken in together, pag. 66. of his answer.  
Thus than we argue, if it must be so with them, it must be so with believing Gentiles now, or else there will be a Schism between Jew and Gentile in point of privileges; else there will be too distinct estates in the Christian Churches; one of the Jews, holy Fathers and children; another of the Gentiles, who have only personal privileges, none for their seed, which is an absurd conceit (as Mr. Geree speaks) and would set up or keep up a partition-wall still, contrary to that, Eph. 2. I shall say nothing of other absurdities, which are very numerous, which come from the denying the Church-Membership of the Infant seed of believers.  
The Author adds; It is incongruous to reason and sense to imagine, that little Children are any way concerned as Church Members, either in the Dedications of the Epistles sent to the Churches, or the Epistles themselves, for they were dedicated to those who were called to be Saints, etc.  
I answer, First, that this is a mere Paralogism; for what if we confess the Apostle directed his Epistles to such as were professed Believers and Saints by calling, were none other but those, or such like them, concerned in the Epistles? What shall we think of carnal persons and unbelievers, are they unconcerned in them? This minds me with a passage in Mr. Paul's serious Reflections, such another rigid Antipaedobaptist as our Antagonist. He tells us pag. 9 That the Epistles were writ to particular Churches, and that it will be difficult to prove they were also directed to particular Saints; but saith Bunian, a more moderate man (although an Antipaedobaptist) If this be true, there is virtue indeed, and more than ever I dreamt of in partaking of Water-baptism. For if that shall take away the Epistles, and consequently the whole Bible, from all that are not Baptised (he means, after their mode of dipping, being grown Christians) then are the other Churches and also particular Saints in a very deplorable condition. Would to God (saith he of his Brethren) they had learned more modesty than thus to take from all others, 
Nè autem existiment Corinthii, hanc Epistolam, ita ipsis propriam esse, ut ad alios non pertineat; addit, Cumomnibus qui invocant nomen Domini nostri Jesus Christi in quovis loco tum ipsorum tum nostri. Piscator in locum.  and appropriate to themselves, and that for observing a circumstance, etc. But he better instructs Mr. Paul, and turns him to St. Paul, Rom. 16.5. and to the first Epistle written to Corinth, and shows that the first Epistle of John was wrote to some who at that time were out of Fellowship, that they might have fellowship with the Church, Joh. 1.1, 2, 3, 4.  
Secondly, we grant the Epistles were directed (some of them) to professing Believers joined in Fellowship, directly and immediately, and to their children (if they had any) and the children of all Believers in succeeding ages, remotely; and the contents of the Epistles concern both the Parents at present, and the children when come to years of discretion. A Father that hath several children, some grown up to understanding, others Minors or Babes, may direct a Book or Epistle to them all. Whatsoever was writ, was written as much for our instruction as the Primitive Christians, We know Moses and the Prophets directed what they writ to the Church under that Administration, whereof their Children were a part, and yet they were ignorant Babes, and could not understand any thing or perform any duties. But let it be considered, that though they understood nothing of those divine Exhortations, yet being within God's Nursery and School, they were in a nearer capacity to be taught their duty, than Aliens; and their Parents were enjoined to teach them the Ordinances of God, and God gave this Testimony concerning Abraham, that he knew he would teach his children: and in the New Testament it was the commendation of Lois, that she had instructed Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ab Infantia, when he was an Infant or little Child.  
3. Whereas the Epistles are inscribed with those Titles [To the Saints, Saints by calling, sanctified in Christ Jesus, chosen, adopted] which cannot (saith our Author) be spoken of Infants. To this it may be thus replied,  
1. Some of those titles may be predicated of children, some not.  
2. The Apostle calls the Church's Saints, either as looking upon them all as such. i.e. truly regenerate; for this is the famosius significatum of the word Saint: but this could not be, for he pointed at some that were sad Saints in the Church of Corinth and Galatia, or else he calls them Saints Synechdochically, because he judged the most of them to be such, and so the whole Communion were judged Saints à Potiori, from the better part.  
3. He calls them Saints by calling, i.e. by the preaching of the word, and so we acknowledge Infants are not, and yet the same Apostle calls the Infants of Believers Saints. 1. Cor. 7.14. Else were your Children unclean, but now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are Saints, or holy: and 'tis the same word the Apostle useth in his inscriptions of the Epistles to the Churches [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] [to the Saints:] and being he maketh use of the same word applying it to the children of believers, it hints thus much to us, that in Saint Paul's account (who was guided by the Spirit of God in what he speaks) the Infant seed of Believers are as much Saints as any who are such by calling. Nor are they only federally holy, but they may be also inherently sanctified, saith Mr. Tombs in his Examen. They may receive the new birth, and we say more, they must receive it, if saved, Job. 3.5. It is much controverted concerning the Text, whether it intends grown persons, or any persons of whatsoever age or sex; but the Original, if heeded, would put an end to it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Except one be born, including all ages, all sexes. Children are so polluted in their first birth, that they can never get to Heaven by that, and therefore what the first birth cannot, a second must, saith Dr. Taylor. And if it be objected, that to the new birth is required dispositions of our own, which are to be wrought by, and in them that have the use of Reason: besides that this (as the Learned Doctor speaks) is wholly against the Analogy of à New-birth, in which the person to be born is wholly passive, and hath put into him the Principle that in time will produce its proper Actions. It is certain that they can receive the new birth, and are capable of it. The effect of it is salvation, if infants can receive this effect, than also the new-birth, without which they cannot receive the effect; and he illustrates the point by a Similitude thus.  
As the reasonable soul and all its faculties are in children, Will and Understanding, Passions and Powers of Attraction and Propulasion, yet these faculties do not operate, or come abroad, till time and art, observation and experience have drawn them forth into action. So may the spirit of grace, the principle of Christian life be infused, and yet lie without action, till in its own day it is drawn forth— and then he goes on— Who is he that understands the Spirit so well as to know how or when it is infused, and how it operates in all its periods, and what it is in its Being and proper Nature, or how, or to what purpose God in all varieties does dispense it?  
Then again, if Nature, saith he, hath in Infants an evil principle, which operates when the child can choose, but is all the while within the soul; Why cannot Infants have a good principle through Grace, though it works not till its own season, as well as an evil principle?  
4. Though Infants are uncapable of performing such duties as are incumbent upon professing men and women, yet this hinders not but that they may be Church-Members. Pray tell us what duties could those Israelitish Babes perform, who notwithstanding their incapacity, were, asis before, Members of the Church with their Parents. And though they answer not all the Characters Christ gives his Adult Disciples (which the Author objects against them) yet they are capable of union to the Church, and Fellowship in the privileges thereof. They are capable of her prayers and other pious offices, and for whom the Church hath a more special care and obligation of tenderness for their souls, than for others that are Without; and why should this seem strange? since they are Members of the Commonwealth, and of the family, and are capable of union with both estates, and the privileges thereof, and yet cannot perform obedience to the State and Orders of either. In like sort, Infants are admitted Tenants, but the Fealty or Homage is respited till they are of age.  
5. Lastly, Christ himself (as Mr. Baxter notes) was head of the Church, according to his humane nature in his infancy, and this proves that the nonage of Infants makes them not uncapable of being Members. And let any judge whether it be his will that no Infants should be Members. For my part, saith he, when I consider that Infant State of Christ our head, and the honour done to him therein, it strongly persuades me that they know not his will, who say they will not have Infants to be visible Members.  
He farther Objects the Church of England, who in their 19th. Artiele do acknowledge that the visible Church is a number of Christians by profession.  
This is down right Mr. Tombs' Examen, part. 3. pag. 41. only Tombs hath more charity for the Infants of Believers, though not without some contradiction. For he there acknowledgeth that in fancy Ecclesiae visibilis, Infants of believers are to be accounted Gods, to belong to his Family and Church, and not the Devils; And what do any of us say more? But mark Reader how Mr. Tombs doth esteem them such; why, saith he, it is so, as being in a near possibility of being Members of the Church of God, by an act of opinion grounded on probable hopes for the future. But to make them actual members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church, that Protestant writers give, particularly the Church of England, Art. 19 To which Mr. Martial answers, If overthrows it not at all for they all include the Infants of such Professors; as Infant's Male and Female too (lest you say that Circumcision made them Members:) I add also saith he, Baptism now (as well as Circumcision of old) is a real, though implicit profession of the Christian Faith.  
Next we have Dr. Owen (whom he citys no less than four times in what follows in this Chapter) whose judgement is sufficiently known to be against our Opposites. And notwithstanding the misinterpretation the Author puts upon some passages in the Doctor's Catechism, we have a particular account of his judgement in Print, in a Book called, A Declaration of the Faith and Order owned and practised in the Congregational Churches agreed upon and consented unto by their Elders and Messengers in their meeting at the Savoy, Octob. 12. 1658. where to my knowledge he was present, and the principal man of that Assembly, and concerning the point before us, we have it chap, 29. Art. 4. thus expressed, viz. Not only those that do actually profess Faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the Infants of one or both believing Parents are to be Baptised, and those only. And in compliance herewith, we have the judgement of the Synod of Elders Assembled at Boston in New-England, appointed by the Court, 1662. who strongly maintain by several Arguments in that printed piece, That the Insant Seed of Believers are Church-Members, and that being according to Scripture, Members of the visible Church, they are consequently the Subjects of Baptism.  
See also the Presbyterian judgement upon the point in the larger Catechism of the Assembly of Divines. Baptism, say they, is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible Church, and so strangers to the Covenant of promise, till they profess their Faith in Christ, and obdeience to him. But Infants descending from Parents, either both or but one of them professing Faith in Christ and obedience to him, are in that respect within the Covenant, and to be Baptised. we see here who they take to be of the visible Church, and within the Covenant, and to be baptised.  
As for the Authority of particular Authors we have them on our side in great abundance. Piscator hath it thus on the 28. of Matthew; Porrò ad Ecclesiam pertinent non solùm adulti, fidem profitentes, sed etiam ipsorum liberi; Not only grown persons who profess the Faith appertain to the Church, but also their Infants.  
Theodore Beza in his Absters, Cat. Heshuii pag. 333. hath this passage— Meritò arbitramur Infantes fidelium in peculio domini censeri; We rightly judge the Infants of the faithful to be of the Lords Flock; and he speaks of them there before Baptism. And in our Margin Bible we have this Note upon the first of Corinthians 7.14. They that are born of either of the Parents faithful, are also counted Members of Christ's Church, because of the Promise, Act. 2.39.  
Peter Martyr. loc Commun. cl. 4. c. 8. p. 821, 823. Non excludimus eos [Infant's] ab Ecclesia, sed ut ejus partes amplectimur, etc. We exclude not Infants from the Church, but embrace them as parts.  
John Calvin, (to whom we should have given precedency) upon Acts 22.16. [Eos qui fide in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus, cum sua sobole in Christi Membris, etc.]  
The Episcopal Divines fall in with the rest, I will name but one, instàr omnium, and that is the famous Doctor Usher in his Body of Divinity, pag. 415. The outward Elements (saith he) are dispensed to all who make an outward profession of the Gospel; for Infants, their being born in the Church is instead of an outward profession, etc.  
Lastly, the Author is at Mr. Baxter again, quoting something out of his tenth Argument to Mr. Blake, as if he had intended those words against Infant's Church-Membership, when he clears himself so fully in the point, as when he stated the Thesis in the said Book of Disputations, and hath written particularly a large piece whose Title is Plain Scripture-proof of Infant's Church-Membership and Baptism.  
To conclude this, I cannot but pity the Author, because of that selfconceited scornful Genius that appears in what follows, altogether unbecoming a Christian; and I think all modest and sober spirits, cannot but be extremely scandalised to see a man (pretending to be for the truth of Christ) so proudly to trample upon all that differ from him. Surely he must needs be furnished with more than an ordinary measure of self-conceit, that doth so Magisterially condemn not only the Ancients, but those of the Protestant Reformation of latter days, sparing none, neither Prelate, Presbyter, nor Independent. Have patience Reader, and thou shalt hear a little of it.  
How childishly ridiculous it was in those first Inventors of Baptism, for six hundred years, etc.  
Have a care Sir, since you swell at this rate lest you burst. Austin tells you Ecclesia semper habuit semper tenuit, The Church always had it, always held Infant Baptism. And Doctor Taylor, a person whom you seem to honour much, says there is no Record extant of any Church in the World, that from the Apostles days inclusively to this very day, ever refused to baptise children, excepting of late amongst yourselves.  
So well to observe the Order, [viz. first to Baptise, and then to Communicate] and yet so miserably to miss it in the Subjects, applying the Spiritual Ordinances to ignorant Babes.  
This of the six hundred years giving the Communion to Infants, he hath taken from Master Tombs his sixth Argument against Infant-Baptisme, Exercitation, pag. 29. for there it is, and Tombs as is conceived took it up from Maldonate the Jesuit, who reports that the giving of the Communion to Infants continued six hundred years in the Church. But Master Geree well òbserves, that is not, nor aught to be taken of the first six hundred years, for it appears. by Maldonate's expression, calling it Sententiam, the opinion of Augustin and Pope Innocent, that it had, if not its rise, yet its force to become common from them. Not only Protestants but Papists themselves condemn that of communicating Infants as an error, yea (as I remember) the Council of Trent itself. And yet Doctor Taylor doth profess in his discourse of Baptising the Infants of Believers; that, page 59 certainly there is infinitely more reason why Infants may be communicated then why they may not be Baptised.  
The Protestant Reformers are more blind, and do worse in his opinion then those who gave Infants the Lords Supper—  
And how much worse, saith he, in the Protestant Reformers, that so lamentalby miss it, both in the due Order and right Subjects also, which the Prelate and Presbyter do in admitting children to Baptism and Membership, but not to the Supper?  
A little more modestly would do the Author no hurt, and let him know, that neither their Baptism or Church-Membership, are inconsistent with the Word, but so is Infant-Communion , not only because God requires a particular qualification to the Ordinance which Infants are not capable of, namely, the exercise of actual grace in examination, discerning the Lord's Body, and remembering the death of Christ; but because they are not capable in any certain way of the Elements used in that Sacrament, as to take and eat the Bread, and drink Wine.  
Lastly, this Hagiomastix lasheth the Independents, which do worse than all the rest, and doth more grossly err in point of Order, in admitting them to Baptism, but neither to Membership nor the Supper.  
But I find the Proverb is true, Bernardus non videt omnia, even that great Doctor called Saint Bernard, is ignorant of some things.  
Wherefore I crave leave of the Author tó tell him he is ignorant of the grounds or principles by which the Independents walk. And for his better information I refer him to Doctor Nathaniel Holmes his Answer to Mr. Tombs his Exercitation and Examen, where he shall find the Independents Judgement jump with Master Jesseys, in his discourse upon Romans 14.1. you have it reprinted at the end of Master Bunians last piece in answer to a Book entitled, Some serious Reflections on that part of Master Bunyans Confession of Faith, touching Church-Communion with unbaptized Believers.  
Consider saith Master Jessey, whether such a practice hath a command, or example, that persons must be joined into Church-Fellowship by Water-Baptism; For John Baptised many, yet he did not Baptise some into one Church and some into another, nor all into one [particular] Church. And then afterward into what Church did Philip Baptise the Eunuch, or the Apostle, the Jailor and his house? This he speaks in opposition to those who hold that a particular Church is constituted by Baptism, and formally united as Master K. did many years since in his answer to Doctor B. and is no changeling, as appears by his Epistle to Master Paul's sorry Reflections, lately Printed. So Master Tombs of old in his sixth Argument, Exercitat. where he inveighs against the Independents, as the Author doth here; and saith, That by Baptism a person is exhibited a Member of Christ and that Church. To which Doctor Holmes an Independent Pastor makes this reply,— viz. But what Church doth Master Tombs mean? If he means of the Universal Church I yield, that he is exhibited a visible Christian. But if he means a Member of any particular rightly constituted Church, according to the platform of those in the New Testament and ancient antiquity, I altogether deny it, for these reasons.  
1. Those Baptised, Matthew 3. were in no particular Christian Church, there being none gathered till a good while after that Christ had given the Holy Spirit to the Disciples.  
2. Cornelius his, and the Jailor's Families, after the gathering of Churches were not by that numbered to any particular Churches, or thereby made particular Churches that we read. Now that which exists afore, or after a thing without that thing, cannot be the form of that thing.  
3. That which is common cannot be proper and peculiar: But Baptism is common, to make men only visible Christians in General; Therefore it is not proper and peculiar to make them of this or that particular Church, And then he farther adds, therefore though Godly men or Infants have been Baptised, yet the Churches think according to Scripture, there must be somewhat more expressed to make such to own this or that Preaching Officer, to be their Pastor or Teacher, Whom they must obey in the Lord, and have in singular respect for the works sake, Heb. 13. And to cause the Minister to own them as his Flock, Acts 20. if he mean not to take upon him a power Apostolical for Latitude, to extend to all Baptised one. 
Doctor Homes' answer to Master Tombs.  So page 193. The same Author saith, several Churches of us do hold, that we may Baptise them [the Infants of the Godly] though neither of their Parents be of our particular Churches, Baptism being but as we conceive an Admission into the Universal visible Church. We shall add for a conclusion, That as Baptism is no actual admission into the Communion of a particular Church, as before appears in the examples of the Eunuch, Cornelius, etc. who were Baptised without any relation to a particular Church. 2. It is into Christ, and so into the privileges of the Body of Christ in general. No mention being made in Baptism of any restraint to this or that particular Church. 3. One act of Communion in the Lord's Supper, doth not state a person admitted as a Member of that particular Church; no more doth Baptism, which is but one act of Communion.  
4. By Baptism a person being exhibited a Member of Christ, and of the Church in general, and so consequently to all the privileges of Christ, whereof Church-Communion is one: it follows that when a Child is Baptised, he is thereby acknowledged or declared to have a right to Church Communion in particular, [that is, in breaking bread with a particular Church] when he becomes capable thereof. For, Omne Vniversale continet particular, Every general includes all the particulars. Nor can any particular Church deny it, when such a one actually desires admittance into her, and undertakes to walk in it in performance of all duties, as a Member thereof, provided he be free from scandal, and visible crimes committed since his Baptism to the time of his desired admittance: for whatsoever may be just ground to cast out of Church-Fellowship and Communion, is also sufficient to keep him out that was never in.   

CHAP. VII.  
The Author's Quotations out of the Magdeburgensian History corrected and rectified, wherein is farther shown his Prevarication, in relating some things partially, others falsely, and for the most part contrary to the intention of the Writers.  
HE gins thus; The Magdeburgenses in their Excellent History, do tell us, that as to the Business of Baptism in the first Century, they find only the Adult or Aged whether Jews or Gentiles that were Baptised, and give instances in the 2d, 8th, 10th, 16th, 19th, Chapters of the Acts, and have no Examples of Infants being Baptised. Cent. 1 Lib. 2. Pag. 496.  
1 first In examining this Century, 

 Christus Infantes ad se ven●re jussit, ita nec Apostoli eos excluserunt a Baptismo & quidem dum Baptismus circumcisioni aequiparat Paulus, Colos. 2. aperte indicat, etiam Infantes per Baptismum Ecclesiae Dei esse inserendos sicut in veteri Testamento Infantes circumcidi oportebat, ut in Dei faedere essent. Cent. 1 L. 2. C. 4. P. 354.  
Baptizatos esse aedultos, tum Judaeos tum Gentes, Exemplae probant.  
Infantibus Baptizatis Exempla quidem annotata non leguntur, sed Origenes, & Cyprianus, & alii Patres autores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos esse, Cen. 1. L. 2. C. 9 P. 496.   I find Lib. 2. Chap. 4. Pag. 354. that touching Baptism they say, that as Christ commanded Infants to come unto him, so the Apostles afterward did not exclude them from Baptism: and truly since Baptism is compared by Paul to Circumcision, Col. 2. it plainly shows that Infants are to be admitted to the Church by Baptism, as in the Old Testament they were by Circumcision.  
2 In Century the first Lib. 2. Cap. 6. Pag. 496. which is the place the Author refers unto, they do not say, that the Apostles Baptised only the Adult or Aged, but only this; We have Examples of Adult persons both Jews and Gentiles that were Baptized-Farther they say concerning Infants, we have no particular notice given us, or Examples that they were Baptised; yet presently add, that Origen and Cyprian and others of the Fathers that lived near the Apostles, do affirm that even in the Apostles times Infants were Baptised. But let it be supposed that they did not Baptise any Infant, yet it follows not that it is unlawful for us to Baptise them, because they did not; for (as Dr. Taylor says, whom the Author so much admires,) a Negative Argument as to matter of fact cannot conclude; and therefore supposing that it be not intimated that the Apostles did Baptise Infants, it follows not that they might not, or that the Church may not. The words and deeds of Christ are infinite; and the Acts of the Apostles we may suppose the same in their proportion: And therefore what they did not is no rule to us, unless they did it not because they were forbidden.  
3. Moreover the Magdeburgenses speaking of the subject of Baptism, answer an Objection which might be made against Infant-Baptism, Cent. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Pag. 154. Whereas it is said they were Baptised in Jordan confessing their Sins, Mat. 3. and john Preached the Baptism of Repentance, Mark. 1. and Luk. 3. therefore only they that repent are to be Baptised (which is the sum of all our adversaries can say;) To this Objection they thus reply; such Confession was necessary from those Adult Persons (being as before the first Subjects of the Ordinances.) And then they come to state the Question; An sint Infantes quoque Baptizandi, are Infants also to be Baptised? Which they hold affirmatively, giving several Arguments for it, one of which is grounded upon Matt. 19 viz. They to whom the Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven doth belong, to them belongs the Ceremony or Seal of the Promise. And then they roundly tell us, that although the Apostles (before they were rectius edocti, better learned) would have kept Infants from Christ's Benediction; yet being so severely rebuked by Christ, and guided or directed by his Spirit, they did (say they sine dubio) without all doubt Baptise them: informing us again, that the Fathers who lived near to the Apostles, do witness that the Practice of Infant-Baptism was derived from the Apostles, and transmitted to Posterity. Cent 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Pag. 153.  
4. The Author fathers that upon the Century-Writers, which they speak not. They (saith he) tell us, that the Custom of Dipping the whole Body in Water was changed into Sprinkling a little Water in the face, whereas there is not the least hint of this matter in this Century, nor the following; but they tell us that the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] signifies abluo, luo, i.e. to Wash, and that the Christian Baptism was taken a judaica lotione, from the Jewish Baptism, of which the Apostle speaks Heb. 9, 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Divers Baptisms, it is rendered Washings, and these Baptisms we know, were not Dippings. Moses in the Ceremonial Law did not prescribe different kind of Dippings, though he did several kind of Washings, or Baptisms as it is in the Original.  

CENT. II.  
HE saith, the Magdeburgenses tell us, that they find nothing in this Century different from the former, that is in reference to Baptism: And that they make mention of Justin Martyr's words, in his Apology to Antoninus Pius the Emperor, which are repeated as we have it translated by Mr. Baxter in his Saints Rest. The import of which is only to show what order they took with Pagans, upon their conversion to the Christian Faith, before they were admitted to the Sacraments. And although this be wide of the matter, and insignificant to the Question under debate, which is about Baptising the Infants of Believers, yet this will serve well enough to blind an ignorant Reader. And as it this were some great matter, he glories in it, and concludes with a jeer. They (saith he) that shall consider the manner that Christians, (he should have said Heathens) were admitted into the Churches in those days can hardly, I presume pick out any good, warranties for Infant Church-Membership or Baptism, out of the same; to which there needs no more to say, than this even just as much as he can pick out from thence against it. Nor do I see any reason he hath to pick a quarrel with our Practice, from any thing in that Father's Apology, who, (as Mr. Baxter notes) giveth such hints, by which his Judgement and the Practice of the Church in those days may be discerned to be for it, though we cannot expect that he should speak expressly to the point, both because he is brief, and treateth on other Themes, to which this did not belong, and because the Church then living among Heathens, had so much to do in converting and Baptising the Aged, that they had little occasion to treat about Children; especially it being a point not controverted, but taken for granted by the Christians, who knew God's dealing with the Jewish Church, that Children were Members with the Converted Parents; especially when the very Gentiles Children were members before Christ: With more to this purpose. Plain Scripture-proof, Pag. 155.   

CENT. III.  
IN this Century (saith the Author) they tell us the Rites of Baptism in the Asiatic Churches continue the same as before, but concerning the African Churches they give some account of great Corruption, creeping into the Church, as to Subject, Time, Manner and Ceremonies. Cent. 3. Cap. 6. Pag. 123, 124, 125.  
They do indeed charge this Age with corruption as to the Time and Manner of administering Baptism; but not a word in derogation of Infants being the Subject of it; and 'tis strange they should have reckoned that a corrupt innovation, which they had a little before so well maintained for a Truth. They tell us indeed that Tertullian in this Age, opposed himself to some that Asserted Infant-Baptism, affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects: But how weakly he doth it may be seen afterward, when we come to examine the witnesses, of which Tertullian is the Van; and as Estius and Junius conceive with others, the said Father intends only those Infant's [quorum Parents] whose Parents were Infidels, or if he meant the Children of Christians, he speaks nothing absolutely against their Baptising: For his Words are [Cunctatio utilior] it is more profitable to defer their Baptism, as it was also best in his opinion for young men that were [Innupti] unmarried, 
Quin & innuptie Baptismum procrastinandum art esse, quia eis praeparata est tentatio. Magde burg. Cent. 3.  so to do; and it was his advice to young Widows to forbear Baptism, until the lust of concupiscence was quite extinguished. Is not this good Doctrine think you? yet this is the man (as the Author saith) who opposed Infant-Baptism, affirming that the Adult were the only proper Subjects; yet it seems not all they neither: for he advised all unmarried persons to delay Baptism, not sparing young-Maids, and that upon a very corrupt ground. What sport would my Antagonist have made with this man, and how much would he have disparaged him had we brought him in for a witness on our side. One would think the more temptation any state is Subject to, the more doth it stand in need of helps, especially such as lay engagements on us to holiness, and may be a means to convey it. But Tertullian was very corrupt and superstitious, and turned Montanist, when he wrote his Book of Baptism; and shows himself to be somewhat near the judgement of the Clinici, who, as Dr. Hammond notes, would not be Baptised till their Deathbeds; and the reason was, because being to be Baptised but once, and attributing so extremely much to that Ceremony, and hoping so little for pardon of sin from any other instrument, they durst not be Baptised too early, lest they should sin again, and have no remedy. And the deferring Baptism till thirty or forty years old, was a spice of this fancy; but then they that did so, were the most impatient of any to miss Baptism, when they thought they were near their last and would let no Christian Infant die without that Viand; and so doing what they did upon a score so contrary to the Anabaptists, it is strange 〈◊〉 should be producible in favour of them, as he tells Dr. Taylor.  
But to return to the Magdeburgenses, who do indeed inform us, that in this Age the Doctrine of Baptism began to be defiled with Ceremonies, without any reflection upon Infant-Baptism, and 'tis very well known that Tertullian himself was the man that introduced that filthy greasy one, of anointing the Baptised, which he borrowed from the Montanists. They also tell us that in this Age [Baptismus Infantibus datur] Infant's were Baptised, and cite Origen in his 8th. Homily upon Leviticus affirming that Baptism is to be given to Infants, [secundum Ecclesiae Observantiam] according to the custom of the Church; adding also another passage of his upon the 14th of Luke, to the same purpose. Cent. 3. Cap. 4. Pag. 57  
Moreover they give us the Testimony of Cyprian in his 4th Book, 
Cyprianus L. 4. Epist. 7. Recte disputat, Baptismum valere sive aqua perfundantur, sive toti immergantur qui Baptizantur.  and 7th Epistle, and approve his arguing, that Baptism is valid, whether it be by Immersion or Sprinkling, for these two Reasons:  
First, Because they signify one and the same thing: idem sit aspersio quod Lavacrum. Sprinkling holding forth the Mystery, as well as Dipping according to that in Ezek. 36. I will Sprinkle you with Water.  
Secondly, Because they that were sprinkled in their Beds, (as sick Persons were in those days) ought not to be rebaptised: It seems by the way Sprinkling is of ancient date. They tell us farther that Cyprian in his 3d Book, 8th. Epistle, hath this Argument for Infant-Baptism, viz Infants Circumcidebantur, ergo Baptizandi, Infants were Circumcised, therefore they may be Baptised. Cent. 3. Cap. 4. P. 57 Which passage may shame the Author and his party, who usually object that Tradition is the main Argument, which we take up in defect of others, to justify our Practice, and that this is all the ancient Fathers say for it, in want of Scripture-ground.  
Lastly, The Magdeburgenses wonder at Tertullian's Simplicity, for he held (say they) Miram Opinionem, 
Se ntit Tertullianus mirâ Opinion. etc.  a strange Opinion, that Children should not suddenly be Baptised; and then set down his reasons in opposition to those words, Math. 19 

Veniant dum Adolescunt veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniunt, docentur.  
Fiant Christiani cum Christum nosse potuerint. Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum. etc.   Suffer little Children to come to me, and forbidden them not. viz. Let them come (saith Tertullian) when they grow elder, when they learn, when they are taught, when they come; according to which Dotage the Disciples did wisely in forbidding Children to come, and Christ did weakly in rebuking them for so doing, and inviting them to come. What follows is fetched from Mr. Baxter concerning Origen and Cyprian, that in the Primitive times none were Baptised without express covenanting, etc. is still meant of Aliens, so is that of Origen's being a Teacher of the Disciples at Alexandria, and others that succeeded him in that work: so that to bring instances of this Nature is but trifling, and not to the question before us; yet we cannot but observe the Author's humour, who, when we quote any thing for Infant's Baptism out of the works of those Fathers, he brands it for spurious, but when he pleaseth to make use of any of their say, which he would have interpreted against the same, than they are authentic, and must pass for current.   

CENT. iv  
HIS discourse upon this Century is veryinjurious to the Magdeburgenses, who have not a word of very many things which he fathers on them; as  
First, That it was the universal Practice of this Age, to Baptise the Adult upon Profession of Faith; as if Infants had been excluded, for so we are to understand him, or else he speaks nothing: wherefore I desire the Reader to observe what the Century-Writers speak concerning the matter, and I shall give him a just account thereof.  
We have before shown (say they) out of Cyprian and Origen, 
Infantum Baptismum in Ecclesiis Africanis in usu fuisse supra ex Cypriano & Origene demonstratum est, hoc vero seculo eundem durasse ex Athanasii questione 124. Constat.  that Baptising of Children was in use in the African Churches, and that the same continued in this Age is evident from the 124th Question of Athanasius. Besides Nazianzen (speaking of the Churches of Asia) saith, that Infants ought to be Baptised in case of danger of death, 
De Asianis Ecclesiis Nazianzenus loquens Infants Baptizandes esse ait.  and the said Father also grounds it upon Circumcision; but if they were not in eminent danger of death, he advised they should delay Baptism for three years or thereabout, till they could be taught some of the Mysteries of Religion. We must look upon this (say the Magdeburgenses) as his peculiar Opinion. Nazian. Orat. 3. in S. Lavacrum. Cent. 4. Cap. 6. Pag. 417. And verily Nazianzen's delay for three years, that they may be taught Mysteries, is a weak conceit; for what can a Child be capable of at that Age? or if he be taught to say something, it is like that of a Parrot without understanding. But the same Gregory Nazianzen in his 40th Oration is for Baptising Children, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  not only in case of danger but absolutely. Hast thou a Young-Child,— let it be Baptised from an Infant, let it be early Consecrated by, or to the Spirit.  
Secondly, He puts a gross abuse upon the Magdeburgenses, in representing them to affirm that all the Eastern Churches did only Baptise the Adult, or Aged. We may judge what credit to give him by these following instances.  
First, he perverts the saying of Athanasius, as if it were directed against Infant-Baptism, when meant only of Infidels, who according to Christ's Commission must first be taught, than Baptised. Athanasius was for Infant-Baptism and it was Practised in his days, 
Athan, ad Antioch. qu. 114.  as appears by that passage of his to Antiochus 114th Question; Where he resolves a doubt that might arise from the death of Infants, whether they go to Heaven or no.— seeing, saith he, the Lord said, Suffer little Children to come to me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven: And the Apostle saith, Now your Children are Holy, it is manifest, that the Infants of Believers which are Baptised, do as unspotted and faithful enter into the Kingdom. Where mark again how unworthily Antipaedobaptists abuse the Fathers, in saying their strongest Argument for children's Baptism is from Tradition, which they fly to for want of Scripture.  
Next he citys Hilary, and we are of his mind, that confession and profession is requisite to precede the Baptising- Aliens, but what is this to exclude the Infants of Believers from that Ordinance?  
And whereas he saith the Eastern Churches did only Baptise the Adult, this is abominably false. His first instance is of a saying of Basil contra Eunomium, Lip. 3. Must the Faithful be sealed with Baptism-Faith must needs precede, and go before. And in his Exbortation to Baptism, he saith, that none were to be Baptised but the Catechumen, and those that were duly instructed in the Faith.  
Now this is sufficient to impose a fallacy upon any Ordinary Reader, that hath no acquaintance with that Father, and understands not in what sense he speaks, who would hot think that this Ancient Dr. was against Infant-Baptism, and that no such thing was owned in the Church in his days? Whereas the same Father, in the very next lines to what the Author hath above cited, speaks thus,— What then say you of Infants, 
Quid vero de Infant ibus ais? qui neque, quid gratea quidve sit paend dognorunt? num & illos Baptizeious? maxim quidem, idque nobis designat post octavum diem Circumcisio illa, etc.  which neither know good, nor evil, may we Baptise them? Yea, (saith he) For so we are taught by the Circumcising of Children etc. Hence forward, have a care Reader, how you trust the Author's Quotations, for the palpable abuse done to this Father.  
The next is Nazianzen, that the Baptised in his time used in the first place to confess their Sins; but I am before hand with them in respect of this Ancient Dr. of the Church, and love not to repeat. Nazianzen (saith he) advised that the Baptism of Infants be deferred, quoting it out of Dr. Tailor's Liberty of Prophecy. Besides what we have said of Nazianzens' judgement, that he dissuaded not Infant Baptism as unlawful, but as conceiving delay for three or four Years more expedient; but if there were Aliquid periouli, any fear of death, than he allowed of it: I shall mind the Reader that when the Learned Dr. Taylor brought in Nazianzen against Infant-Baptism, he personated an Anabaptist; but in his latter discourse you have his Judgement very fully for Infant-Baptism confuting his former piece; & particularly he quotes the following passage out of Nazianzen for Infant-Baptism, viz. What wilt thou say of Children which neither are sensible of the loss nor the grace? shall we Baptise them? yes, by all means in case of urgent danger, for it is better to be Sanctified [i e Baptised] without their knowledge, than to die without it; for so it happened to the Circumcised Babes of Israel etc. I conclude this with what Vossius saith of him in his Thesis de Baptismo— non igitur Nazianzenus etc. Nazianzen was not against Infant-Baptism.  
After him comes Ambrose, who in his 3d Book de Sacramentis. Cap. 2. hath this saying, That the Baptised did not only make confession of his Faith, but was to desire the same.  
I perceive he is still sick of the old disease, for that this Father speaks of the Pagans, in what order they were taken into the Church, and not in Opposition to the Baptising Infants needs no other proof, than that he himself was for it. Quia omnis aetas peccato obnoxia, ideo omnis aetas Sacramento idonea. (i. e) Because every Age is Obnoxious to sin, therefore every Age is fit for the Sacrament.  
There is one or two more, but I will leave them for we have enough of it.  
After this small Shot, the Author let's fly Canons and Decrees of Councils, for Baptising such as were of years of discretion, and were able to rehearse the Articles of the Creed; as also we have an Enumeration of several persons born of Christian Parents, that were not Baptised till they were of Age and able to give account of their Faith.  
To which I Reply, first Grant that some Councils were against Infant-Baptism which we shall not yield) yet if we must go by number of Councils, we shall carry it. He names three which he would have thought to be against Infant-Baptism, and I think I shall not exceed in saying we may name ten times three for it: and mark Reader, he takes the privilege of citing Councils, but if we do it, they are slighted and condemned for Popish and Superstitious. 2. We conceive those Councils he names, had also respect to Pagans in their Decrees, and we have good reason for it: because the Canon of Neocaesaria speaks plainly of the Children of such Women as come out from amongst Infidels, being proselyted to the Christian Religion in their Pregnancy, as Mr. Marshal tells Mr. Tombs, 
This is taken out of Mr. Tombs Exercitation and Examen.  when he Objected the same thing. The Author hath taken the whole Story out of him and all the rest upon the matter, which follows in this Century is fetched from his Exercitation and Examen printed 27. years since, and Answered by that Reverend Divine Mr. Steven Marshal, in his Defence of Infant-Baptism. I would make a parallel betwixt the Author I have to deal with and Tombs, but that it would be tedious, wherefore instead of that I will transcribe the same things out of Tombs, which the Author hath brought again upon the Stage: If the Reader compare them he will find, never two Eggs more alike.  
Mr. Tombs in his Examen Pag. 10. hath it thus: Grotius (saith he) in his Annotation on Matt. 19.14. adds, That the Canon of the Synod of Neocaesaria held in the year 315. determins that a Woman with Child might be Baptised, because the Baptism reached not the fruit of her womb, because in the Confession made in Baptism each one's free choice is showed. From which Canon Balsomon and Zonaras do infer, that an Infant cannot be Baptised, because it hath no power to chase the Confession of Divine Baptism. This is according to what we have in H. D. to a tittle: what impudence then is it to trouble us with this filly and ridiculous Story, when Mr. Marshal proved to Tombs that the inference brought from hence against the Baptism of Believers Children was altogether invalid. For the Canon there speaks of the Children of Women come out from among Infidels, and come over to the Christian Faith, during the time they were with Child. For Balsomon saith, such Women as were with Child and come from the Infidels, and what is this to our Question? (saith Mr. Marshal) which is about Children born in the Church of believing Parents; and Balsomon the Glossator distinguisheth of Children, some in the womb and some born, for the first (faith he) no man can undertake (he means in Baptism;) and for the other, they answer by such as undertake for them: which words (as Mr. Marshal observes) are not mentioned by Mr, Tombs, (for he says no more than what he found in Grotius,) and for the partial relation, he is sharply rebuked for wronging the Truth, and labouring to deceive people, and yet the Author I conflict with persists in the same course.  
Next the Author speaks big words, telling us, That in farther Assurance and Confirmation of this great Truth, we have most remarkable Instances of several of the most Eminent persons of this Century, that were not Baptised till Aged, though the Offspring of Believing Parents, viz. Bazil, Gregory, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Austin, Constantine.  
This also is Mr. Tombs again, Examen p. 9 And that People may not be startled with these great names, 
Reply Tombs his Examen, P. 9  and be made to think, that children's Baptism, was not practised in the Church in those days, wherein they lived, I shall acquaint the Reader out of Mr. Marshal, upon what grounds Christians heretofore deferred their Baptism; namely, sometimes they would do it in imitation of Christ who was not Baptised till about thirty years of Age. Constantine the Great put off his Baptism till he came to the River Jordan, in which Christ was Baptised, some deferred it, till they had contracted a great deal of sin, out of an erroneous conceit, that by Baptism it would be all washed away: Much more we have of this in Marshal's Defence of Infant-Baptism, Pag. 27.  
Now for the Instances, I find Tombs gins with Constantine, and then comes on Nazianzen, but the Author here ends with Constantine. This argues nevertheless it was taken thence: I shall trouble myself no further to seek after any other reason why the Baptism of these men was delayed than what Mr. Marshal gives Tombs.  
For Constantine the Great (though the Son of Helena, who is reported to have been a zealous Christian) not Baptised till he was Aged: it doth not appear that his Mother was a Christian when he was born, and for his Father Constantine, every one knows he was none, though he favoured the Christians. Furthermore, Mr. Marshal conceives the reason why he received not Baptism in his Infancy was thus as follows; viz. Constantine his Father, albeit a man of a sweet temper, and tender of his Subjects: first out of the mildness of his nature favoured the Christians (seeing their unblameable Conversation and Faithfulness in all their employments) therefore he did not in a hostile way pursue their Religion, as other Emperors did: yea at length he grew to a good esteem of it, especially towards the end of his life: in this time his Son Constantine the Great, lived in Dioclesian his Court, from whence (his life being twice in danger) he suddenly escaping, came to his Father then sick, and presently upon his death was saluted Emperor. These things considered it is no marvel if he were not Baptised in his Infancy, when for aught we read neither of his Parents had then embraced the Christian Religion: When he was returned at his Father's Death he was thirty years of Age, and whether ever his Father was Baptised, the Story is silent. Neither is Helena her affection to Religion in his Infancy related in the Story, though afterward it is often mentioned.  
Tombs.  
Nazianzen (saith Tombs for we have to deal with him almost  in H. D. 〈◊〉 Treatise) was the Son of a Christian Bishop. But how doth that appear (faith Mr. Marshal)? there was a time when he was a Heathen, whether he was Converted before his Son was born, is not expressed: whilst he was young he went with Basil to Athens to be bred in humane Literature, and from thence to Antioch, but not a word is mentioned of his being addicted to Christianity: Having spent thirty years in the Study of Humane Literature, he returns to his Father; and if his Parents were Christian when he was born, they shown no good sign of it in sending him to Athens to be trained up among Idolatrous Heathens: so it is aquestion whether Bazil's Father was achristian when he sent him likewise to Athens, to be there bred in humane Literature, though afterward he became Bishop of Nisen.  
Tombs.  
Then for the Story of Chrysostom, 'tis verbatim out of Tombs his Examen pag. 9 who saith (out of Grotius upon Matt. 19) That he was born of Christian Parents and educated by Meletius a Bishop, yet was he not Baptised till past 21 years of age.  
It is well replied by Marshal, That this is taken up purely upon the credit of Grotius, who gives no account from whence he fetcheth the relation; which is the more to be suspected, because the Magdeburgenses speak not a word of it: And the Ecclesiastical Historians, that set forth the place of his Birth and Parentage, and likewise his Call to his Ecclesiastical Dignity, are silent in this, and give not the least hint of his Religion or Baptism. Others speaking of him and of his Parents, say they were both Heathens, and his Father died within a very short time of his birth. It appears (saith Mr. Marshal) from his own Writings, that when he was twenty years of Age his Mother was a Christian; but whether Father or Mother were so at his birth is uncertain; and not likely, because his Education in his younger-time was under Libanius, a great Enemy of the Christians; by which it appears, that it is falsely suggested, that he was Educated by Meletius.  
Lastly for Austin, (for he is the last we will speak of, and we may judge of the rest by these) he was not Baptised saith Tombs, 
Tombs Examen, Pag. 14.  Examen Pag. till about 30. though Educated as a Christian by his Mother Monica: To which Mr. Marshal thus replies, viz. I will not take upon me to determine what the particular reason was of his not being Baptised in his Infancy, but from hence there is no cause to say that Children of Christians by profession in that Age were not Baptised in Infancy. For first it must be proved that Austin's Parents were Christians at his Birth; otherwise whatsoever is said of him, is not to the Question. Austin himself tells us in his Confessons: That when he was [Puer] a Child, he was extreme sick like to die, and he and his Mother were both troubled for not being Baptised, and for his Father, he says at that time, he was an Infidel etc. But enough if not too much of this, they that would know the full Story of his Father's Conversion, may find it in Austin's Confessions Lib. 2. c. 6. And Austin himself confesseth he put off his Baptism till about the 30th year of his Age, being poisoned with the Manichean Heresy, in which he continued nine years, Confess. Lib. 3. c. 11. and during which time he saith, he derided Baptism. Reader, I am not willing to make Ostentation of greater skill in History than I have, and therefore know I am beholding to Mr. Marshal who hath made these Relations ready to my hand.  
After this we have a plausible Story of one Walfridus Strabo an Ecclesiastical Historian, and what is brought from him the Author borrows from his good friend Mr. Tombs: you shall have it in his very words, that you may know where the Author hath been fishing. Tombs in his Exercitation Printed 1646. Pag. 27. hath it thus. 
Tombs his Exercitation, Pag. 27.  The words of Walfridus Strabo who lived about the year 840. in his Book De Rebus Ecclesiasticis Chap. 26. are these: We are also to note, that in the first times the grace of Baptism was wont only to be given to them, who by integrity of body and mind were come to this, that they could know and understand what profit is to be obtained in Baptism, what is to be Confessed and Believed, what lastly is to be observed of them that are born again in Christ, and confirms it by Austin 's own Confession of himself, continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptised: but afterwards Christians understanding Original Sin ne perirent parvuli [Tombs hath it in Latin, but the Author in English] and lest Children should perish without any means of Grace, had them Baptised by the Decrees of the Council of Africa, and then adds how Godfathers and Godmothers were invented.  
To this I Answer, That Strabo is condemned by many Learned men, for a false and heedless Writer, and they have shown his errors in divers things. Vossius chargeth him with no small faults in relating matters of Fact. As,  
First, he said, Austin in his Confessions tells us, he continued a Catechumenus till he was 25 years old. [Tombs mentions not this as knowing Strabo was out in his reckoning:) Now Austin himself tells us in his Confessions, that he was not converted till about the 30th year of his Age; and after that continued a Catechised Person two years, and in the 34th year of his Age, he was Baptised at Milan by Ambrose.  
Secondly, whereas he makes as if Infant-Baptism were an Innovation, & not in use in the first times, he goes about to prove it very simply, from Austin's being Baptised at full years: as if Austin's times had been the first times, whereas we have shown before it was in practice many hundred years before he was born; and Austin himself (that lived many hundred years before Strabo was born), affirms, That the Church always had it; always held it. It was a solid Observation of Mr. Geree in his Vindiciae paedobaptismi, That if the Antiquity of Infant-Baptism had been dubious amongst the Ancients, surely some of the Latin or Greek Churches that held the delay of Baptism more convenient, and persuaded it, would have been the more persuaded against the use of it, from its Novelty, and given at least some hint of that in their Arguings.  
Thirdly, I observe a pitiful escape in Walfridus Strabo, who saith Infant-Baptism took its rise and foundation afterwards, when Christians came to understand Original Sin; and when was that I pray, doth he think never till Austin's days? I suppose Christians understood this as soon as ever Baptism was enjoined; the Scripture is so express touching Original corruption: Nay the very Heathens by the light of Nature knew, that we were Originally depraved, although they could not tell which way it came about, as Duplessis largely shows in his Verity of Christian Religion. This also was shadowed forth to the Jews in Circumcision: In sin was I conceived saith David, etc. What a strange imagination than is it in this Writer, That the Baptism of Infants was an Invention found out in Austin's time, to wash away Original Sin, of which Christians till then had been ignorant! It is very true the Fathers were of opinion that it was of use for that, and that long before Austin. They knew Infants were defiled, although they had lived but one day upon Earth as Origen speaks, Hom. 8. in Luk. although Origen mistakes as to the manner how they came to be defiled. For this fancy of Strabo, minds me with another of Origen's, a little more extravagant, who thought Baptism served to wash away those sins which the Soul was guilty of, whilst it was in some other Body (a Pythagorean fancy,) before it entered into the body of the Child; whence it appears that Origen was not for the Traduction of Original Sin from our Parents, but a patron of the Pelagian heresy, (afterward so called.)  
Fourthly, Strabo is much out too about his Godfathers and Godmothers, which were in use in the Church many hundred years before Austin was born, even in the 3d Century in Tertullian's days and yet he tells us, they were first invented in Austin's days.  
Fifthly; Lastly this Srabo doth at last kick down the good pail of Milk, which he before gave our Adversaries; for declaring his own Opinion upon the matter he saith, that it was a sign of the growth of Religion after a diligent search) to take up the practice of Infant-Baptism, and amongst other Testimonies citeth the Fathers in general for it, in opposition to the prolonging of Austin's Baptism, till he was Adult: And concludes at last thus— Wise Christians Baptised their Infants, being not as some heretical persons, opposing the Grace of God, and contend that Infants are not to be Baptised.  
Some others my Antagonist brings, and quotes Authors for persons not Baptised till grown up; which whether true or no, I shall not inquire nor undertake to determine of the reasons why their Baptism was delayed, which very likely may be the same with those , or ●or other causes which shake not the Basis, upon which Infant-Baptism is settled, nor strike at the general Practice of the Church.   

CENT. V  
HE tells us again, That in this Age, Believers Baptism was Asserted, and the grounds thereof by many learned Writers: and here take notice Reader how egregiously he Falters, for he instanceth only in two, Chrysostom and Austin: the former saying, That the time of Grace and Conversion was the only fit time for Baptism; which was the season the three-thousand were Baptised in the 2d. of the Acts, and the five-thousand afterwards, Acts 4.  
The latter, that is Austin, in his Book de fide & bonis Operibus, Cap. 6. saith, That none without due Examination, both as to Doctrine and Conversation ough to be admitted to Baptism.  
In these Quotations the Author seems to have forgotten himself; for see what he says in his Treatise Pag. 121. there he gives an account of the Doctors of this Age [Cent. 5.] that approved Infant-Baptism, the first is Chrysostom, the words cited by him are these: That Infants ought to be Baptised, as universally received by the Catholick-Church: And again, That which the Church throughout the World unanimously teacheth and practiseth about the Baptising of Children, ought not carelessly to be slighted. Magdeburg. Cent. 5. Pag. 375. Then he instanceth in Austin, who (saith he) was as a great Patron, so a great Defender of Infant-Baptism, in his Contests both against the Donatists and the Pelagians, and the Celestians; and then sets down some passages out of his works for it: so that here we have these Fathers (according to the account he gives of them) diametrically opposite to themselves, and how shall we reconcile them? very easily, (even as we may do with the say of the rest:) for when they speak of the Baptising persons after examination as to Doctrine and Conversation, they mean Pagans: and when they Assert Infant-Baptism, 
The Fathers Reconciled.  it is in the behalf of the Children of Believers born in the Church. And just as the Author hath served these Fathers, so hath he constantly dealt with Mr. Baxter, in all the Quotations taken from him, concerning a profession of Faith which he maintained as necessary before Baptism, in his Disputation with Mr. Blake; although Mr. Baxter did so cautelously advertise the Reader, that a Profession which he so much insisted upon, was to be understood only in reference to Adult Persons; and that the dispute had no reference at all to the Children of visible Believers.  
Let us now for a Conclusion of this Century, hear what the Magdeburgenses say, concerning this Age— Baptisati sunt porrô tum Adulti tum Infants. that is, both grown Persons and Infants were Baptised, Cent. 5. Cap. 6. Pag. 654.  
And they tell us how they dealt with the Adult in this Age; 
A Adultorum quidem fuit ea conditio, ut prius in Catecheseos parti-bus recte & solidè instituerentur, unde ipsis nomen Catechumenorum fuit.  namely, First they were rightly and solidly instructed in the parts of the Catechism, and from hence they were named Catechumenists, of which we have such frequent mention in Ecclesiastical Writers.   

CENT. VI  
IN this Age (saith the Author) The Adult upon Profession of Faith, were Baptised. This is no news: and yet 'tis observable he gives no instance of any such that were Baptised; which if he had, it had been nothing to the purpose; unless he could have proved that in this Age the judgement of the Church had been against Infant-Baptism, which is quite otherwise: for the Magdeburgenses cite this saying of Maxentius, Propterea recentes ab utero parvulos credimus Baptizari, that is: We believe Infants newly born are to be Baptised. The Author is so straightened in this Century, that he knows not well what to say, at length he pitcheth upon a speech of Gregory, and would have that interpreted against us. Gregory saith, Lib. 4. c. 26. That a Sermon was used to be preached to those that were to be Baptised to renounce the Pomp's &c. This argues something, but it is only that our Antagonist is not yet recovered of his old disease. For this of Gregory is certainly meant of the method the Church then used in Baptising the newly converted Pagans: for the Magdeburgenses signify in the same Century Pag. 228. how Gregory was for Infant-Baptism, by the doubt which he resolved about Abortives. The question there put is this, what becomes of Abortives, 
Nunquid Abortivi aeternâ requie perfruuntur?  do they go to Heaven? they are not born again of Water etc. and so have the guilt of Original Sin lying upon them, (this was the general opinion of those times, that Baptism took away Original Sin): now Gregory he answers it thus, That the Faith alone of others, may be as helpful to them, as Water is to others. Truly Gregory seems to be no very good Testimony, either for or against Infant-Baptism, only we have this advantage, that as to matter of fact it was in use in his days: 'tis strange the Author should pitch upon such a man for a Testimony, but any body will serve the turn, if any thing drops from his pen, that may be wrested against Infant-Baptism.  
The Magdeburgenses take notice of several unsound and ridiculous passages of Gregory; as particularly what he saith in Cantica Canticorum, viz.— A peccatis omnibus in Baptismo abluimur, that is, The guilt of all our Sins is washed away in Baptism; for certainly (saith he) The Mare Rubrum, the Red Sea, was a figure of Baptism: and as Pharaoh and his Host was drowned therein, so are all our sins drowned in Baptism. And 'tis a very sweet saying which the Author citys out of the same place, Cent. 6. Pag. 226. That Baptism is the Divine Fountain. wherein the Faithful have the new Creature brought forth. The Author helps him a little in the Translation, for it is in novam Creaturam regenerantur, are regenerated into a new Creature; and yet they were according to this nonsensical sentence the Faithful before they were new Creatures.   

CENT. VII.  
THe Author gins this Century with the Bracarens Council held in Spain, which decreed, That no Adult person but such who had been well instructed, and catechised, and duly examined should be Baptised. Cent. 7. Pag. 146.  
At the reading of which I could not but smile; for it minded me with what I have heard related concerning a certain Thief, who having secretly gotten into a Room, and being by himself, was observed by one not far from him, how earnestly he looked about for something to fasten on, but finding nothing of worth, stoopsdown, and filled his Pookets with Rushes: the Observer coming in upon him unexpectedly, demanded, what he meant; why saith he, only to keep my hand in action. If the Author could have found that it had been decreed in that Council that none should be Baptised without being Catechised etc. this had been ad rem. No body denys but the Adult, or Persons grown up, aught to be duly examined before Baptism. The Magdeburgenses say, it was determined in this Council, that none should be admitted to Baptism (ex Adultis) of Persons grown up; where note, that this Decree hath nothing to do with Children: but is still to be understood of Aliens, newly come over to Christianity; for it was decreed that for twenty days before Baptism, the Catechumenists should be convened before the Clergy, and learn the Creed. And after the Magdeburgenses have said this, they presently add— Item in sexto Constantinop. C. 2 do. it is ordained, that none shall be Baptised, unless he can say the Creed, and Lords-Prayer, (Exceptis his, qui propter aetatem loqui nondum possunt;) except those who by reason of Age are not able to speak: See here again, Reader, what little integrity there is in this Author's Quotations.  
He concludes this Century with the relation of one Paulinus, that Baptised in the River, Trent here in England, a great number both of Men and Women at noon-days. Bede L. 2. c. 16. Cent. 7. p. 145.  
This will be found as little to the purpose as the rest, for nothing can be hence inferred against the Baptism of Believers Children; for Bede himself tells us, that at that time the inhabitants of this Island were Pagans; for 'twas when Gregory sent Austin with forty others from Rome (whereof Paulinus was one) to preach the Gospel; 
Sic in initio Ecclesiae apud Brittannos, ubi jam cito templa non potuerunt extrui, passim ad Flumina turba Baptizata est. Beda L. 2. Ang. Hist. Cap. 14.  & he saith it was when first of all a Christian Church was planted among the Britain's, and before any Temples were erected, so that they were necessitated to Baptise in Rivers. The Author pretermits all this in silence; if our adversaries did or would but understand, the import of that distinction of Ecclesia Constituenda & Ecclesia Constituta, that is a Church to be planted, and a Church already planted, we should have no more trouble about this Controversy.   

CENT. VIII.  
HE hath not yet done with venerable Bede, for he quotes other passages out of him, but I have no mind to repeat; only reader know, that Bede and we are of one mind about the order of Baptism, in reference to Pagans. Teaching before Baptism (saith he) is rectissimus Ordo, a most right Order, which is intended by him with respect to Pagans; for he declares himself for the Baptism of Believers Children, else what interpretation shall we put upon those words of his cited by the Magdeburgenses, Pag. 223, of this 8th Cent. namely, Christi corpori per Baptismum tota Credentium Soboles adunatur, By Baptism the whole Offspring of Believers are united to the body of Christ: & suppose Bede had been against Infant-Baptism, yet no body hath any great cause to glory in his Testimony, who in many things was very corrupt: and the Magdeburgenses also take notice of several gross passages of his about Baptism. Cent. 8. Pag. 221. As that in his comment upon the 14th Exod. Pag. 221. Diabolus in Spirituali lavacro, id est, Baptismo, suffocatus est. In Baptism the Devil is choked, which is not likely unless also his head could be got under water, and kept there long enough; with much more such pitiful stuff there mentioned.   

CENT. IX.  
THe Magdeburgenses acquaint us that in this Century the Baptism of Infants was Asserted, and grounded upon that Text Matth. 19 Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbidden them not; and they tell us of one Hincmarus a Bishop, how sharply he reproved one that was against it: for the Bishop said, that in denying it, he did that Quod nullus unquam Christianorum facere ausus est; Which not Christian ever durst to do. Cent. 9, cap. 4. pag. 140.   

CENT. X.  
UNder this Century, in their 6th Chapter Circa ritus Baptismi, about the Rites of Baptism, they have this passage that in this Age tamburlaine Insantes quam Adultos Baptizabant, They Baptised both grown Persons and Infants. 
●atrini adhibiti etiam sunt. Magd. Cent. 10. p. 293.  Cent. 10. pag. 293. Besides, they give instances of several Infant's Baptised, and tell us, that Godfathers were in use in this Age, & that they strictly enjoined, that they look to it, that the Children that were Baptised be instructed in the Christian Faith, when they come (ad sustain et atem) to ripeness of years, Cap. 6. Pag. 292. yet is not the Author ashamed to insinuate as if they had been against Infant-Baptism, even in this Age also. For first, he brings in Auslbertus (the Magdeburgenses call him Ausbertus,) and what of him? Why he hath this expression (which the Author quotes out of the Magdeburgenses) namely, That the Faithful are born, not of Blood, but of God; viz. of the Word of God preached, and of the Baptism of God duly administered, by which Sacraments God's Children are begotten, Cent. 10. pag. 189. Good Doctrine indeed, and much to the purpose; Baptism is one of the Sacraments, and the Word preached another.  
The next is Smaragdus on Mat. 28. 
Ordo Baptizandi in Adultis a Smaragdo traditur, say the magdeburg's.  What, saith he? why first, Men are to be taught, (that is, Heathens) afterward baptised; That this is his meaning, take his own word for it, pag. 188. where he thus expresseth himself, Little Children are to be baptised, because it is said, Suffer little Children to come unto me, etc.  
Last of all the Author citys Theophylact, from the Magdeburgenses, and would fain have it also believed that he was against Infant-Baptism, because of that saying of his, Whosoever is truly baptised, hath put on Christ, pag. 189.  
I cannot but think the Author doth wilfully mistake, and sets himself on purpose to blind the Reader; for he cannot but observe the Magdeburgenses quoting that passage of his, on the 15th of Luke, Cent. 10. pag. 190. where Theophylact lays down this Position, That an Infidel or Pagan must needs die in his sins; Why? because he hath not put off the old-man sacramentally; that is, he hath not been baptised. This Ancient Doctor speaks in that place only of such, and what is this to the Baptism of Believers Children?   

CENT. XI.  
HEre Anselm is introduced by him, as if he were against us, because he saith Believers are baptised into the Death of Christ, Cent. 10. pag. 186. I perceive the Author's pulse gins now to beat very low: For the Magdeburgenses do in this Century bring in a passage most express for Infant-Baptism, in the Comment on the third of Matthew, Octavus dies in quo Circumciditur Infans dies est Baptismatis, in quo Neophytus quisque exuitur labe pr … ae generationis. The eighth day, in which the Infant was circumcised, is the day of Baptism. Also on Rom. 6 Anselm hath this saying; Profecto & parvuli qui Baptizantur in Christo, etc. pag. 260. They tell us farther, that in this Age they did baptise not only Adult persons, but such as were newly born, pag. 260. and also give instances of divers Children baptised in this Age, citing a passage out of Meginhardus de fide, That in this Age Sureties were in use, which answered for the Children.   

CENT. XII.  
RVpert, Lombard, Aquinas, and the rest of the Popish Schoolmen were zealous Asserters of Infant-Baptism; and whatever they speak of Confession or Profession, before it be administered, is meant, as before, of Pagans; and the Magdeburgenses cite divers passages of Lombard, how that Children, although they have no Faith of their own, may be baptised in the right of others Faith that present them to the Ordinance. Johannes Boemus, [the Author mistakes and calls him Bohemius] is indeed of Strabo's mind, and besides these two I may truly say, that from the beginning of the Centuries hitherto, this unfaithful man hath perverted the say of all the Authors which he hath quoted; and upon consideration of his carriage herein, I am confident of these two things:  
First, That never did any Writer more prevaricate, and show more fashood than he hath done.  
Secondly, That he would certainly have forborn it, if he had thought any man would have been at the trouble to examine and search whether he spoke truth or not.     

PART II.  
We now come to the Second Part of his Treatise, which is to disprove Infant-Baptism, under this Head, That the Baptising of Infants is no Ordinance of Jesus Christ.  

CHAP. I.  
Containing his first Argument against Infant-Baptism, because there is no Scripture for it; which is in form as followeth.  
If (saith he) Infant-Baptism had been any Appointment or Ordinance of Jesus Christ, there would have been some Precept, Command or Example in Scripture to warrant the same; but inasmuch as the Scripture is so wholly silent, there being not one syllable to be found in all the New-Testament about any such Practice, it may well be concluded to be no Ordinance of Jesus Christ.  
THe Argument consisting of two Branches, must accordingly be answered in Parts. First then, to that which hath ever been objected by them, there is no Precept or Command; We answer:  
1. A thing may be said to be commanded in Scripture two ways.  
First, Expressly, or Litter thy and Syllabically, that is, totidem verbis, in to many plain term, or words. Thus we acknowledge Infant-Baptism is not commanded; it is nowhere said, Go, baptise Infants: if it had, there would have been no controversy.  
Secondly, A thing may be commanded in Scripture Implicitly, and by good consequence; and what is thus commanded, is as valid and obliging, as if it were in so many letters and syllables; and thus we affirm Infant-Baptism is commanded. There are in Scripture clear Grounds and Principles. from whence by just and warrantable Consequences it may be deducted, that the Children of Believers have right to Baptism; for, if they belong to the Covenant, and are Holy, if they are Members of the visible Church, etc. then they ought to be baptised. So then the Argument against our Practice drawn from a want of express Precept, is built upon a false Hypothesis; That no direct Consequences from Scripture are mandatory and obliging, contrary to the Judgement of all Orthodox Divines, and the Method of Christ and his Apostles in their Arguings. Christ proved the Resurrection of the Body against the saducees not by any express Text, but by Consequence, Mat. 22.31, 32. So Paul proved the Resurrection of Christ by Consequence, Act. 13.33, 34.  
2. There needed no express Command in the New-Testament that Infants should be signed and sealed by Baptism, when the Covenant is not abolished that took in the Seed with the Parent: as there needs no express Command for the Lords, or Firstday Sabbath in the New-Testament, because the fourth Commandment for substance is still in force: So there needs no new Command for Baptising the Infant-seed of Believers, because the Command for sealing such, is for substance still in force. It is also well noted by Mr. Gerce, that there is a great difference between an Ordinance itself, and some particular Circumstance, or Subject to which that Ordinance is to be applied. As for the Ordinance itself the setting up of Baptism as a Sacrament of the Gospel-Covenant renewed by Christ, this requires express warrant in the Word of God; but when we have such warrant for the Ordinance itself, to whomsoever we find by grounds and principles in Scripture that it doth of right belong, there we may apply it, though we want express Command for it, if we have none against it.  
3. We farther add what is well argued by some Divines: That if the Children of Believers have a right to be Baptised by the word of Promise, 
Mr. Stephens, and Mr. Sydenham.  than they have a right to be Baptised by the word of Command; but the Children of Believers, have a right to be Baptised by the word of Promise: therefore they have a right to be Baptised by the word of Command. Now that Children have a right to be Baptised by the word of Promise, appears from Act. 2.39. For the Promise is made to you and to your Children, etc. The exceptions which the Antipaedobaptists make against this Text shall be removed in its proper place.  
Now for the other Branch, there is no Example of Infants being baptised; therefore it is no Ordinance of Christ.  
The Consequence stands upon a lame Leg: for, as is before shown, a negative Argument in matters of Fact is not valid. For Christ did many things that were not recorded, and so did the Apostles, whereof this was one for aught we know, the Baptising Infants: and it is the more probable upon a twofold account; First, because we find such frequent mention of their Baptising whole Families, as Stephanus and his household, Lydia and her household, and divers others, as soon as we read of the head of the Family to believe, the whole household was baptised. As when Abraham believed, he and his whole Family were circumcised; and so when the Head of a Family became a Proselyte, ordinarily He and His were Circumcised. Now in so many Families. as were baptised, it cannot rationally be supposed that there were no Children, and if there were any, they were baptised; for they are a part of the Family or Household. And secondly, Because we never read in Scripture of any Children of Believing Parents who were Baptised afterwards. Our Opposites will not believe the Apostles baptised Children, because we can give no particular instances of it; but this Negative Argument may be thus retorted against themselves. The Children of Believing Parents were baptised in their Infancy, for they cannot find in Scripture, any of them that were baptised when they came to years of discretion, and not before. I urge not this as a concluding, though probable Argument, that in the Apostle's days Children were Baptised; however I am certain, that to say Infant-Baptism is no Ordinance of Christ, because we have no examples in the Scripture of any that were Baptised, is a pitiful Argument.  
Next, saith he, That there is neither Precept nor Example for any such thing, as Infant-Baptism in the Scripture, we have the ingenuous Confession of the parties themselves. The Magdeburgenses do say, That concerning the Baptising the Adult both Jews and Gentiles, we have sufficient proof; but as to the Baptising of Infants, they can meet with no Example in the Scriptures.  
Very good Sr. now you have learned to set down things right, but why did you say in the 56 page of your Treatise referring to the same place Cent. 1. L. 2. pag. 496. That the Magdeburgenses as to the Subjects of Baptism tell us, that in this Age they only Baptised the Adult; was that lapsus calami or mentis? And do you not know that in the same place they tell us, notwithstanding particular instances cannot be found, (as all the Paedobaptists confess); yet 'tis evident from the Writings of the Apostles, that they did not exclude Infants from Baptism, and then bring Arguments for the lawfulness of it, as before?  
For that of Luther in his Epistle of Anabaptism, I have not the Book by me to Examine it, yet I am sure by what the Author citys it hurts us not. The Scriptures (saith he) do not where clearly and plainly with these, or the like words say, Baptise your Children for they believe: and we must needs yield to those that drive us to the Letter.  
This is still no more than what we all say: we all acknowledge it is nowhere written, Children do believe (as Lutherans hold they do); and again we say as Luther did, it is nowhere written clearly and plainly, with these words, Baptise your Children for they Believe. Nor have Antipaedobaptists any command in so many words, Go and Baptise actual and visible Believers. If they say such were Baptised, we may reply with Mr. Sydenbam, that is not to the purpose: for it is a verbal command, which they require to give warrant to an Ordinance, and for aught we can learn from Christ's Commission, Matt. 28.19. Whosoever are taught (be the parties never so wicked) they must be Baptised (if they will) for there is no mention made of their entertainment of the Gospel.  
Next he Fathers that upon Erasmus, which was never spoken by him in his Comment upon Rom. 6. Namely, That Baptising of infants was not in use in St. Paul's time. There is no such word, I assure thee, Reader, there.  
Again, in his 4th Book de Ratione Concionandi, he saith, That they are not to be condemned that doubt whether children's Baptism were Ordained by the Apostles.  
But why, Sir, did you not speak out all? You know Erasmus his words are these: Probabile est tingere Infantes institutum fuisse ab Apostolis, non damnaretur tamen qui de hoc dubitaret. It is probable the Baptism of Infants was instituted by the Apostles, nevertheless if one doubt thereof he should not be condemned. In this Erasmus speaks like an honest, moderat-Spirited man, that would not have weak Christians Anathematised (as the Papists use to do) for their dissent in Circumstantial and Disputable points.  
Calvin in his 4th Book of Institutes, Chap. 16. confesseth, that it is nowhere expressly mentioned by the Evangelists, that any one Child was by the Apostles Baptised: to the same purpose are Staphilus, Melancthon, Zwinglius quoted; to which I only say, That whereas they all tell us, there is no express Command or express Example, an Implicit one is sufficient; so that in this long train of Authors which our Antagonist quotes, he doth but magno conatu nugas agere, take a great deal of pains in trifling. But that which he citys from Mr. Daniel Rogers seems to have more weight, who in his Treatise about Baptism, Part 29. Confesseth himself to be unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it. This is taken from Mr. Tombe's Examen, 
Tombs Examen p. 2.  pag. 2. To which I answer, one man may be fully convinced by Scripture-demonstration, when another is not: but 'tis fit the Reader should know all that Mr. Rogers saith there upon the point; for it is unhandsome to bring in scraps out of Authors. He tells us, he no less doubts of the warrantableness of Infant-Baptism, than he doth of the Creed, saying that sundry learned men have undertaken to stop their Schismatical mouths that oppose it, and to answer their peevish Arguments; and though he saith his scope tends another way, yet gives his reasons for it.  
1. Because Circumcision was applied to the Infants on the 8th day in the Old-Testament,  
2. There is no word in the New-Testament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it: nor special reason why we should bereave her of it.  
3. Sundry Scriptures afford friendly proofs by Consequence.  
4. The holiness of the Child (External and Visible) is from their Parents, therefore the seed being holy, and belonging to the Covenant, the Lord graciously admits them to the Seal of it by Baptism.  
Farther he brings a passage out of Mr. baxter's plain Scripture-proof for Infants Church-membership and Baptism, Where he confesseth, pag. 3. That Infant-Baptism is not plainly determined in Scripture.  
Hear what he saith Reader, and then judge what he gains from Mr. Baxter: all that he saith is as follows viz. The Scripture speaks fully of those particular controversies that were on foot in those times, but more sparingly of those, not then questioned, and then names divers questions, which the Scripture fully and plainly determines.  
But (saith he) many others as difficult, which then were no Controversies, have no such determination: and yet [mark it] the Scripture is sufficient to direct for the determination of these too; if we have wisdom to discern the Scope of the Spirit, to apply general rules to particular cases: Such is the Case of Infant-Baptism, Afterward in the 9th page we have this, The grounds (saith he) upon which Infants are Baptised are very easy, and plain, though to many it be difficult to discern how it is from those grounds inferred: and therefore though some few learned, and Godly and humble Men, do doubt of it, yet in the whole known Christian part of the World there is but few.  
After this we have something brought out of Dr. tailor's Lib. of Proph p. 239. concerning Previous dispositions that are requisite to Baptism, of which Infants are not capable. But to prevent transcribing I refer the Reader to his latter Piece of the Consideration of the Practice of the Church in Baptising Infants; where he himself confutes what he had said in his Liberty of Proph. you have it pag. 25, 26.  
Here also we have a parcel of Authors introduced, who do all, are rolundo, express fully their judgements: That nothing must be done in God's Worship without Scripture-Warrant. Mr. Ball is one of them whose saying our Antagonist fetcheth out of Mr. Tombs. Exerc. pag. 9 
M. Tombs Exercit. pag. 9  so it is also in his Exam. p. 2. 
Tombs Examen p. 2.  joined to that of Mr. Roger's . Mr. Balls words are, We must look to the Institution, and neither stretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it: For he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure; and it is our part to learn of him, both to whom, how, and for what end, the Sacraments are to be administered etc. But why doth he not set down all that Mr. Ball hath in that place— Circumcision, and Baptism (saith he) are both Sacraments of Divine Institution, and so they agree in the substance of the thign signified, the persons to whom they are to be administered, and the order of Administration, if the right proportion be observed: as Circumcision sealed the entrance into Covenant, the Righteousness of Faith and Circumcision of the heart, so doth Baptism much more clearly. As Abraham and his Household, and the Infants of Believing-Jews, were to be Circumcised, so the Faithful their Families, and their Seed are to be Baptised.  
At last he thinks to rout us quite with a saying of Bellarmin's, whose very name gives us an Alarm and sounds Bellum & Arma, War & Arms. The Anabaptists, saith Bellarmine, call for plain Scripture-proof for the Baptising of Infants, and their Argument from defect of Command or Example, have great force against the Lutherans, foras much as they use that Principle every where viz. That the Rite which is not in Scripture, having no Command or Example there, is to be rejected. Yet it is of no force against Catholics, who conclude that Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us, than the Scripture; but that this of Baptising Infants is an Apostolical Tradition etc.  
To which I Reply, that the Author might well have omitted this of Bellarmin, since it is but acunning insinuation of that Jesuitical Sophister, to set. Protestants at greater distances amongst themselves & to advance the esteem of their adored Tradition. And yet he himself speaking elsewhere of Infant-Baptism saith, satis aperte ex Scripturis colligitur, etc. Infant-Baptism is plainly enough gathered out of Scripture.   

CHAP. II.  
The Historical Account which the Author gives of jafant-brptism in its Rise and Establishment, Examined and Condemned.  
In this Chapter he presents us with the History of Infant-Baptism, and tells strange news, if you will credit him of its Original since the Apostle's days. Thus he gins:  
1. From the learned Authorities before given, we have gained thus much; that as there was no Precept in Scripture, for the Baptising of Infants, so neither was there the least Practice to be found thereof in the Apostles days, as was so ingeniously before Confessed by the Magdeburgenses, Luther, Calvin, Erasmus, Rogers.  
1. BUt we have made it appear, Sr. that you reckon your gains too fast, and have much erred in casting up the Sum, as the Reader may find in the preceding Chapter. I question not if he be impartial he will conclude you have not gained a farthing, but are rather a loser hitherto. For among all those Learned Authorities before given, there is no passage (although never so much strained) that saith any more than this: There is no Express precept in Scripture for the Baptising of Infants, and this every Child knows, but in saying there is no Express one, they intimate thereby, there is an Implicit one. I love not to repeat, the Reader may, if he please, reflect upon what they say. And in as much as the point relates to matter of Fact, notwithstanding the confidence of the adverse party, unless they can produce one Express place of Scripture, where it is said, No Infant was Baptised, or some Express Command not to Baptise them, their calling for an Express Command, concludes nothing against our Practice.  
2. Moreover we affirm against their Practice, that there is no Express Command in all the Book of God, to plunge persons Head and Ears under water: nor can they by any convincing Circumstance about the manner of Baptising, make it appear (though thousands were Baptised in a day) that any one was so severely dealt with in the primitive times: we shall show, when we come to it, that the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] among Heathen and Ecclesiastical Writers doth promiscuously signify to dip into, or wash with Water by pouring on of it; and in the Scripture it is more frequently taken for Washing, than dipping.  
3. They have no Express Command or Example to Baptise, or plunge themselves as they do with their  on; which is rather a Baptising Garments, than Bodies. Since they are so much for Express Command and Example, let them first justify their own Practice by it, before they condemn us for want of it.  
2. He tells us, That the approved Practice and known custom of the Primitive Church was to Baptise the Adult, as all Ages acknowledge, and only they, at least for the first, as is so fully attested by Eusobius, Beatus Rhenanus, Lud. Vives, Bullinger, Haimo, the Neocaesarian Council.  
Look back Reader to that saithful Account I have given from the Magdeburgensian Century-Writers, and thou shalt be able to judge of the truth of what he speaks. I am necessitated to touch upon it again, what Eusebius speaks of origen's being a Teacher before Baptism, refers to the Pagans; what that Old Popish St. Beatus Rhenanus saith of the Ancient custom which was to Baptise those that were come to full growth, with the Bath of Regeneration, if it relates to Heathens it is no more to purpose than the former out of Eusebius; but if we are to understand him so, as if no Children were anciently admitted to Baptism, no, not those of Believers, than we plead an older custom, even as old as Origen and Tertullian, that Children were Baptised in the Church: and as Mr. Calvin hath it in his Instruction against the Anabaptists; The Holy Ordinance of Infant Baptism hath been perpetually observed in the Christian Church, for there is no ancient Writer that doth not acknowledge its Original, even from the Apostles; which was the Reason why Austin hath that Expression concerning it, namely, 
Nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus, qui non ejus Originem ad Apostolorum saculum pro certo referat. Calvini Instit. cap. 17. part. 8. pag. 227.  Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit. The Church always had it, always held it. And for Lud. Vives his saying: That they Baptised the Adult in some Cities of Italy, his Testimony hath been always looked upon as very incompetent, because he was but of yesterday, and we have nothing but his bare word for it, and not to be compared with Austin's, a man of great integrity, and that lived above thousand years nearer the Apostles, who affirms it was not only Practised in his day, but before, and quotes Testimonies for it. Then for Haims, all that he says upon Matt. 28, will not prejudice us, his words are, Here is set down a rule how to Baptise, that is, that Teaching should go before Baptising etc. which we confess aught to be so, when we have to deal with Pagans, and he speaks of such. And as none of the Popish Schoolmen are for the Author's turn, though we have many passages quoted out of them, to no other end but to blind the Reader, and make the Book swell; so I am mistaken if that which he quotes out of Albertus Magnus the Conjurer, be much for his turn: you have it in the 12th Cent. p. 85. of his Treatise. And lastly for the Neocaesarian Council, that business is of a very ridiculous nature, and impertinent to the question; for the matter under debate in that Council, was about a Woman that was pregnant, who being an Infidel came to be Baptised, and the Canon speaks of such a one, and not of a Woman that was within the Church, & of a Child born of a believing Parent, as is fully shown before in Cent. 4.  
3, Whereas, he saith, not only the Children of, Pagans were to be Instructed, and taught in the Faith, in order to Baptism; but the Children of Christians also: as those famous instances given from the 4th Century. We have shown in our discourse upon that Century, the corrupt and silly grounds upon which they deferred Baptism till they were grown up, in those days, and some of the instances there given had Parents that were Heathens, when they were born, and so continued till they were come to Maturity, and that was the reason they were Baptised, though 'tis true, their Parents were at last converted to the Christian Faith.  
4. He farther saith, that as there was no Scripture-Authority for it, so no Human Authority, till above 400 years after Christ; though to justify that injunction, Apostolical-Tradition, to supply the want of Scripture-Institution, was pretended.  
I may almost say truly of this Quot dicta, tot maledicta; so many words, so many foul reproaches, Calumniare fortiter & aliquid adhaerebit, said Machiavelli, and our Author follows the Rule exactly, he thinks he can never throw dirt enough upon Infant-Baptism, hoping some will at last stick. I shall Reply to this,  
First, To say there is no Scripture-Authority for Infant-Baptism, and that Apostolical Tradition was on purpose brought in to supply the want of it, are presumptuous, weak, and false dictates: Since the same Men, viz. The Fathers, that call it an Apostolical Tradition, do upon the matter all of them, plead for it upon Scripture-grounds as Cyprian, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Ambros, Epiphartius, who argue for Infant-Baptism, because it came in the room of Circumcision, and from the right the Infants of the Jews had to Circumcision; and of latter days Protestants own nothing for truth that comes under the notion of Apostolical-Tradition, 
Proinde necessario veniendum erat ad argumenta ex Scriptures: quae si rem non evincant, frustrà traditionem ad vocabimus Riu. Animad. in annot- Grotii in Cassandrum. Art. 9 p. 71.  unless they see ground for it in Scripture; they are of Rivets mind, that Tradition is in most points uncertain, and thereforem if we will be certain of a thing we must see the footsteps of it in the word.  
And Mr. Calvin speaks to the same purpose in his Instructions against the Anabaptists. Caeterum minime peto ut in eo probando nos Antiquitas ullo modo juvet etc. I do not in the least desire to borrow help from Antiquity for the proof of this point, any whit farther than the judgement of the Ancients shall be found to be grounded on the Word of God. For I well know that as the custom of men, doth not give Authority to the Sacrament, so the use of the Sacrament cannot be said to be right, because regulated by Custom.  
2. What though there was no Human-Authority for it till above 400 years after Christ, is this any Argument against it? The Author borrows this from Dr. Tailors Lib. of Proph. p. 237. for he learns how to speak from him: the Drs. Words are— as there was no Command in Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it; so the necessity of Paedobaptism was not determined in the Church, till the Canon that was made in the Milevitan Council. This Milevitan African Council was Ann. Ch. 418. and belike the reason why it was not established sooner by Councils under an Anathema, was because it was rarely, if at all questioned or opposed till then, by any person of note, as to its lawfulness. Hear what Dr. Hammond says in answer to Dr Taylor, about this matter: It being granted by the Objecter, saith he, that Paedobaptism was by Canon Established in the Milevitan African Council, Ann. Ch. 418. yet, as long as it is also confessed, that it was practised in Africa before, there will be little concluded against us. For what stood by Apostolical Practice and known Custom, needed not to be prescribed by Canon, as that which prevails by force of a greater, need not be assisted by a weaker Authority. And indeed while the footsteps of so Authentic a Tradition were so lively and no Adversary, or Disputer started upno question or opposition yet made against a Common usage, 'twere ridiculous for Councils to convene, and fortify it by Canons: and so the only thing reasonably deducible from the lateness of those Canons, is, that all that while it was universally received without Opposition: I mean not, saith the Dr, that no Infant, or any Christian was unbaptised through the space of those first (4) Centuries, but that the extending of the Institution to Infants, was not Opposed in the Church till about Pelagius' days, whose opinion of Original Sin (utterly denying the guilt of it on Adam's posterity) was such, as might consequentily produce some change in his opinion of Paedobaptism: for in the 219 page he quotes out of the 5th Hom. of Eusebius Emissenus, de Pasch, a passage intimating that Pelagius himself asserted the Baptising of Infants, though not propter vitam, for life, yet propter regnum coelorum for the Kingdom of God (i. e.) entrance into the Church, as is conceived.  
3. Whereas he saith Apostolical Tradition was pretended. Let not the Reader be affrighted with this word Tradition, or because Origen, and Austin calls it a Tradition of the Church; for when the Fathers so call it, they do not intent it in such a sense, as if the Church were the Author, but the Subject of it, Magdeburg. Cent. 1. L. 2. Cap. 6. p. 496. Origines & Cyprianus & alia Patres Authores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos esse— both Origen and Cyprian and other Fathers hold that Infants were Baptised in the Apostles days: and Austin's Rule is a reason for, it little less than a demonstration, quod universa tenet Ecclesia etc. that which is universally received and practised by the Church, and had not its first Institution from some Council, but hath been ever retained, may well be believed to be an Apostolical Tradition. 
August. contrae Donat. L. 4. C. 24.  Moreover when the Fathers call thi● … n Apostolical Tradition (〈◊〉 do other Opinions) it is (as our Divines usually answer the Papists) in regard points of this nature are not expressly in terminis in the word, but may be fairly gathered thence by consequence. Chemnit. Exam. Concil. Triden. par. 1. p. 68, 69. To the same purpose we have Dr. Field of the Church Lib. 4. Cap. 20. The 4th head of Tradition is the continued Practice of such things as are neither contained in Scripture Expressly, nor the Examples of such Practice Expressly there delivered, Though the grounds, reasons, and causes of the necessity of such practice, be there contained: of this sort is the Baptism of Infants, which is therefore called a Tradition because it is not expressly delivered in Scripture, that the Apostles did Baptise Infants etc. nor any Express Precept there found, they should do so, yet is not this so received by bare & naked Tradition, but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it. Thus we see, both the Fathers and Protestant-Writers take Tradition in a quite different sense from that the Romanists usually take it in, who equalise the Authority of Tradition with the Scripture, yea indeed give it the pre-eminence above it. And now judge Reader, what the confident assertions of our Antagonist do amount to, whether dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu; whether the proverb be not verified in him viz. a great cry, and a little Wool.  

Now follows the Historical Account he gives us of the Apostolical Tradition pretended to (as he speaks it) for Infant Baptism.  
IT is not worth while to search into so many musty Authors as are quoted by him; and indeed I thought to have taken my leave of him, and to have met him again in the 3d Chapter, because there we shall encounter the exceptions he brings against those Authentic Testimonies we allege from Antiquity for our Practice; nevertheless having run over his History, usque ad nauseam, I shall pass a few Remarks thereupon.  
1. The multitude of Authors quoted, argues great ostentation of much Reading, though much of it is prepared to his hand, and for certain, the most is rather ad Pompam than ad Pugnum, rather for show than service.  
2. Yet hath he manifested some Artifice, and cunning;  
1. In raking out of the Dunghill, all the filthy Rites used by the Romish Church in the Administration of Baptism, as Exorcism, Chrism, Salt, Albes, or White-Garments, Milk, Honey etc. And his design herein is to dazzle the eyes of the weaker sort, and to make them believe even Infant-Baptism itself is also a corrupt Innovation. But this will not take with the judicious who are able to distinguish between the accidental Corruptions of an Ordinance and the Ordinance itself. We know Antichrist hath defiled most of the Ordinances of Christ and annexed thereto many Superstitious Ceremonies: as in the other Sacrament of the Communion, Adoration of the Elements is enjoined, and yet these do not disparage the Ordinance itself, in the Institution and Substance of it, but only defile the Communicants that so superstitiously use that Sacred Appointment. Besides the Papists have affixed these corrupt Rites, not only to the Baptism of Infants, but of those also who are grown up: and so the force of arguing from them, if Infant-Baptism were removed, will lie against Baptism itself. We ought not therefore to impute these corruptions to God's Ordinance of Baptising Infants, and on that account deride and cashier it, but rather as the Magdeburgenses do Cent. 2. p. 111. to the Mystery of Iniquity, 
Mr. Geree of vind. Paedobapt.  which so works in the Church of Rome in their corrupting and contaminating the simple form of Baptism. Indeed, saith Mr. Philpot the Martyr. (to his fellow-sufferer that scrupled Infant-Baptism, and afterward was satisfied by the strength of his Arguments) if you look upon the Papistical Synagogue only which have corrupted God's Word by false interpretation, and hath perverted the true use of Christ's Sacraments, you may seem to have good handfast of your opinion against the Baptism of Infants; but for as much as it is of more Antiquity, and hath its beginning from God's Word, and from the use of the Primitive Church, it must not in respect of the abuse in the Popish Church be neglected, or thought inexpedient. Nor hath the Baptism of Adult Persons in former times been free from many corrupt, and ridiculous Human inventions, as Dr. Homes out of Binius and Epiphanius shows at large. The Council of Carthage tells us, 
Bin. Ca 34 de rebus. Eccles. Cap. 26.  that sick men lying speechless might be Baptised, upon the witness of men touching their former condition.  
The 4th Council of Carthage, orders, That those of ripe years to be Baptised must be dyered, 
Bin. Cap. 85.  and kept from Fesh and Wine a long time, and after that, having been examined several times must be Baptised.  
Epiphanius declares that the Eunomians (called Anabaptists) do Rebaptize all that come to them, 
Epiphan Anacephal. pag. 108. Edit. lat. Bazil.  turning their Heads downward, and their Heels upward.  
Some of the Anabaptists called Hemerabaptists thought, that none could be saved, unless they were daily-Baptized, whence they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 

Gerard. Joh. Voffus de Anaebaptismo, Thes. 17.  
Gastius de Anaebap. Exod. p. 50.   daily Baptists, and so were cleansed from their Sins. Singulis diebus mergerentur, ita ut Abluantur & Sanctificentur ab omni culpa.  
Secondly, Another small plot or piece of tunning lies in linking some spurious Authors with those which are Authentic, to render also their Authority Suspicious. There are some Ancient Writers which are very express for Infant-Baptism, & of great Authority in the Church of Rome, which are rejected as spurious, or interpolate, by the Protestants; such is that of Dimysius the Areopagite, and the Decretal Epistles, who notwithstanding have in high account the Testimonies of those Ancients viz. Justin Martyr, Irenaus, Origen, Cyprian, etc. which are reputed as Authentic and of undoubted truth.  
3. There is much Impertinency in his Historical Account, that is not concerned in the Question. As the Story of Constantine, Dedication, Consecration or Baptising of Churches and Bells, Exposure of the Relics of Saints for adoration, Prohibiting Priests Marriages, with much more ejusdem farinae, But what is all this to Infant-Baptism?  
4. There are some errors or falsities in it. As Tertullian's standing up against. Infant-Baptism in the 3d Century; when he stood up no more against it, than he did against the Baptising of Youngmen that were unmarried, and Young-Widows also, whose Baptism he would have delayed. 'Tis certain he argues for the delay of Baptism in some cases (praecipue circa paroulos, 
Tertul. de Bapt. C. 8.  especially that of little ones) meaning the Children of unbelievers as is conceived by Estius, Pamelins, and divers others.  
A Second Error respecting this Century, is, That the Magdeburgenses tell us, they altered the form of Baptism, from dipping to sprinkling: referring us to Cent. 3. pag. 129. where they speak no such thing nor anywhere else in the whole History of Baptism.  
A Third Escape, is, That Infant-Baptism was not in use in the greatest part of the 4th Century either in the Latin or Greek Church. Now this is very false, nor will that help him which he adds afterward, Scil. It is true (saith he) towards the latter end of this Century, it is said, that in some parts of Africa they did Baptise Children as Magdeburg Cent. 4. p. 415. but they say no such thing; it is only the Authors own saying: and really it troubles me to see so much prevarication . Take Reader the true account of what the Magdeburgenses say de Ritibus circa Baptismum, about Baptismal Rites. They are large in this Chapter, and begin it thus, That the power of Baptising was in this Age in the Priests, and principally in the Bishops, and then in Presbyters and Deacons, and then a few lines after they tell us, Baptizabantur autem publice in templis cujuscunque sexus, aetatis, & conditionis homines. Persons of each Sex, and of all Ages and Conditions were publicly Baptised in the Temples. Nor hath this Chapter any such passage at the beginning, middle, or latter end; that in some parts of Africa they did Baptise Children.  
5. I will not say, there is a Tincture of profaneness, but am sure of something like it, in that saying of the Authors pag. 128. of his Treatise viz. In this [6th] Century (saith he) we meet with a dreadful piece of Infant-Baptism viz. The Heads of 6000 Infants that had been murdered & buried in a Warren near a Monastery, as testified by Vldricus to P. Nicolas, Cent. 6. p. 338. But the Magdeburgenses are not so bold as the Author, to call such horrid murder Infant-Baptism. A tender conscience me thinks should be afraid thus to play with Holy things.  
6. This History of his affords some contradiction to himself, I mean to what he hath before written: for in the first part of his Book Cap, 2. pag. 7. he quotes Bede for a Testimony, that the Baptising of Believers is the only true Baptism— Bede saith, That Men were first to be instructed unto the Knowledge of the Truth, then to be Baptised, as Christ hath taught etc. Cent. 8. p. 220. Whereas in this his Second part of the Treatise, which is for disproving Infant-Baptism, pag. 130. Bede also concludes for the Baptising of Infants, Cent. 8. p. 218.  
7. We observe too great a boldness in those scandalous Reflections which he casts upon the Churches of the Reformed Religion, sparing none, neither Lutherans, nor Calvinists, nor: Episcoparians, nor Presbyterians. But me thinks 'tis a piece of great indiscretion to fly out so much against the Church of England, for if she be contented to give the Antipaedobaptists indifferent good quarter although they do not conform to her, why should any of them vilify her in this manner? As for the Kirk of Scotland the Author may more securely mock at it, and there is no danger in having a fling at the Directory, or at the old Parliament's Ordinance of May 2d. 1648. which made it imprisonment to affirm Infant-Baptism is unlawful.    

CHAP. III.  
Containing his Exceptions against Infant-Baptism, because built (as he says) upon, 1. Fabulous Traditions. 2. Mistaken Scriptures, with an Answer thereto.  
1. The first and Principal ground (saith he) that hath been asserted for this Practice is Ecclesiastical and Apostolical Tradition.  
THis is a false suggestion, and exceeds all modesty: for although the Church of Rome ascribes too much to Tradition, as in many other things; yet the Ancient Fathers, as Cyprian, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, with divers others, as is before shown, plead Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision, and that Infants have right thereto, from the Infants of the Jews having right to Circumcision, whereby 'tis evident that Tradition hath not been primarily asserted to be the ground of Infant-Baptism.  
2. He farther saith, The Protestants since the Reformation, have chose to fly to some consequential Arguments deducted, as they suppose, from the Scriptures, to prove the same: both which in this Chapter are brought forth, and duly weighed in the Balance of Truth.  
We doubt not in the Process of the discourse to show, that after we have weighed what she saith, we shall find it too light, and to be but chaff in stead of Truth. The Protestants, he saith, have chose to fly to consequential Arguments, deduced as they suppose from Scripture. But the Antipaedobaptists are of another mind, and suppose themselves to be Men of deeper Reason, and more piercing inspection into the sense of the Scriptures, than all the Godly and Learned Protestants since the Reformation. They see the mistaken conceits they have of Scripture, and how ungroundedly they draw their consequences from thence. An Argument indeed it is of much modesty, for the Author to speak at this rate: I would ask any of these Men, who are so highly conceited of their Scripture-Knowledg, why Paedobaptists, that are humble, searching, praying Christians, may not understand so much of God's mind in Scripture as they? Doth the Word of God come out from them? or doth it come to them only? 
John 17.14. 1 Cor. 14.37.  or have they only the Spirit of Illumination? or are they the only Masters of right Reasons? Or dare they say 'tis unlawful to make use of Consequences? Or may not we be permitted to use them for Infant-Baptism aswel as they against it? Do not they argue from Matt. 28.18, 19 and Mark 16.16. None ought to be Baptised but such who are first taught, and consequently that no Children ought to be Baptised, because they be not capable of teaching. 
Vide Tombs.  Is not this. their constant way of Arguing? Now how unreasonable is it for men to practise that themselves, which they will not allow of in others. I remember Mr. Staltmarsh in his shadows flying away, doth much condemn Consequences, and saith Prudence and Consequence are the two great Engines of Will-Worship: good Doctrine indeed, and a fine preparative to an Implicit Faith! But Mr. Baxter chastiseth the folly of these men in his Plain Scripture-Proof etc. Position 10. pag. 8. Evident Consequences, 
Quae colliguntur ex Scripturi● sacris, perinde habenda sunt ac si in illis scripta essent. G●eg Naz●anzen. L. 5. Thelog.  or Arguments drawn by reason from Scripture, are as true Proof, as the very words of a Text— would it not make a man pity such senseless, ignorant wretches (saith he) that will call for express words of Scripture, when they have the Evident Consequences or Sense? Is Scripture-Reason no Scripture? If I prove that all Church-Members must be admitted by Baptism, and then prove that Infants of Believers are Church-Members, is not this as much as to prove that they must be Baptised? I suppose no man of sound judgement will deny that the sense, or meaning of Scripture, is Scripture as well as the Letters, and Syllables in the Bible: For the sense, and meaning of the Letter of the Word must be drawn out by rational Consequence, as the conclusion from a Proposition by a fit medium; and if this were not so, the searching and studying of the Scriptures were a needless undertaking, and so would all Preaching and Expounding be. It is a good observation of Dr. Sclater in his Comment upon the 5th verse of the 4th Chapter of the Romans; That God's Spirit in Scripture speaks as well what he implieth, as what he expresseth; as well what by Consequence is deduced, as what in sum of Words he uttereth: And instanceth in that of James, 4.5. saith the Scripture in vain? etc. It is usual for our Adversaries to cavil against this Theological Axiom. Say the Papists, and Anabaptists (for in this like Sampson's foxes they are joined together by the tails, whilst their heads look several ways) where have we it taught, that Infants should be Baptised in all the Scripture? To which we answer, we have it not in Express terms, but by just Consequence. Where find we that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us for Justification? saith Bellarmine. Why, in Express terms we have it not, but Virtually and by just Consequence we have it; 2 Cor. 5.21. In the Equivalent we have it, Rom. 5.17, 18, 19 You are wont to boast, saith Bellarmine, of the Word of God, and to reduce all your Opinions to this one head, but in the Case of Justification by Faith only, that help fails you; for you were never able to show in the Scripture that particle [only]. To this we Reply, that if we have it by Consequence from Scripture, and if we have it in the Equivalency, we have it in the Scripture.  
That Tradition hath been the first and principal ground of Infant-Baptism, he would prove from Austin, and Chrysostom's sayings.  
But how, and in what sense do they call it a Tradition of the Church? why certainly not as if the Church had been the Author, but the Subject of it as before, as continued therein all along down from the Apostles. And if any of the Fathers speak too hyperbolically of Tradition, what is that to us who plead Scripture as its primary ground for it? Besides Anciently the greatest points of Faith were called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i. e.) Divine Doctrines or Ordinances, for so it is rendered 1 Cor. 11.2. and the same word is rendered Traditions, 2 Thes. 2.15. So that Austin's Intendment by that expression of Apostolical Tradition, is nothing else but Apostolical Ordinance, or Doctrine, as appears from his own words; saying, The Custom of our Mother the Church in Baptising little Infants is not to be despised, nor to be judged Superfluous, nor to be Believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition Lib. 10. de Gen. c. 23. (i. e.) an Apostolical Ordinance.  
What follows from 153 p. to the 155th, is mostly borrowed from Mr. Tombs his Praecursor, Sec. 20. p. 86, 89.  
As first, The Assertion of the Cardinal Ragusi, in his Oration in the Council of Bazil. Tombs indeed hath it in Latin, but the Author is at the pains to translate it. And since it is so notorious, and intolerable a piece of Plagianism, thus to take and conceal from whence he had it, contrary to the Laws of ingenuity provided in that behalf, we shall make discovery thereof by a Parallel.  
H. D (i.e.) [The Author] In the Council of Bazil in the Oration of of the Cardinal of Ragusi, It is asserted that in the beginning of this Sacrament of Baptism, they only were to be Baptised, who could by themselves answer Interrogatories concerning their Faith; and that it was nowhere read in the Canon of Scripture, that a newborn Infant was Baptised, who could neither believe with the heart to Justification, nor confess with the mouth to Salvation; yet nevertheless, saith he, the Church hath appointed it.  
H. D. Whereas some Object, that Bellarmine, and others do also bring Scripture for it; Becan. Lib. 1. c. 2. Sec. 24. answers, that some things may be proved out of Scripture, when the Church's sense is first heard about the Interpretation (thereof; for so, he saith, it is concerning Infants-Baptism, which is proved from John 3.5. But the sense whereby to prove it, is only manifest by Tradition.  
H. D. and it is confirmed in the Canon-Law and Schoolmen, that Infant-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop laid on hands which was called Confirmation, viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy: and therefore saith Caistans secundum Jewel, that an Infant wanting instruction in the Faith, hath not perfect Baptism.  
H. D. Dr. Field. Lib. 4. p. 375. saith, That Infant-Baptism is therefore called a Tradition, because it is not expressly delivered in the Scriptures, that the Apostles did Baptise Infants or that they should do so. Here the Author stops and goes no farther being afraid of the next lines.  
H. D. Prideaux controv. Theol. Sec. 392. Infant-Baptism, saith he, rests upon no other Divine right than Episcopacy. viz Diocesan Episcopacy in use in these Nations. Here he adds as before he substracted from what Mr. Tombs said out of Field.  
I. T. (i.e.) John Tombs. In the Council of Bazil, in the Oration of the Cardinal of Ragusi, it is asserted, Item nusquam legitur in Canone Scripturae S. quod parvulus recenter Baptizatus, qui nec cord credit ad justitiam, nec ore confitetur adsalutem, inter fideles & credentes computetur; & nibilominus, Ecclesia ita determinavit, & statuit &c. And, in principio hujus Sacramenti Baptizabantur solum illi qui per se sciebant fidem interroganti respondere.  
I. T. And whereas it is Objected that Bellarmine, and others do bring Scripture for it; Becan. Manual. Lib. 1. C. 3. Sec. 24. answers, aliqua possunt probari ex Scriptura, quando constat de vero, & legitimo Scripturae sensu. So he saith, it is concerning Infant-Baptism, which is proved from John 3.5. but that the sense whereby to prove it, is only manifest by Tradition.  
I. T. Which is confirmed in the Canon-Law and Schoolmen; an Infants-Baptism, was not reckoned perfect, till the Bishop laid on hands, which act was called Confirmation viz. of the imperfect Baptism in Infancy. Jewel allegeth it as Caistans Tenent, that an Infant, for that he wanteth instruction in Faith, therefore hath not perfect Baptism.  
I. T. Dr. Field, of the Church 4th Book Chap. 20. of this sort is Infant-Baptism, which is therefore called a Tradition, because it is not expressly delivered in Scripture that the Apostles did Baptise Infants, nor any express Precept that they should do so. [Tombs is so ingenious as to set down the rest] yet is not this so received by bare, and naked Tradition, but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it.  
I. T. Dr' Prideaux, Fasci. Controu. Theol. Loc. 4. Sec. 3. q. 2. Paedobaptism rests on no other Divine right than Episcopaey.  
Now to all this we have said enough before, as to the Substance of it, and I love not needless repetitions: only let me mind you with this, That though Papists and others, attribute too much to the custom of the Church, or Tradition, yet all sound Protestants when they use that word they do it in Sensu sano, quite different from the corrupt sense of the Romish Church.  
And because the Author saith Dr. Taylor doth so fully and strenuously argue against us in his Lib. Proph. p. 237, viz. Tradition, saith he, must by all means supply the place of Scripture, and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical, That Infants were Baptised: I think it not amiss to bring in Dr. Hammond to cope with him, in his Letter of Resolution, Quaere 4th of the Baptising of Infants, Sec. 104. pag. 277. where, having before spoken of what sort of Traditions, have been rejected by the Reformed Churches, he than adds, Having no necessity to descend to any more minute Considerations, the whole matter will be resolved into this one Enquiry, whether the Baptising of Infants, doth sufficiently appear to be of the Institution of Christ, or Practise Apostolical? And if it do, we have all that we pretend to, upon the score of Tradition; and if it do not, we are obliged to disclaim that means of maintaining our plea, or inferring our conclusion.  
And because the way of satisfying this enquiry, is but the saying over again all that hath been formerly said on this subject, this whole Discourse having laid the weight of all upon this one Basis, the Institution of Christ, and Practice of the Apostles, it will be unreasonable to do this any farther, save only upon a brief Recapitulation, to refer it to the judgement of any sober Christian; Whether first, by Christ's founding of the Institution of this Sacrament in the Jewish Custom of Baptising of Proselytes, 
Baptism in use in the Jewish Church and applied to Infants aswel as grown men. The Learned Mr. Selden & Lightfoot speak the same.  which appears to have belonged to the Infant Children of the Proselytes, as is before shown out of Goodwin Ainsworth & others, Chap. 1. and Secondly, by his being so far from excepting against the Age of Children as a Prejudice, or hindrance to their coming to him (that is to their Proselytism) that he affirms them to be the pattern of those, 
Though Children are brought to him by others, yet they are said to come unto him in Mark 10.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very words of which Proselyte is made.  of whom his Kingdom is to be made up; and though he be not affirmed in the Gospel to Baptise such (for he Baptised not at all) Mark 10.16. (Which being the Ceremony usual in the Church, for those that were fitted for Baptism, and distinctly Preparative to it, they that were by Christ afforded that, cannot be thought by him less capable of (Baptism than of that): And Thirdly, by the express Words of the Apostle, that their Children are Holy, interpreted by the Context, so as to infer from the Apostles way of Arguing, that it was the Custom of those Apostolic times to Baptise the Children of the Christian Parents, and so interpreted by the Christian Writers of the First and Purest Ages; And Fourthly by the Testimonies of all the Ancients, that are found to speak of this matter, without any one pretended to descent, that this was the Practice of the Apostles; Whether I say, these four things being put together (the truth of each of which, hath been before more largely evinced) it be not sufficiently Evident, That the Baptising of Children is of the Institution of Christ, and Practise Apostolical. Thus far Dr. Hammond.  
Next the Author saith, he will give us some account of the insufficiency and Weakness, if not wickedness of those first Authorities, that have been leaned upon to prove this Practice to be an Apostolical Tradition etc. and he reduceth it to these following. Dionysius the Areopagite, the Decretal Institutions, or Epistles of several Popes (as he calleth them) Justin Martyr, Origen, and Cyprian.  
Concerning the two first of these we look upon them as broken Reeds and we lean not on them at all: and to produce an Argument for the Apostolicalness of Paedobaptism from these is (as Dr. Hammond speaks of some which he likes not) to be look upon of the number of the Blind and the Lame, that are of more use to betray and lose, than defend and secure that Fort in which they are placed. Know then, Sir, that we except against them as much as yourself, and you know you have taken all your exceptions against these Romish Forgeries, from the learned Pens of Paedobaptists. 'Tis by the elaborate pains of the Magdeburgenses, Osiander, Perkins, Reynolds, Rivet etc. that they are detected, who (as you observe) have laid open the Bastardy both of the one and of the other. From these Mr. Tombs gleans what he hath to say upon this point in his Praecursor, 
Mr. Tombs his Praecursor.  where you have them collected to your hand, and from whence you fetch what you present us with: and here I am tempted again to draw another Parallel, you do so exactly tread in his steps, as first, beginning as he doth, with Osiander, then follows Rivet, afterward Perkins, than the Decretal-Epistles, which pass under the name of Clement, Hyginus etc. All which are condemned as Spurious by Mr. Perkins, and he gives undeniable Arguments for it.  
But I observe your little design, to render Infant Baptism the more odious by that appellation you give Clement, Hyginus, with the rest of them; namely, Pope say you, the Decretals and Institutions of several Popes in this Second Century, as that of Pope Clement, Pope Hyginus: and is it not strange ●hat the Pope should appear so early? 'Tis not handsome thus to impose upon the weaker sort, that are not read in Church-History: As for others that are more learned they know that Hyginus, (the Verus or true one of that name) is numbered amongst the first good Bishops that succeeded the Apostles; for so we find him in Dr. Prideaux his Catalogue, and to be the man that set Justin Martyr at work to frame his Apology for the Christians, and was no Pope in the sense it is usually taken, viz. An Oeconomical Bishop challenging unto himself, and usurping Authority over the whole Church. 
Euseb. Lib. 4. c. 9  He is calculated to be the 8th Bishop of Rome, living in the days of Antoninus Pius about a hundred and forty years after Christ and very near to the Apostles.  
Having thus discarded the feigned Dionysius, and the Personatus Hyginus (as Mr. Tombs observes he is called by Ostander) with the rest of the cheating Tribe; laying no stress at all upon what they say, as touching the Apostolicalness of Infant-Baptism, we shall notwithstanding, by the Author's good leave, still retain a Venerable esteem of the other three that follow. For honest Men are nevertheless honest, for being ranked with cheats, though I confess, they are the more liable to suspicion, by such as do not examine things.  
First for Justin Martyr, we shall not altogether quit our claim to him, though there be so little left of him, as Mr. Baxter notes, that we cannot expect that he should speak expressly to the point, 
Justin Martyr, is supposed to have lived in St. John's days. Scultetus saith he flourished Anno 140.  both because he is brief, and treateth on other (Themes, to which this did not belong, and because the Church then living amongst Heathens had so much to do in converting, and Baptising the Aged that they had little occasion to treat about Children, especially it being a point not Controverted, but taken for granted by the Christians, who knew God's dealing with the Jew's Church; yet nevertheless, saith Mr. Baxter, Justin Martyr gives such hints, by which his Judgement and the Practice of the Church, 
Baxter, plaint Scripture-Proof. p. 155.  even in those days may be discerned.  
Touching what is said in Justin Martyr's Responses (against which the Author levels his discourse) and especially what is said in his 56th Question ad Orthodoxos, the Author says right, that many of the aforesaid Learned Writers that are Paedobaptists do disown it as spurious— And Mr. Baxter himself Acknowledgeth the same that though the Book be Ancient, yet it was either Spurious or Interpolate: True, but withal gives divers passages for our turn out of other Works of his, as that in his Dialogue with Tryphon, Part 2. Propos. 3. Nos certe qui hujus ope ad Deum accessimus, non carnalem istam Circumcisionem, fed Spiritualem— Hanc, nos per Baptisma, ut pote peccatores nati, a Deo miserante accepimus; eam licet omnibus similiter accipere. (i. e.) It was Lawful for all to receive the Spiritual Circumcision, which he saith was done by Baptism, and if all might receive it, even so Infants (who were the subjects of the Legal Circumcision) for they must be a part of the All and not excluded.  
Another touch we have in that Passage of Justin, importing Baptism to be the only way to Remission of Sins and Salvation; and he judged that Infants are forgiven, and saved; therefore he judged that they might be Baptised. As for the places, I refer the Reader to Mr. Baxter's Plain Scripture-Proof, where we have them quoted, pag. 155.  
2. For Origen we shall with greater confidence adhere to him, notwithstanding the frivolous Cavils of the Author which are reducible to these 6 Heads.  
1. His First is, That Origen is but one single Testimony for the practice of Infant-Baptism to be Apostolical.  
Reply.  
This will not pass for a Truth, because we have also the Testimony of Irenaeus, 
Irenaeus lived in the 2d. Century with Justin Martyr, in the Age of those that saw the Apostles, and therefore could not be ignorant of their Practice.  who lived in the Second Century with Justin, even in the Age of those that saw the Apostles; within the first Century after them. Dr. Hammond in his Letter of Resolution Sec. 40. pag. 212. where also we have quoted that Common, though Famous passage of his Extant in Lib. 2 Adu. Haeres. C. 39 Omnem aetatem Sanctificans per illam quae ad ipsam erat similitudinem. Omnes enim venit per semet ipsum salvare, Infants, & Parvulos & Pueros— Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum. (i. e.) Christ did Sanctify every Age, by his own susception of it, and Similitude to it— All I say, who by him are born again to God: where the Infants being Regenerate, and born again into God, must needs be interpreted after the Scripture-Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being born again, or Regenerate by that laver of Regeneration. 
'Tit. 3.5. The Apostle ealls Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and Mr. Mede in his Diatribe saith, none will deny but that he means by the Washing of Regeneration, Baptism.  And as Vossius upon the place, saith, to call Baptism Renasce●ia, is usitata veteribus loquendi forma. By being born again all the Ancient Church-Writers understand Baptism, and that they took it in this sense, is evinced from that of Justin Martyr (noted by Mr. Marshal) who speaking of the manner of the Administration of Baptism useth it in this sense.  
The Baptised party, (saith he) is brought to the place where the water is, and Regenerated in the same manner, wherein we were Regenerated; And that he is there speaking of Baptism under the name of Regeneration, 
Justin Mart. Ap. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  appears by what is added— They are then Washed in Water in the Name of our Lord God Creator of all things, and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, & the Holy Ghost. This is taken out of Justin Martyr's Apology, which no man ever questioned for Authentic.  
2. A Second exception, is, That Origen's Writings are very Corrupt as the Magdeburgenses do affirm.  
And is there not much Corruption in the Writings of all the Fathers? and do not the Magdeburgenses set down the Naevi or Errors of the rest of the Eathers? and particularly is not Tertullian (one of the Author's Witnesses whom he cries up as Opposite to Infant-Baptism, when 'tis no such matter) branded by them, for abominable foul errors concerning God and Christ? and do they not charge him to be infected with Montanism, and to be the first inventor of that filthy Ceremony of Chrysm? And notwithstanding Origen's errors, there are very precious and Golden Truths in some of his Works, particularly in his Comment upon the Galathians, which seem not to be coined in a Popish Mint: So that what hath been long spoken of him is very true,— Vbi bene nemo melius, ubi male nemo pejus. Where he speaks right, none better, where wrong, none worse.  
3. A Third charge against Origen (which the Author borrows from his old friend Mr. Tombs) is that of Erasmus who passeth this Censure on him, That he that reads his Homilies, 
Mr. Tombe's Exercit. p. 28.  knows not when he reads Origen or Ruffinus: and Perkins puts his Homilies upon the Romans among his counterfeit Works, 
Mr. Tombe's Examen, p. 7.  as Erasmus Censureth those on Leviticus.  
To which we Reply,  
1. It is to be noted that neither the Author, nor any one else hath any thing to say against Origen's Homilies upon Luke, where he is expressly for Infant-Baptism, even Mr. Perkins lets this pass without the Censure of being spurious.  
2. All that Mr. Perkins saith of his Homilies upon the Romans is, That they were not fideliter redditi a Ruffino (i.e.) not faithfully Translated by Ruffinus, which comes not up to a concluding them spurious.  
It was then in his account Origen's own work, but errors were committed in the Translation, of which that of foisting in Infant-Baptism is but a weak conjecture; for why should that be thought? since it was so universally practised, and owned in those days.  
3. He saith, They may well be rejected as spurious if we consider the Story the Magdeburgenses tell of this Ruffinus, Cent. 4. 
De illis quae ex Origine aeb Hieronimo translata, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 videantur Erasmo, Magd. Cent. 4. C. 10. de Episc. & Doct. p. 1218.  c. 10. p. 1218, 1219. and I find there is something added to the Story in the carriage. The Sum of all is that Ruffinus was a naughty man, whose wickedness (saith the Author) was discovered by Jerom, especially his abusing Origen's Works, many of which he translated out of Greek into Latin, Sophisticating them at his pleasure, and for which Jerom. writes several pieces to detect and reprove him.  
Reply.  
This is something more than the Magdeburgenses speak of him, and they have only Jerom's word for what they say; who was his mortal enemy, and they report none of the best neither concerning Jerom, as they have it from the Pen of Ruffinus. No doubt Ruffinus was no better than he should be; but for certain the Author is too partial for an Historian, laying all the blame upon Ruffinus, when the Magdeburgenses do condemn them both for their Enmity and unchristianlike carriage to each other, and in some things do vindicate Ruffinus and blame Jerom.  
I shall therefore take the freedom partly for diversion, and to rectify the Story, to give a brief account of the matter. In the first place the Magdeburgenses do inform us, That there was at first a more than ordinary friendship, and familiarity between these two, how they were as Brethren and Companions in Study; but at length there happened to be vehemens dissidium, a great breach between them, in so much that they became great enemies. But what was the cause hereof cannot be found in any of Jerom's Writings: after this they became friends again, at least in appearance.  
But the wound was not thoroughly healed, but only skinned over, for a while after there arose a new quarrel, and they were set at a farther distance than ever; they fall to calumniating and writing bitter invectives against each other, and they are both accused by the Magdeburgenses for the virulency of their Pens.  
First Ruffinus chargeth Jerom to be infected with Origen's Heresies, and put him to the trouble of an Apology; and besides he accuseth him that he had not rightly translated the Scriptures, instancing in several places. Then Jerom recriminats and accuseth him for translating Origen's Works with his Naevi or Errors, to the blemish of Origen, and danger of infecting the World thereby. And here let me tell you the Magdeburgenses interpose and speak their sense of the matter, that though Jerom charged him so highly, yet it was nimis languida ut videtur ratione, without sufficient ground for aught that they could find: For say they, Ruffinus, neither defended nor asserted Origen's errors, nor was the first that translated his Works; nor did he undertake it arbitrio suo by his own inclination, but ad Fratrum preces at the desire of his Brethren, as he fully shows in the Apology which he made to Anastasius for his Faith, a confession whereof they also set down, which is very Orthodox. Cent. 4. Cap. 10. p. 1202, 1203.  
4. The Author is again out in saying, There is only a corrupt Translation of Origen by Ruffinus, who ingeniously confesseth that he took so much liberty in his translation as to add and alter at his pleasure etc.  
It is a great mistake to say there is only a corrupt Translation of Origen by Ruffinus, and he might have learned the contrary from the Magdeburgenses Cent. 4. cap. 10. p. 1218, 1219. where they say— extant inter Origenis opera Latina facta quaedam, quorum interpres fuit Hieronimus, Erasmi judicio; Divers of Origen's Works are Translated by Jerom. This is the judgement of Erasmus, as his Homilies upon Jeremy, Ezechiel, his Homilies upon Luke and the Romans, to both which Jerom affixeth his own Preface as Erasmus observes, and in both these, have we the point of Infant-Baptism asserted; and so we see the Author might have spared the pains of telling such a Story of Ruffinus, for we give the places which are for our turn out of Origen according to Jerom's version, and if Ruffinus hath no credit with him, I hope he will allow a little to Jerom.  
3. Lastly, for that other ancient Father Cyprian, he cannot let him pass without some exceptions such as they are, though me thinks that of Vossius should silence all Cavils viz, That the Testimony of Cyprian for Infant-Baptism, both in his time and before, is beyond all exceptions. And Grotius likewise tells us that the Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus, makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of Infant-Baptism, for Fidus did not deny their Baptism, but only denied they ought to be Baptised before the eight day. But let us hear what he hath to except against Cyprian, which is;  
1. Because he doth not urge the Practice from any Apostolical Tradition or Precept, but from his own and the Council of sixty six Bishops Arguments.  
Reply.  
But what though no mention be made here of Apostolical-Tradition, 
Origenes & Cyprianus Authores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos esse. Magdeburg. Cent. 1. Lib. 2. c. 6. p. 496.  yet it follows not that he held it not as such, and the Magdeburgenses have before told us that both Origen and Cyprian that lived near the Apostles affirm that even in the Apostles time Infants were Baptised.  
But to see how inflexible and stiff this Antagonist is— if saith he, he had Asserted it for an Apostolical Tradition, his word would have been no sooner taken than when he tells us that Chrysm was so.  
To which I Reply,  
And why then shall Tertullian's supposed Word against Infant-Baptism be taken, and pass for currant, who was as the Magdeburgenses inform us the first inventor of Chrysm; and Cyprian 'tis like learned it of him who was as the Author calls him his great Master. Judge Reader whether this be fair and equal dealing.  
2. His other Exception, which he never learned from his great Master Mr. Tombs, (who was too wise to urge it when he opposed the Testimony of Cyprian. Examen, Sec. 7. pag. 10.) is, because there is good ground to question whether this was Cyprian's and sixty-six Bishop's Conclusion.  
And why so?  
1. Because we meet with no such Council, (and that is strange for one that hath launched as he hath done into the vast Ocean of Antiquity) neither yet can it appear where it was held.  
Something must be said, though it be but mere wrangling; Well I perceive the Ancient Fathers that lived next after Cyprian were dim-sighted, and could not see what good ground there was to question, whether ever Cyprian had such a Council. Had they had the perspicacity of this Author, they would never have retained so venerable an esteem of it, as is evident they had in their frequent and respective quotations of it. As Nazianzen Orat. 3. in S. Lavacrum. Chrysost. Hom. ad Neophit. Ambros in Luc. and Hieronimus Lib. 3. Dialog. Contr. Pelag. and Austin in very many places; and no less weakness is there in what follows, viz.  
And if Austin's Argument before mentioned be good to prove an Apostolical Tradition, because no Council had determined it, it concludes against any such Council.  
Reply.  
A pitiful mistake, or misunderstanding Austin's Words, which are, Quod universa tenet Ecclesia etc. That which is universally received, and practised in the Church, and had not its first Institution from some Council: (The Author should have marked that) but hath been ever retained, may be believed to be an Apostolical Tradition: which indeed is an undeniable Position, and being applied by Austin to the point in hand seems to be a Demonstration of the Apostolicalness of Infant-Baptism: Austin therefore calls it an Apostolical Tradition, because it was always practised in the Church, and had not its first Institution from Councils, neither in Cyprian's Council nor any one else, being of greater Antiquity than any of them. Neither can any man name when it began since the Apostles: and for that reason we cannot otherwise conceive rationally of it, than that it had its first Original from them.  
I shall only add those remarkable Words of Mr. Philpot, the Martyr, in his Letter to his fellow-sufferer that scrupled Infant-Baptism; which with the Scripture-Arguments he used, proved so effectual, that (as Mr. Fox in his Book of Martyrs tells us) the dissatisfied Person came thereby to be established in the doctrine of Infant-Baptism, and died in the Belief of its warrantableness. I can declare (saith Mr. Philpot) out of Ancient Writers, that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours; and then citys Origen and Cyprian out of Augustine's 28th Epistle to Jerom: where are these words viz, Cyprian did not make any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church, judged with his own fellow-Bishops, that as soon as one was born, he might be lawfully Baptised— These Authorities (saith that famous Martyr a little before his death) I do allege not to tie the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men, but to show how men's Testimonies do agree with God's Word, and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side, and that the Anabaptists have nothing but lies for them, and new-Imaginations, which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment. And so I shall leave the Author to his Boasting in what follows, and the impartial Reader to judge whether our Testimonies from Antiquity be forged and fabulous as he would render them; only I must not let pass an Objection which he starts, and which is usually made by us, which he had better have left Dormant than to give so slight an Answer to it.  
Objection.  
It is said, That by Tertullian's opposing it, it may seem that there were some that practised it in the 3d Century, and can it be supposed that any did so, except it had been warranted by such Apostolical Tradition. Observe, Reader, the answer which he gives.  
Answer.  
It is granted, Tertullian did oppose it. But who it was that did assert it, and whether upon any such account as supposed, is not mentioned, it will be on their part to prove the one and the other.  
Reply.  
1. We gather from this Answer that the Author cannot have the face to deny it was practised in the 3d Century, for if Tertullian did Oppose it, it must be supposed it was Practised, else how could he oppose it.  
2. But we must give the names of those that were for it, as before he must know where Cyprian's Council was held, or else he could not assent to the being of it: But how many names will suffice him I know not. What if I say Origen was one, for I hope by this time he may stand rectus in curia and not be excepted against for a Witness, he speaks point blank to the Case. Ecclesia ab Apostolis Traditionem accepit parvulis dare Baptismum. The Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles, to give Baptism to little Children; as we have it in his Comment upon the sixth Chapter of the Romans. And though Ruffinus riffled his works as is said, yet Jerom Translated that out of Greek, and so also his other Comment upon Luke, where he is express to the same purpose; and this is attested by Erasmus, and Jerom's Prefaces to both Books puts it beyond doubt. Let me add what I find in Mr. Baxter for farther satisfaction. You, saith he, 
Baxter plain Scripture-proof. p. 157.  to Mr. Tombs think the worse of it, because it is pleaded by Origen as a Tradition, from the Apostles; I think very much the better for it, both because it the more fully resolveth the question concerning the matter of fact, and Apostolical Custom, and shows that it was no late invention, or Innovation. And the Fathers (as is hinted before) took not the word Tradition in the Popish Sense, for that which hath been delivered in Doctrine from Age to Age, above what is delivered in Scripture, as to supply the supposed defect of Scripture. But for the very written word itself, by which the Apostles delivered the Truth, and for their Examples and the report of it, and of some other passages, especially in matter of Fact, tending only to the explication of their Doctrines, and not to the adding of new-Doctrines, as if the former were defective.  
What if I name once more Irenaeus; Qui proximus fuit temporibus Apostolorum, S. Basil de S. Sto. Cap. 25. That was next to the Apostles; who is calculated to live within some fourty-three years of St. John.  
I find the Author hath passed him by, and yet as hath been before shown he was for Infant-Baptism, otherwise what sense shall we put upon those Words of his, Lib. 2. C. 39 which are before spoken to; and which occasioned Dr. Taylor to say, The Tradition of Infant-Baptism passed through his hands, in his Consideration of the Practice of the Church in Baptising Infants. Sec. 29. pag. 55.  
3. We shall by no means grant that Tertullian was against Infant-Baptism, we have given some hints why already. But shall reserve our discourse about that till we come to its proper place, that is, the Examination of the Witness produced against Paedobaptism, whereof Tertullian is the first.   

The AUTHOR's Exceptions against Scripture-grounds for Infant-Baptism, Examined.  
NExt he falls upon Scripture-grounds usually produced for Infant-Baptism, which he is pleased to select for us (leaving out that in Rom. 11.17. which is the most principal place of all) and so to encounter them in that way and manner as he sees best. And herein he hath showed cunning, not much unlike to that before, in conjoining the condemned Ecclesiastical Authorities for Infant-Baptism, with those which Protestants own for Authentic.  
Reply.  
1. Had I been to choose my own Weapons, I would have let alone some of those the Author pitched upon.  
Secondly, Neither would I have ordered the the Proofs from some of the Texts in so flight a manner, as he doth; for if a Weapon be sharp and keen, yet if an Enemy have the handling of it how can we expect, unless he be the more ingenious, but that he will blunt the edge of it. And that Adversary shows but sorry valour, which knocks in the head some Arguments of straw, which he hath framed to show his skill on.  
In my Opinion it had been more ingenuity in the Author,  
(1) To have chosen for usonly the pertinent places that carry the clearest evidence, and to have pretermitted the rest: For if the chiefest places will hold good, the rest which are dark and disputable whether they belong to the point, may well be let alone; and if the chiefest will not carry it; much less will the other: yet this is certain that if the strength of every one of those Texts which he produceth for us, were eluded, save one, yet that one would carry it; for though two Witnesses be needful for men, yet one single one is as valid for God, as if there were many thousands.  
2. To have pitched only upon those Texts, wherein all Protestants both Lutherans and Calvinists (i.e. Paedobaptists) concur in, as pertinent to the point; whereas he knows it is controverted among them, whether some of the Scriptures produced have any thing to do with Infant-Baptisme, as both the second and third Texts instanced in: Nay the third which contains Christ's Commission for Baptism, is that which the Author and his party judge to be the main ground for Baptising Believers, and excluding Infants. And we know that this is their main Argument, that Infants are not to be baptised, because they cannot believe, and truly we were very sparing of places to prove children's Baptism, if we should pitch upon Mark 16.16. for it. And here I profess myself to be of Mr. Baxters' mind, Pos. 7. pag, 7. of his plain proof— I cannot deny, saith he, but that some Divines have brought some mis-applyed Scriptures for Infant-Baptism: Now it is easy to write against these and seem to triumph, and yet the cause be no way shaken: some silly people think, when they hear an impertinent Text put by, that all is done: when it may be all the most plain Scriptures and best arguments have never been answered with sense or reason. Having said thus much, I come now to his exceptions.  
1. The first is against that place, Mat. 19.15. Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbidden them not, etc.  
To this our Author Objects— May we not say, How doth Baptism come to be concerned in this Text, etc.  
To which I reply, First, I conceive none did ever bring this place as of itself, a full and direct proof for Infants-Baptism. But secondly it doth prove two points, which lay a good ground work for the same.  
First, That the Kingdom of God is made up as well of Infants as of grown persons: if any by Kingdom of Heaven, will needs understand it of the Kingdom of Glory; let him consider that none are of that Kingdom, who were not first of the Church, first of the Kingdom of grace here, and so it comes all to one, understand it, of which you please. The Kingdom of God is made up as well of Infants as Adult persons: 

Quùm jubet Infantes ad se accedere, nihil clariùs quàm veram Infantiam notari.  
Instit. Christ. Relig. Calv. compend. per Launeum, cap. 17. p. 325.   for Christ saith, it is of such (i.e.) Children: not of grown men resembling Children. For first, That had been no good reason why such should come to him and be blessed of him.  
2. That had been no reason why Christ should manifest so great displeasure against his Disciples, for going about to hinder them. The word is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] rendered in the New Translation, much displeased; The vulgar hath it indignè tulit. he took it ill at their hands, indignatus est, saith Beza, be looked upon it with indignation.  
Second, The second point which it proves, which is also a good groundwork; for the same, is, That Infancy is no bar or exclusion of any from coming to Christ, and receiving a Blessing. Infants are capable of benefit by Christ, although they do not actually believe; though they cannot lay hold on Christ, yet Christ can lay hold on them.  
Obj. But Baptism is not concerned in the Text, except it can be made out that, that blessing was Baptising.  
Ans. 1. It is certain that Blessing is not Baptising, but 'tis something more, and Christ in blessing them vouchsafed that to them, which usually was an Ordinance administered after Baptism, and which is of a higher nature, 
Acts 8.17, 18, 19 & 19.6.  and so we may argue from this to Baptism Inclusively, or a majori, from the greater.  
2. Though Blessing be not Baptism, yet in as much as they were of the Kingdom of Heaven whom he blest, it follows they were qualified Subjects for Baptism, for grant to Infants a Church relation, and their Baptism will follow upon it; if one stands good the other will, and this is all we plead for, from the Text.  
For that which follows out of Dr. Taylor; Christ Blessed Children, and so dismissed them, therefore Infants aré not to be Baptised.  
It is a very idle one. For, First, from a particular Omission to conclude an universal unlawfulness, is most unreasonable, as Dr. Hammond speaks. It is as if one should thus argue, [Christ when he Preached in the Mount, did not then pray, but only preach, therefore 'tis not lawful to pray. Secondly Christ did not that we know baptise any, John 4.2. And if an Argument drawn from his Example Negative, be pressing, it would conclude as well against Baptising those of riper years, as children. 3. Since Christ did that for them which did transcend Baptism, we may rather conclude; that certainly, if he had Baptised any he would those children, since he shows more respect to them then any grown persons. 
Mr. Sydenbam in his Christian and sober Exercitation.  Fourthly, Christ's Blessing them holds forth as much as if he had baptised them: for in that outward rite the Holy Ghost was conveyed, and by laying on of hands, others received it, as appears from Acts 8.17, 18, 19 & 19.6. And why not in this Act of Christ, upon the Infants (as Mr. Sydenham argues) And if this Act of Christ were not a compliment only, but an outward sign of the receiving the Holy Ghost, Who should hinder Water that Infants should not be Baptised, seeing they have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Act. 10.47. And the same Author farther adds— What can be more than for Christ to take up Infants in his Arms, lay his hands on them, as an outward sign to consecrate them to himself, and to show their capacity of receiving the Holy Ghost, and then to bless them? And yet we must with scorn deny them a little water, and think it too much to have them named among the lowest sort of visible Saints, and when Christ owns them publicly, and saith, that of such is the Kingdom of God. But I shall rather believe Christ's Testimony, than any man's forward opinion. And to what intent should Christ do all this, but to confirm their old state in the Church, and not to cast them out of it, and from the participation of all outward signs of falvation? Let men's consciences, not gulphed in prejudice, judge: This Text, if there were no more, will fly, (saith he) in the consciences one day of the most confident contemners of Infants, and their Baptism.  
A Second Scripture instanced and excepted against is, that John 3.5. 
Second Scripture. instanced and excepted against.  Except a man be born of Water, and the Spirit, he can in no wise enter into the Kingdom of God. From whence (saith the Author) 'tis concluded, That there is no other way to Regenerate and save Infants, and add them to the Church, but by Baptism.  
But who are they that conclude thus from that Text? The Papists, as himself confesseth: And what I pray is that to us? who disclaim such inferences, as he also acknowledgeth we do, and for very good reasons, and he might have done well to have set them down for the benefit of his Reader, some of them I shall name as,  
First, Because as Calvin speaks in his Institutions, 
Instit. Christ. Relig. Calv. Compend. p. 322. per Launeum edit. 2d.  Salus consistit in promissione, Salvation depends upon God's Covenant, Gen. 17.7. which he citys, adding in the same place, Infants may be capable of Salvation without Baptism, as the Israelites who died without Circumcision. Though there be an absolute necessity that whoever are saved, they must be saved by the Covenant, yet there is not an absolute necessity of the Seal. Before the law the Covenant was made, for our comfort, in respect of our Infants. The seed of the Woman shall break the Serpent's head, Gen. 3.15. yet there was no seal to it for 2000 years, nor was there such absolute necessity afterward in the days of circumcision, for those that died before the eighth day. The necessity of Salvation by the Covenant was absolute, but the necessity of the seal only Conditional, so far forth as it may be had.  
2. If Baptism be of absolute necessity to Salvation, that regeneration is affixed to it, and none can be saved without it, than it is in man's power to save, and to destroy, if they will baptise their children they may save them, if they neglect it, damn them, which is a horrible absurdity to conceive.  
Secondly, Now to the Text itself, we shall next inquire what it affords, with great respect to the Learned, which may judge otherwise of it.  
Either this Scripture is to be understood of Baptism or not? if of Baptism, then either generally belonging to all men, 
Dr. Sclater on the 4. Rom. ver. 9  or limitedly to Infants only: If of Infants only, then saith Dr. Solater, 1. What meant Christ to propound it to Nicodemus an old man? Was it his purpose to teach him; that in as much as he was not Baptised in his infancy, he could not enter into the Kingdom of God? then sure, I shall not wonder, if Nicodemus conceited a necessity, for an old man desiring to come to Heaven, to return back into his Mother's Womb, and be born again. 2. Will they say, it must have this gloss by limitation; if a man want Baptism by contempt and not otherwise? why then should it stand in force against Infants in their own persons not capable of contemning, and whose Parents desire it, but are prevented by necessity? Alas! poor infants, that you, free from contempt in yourselves, and your Parents also, must yet away to Hell for bare want of Baptism; and yet grown persons [as Papists themselves acknowledge] in the same want, have access to Heaven, so they be free from contempt: Can we imagine bare want to be more prejudicial to Infants, then to grown men.  
But what Reader, if it appear that the place cannot be understood of Baptism at all? I must leave it to thee to judge of what is offered, to show, that 'tis only Regeneration and not Baptism that is concerned in the Text, for Water and the Spirit here by an Exegesis are one, or if you will according to the judgement of Dr. Taylor, by Water is meant the effect of the Spirit: Nor is this the single judgement of Dr. Taylor, but very many others, who in their time were the Magna Ecclesiae lumina, who so interpret it, amongst whom are Calvin, Beza, Piscator; Calvin indeed acknowledgeth the ancient Expositors followed chrysostom, that the Text was to be understood of Baptism, yet professeth himself of another mind. Beza in his Annotations of the place declares himself to the same purpose, that he understood by Water in that place is meant rather the effect of the spirit then the Sacrament of Baptism— sin verò malimus Christum cum Pharisaeo disserentem Aquae nomine, ad externas ablutiones allusisse, etc. I rather conceive Christ reasoning with this Pharisee under the name of Water, doth allude to those external washing, which were useless without the cleansing of the Spirit. Et Spiritus nomen sit exegesis [that is, a figure which signifies a dark speech made clear by another word, which here is the Spirit] nominis aquae, sicut alibi spiritus & ignis in baptismo conjunguntur, By the name of Water we are to understand by an Exegesis the Spirit, as elsewhere the Spirit and Fire are joined, Though the Order be inverted there, and he gives the reason of it. So Piscator, except a man be born of Water, that is, ex spiritu sancto, exserente quasi vim aquae— Of the holy Spirit, which operates in the soul as Water doth in the body, and he also refers to the same place, Mat. 3.5. Of being Baptised with the Spirit, and with Fire. We have also the great Chamier arguing the same, seeing in this sense the words bear an absolute truth without any limitation.  
The Author concludes this with sporting himself at the different grounds upon which the Assertors of Infant-Baptism hold it out; as the Fathers upon one ground, the Lutherans upon another, the Calvinist differing from them, the Episcoparians one way, the Presbyterians another, and the Independents have a peculiar ground varying from them all.  
Now thanks be to Mr. Tombs his eleventh Argument against Infant-Baptism, for all this, Exercitation pag. 33. The Assertors of Infant-Baptism little agree amongst themselves, saith he, upon what ground they may build it. Cyprian and others draw it from the Universality of grace, and the necessity of Baptism to Salvation. Austin brings the faith of the Church, others (the Church of England) substitute the promised surety in the place of the Faith, and Repentance of the Baptised: The Lutherans the faith of the Infant, others the faith of the next Parent in Covenant in a gathered Church.  
Reply.  
This, saith Mr. Geree unto him, hath art, I will not say Sophistry in it; and what though divers men have let fall different grounds, yet none of those are the main upon which they ground it (for that's the Covenant of God's grace, that takes in the Child with the Parent) if, (saith he) I should from several ways or Arguments used by the Antipaedobaptists, say, they did oppose. Infant-Baptism on several grounds, therefore their opposition were invalid, you would think my answer unsolid, and so do I your Argument. Father I desire the Author to reflect upon his own party who oppose children's Baptism, by denying that Covenant made to Abraham was a Covenant of Grace; some say it was Temporary, some Typical, some mixed, and I know not what; So they much differ in the foundation of their practice. Some build it on a bare confession of sin, whatever the man be, as to grace, some on profession of Faith, some on signs of grace, etc. Mr. Geree saith well— weakness in men's sight, variety of fancy and principles, carry men into different ways of defending the same truth.  
The Author now frames his exceptions against those Scriptures which hold forth a Covenant-Right to the Children of Believeers, 
4. Argument from federal holiness excepted against.  and from whence we infer their baptising, and thus he gins— Paedobaptists being loath to part with the Tradition, and yet seeing the rottenness of the ancient ground upon which 'twas built, found out this new foundation for it of Covenant-Holiness, of which Zwinglius about 120 years, for aught that he can learn, was the first Founder and singular from all that went before him.  
All this is from Master Tombs, 
The Author a notorious Plagiary having taken all in his 43. pages following from Mr. Tombs his two Books of Exerc. and Examen, I mean as to the substance of it, and most in his words and method, only indeed he hath two quotations out of Dr. Taylor, and one out of Dr. Owen. Mr. Tombs Exercit. p. 11.  and so throughout to the endc of this Chapter, both Arguments Authorities, Scriptures, and Cryticismes, with this difference, that he varies a little in some things, and doth not speak so warily as he. Mr. Tombs in his Examen part 3. pag. 35. gins the Argument (as framed by us) from the connexion between the Covenant and the Seal, but this man ends it with that, and the Scriptures are in both one, viz. Gen. 17.7. Acts 2.39. I need not therefore much trouble myself for an Answer to the Author, for the same, which Mr. Martial gave Tombs, doth the work to a hair.  
The Author tells us that for aught he could learn Zwinglius was the first Founder of the Argument for Baptism from federal Holiness, and this indeed he learned from Mr. Tombs his Exercitation, pag. 11. whose words are— Whether any in the Ages before the last passed expounded it of federal holiness, I am not yet certain; and in the two last lines of page the 79. of his Examen, he hath it thus, viz. None that ever I met with expounded it of federal Holiness till the controversy of the Anabaptists in Germany.  
To this I will seek for no other answer than what Mr. Marshal gives him, the cause (saith he) I confess depends not upon this [whether such an interpretation was then first put] But it discovers some defect in your reading, and then shows Athanasius one of the most Ancient Greek Fathers, and Tertullian one of the most Ancient of the Latin Fathers, bring this Text to prove the Prerogative of the Infants of Believers in such a sense as they could not have done, if to their understanding it had not related to the Covenant of grace. But to the Argument, and let us see what is excepted against it.  
The Argument is this, viz. They who are holy with a federal or Covenant holiness ought to be baptised, But the Infants of Believers are holy, with such a holiness, Ergo, This is grounded on the Text, which saith [else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy.]  
Against which it is excepted, that there are two things in the Argument asserted, but not at all proved. First, that the holiness in the Text is a Federal, or Covenant-holiness. Secondly, that federal holiness qualifies Infants for Baptism, both which the Author positively denies upon the following grounds.  
First, because the Holiness in the Text be it what it will be, whether Moral, Federal, or Matrimonial, is neither here nor elsewhere, assigned to be a ground of Baptising Children upon; it being only the ground laid down in the institution that can warrant the same.  
To which I reply, That in the first part of the Book, chapter the first, is showed, how the Infant Seed of Believers are included in the institution, or comprehended in the Commission as baptizable, and being not willing actum agere, I must refer the Reader thither. We have also proved that they are of the Church of Christ. chap. 6. of the first part, upon which account they are likewise subjects of Baptism. Farther, if their holiness be a Covenant-holiness, that is, a holiness of special separation to God; and he owneth them as his peculiar ones, by virtue of his Cove nant-Relation, this is virtual  and implicitly a word of command for the Baptising such In fants, Antipaedobaptists are ever up with this note, where is your command? What word of Institution have you to bear you out? To this we have spoken enough before, in telling them we have an implicit command for what we do; and farther we offer this Syllogism— They to whom God is a God in Covenant, have a command to receive the seal of the Covenant, Gen. 17.10, 11. If then the same Covenant be given to Believers and their Seed, and if Baptism be given to Christians, instead of Circumcision, as shall be proved in its proper place, than the same command which obliged Abraham to be Circumcised, and his seed, doth in like manner, the faithful and their seed also.  
Secondly, Because, saith he, if it should be granted that Faederal holiness were a ground to baptise Children upon, under the Gospel, as it was to Circumcise them under the law— yet it will appear from substantial Arguments that no such holiness is intended here.  
Let us hear what they are; namely,  
1. Because there is no such Holiness in the new-Testament, as Federal, belonging to Children.  
Well argued! this seems to be near of kin to idem per idem, it is not, because it is not. So there is no such holiness intended in the Text; Why? Because there is no such holiness in the New Testament, and the Text is in the New Testament. The matter is well mended in what follows— It is not where to be found. This is only a Dictate, for he addeth no reason; It is not where to be found; But you must understand he means by himself and his party that have made such inquisition and search into Scripture, that they only have found what is there; what they judge to be the fence of Scripture is so, and we must all come and learn of them what the Scripture contains, what it implies and what may be inferred from it, what not. Away with this Popery. But what if I say the Covenant holiness of Children may be found in this Text? I see no reason but my word may be be credited as well as his. Nay, if we must go by an implicit faith, we shall carry it, for almost all the Godly and Learned Divines in Europe have found Covenant-holiness in the New-Testament, not only in the 2 Cor. 7.14. But in Rom. 11.15, 16, 17. where it is said, if the first fruits are boly, so is the lump: if the root be holy, so are the Branches, which demonstrates the Covenant-holiness of the children of believing Gentiles, now under the Gospel, as much as of the Jewish children, that descended naturally from Abraham, under the Law, but this must not be admitted, and why?  
1. Because it contradicts the Gospel-Dispensation as before, that is, I suppose in the first part of his Book, chap. 5. and I refer the Reader to our Answer of that Chapter, to which I add this by way of surplusage, that if our Children be not federally holy, how could the Apostle press the Jews to embrace Christianity, by telling them, The Promise is made to you and to your seed, and to all that are afar off, even as many as our Lord God shall call. So that to say the Doctrine of Federal holiness contradicts the Gospel-dispensation, is to contradict the Gospel which expressly says the contrary, Act. 2.38, 39 Where [mark the words are not the promise] [Was] to you, and to your Children, but [is] intimating, that the Covenant is not repealed, but in force still, under the Gospel-Dispensation, as much as ever it was anciently to the Jews and their posterity, and to them that are afar off, the Gentiles, and then to their Children too. even their Infant Children, otherwise these two absurdities would follow.  
1. The grace of Christ under the Gospel-dispensation would be less than what it was under the Law, for then the believing Parent with his Children were federally holy, and if it were not so now, then should we be in a worse condition under Christ, then under Moses.  
2. It will render the Children of the Jews also in a worse condition, upon their coming in to Christ, than they were in under the legal Administration, contrary to that, Jer, 30.20. Ezek. 37.25, 26.  
2. His second Reason is, Because such apprehensions intails Grace to Nature, Regeneration to Generation, contrary to John, 3. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and Eph. 2. We are all the Children of wrath by Nature.  
This hath been before answered, and I shall only now say, that this is a false and fraudulent insinuation to beget a prejudice in the weak against our assertion of federal holiness, for he knows very well,  
1. That our Divines hold that gratia non transfunditur per carnem, and that grace is not extraduce, Grace is not hereditary, that is inherent Grace: We all ways affirm that all Children are alike depraved, and all the posterity of Adam are alike conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity, all are Carnal and unclean by nature.  
2. We farther affirm that though all the Children of Believers are not holy with an inherent personal holiness that accompanies Regeneration, yet the Children of either believing Parent, are holy with a holiness-relation put upon them, and separartion to God, as his peculiar people, by virtue of which, they have a right to the external privileges of the Covenant, whereof they are as capable as the children of the faithful Israelites.  
3. It is acknowledged even by Mr. Tombs himself, that the Children of the Jews were federally holy, for the whole body of that people (Parents and Children) were called a Holy Seed, a Holy Nation, a peculiar people, and Jews by Nature, distinguished from the Sinners of the Gentiles, Gal. 2.15. And yet this did not entail Grace to Nature, or Regeneration to Generation under the Old Testament, and how doth it then do it under the New?  
3. His third Reason is, Because it contradicts experience both of former and later times, wherein Godly men have had wicked Children, and wicked men good Children.  
Although this be true, yet the Doctrine of federal holiness remains unshaken: for children are not therefore holy, because born of believing Parents [for so they are no better than others] but because they are taken with their Parents into Gods gracious Covenant, and have therefore a right as proper subjects, to the Seal thereof. Even as the Children of the Godly under the Law; Ishmael and Esau, during their Infant-state, were comprehended in the Covenant, and did partake of the external privilege thereof, Circumcision, the sign and Seal of the Covenant, although afterward they degenerated, proving wicked, and so discovenanted themselves.  
4. He tells us, The Tenet of Federal holiness necessitates the owning the Docirine of falling from grace; but this is his mistake: for the Doctrine of Covenant-holiness in regard of the Children of Believers, consists very well with perseverance in Grace. For we must consider Grace is either Common or saving: The Elect and faithful Seed are only in a State of saving Grace, and can never totally fall away, nevertheless persons may fall away from Commongrace, (1.) From the External privileges of the Gospel and Covenant of Grace. And though we assert this latter, yet cannot any man form thence infer, that it necessitates the owning the Doctrine of falling from grace in the sense of the Arminians. We read of some who are said to be false in God's Covenant, and to Apostatise from it, Psalm 44.17. Daniel 11.30, 31. And the Apostle bewails the Jews upon this account Kom. 9 Rom. 11.  
2. His second Argument is, 
Mr. Tomb's Exerc. fourth Arg. on 1 Cor. 7.14. p. 10.  Because the Text, he saith, intends another, viz. a Civil or Matrimonial Holiness, in Opposition to Fornication, Uncleanness, Bastardy, This is Mr. Tombs again.  
In answer to which, I might first except against the impropriety of phrase, the author useth, of Civil and Matrimonial holiness, I have read of Civil honesty, but never of Civil holiness in any Orthodox writer. And Mr. Tombs himself rejects it, I do not like saith he, the calling it Civil holiness, for it is not from the laws of men, but the institution of God, and therefore I rather call it Matrimonial holiness; But neither of them are good.  
It cannot possibly be meant of Matrimonial holiness, as if the sense were this, your children are holy that is Legitimate,  
1. Because, Holy, is not where so taken in all the Scripture.  
2. Because it is such a Holiness as that Children could not have, if neither of the Parents were a Believer, or had a sanctified use of the other, which cannot be legitimacy, for that may be as well without that, as with it.  
3. It is such a holiness as argues the unbelieving party to be sanctified in, or to the other, but mere Legitimacy doth not so.  
4. It must be such a holiness as may answer the Corinthians doubt, which was not whether when one party came to be a believer, the Marriage with the Unbeliever were dissolved [as the Author falsely supposeth, when he saith the Question was, Whether their Spiritual Relation to Christ, did not dissolve their Carnal Relation entered into in Unbelief] But the doubt was, whether they might still persist in so near a Communion with an Unbeliever as Marriage is? Now it had been satisfaction to tell them they might, for their Children were not bastards. They might displease God by such a Communion, though their children were not Bastards. But says he, your Believing gives you a holy use of your Wife, though an Unbeliever, as appears, because your children born of such are holy, and owned by Christ as within his Covenant.  
5. I might add. The Holiness in the Text is not put in Opposition to Bastardy; for, that cannot be the sense of the Apostle which implies untruth, because then, if one of the Parents had not been a Believer, and so by being a Believer had Sanctified the Unbeliever, their children must have been Bastards, whereas though both the Parents had been Infidels, yet the children were not Bastards, that were begotten in lawful Wedlock.  
His second Argument to prove it a Holiness of that kind as he supposeth, and not federal is, Because the Holiness of the Children is of no other Nature, then that spoke of the unbelieving Parent in the Text, and if one will entitle to the Ordinance, so the other.  
This the Author dictates, and since he brings no proof, for what he says, I may as well deny it, and say no more. Nevertheless I shall give a reason to prove the holiness of the children is other then that spoken of the unbelieving Parent. Namely, because the children here are said to be holy in themselves, But the unbelieving [Whether Husband or Wife] is only said to be sanctified in, or to the believing Yokefellow, as all other creatures; the meat he eats, the  he wears are sanctified; None of which are holy in themselves, but only in reference to the believer— quoad ejus usum, to his use and service, and therefore cannot be called holy, but the children in the Text are said to be holy in themselves and not sanctified or made holy to another. Mr. Cotton of New England is full to the same purpose in his Dialogue about Baptism. Though the word Sanctified and holy come of the same Root, saith he, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet the Apostle useth them here in such a different phrase or manner of speech, as putteth a manifest difference in the sense or signification of them. For when he saith, the Unbelieving Yokefellow is sanctified, he doth not leave it so, without a limitation or restriction, but joineth the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (i.e.) Sanctified in or to the believer, and that limiteth the sense to the Believers use, But when he speaketh of Children he doth it not with such limitation, they are holy to the Believer, but Positively they are holy.  
The Author shuts up this with another mistake.  
The Holiness spoken of the unbelieving Parent, and the Child being of the same Nature, then if one will entitle to the Ordinance, so the other.  
Posito uno absurdo mille sequuntur. One absurdity laid down, draws an innumerable train after it. The Holiness is not one and the same as before, and therefore cannot entitle to the same privileges. And besides, I add, the Covenant was not made with the Believer and his Yokefellow, but with him, and his Seed, and therefore the one hath a right to the Ordinance of Baptism, the other not.  
The third Argument, (such as it is) is from the consideration that children in the Text is not to be limited to Infants, 
Mr. Tombs again, Examen p. 73.  or such children that they might have since the Religious difference happened, but of grown children, for a man's Child is his Child, though thirty, forty, or fifty years old, etc.  
'Tis wonderful to behold the shifts of error, This is old Tombs again, Exam. pag. 73. He saith, Your children indiscriminatim, without difference, as well those you had before, one when of you was a Believer. But this Muse is soon stopped by these considerations. 
Quòd enim nonnulli ad liheros ex utroque infideli susceptos extendunt, qui non sint spurii sed legitimi, falso dici apparet ex hypothesi pauli. Quor sum enim vel de spuriis, vel de infidelis utriusque naptiis dissereret? Bezae Annot. in locum.  First, That the Corinthians could not possibly be so  as to doubt whether those children which were begotten in their Infidel state were Bastards, before this Religious difference happened; nor can we conceive the Apostle would have suggested such a false thing unto them, as if those Children had been to be so reputed, had not one of them turned Believer. Secondly, The Children then born after one of them was turned Christian is unquestionably that which the Apostle intends, and if so, than Children is most rationally to be limited to Infant Children, such as should be or had been newly born upon their Parents Believing, for we may well suppose the scruple arose presently after conversion, about cohabitation and converse with their Infidel-Yoak-fellows, and whether it were not irreligious (not Fornication as Antipaedobaptists very weakly suppose) for the Believer to procreate with the Infidel.  
His fourth Argument why it cannot be a new Covenant-Holiness that qualifies and entitles to Baptism is—  
First because that cannot be known; 
The fourth Argnment taken from Mr. Tombs vide Mr. Baxters plain proof for Infant's Church-Membership and Baptism. p. 92.  for if the Parent professing faith, be a Hypocrite, and not in Covenant themselves, then may you Baptise a wrong subject, as well as a right.  
I perceive the Author's strength is almost spent. His reason runs low, and is near come to the dregs; for what doth this his arguing amount to? shall we not find those who are for Baptising grown persons, upon the profession of Faith in the same predicament? may not these be Hypocrites also, and not in Covenant, and if so, do they not Baptise a wrong subject? When therefore they have cleared this difficulty for themselves they have done it for us, Farther if it be the reality of Faith and Holiness in grown persons that qualifies for Baptism, than none must be Baptised, because this cannot be known; but if it be said a serious profession is sufficient [for, De occultis non judicat Ecclesia, The Church judgeth not of secret or hidden things] Then the same also is sufficient for the Infants of such so professing. The distinction which is used by Divines may give light in this point, namely, there is an external being in Covenant, in fancy visibilis Ecclesiae, in the esteem and judgement of the Church, and that is visible Profession or Holiness, and this gives right to visible privileges, 2. There is an internal being in Covenant, in regard of the spiritual saving benefits of it; and it is out of the reach of the Church to judge of this latter. I shall shut up this with the words of Mr. Marshal in his Defence of Infant-Baptism, pag. 108. viz. When therefore I say they [Infant's] are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their Parents. I mean look what right a visible Professor hath to be received and reputed to belong to the Visible Church, Quà visibilis Professor, as a visible Professor, that right his child hath so to be esteemed. Now I conceive the Author himself will confess that the spiritual part and privileges of the Covenant of Grace belongs not to visible Professors, as visible, but only to such among them who are inwardly such as their external profession holds out, but yet there are outward Church privileges, 
Mr. Blakes Covenant Sealed.  which belong to them, as they are visible Professors, As to to be reputed the Children of the Kingdom, Mat. 8.42. Act. 3.25. And in this sense St. Paul speaking of the Body of the Jewish people saith, 
Rom. 9.4.  To them pertaineth the Adoption, [Not the spiritual adoption, but the honour of being separated, and reputed Gods Children, Deut. 14] and the Glory, and the Covenants, etc.  
Secondly he saith, such an absurdity would follow, that no unbelievers Child is in Covenant or Elect, etc.  
To this I answer, that no Unbelievers child is in Covenant in the sense before mentioned, that is, in fancy Ecclesiae, in the face of the Church, until he make a Profession of his Faith. Nevertheless he may belong to the Election of God's Grace, but that's not to the point in hand, for Election is not a Covenant, nor any in Covenant because elected.  
Thirdly he adds the concurrent Testimony and Confession of many Learned Commentators and parties themselves upon the place, that the Text is to be understood of matrimonial, and not federal holiness. As Austin, Jerom, Ambrose, Melancton, Musculus, Camerarius, Erasmus, to which saith he, we may add many more, as if these were collected by his own pains. Whereas he hath only added the last, the rest were all gathered and published by Mr. Tombs near thirty years since. And that the Reader may not think I injure him, I shall parallel them once more.  
H. D. Jerom, saith, because of God's appointment, Marriage is holy.  
H. D. Ambrose thus, The Children are Holy, because they are born of Lawful Marriage.  
H. D. Melancthon, in his Commentary on the place thus. Therefore Paul answers, that the Marriages are not to be pulled asunder, for their unlike opinions of God; if the impious person do not cast away the other: and for comfort he adds as a reason, The unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the believing Wife; Meat is sanctified, for that which is holy in use, that is, granted to Believers from God; so here he speaks the use of Marriage to be holy, and to be granted of God.  
H. D. Musculus in his Comment upon the place confesseth, That he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists.  
H. D. Camerarius in his Commentary upon the place, saith, (for the unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified) an usual change of the Tense; that is, Sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage, for without this he saith, it would be, that their Children should be unclean, that is infamous and not Legitimate, who so are holy, that is during the Marriage, are without all blot of ignominy.  
J. T. Hierome, saith, because by God's appointment Marriage is holy, Exerc. p. 12.  
J. T. Ambrose, hath it thus, the Children are holy, because they are born of lawful Marriage Exercit. p. 12.  
J. T. Melancthon, in his Commentary on the place, Therefore Paul answers, that the Marriages are not to be pulled asunder, for their unlike opinions of God, if the impious person do not cast away the other: and for comfort he adds as a reason, The unbelieving Husband is Sanctified by the believing Wife. And elsewhere he saith, Meat is Sanctified, for that which is holy in use, so here, he speaks the use of Marriage to be holy, and to be granted of God, Exer. p. 11.  
J. T. Musculus on the 1 Cor. 7.14. hath those words— I have sometimes abused the present place against the Error of the Anabaptists Exercit. p. 1. H. D. leaves out Error, because that sounds ill and an ignorant Reader upon the leaving that out, may judge Musculus was Proselyted to them.  
J. T. Joachimus Camerarius, about this matter in his Comment [for the unbelieving Husband hath been Sanctified] an usual change of the Tense, that is, sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage, for without this, he saith, it would be, that their Children should be unclean that is, infamous and not legitimat, who so are holy, that is, during the Marriage, are without all blot of ignominy, Exercit. pag. 11.  
By this the Reader may see that our Antagonist hath little reason to keep such a vaunting with things made ready to his hand. And in Answer to all the Testimony of these Commentators, that it is to be understood of Legitimacy, in opposition to uncleanness and Bastardy, besides the aforementioned Reasons against it, I am of Mr. Marshal's mind (as he told Mr. Tombs) that though some Ancient and Modern do interpret this Text as he did, yet it is easy to bring 10 for one that interpret it for federal holiness, and this saith he to Mr. Tombs, you will confess although I forbear to bombast my Book with them, no ways desiring that this cause should be carried by number of voices— only because Camerarius is named as against us in the interpretation, and he is joined and bound up at the end of Beza, I mean that which was Printed at Cambridge, I shall acquaint the Reader how positive Beza is who carries the Text for federal holiness; Sed quid si quis hoc negassot? Imo verò nemo id potuit negare, cum constaret do promissione in qua semen quoque comprehenditur. No man may interpret it otherwise, it being according to the Covenant which comprehends the seed. Nec alia causa est cur sanctorum liberos ad Baptismum admittamas, quàm quia sancti sunt (id est in faedere comprehensi) ab ipso utero. This is the only reason why we Baptise the Children of the Godly, because they are holy, (that is comprehended in the Covenant) from their Mother's Womb.  
Now the Author is for answering our Objections against their interpretation of the Text.  
Object.  
You give another sense of the word [Holy] then is to be found in Scripture, for no where is holy, the same with Legitimat, but throughout the Bible in many hundred places Holiness is taken for a Separation to God, saith Mr. Sydenham and Mr. Baxter.  
And besides them, all know, holiness is taken for a special separation of things, or persons to God and his use. Mr. Marshal, Geree, Blake, and all latter writers as well as former, so take it in the present point, [and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the Text rendered holy is most used to express the Hebrew word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which ever signifies what is usui Divino accommodatum, that which is appropriated to a Divine use, which is the proper notion of the word in the old and new Testament, as Sydenham notes, and never taken otherwise; and for the proof of it, tells us, he had compared above 300 places (The Author speaks of 600) in the old Testament according to the Septuagint, and all the New Testament places where the word is used.  
Well, How doth our Antagonist answer the Objection which he bring?— Why thus—  
First suppose it be so [He is no farther yet than a suppose] that the word signifies, that, in all those places but this, viz. 1 Cor. 7.14. [But now are they holy) it follows not but it may have this sense properly enough here, the scope of the place leading to it? as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies authority or power in all other places, 
This is also borrowed from Mr Tombs.  yet in the 1 Corin. 11 15. is rendered a Veil, etc.  
No wonder that Heretics are so inflexible when even good men, (such as I hope both Mr. Tombs and this Author are) will wrangle at this rate, & somnem movere lapidem, try every way rather than be thought to err in their conceits: and where this humour is predominant, men were better be silent, and not dispute at all, for it puts an abuse upon the Scripture, and renders Religion not only ridiculous but turns it into a Fire brand of contention. Thus our Author being unwilling to part with his fond notion of the word, Holy, in the Text, doth I fear profanely abuse the Scripture, by flying to this old shift of Mr. Tombs grounded upon a mistake of the scope of the Text as is before shown, for the Corinthians doubt was whether it was sinful to cohabit with their Infidel Yoak-fellows, and not whither is was fornication to live with them. It will not be amiss to give you the reply that Mr. Baxter made to Tombs, when he urged that though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth in all other places signify authority or power, yet in the 1 Cor. 11.15. it is rendered a Veil. To which saith Mr. Baxter, if God do not where in all Scripture call the mere making a thing lawful (the sanctifying it) but many hundred times use the word in another sense; then we must not call it, nor so interpret him here, but God doth no where in Scripture call the mere making a thing lawful (the Sanctifying of it) therefore we must not do so, nor here so interpret it. Mr. Tombs granted the Antecedent, but denying the consequence, said, that though God did not so use the word, yet we might, and though he use it five hundred times otherwise, yet we must so interpret him here  
To which, saith Mr. Baxter, I am resolved to learn of God how to speak rather than you, and to follow Scripture phrase as near as I can, etc. But I must follow the Author—  
And secondly, saith he, Neither are we to seek of some Parallel place, where the word holy signifies this sort of Holiness, 
Mr. Tombs Exercit. p. 13, 14.  viz. Matrimonial holiness, Mal. 2.15. A holy seed, viz. a Legitimat seed, as Calvin and Camer, and others enlarge upon it, in opposition to Bastardy, for so were Bastards to be esteemed, Deut. 23.17. and so 1 Thes. 4.3, 4, 5. This is the will of God even your Sanctification, and that you abstain from Fornication. etc.  
Still Mr. Tombs word by word, both Scriptures and Authors, so that the Book might have well born the Title of Tombs rediviuns, but,  
First, For that in Malachy it hath no nearness to it; for Godly or of God is not the same with Holy: nor doth he say that all Seed begotten in lawful Marriage of one to one, is a Godly Seed: But that he might seek a seed of God; that so he might have a Church proceeding from orderly and chaste marriage. Mr. Gerre hath cleared this very well in his Vindiciae Paedobaptismi. The place in Malachy, saith he, to Mr. Tombs doth not any thing countenance your conceit, that Holy is taken for Legitimate: not only because that place is capable of another sense then to import a Legitimate Seed, but if it be taken for Legitimate, it follows not that Holy and Legitimate are one; Holy is a higher state than Legitimate, both are from God's Ordination; Seed in both senses may be termed a Seed of God, as the Original is there, and yet they be different, and so though a Seed of God be translated Legitimate, yet it follows not that holy is taken for Legitimate.  
Then for that place in Deuteronomy 23.17. This makes it more unlikely, saith the aforementioned Author, for though Bastards were once Legally unclean, yet that was a Ceremonial thing, that was abrogated when the Apostle wrote to the Corinthians, and for the Apostle then in that sense to say Bastards were unclean, was neither true, nor safe, for it were a reviving again the Ceremonial Law. And for the other Text, 1 Thes. 4.3, 4, 5. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanctification is the same with Chastity, Mr. Marshal did not fly to a shift, when he told Tombs, that Chastity among the Heathens is never called Sanctification, but among Believers it is, being a part of the New-Creation, and one branch and part of their Sanctification wrought by the spirit of God; for the Apostle here writes to the Saints to take heed of that sin to which, whilst they were in their Infidel State, they were much given up to. Chastity indeed amongst Infidels we call a moral virtue, but cannot properly be called a part of Sanctification.  
Thirdly (which is the last reason the Author brings, I should have said Mr. Tombs) Neither can Matrimonial holiness be said not to be a Separation to God; 
Mr. Tombs Examen. pag. 77.  for it is no other than setting a part according to God's Ordinance, and which is called honourable (or in this sense holy) etc.  
The Author had been ingenious if he had given us all that Mr. Tombs saith upon this— for he flies to the English Liturgy for help; I may add, saith he, that Marriage hath had the reputation of a holy estate, as the Liturgy calls it.  
In answer to which this may suffice, it is a chaste estate, but for the term holiness to be given to it, it is to be susspected to be the Issue of a supposed Sacrament, 
Mr Geree Vinditiae Paedollapt.  so esteemed by the Papists, and this may occasion some Epithets given to it, which are yet retained, that aught to be laid aside.  
There are two other petty objections which I let pass as not thinking them worthy of any more answers, 
Vide Marshals defence p, 146. and Gerees Vindiciae Paedobapt. p. 25.  when both Mr. Marshal and Mr. Geree hath done it so well, to whom I refer the Reader.  
Exceptions against our Arguments for Infant Baptism, from Gen. 17. Acts 2.39. removed.  
In the next place he attempts to invalidate our great Argument for Infant-Baptism drawn from the connexion, that is, between the Covenant and the seal, so that if the Infant seed of Believers are found to be within the Covenant of God's Grace, they ought therefore to partake of the Seal; The Author sights most furiously against this Argument, but all the Weapons he makes use of in this engagement, are fetched out of Mr. Tombs his Armoury, whose edges were long since blunted in an encounter with Mr. Martial and Mr. Geree, yet hath he thought fit to whet and furbish them over again, and to make a great flourish, as if he would do some notable execution. But thou wilt find Reader, that he tenders nothings to the end of the Chapter, but a nauseous Crambe, a Repetition of the old routed Arguments; and indeed the controversy hath been so much bandied too and fro, that without a miraculous invention, it is impossible to find out any thing New, either Pro or Con, and the utmost that can be done, is but to improve the Old Arguments. The foundation upon which we ground our practice, is God's Covenant, Gen. 17.7. from whence (saith he) it is thus argued.  
Those to whom the Gospel-Covenant belonged to them, the Seal thereof appertained: But to Believers and their seed the Gospel Covenant belonged, as Gen. 17.7. I'll be a God to thee and thy seed, Acts 2.39. The promise is to you and to your children.  
Therefore to them the seal thereof, Circumcision so called, Rom. 4.11. did appertain, Gen. 17.10. For the Faederati were to be Signati, those in the Covenant were to have the Seal thereof; And therefore by consequence it naturally follows, That if Circumcision, the seal of the Gospel-Covenant belonged to the seed of Believers under the Law, then doth the Gospel Seal, Baptism much more appertain to the seed of Believers under the Gospel, which comes in the place, room, and use of Circumcision, otherwise the privilege under the Gospel, would be less than that of the law, should Children be denied such a benefit.  
Repl.  
I do not find, but the Author hath done us right in forming the Argument, and do therefore own it as sound and good, notwithstanding this quicksighted man (or rather he with Mr. Tombs his eyes) hath espied many faults in it, for,  
First in general, he tells us, 'tis fallacious and false reasoning, and that there is no natural consequence at all from Scripture, to infer the Baptism of Infants, nor any ground to build it on Circumcision, and that divers things in the Argument are pre-supposed, but cannot be proved.  
Secondly, He puts in his particular exceptions against it, as,  
Except. 1.  
First, because Circumcision was not the seal of the Gospel-Covenant, to all Believers for 1. 
Mr. Tombs Examon. pag. 36.  some under the Gospel-Covenant were not sealed therewith, as all Believers from Adam to Abraham, neither do we find any of the Believers out of Abraham's family, as Lot, Melchesideck, Job, received any such Seal.  
Well said Mr. Tombs, They are his very words in his Answer pag. 36. and in his Exercit. pag. 4. and therefore to this there needs no other answer than what Mr. Geree gives him, which is short and full, viz. All Believers that had it not, were either those that were before the Administration begun with Abraham, and so before the Institution, or such of them that were with or after him, either they joined not themselves to that Administration, and so were not to be sealed no more than the Proselytes of the Gate. Or if they did unite to the Church in Abraham's family, than it is apparent they might have laid claim to Circumcision, as other Proselytes did.  
2. There were (saith he) some to whom the Covenant did not belong, that received, 
Mr. Tomber Exercit. pag. 4.  that called the seal of Circumcision, as Ishmael; for of him God had said, that this Covenant was not to be established with him, but with Isaac,, and yet he was Circumcised, Gen. 17.20, 21, 25. Gal. 4.29.30. And the same may be said of Esau, Rom. 9.10, 11, 12, 13. And as to all the Strangers in Abraham's house, or bought with money in Israel, that were Circumcised, it may well be doubted, whether the new-Covenant-promises did belong to them.  
All this is Mr. Tombs again without giving the least hint, Ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem, whence he had it, and that I may not be thought to wrong the Author, I will transcribe what I find in Mr. Tombs his Exercitation, pag. 4. and let it be compared— some (saith he) were Circumcised to whom to promise in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong; of Ishmael God had said, that his Covenant was not to be established with him, but with Isaac, and yet he was circumcised, Gen. 17.20, 21, 25. Rom. 9.7, 8, 9, Gal. 4.29.30. The same may be said of Esau: All that were in Abraham's house, whether Strangers, or born in his house were Circumcised, Gen. 17.12, 13. Of whom nevertheless it may be doubted, whether any promises of the Covenant made with Abraham, did belong to them.  
Repl.  
To this than we reply,  
First, That the Covenant appertained to all the Infant seed of Abraham, without exception, and to all the Infants of Believing Jews, and consequently the Seal of the Covenant, Circumcision, was in like manner dispensed to them all indefinitely, to Ishmael as well as to Isaac, to Esau, as well as to Jacob; for neither Ishmael nor Esau were cast out of the Covenant till they degenerated, and discovenanted themselves by their own wickedness.  
Secondly, Whereas 'tis said, My Covenant will I establish with Isaac Gen. 17. 27. We are not (as Mr. Geree says truly) to understand in that place the Covenant we stand in to God, in regard of persons, for our own personal benefit, but the Covenant of special prerogative to Isaac, That Christ should come of, and the Church remain in his posterity.  
Except. 3.  
His next exception is, Because Abraham's Covenant was a mixed Covenant, 
Mr. Tombs Exercit. pag. 39  as the seed was.  
Repl.  
I observe Antipaedobaptists are extremely divided in their opinions about the Covenant that God made with Abraham (as much as the Author saith we are about the grounds upon which we assert Infant Baptism, and who shall bring in the Verdict for them I know not) but they all unite in this, to make the Covenant of no effect to us and to our Children; some of them say (and they speak roundly) that it was merely a Covenant of temporal blessings, as the inheritance of Canaan, and that it hath nothing to do with spirituals; 
The Anabaptists of Germany heretofore called it a carnal thing that had nothing to do with eternal life.  these will make sure work of it, and leave no ground at all from thence for our seed to be comprised in it. Others are contented it should be a Covenant of Grace to Abraham and his faithful Seed, yet say they, it was a Covenant of works, at least to his carnal seed; the most subtle of them (as Mt. Tombs) tells us, it was a mixed Covenant, you carry (saith Mr. Tombs) the Narration of the Covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 17, as if it did only contain the Covenant of Grace in Christ, whereas it is apparent out of the Text, that the Covenant was a mixed Covenant, consisting of Temporal benefits, to wit, the multiplying of his seed, ver. 6. the possession of Canaan, ver. 8. The birth of Isaac ver. 16. and the spiritual blessings; the Author treads in his steps, and Ecchceth to him most exactly.— As the birth of Isaac, the possessing the land of Canaan, etc. he might have saved himself the labour of writing his Treatise, and only reprinted Mr. Tombs Exercitation. But to the point. We shall prove the Covenant made with Abraham, & his Natural Seed, no mixed Covenant, but a pure Covenant of Grace, the same in substance with ours under the New Testment, For,  
First, We have the express Testimony of Scripture for it, Gal. 3.8.  
2. It is evident from that phrase, Gen. 17.7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy Seed after thee, in their Generations for an everlasting Covenant, etc. In faedus seculi, as the Hebrew hath it, for a Covenant of perpetuity, which denotes the quality of it, that it is not Temporary, but Everlasting, respecting spiritual good things.  
3. The Tenor of it speaks it a Covenant of Grace, I will be thy God, etc. In which words God engageth himself, all that he is, and all that he hath, and all that he can do in the behalf of poor dust and ashes, and this virtually comprehends all sorts of spiritual blessings, Christ, Grace, & Glory; and that Christ was by promise intended in this Covenant is clearly evident from Luke 1.54, 55. and verse 69, 72, 73. And the Apostle giving us the substance of the Covenant of Grace, doth it in the words of Abraham's Covenant, Heb. 8.10. I will be to them a God, & they shall be to me a people. And whereas, he saith, it appears to be mixed in regard it contained many Temporal Blessings, as the Birth of Isaac, Canaan, etc. I answer those temporal Blessings, were but annexed to the Covenant, ('tis his own Phrase) They were not the substance or essence, but only an accidental Appendix to it: there was no more mixture in that Covenant then in ours, under the New Administration, for as our Divines still tell them, Godliness under the Gospel also hath the promises of this life as well as of that to come. 
1 Tim. 4.8.  Earthly things were indeed dispensed to them more distinctly, and fully, suitable to their Paedagogical EsTate, to allure them to the service of God, and Heavenly things more generally and sparingly; on the contrary, spiritual blessings are more fully and clearly, and earthly things more generally and sparingly held forth and promised to us under the Gospel. 
Mr. Marshals defence. pag. 97.   
The abundance of their Temporal blessings were figures, Signs, and Types of spiritual blessings, to be enjoyed by them and us. As their deliverance our of Egypt, was a Figure of our freedom from spiritual captivity; The promise of Canaan was a Type of Heaven, and an Explanation of the primary grand promise to be their God, giving intimation that he would as cetrainly bring them to the Heavenly, as to the Earthly, and to the spiritual, everlasting glorious rest, as well as to that Temporal or Corporeal rest, upon which Reverend Mr. Cotton hath an excellent observation, 
Mr. Cottons grounds and ends of Baptism of children p. 40.  viz. That it was from hence that Jacob gave such solemn charge by Oath unto Joseph, and Joseph to his Brethren, the one to bury his dead body in Canaan, the other for the Transportation of his bones to Canaan, which they would never have done for an earthly inheritance, but to nourish in the hearts of their posterity Faith and desire of Communion in the Church, 
Joshua Heb. Salvator Dominus Salvator, The Saviour or Lord Savionr.  and of their rest in Heaven, whereof Canaan's rest was a Type, whereunto, not Moses but Joshua must bring them; that is, not the Law, but Jesus.  
Except. 3.  
A third Exception, is, Because the Seed in the seventh verse to whom the Covenant belonged, 
This is Tomb'ss again. Exerc. pag. 48.  was not the Carnal, but Spihitual seed only, which he attempts to prove by Scripture and Authority; the Scriptures are, Gaol. 3.16. and 24. and Rom. 9.7, 8. Before I shall show how grossly these Scriptures are mistaken, and wrested to a quite different sense from what the Apostle intends, as shall be made appear by the context and design of the Apostle in this Chapter, I shall premise a few things, as,  
1. The Covenant of Grace contains in it only spiritual good things, Temporals are more properly, Additionals, then of the Essence of it.  
2. The Covenant of Grace is but One, the Identity or sameness of the Covenant Mr. Tombs confesseth to be one and the same, both to Jews and Gentiles, Exercit. p. 39  
3. Though this Covenant be but one, yet all are not in it after one and the same manner, some are in it only by participation of external Church privileges, others by being interessed in the internal saving benefits thereof, by means of those privileges.  
4. The whole body of the Jews, as they descended from the Loins of Abraham, by propagation, and before they were Regenerated, were according to Scripture Testimony taken by God into Covenant, and were so esteemed by God himself in one respect or other: Hence God saith he, made his Covenant with them all, Deut. 29. speaking there, of the renewing of the Covenant of Grace, verse 10.12, 13, 14, 15.  
And the Apostle is express, Rom. 9.6. To them appertained the Covenant, and they are said not to be strangers to the Covenant of promise (as the Gentiles) but in the same Eph. 2.11, 12. And such as Apostatised from God, are said to break the everlasting Covenant, Isa. 24.5. And in the new Testament to count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing, Heb. 10.29. Which expressions argue, that in some sense they must be in and under the Covenant; that is, in regard of external privileges only; for it is certain, they were never in it efficaciously, and savingly as the Elect, choice seed of Abraham, for than they could never have fallen away; they were in it in regard of external Covenant-privileges, and common graces, which Hypocrites and Reprobates may partake of; and in this very sense Christ speaking of the Jews collectively, calls them, The Children of the Kingdom, Matthew 8. and the Apostle, the Children of the Covenant.  
5. And as it was under the old Testament, so is it under the new, the Covenant is the same norwithsTanding the difference of Administration: And as it was then, so is it now, Gal. 4.24, 29. Some are born of Agar, and some of Sarah, 
Mr. Cottons grounds and ends of Infant Baptism.  some the spiritual seed, Secundum propositium Electionis, chosen according to Gods will and gracious intention from all Eternity, God principally intending the Coventant for them, these may be said to be spiritually & savingly (in regard of powerful efficacy & operation of the Covenant upon them) within e Covenant. Others are in it, quoad externam Oeconomiam, 
Hypocrites in Covenant, quoad externam Oeconomiam.  in regard of external privileges. They are in Christ only by profession, Branches in appearance not spiritually and savingly engrafted: Joh. 15. There profession speaks them within the Covenant, in fancy visibilis Ecclesiae, as Mr. Marshal speaks, by virtue whereof they derive a right to the Seals and Sacraments of the New Testament.  
6. There are two sorts which may be reputed in Covenant under the New Testament, as well as under the Old, in regard of external and visible Oeconomy, or external Church privileges.  
1. Such as stand by their own visible profession, as all first Covenanters do; so te Proselytes under the Old Testament, and all visible Saints: or else  
2. Such as stand in a Political, Moral consideration, as in the right of another, through a free promise. The distinction is common amongst our Divines, but I quote it from Mr. Sydenham, cap. 4. p. 31. Of his Christian Exercitation. And he illustrates it by a Princes giving a Title of Honour, or a piece of land to one, and his Heirs, they are all interested in it, yet some prove fools, or traitors, and are afterwards incapable, and this distinction he shows, holds in the New Testament: for if men deny a being in Covenant, in regard of external privileges, as well as special grace, or as he speaks, if they deny an external, as well as an internal being in Covenant. Then  
1. None can administer an external Ordinance, an outward sign to any; for we must go by external rules in these actings.  
2. We set a Seal to a blank to all grown persons who are baptised, without we know them certainly in the Covenant, and that who knows? for our Judgement will no more hinder the Seal from being a blank to grown Professors, than to Infants, without they prove real at last, much more he speaks there, which I omit. Having premised these Propositions, we shall now examine what force there is in the Scriptures, for to prove what he would have, referring what is said to the judgement of the impartial Reader. The first Text is that in the 3. Gal. 16, Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made, he saith not to Seeds as of many, but as of one, and to thy Seed which is Christ. And if ye be Christ's, then are you Abraham's Seed; v. 29. The other is Rom. 9.7, 8. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham, are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called, that is, they which are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are connted for the Seed. And Rom. 4.13. For the promise that he should be Heir of the World, was not to Abraham, or to his Seed through the Law, but through the righteousness of Faith, etc. Hence Mr. Tombs, the Author, and all the party conclude, that, the Seed to whom the Covenant belongs, is the Spiritual, and not the Carnal. Not being born after the flesh, but believing that makes us children of the promise.  
To this exception of his in which their greatest confidence lies, I reply  
Repl.  
1. It is built on a most gross corrupting, and abusing the Scriptures. Let us then diligently consider those two places in the Galatians? And afterwards that in the Romans. First, touching that in the former place, the words are verse 16. He saith not to Seeds, as of many, but of one which is Christ. Beza upon the Text saith, obscurus locus est, it is a place not easily understood: a dark Scripture, and indeed too dark, and intricate for Antipaedobaptists so boldly to ground their opinion upon, so directly contrary to the sense of many plain places. The question is what doth the Apostle mean here, by Christ? By Christ cannot be meant Christ solely personal, for then no Believer should be accounted for the Seed but only Christ (who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham) And he and none else should be concerned in the promises: But it is to be understood of Christ mystical, as Beza there notes, Apostolus eo nomine non solum caput, sed membra cum suo capite designans, the Apostle by the word Christ, denoting both Head, and Members. Capnt, & Corpus unus est Christus, the Head and the Body make up one mystical Christ: the word Christ being to be taken collectively in this place, so we have it 1 Cor. 12.12. to which Beza refers. And if this be the sense of it, as what else can rationally? then as Mr. Sydenbam notes, this Text will make rather for us, than against us, for if we exclude all Infants from being of the Body of Christ; we must in so doing unavoidably exclude them from Salvation, for he is Saviour to no more than he is head of, which is his Body. As for the words in the nine and twentieth verse, that will afford the Antipedobaptists little relief: the words are, If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to promise, from whence, saith the aforesaid Author, they argue, the Apostle here describes who are the Seed, so that now no children born of believing parents can be the Seed, for they must be Christ's according to that v. 16. We are all the children of God through Faith in Christ Jesus. But let such understand what Beza saith on the place, namely that the Claramontanus Bible hath the words thus, and he thinks more right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you be one in Christ, then are ye Abraham's Seed: which comports well with the former verse There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, etc. but ye are all one in Christ Jesus, and if ye be all one, than Abraham's Seed. From which  
1. It is clear that the Design of the Apostle is to take away all difference between Jew and Gentile, and to hodl forth their unity in Christ, and that this is the very scope of the place Beza shows fully in his Annotations upon it, and that now there is no distinction betwiut them as formerly: But the Gentiles are become Abraham's Seed, as well as the natural and believing Jews. Quod unius Seminis nomine collectivo significatur, as before in the sixteenth verse, which is pointed out to us by the collective name of one Seed.  
2. The Apostle here hath no intent to show the distinction of Abraham's Seed as the Subject of the outward privileges and administrations of Ordinances, but to show that none are spiritually and really Abraham's Seed, and Heirs of promise, but such as are Christ's, one in him with Abraham: for if this should be the distinction of Seed as the subject of outward Ordinances, it would be as much against professing Believers as Infants: for the proposition from this Text, as our Opposites draw it, is thus: none but those who are Christ's are Abraham's Seed, and none are Christ's but real Believers, and therefore none but they must be baptised. But how weak is this? 1. Because if none but such are Abraham's Seed, and consequently none but such the subjects of Baptism, then visible Believers are not the subjects of Baptism, for they may not be Christ's, no more than Infants. 2. None must be baptised at all upon this account, for who knows who is Christ's according to Election and saving Faith? To say we have charitable grounds to believe visible professors are Christ's, till we see the contrary, is not to the question as stated, nor as it lies in the Text: the Text saith, If ye be Christ's, than ye are Abraham's Seed: they say none are in Christ but real Believers, 
See Chapter the fifth of the first part of the Author's Treatise.  and none must be baptised but the spiritual Seed, and that will require not only a judgement of charity, but infallibility to determine. And besides the Apostle is describing here what the real and spiritual Seed are, as having an inward right to Christ, and not what the apparent Seed of Abraham was, for he speaks to the Galathians who were visible professors, and Believers then in appearance, and he puts them upon a trial of themselves, whether they were Christ's or no. I have been the larger in quoting something from Beza, but more from Mr. Sydenham, who speaks abundance of reason, that you may see how wretchedly this Text is abused by our Opposites. And how far wide it is from the purpose, for which they usually bring it.  
Now for that other place, Ram. 9.7, 8. They that are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the Seed. What do they gather from hence? Why, that Infants because children of the flesh, are not under the promise: this indeed is well argued. for this is to make the Apostle contradict himself in the same breath, for the Text saith, In Isaac shall thy Seed be called. Now that was a child of Abraham's flesh, and yet a child of promise too. And from hence issueth three undeniable Propositions, as Mr. Sydenham noteth.  
1. That Abraham's spiritual Seed were as much his fleshly Seed also, Isaac, as Ishmael, except Proselytes and Servants.  
2. The Covenant was administered to all Abraham's natural and fleshly children, as if they had been his spiritual, and before they knew what faith was, or could actually professs Abraham's faith.  
3. When there is mention of Abraham's carnal Seed in opposition to his spiritual Seed, it cannot be meant primarily, or solely of those that descended from his flesh, for then Isaac, and Jacob were the carnal Seed, yea Christ himself, who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham. It must be therefore understood.  
1. Of those of Abraham's Seed which degenerated and slighted the Covenant of the Gospel, such as Ishmael, and such of whom the Apostle speaks of, Rom. 9.1.2.3. his Brethren and Kinsmen after the flesh, whose condition he bewails, which was the generality of the body of the Jews; or  
2. Some conceive by children of the flesh, he meaneth not in this place children by natural generation, but such as trusted in outward fleshly privileges, and by children of the promise put in opposition to them, is meant true Believers, which are indeed the true Seed, in whom the word takes effect, and who were figured forth by Isaac. 
Si sensum mysticum spectes, non two qni ex lege justitiam quaerunt, sed fideles, sed quod promissionis filius intelligantur is quos diximus secundum literam ingelligi apparet ex vers. 9  This is a truth, saith Beza, but not apposite to this place, for Paul doth not here distinguish Ahrahams' children from others by their Faith as in the fourth of Romans, 
Quia vero promissionis filios interpretantur eos qui fidei amplectuntur promissionem, dicunt quidem quod res est, sed non satis appositè loquuntur Neque enim Paulus boc loco filios Abrahami a caeteris distinguit ex fidei nota ut supsa. c. 4. sed de primariâ cansa● id est de ipsius fidei fonte gratuitae videlicet electionis aeterno proposito disserit. Beza in Locum.  but disputes of the primary cause, even of Faith itself, which is the eternal purpose of God according to his Election of Grace: verse 11. So that the Apostles express Doctrine is, that Election and Salvation is not from works, but free Grace. But the Opposerss of Infant Baptism, have always perverted the scope of Paul in this place, as if he intended it, of outward Church privileges, not to be had by being born of believing Parents, which the Text has nothing to do with, as every unpartial and judicious Reader will apprehend. Nay this very place proves the quite contrary, for the Apostle makes two sorts to be within the visible Church, viz. Some are of Israel, that is in man's cyc: these partake of the outward privileges, v. 4.5. Others are Israel, that is the true spiritual Seed, that belongs to God's Election, and obtain the saving Promise. So Gal. 3.8. The Gospel was preached to Abraham, and the Covenant made with him, is the same for substance with that we live under, and as persons were under it then, so is it now: it is not straighter now, and larger then, but the same. And the like appears, verse 14. and 17. the Identity of the Covenant is there manifest, which is a truth destructive to the Opinion of Antipaedobaptists, and therefore they so strike at it.  
Having thus examined the Expositions, which according to his Imagination, the Scripture itself puts upon the [Seed] spoken of, Gen. 17.7. and discovered his great mistake. I could do it too very fully as to most of the Authors following, which he saith, do give in their concurrent sense with his, upon the Text.  
The first named is Calvin upon: Gen. 17.7. who saith, that it is manifest that the promise understood of spiritual Blessing, pertaineth not to the Carnal Seed of Abraham, but to the Spiritual as the Apostle himself saith, Rom. 4.9. etc.  
In this I find the Author guilty of shameful Oscitancie, and it is intolerable for any man thus to impose his mistakes upon the Reader. The words are not calvin's, but Estius his Answer to Calvin; who again and again in his Comment upon Gen. 17.7. asserts the promise to be made to Abraham's natural and fleshly Seed, and to all of them— for thus he saith, Nunc videndum est quem populum designet. Falluntur autem qui putant solos hic electos notari— They are deceived who think it to be meant only of the Elect. Again, clara est Pauli Doctrina de naturalibus Abrahoe filiis, quod sint Sancti rami, quia ex sancta radice prodierint, Rom. 11.16. the Doctrine of Paul shows clearly 'tis understood of the natural children of Abraham, for if the root be holy, so are the branches.  
Then afterward: Quare nihil certius est, quàm Deum foedus suum pacisci cum filiis Abrahae, qui naturaliter ex eo gignendi erant. Wherefore nothing is more certain than that God made his Covenant with the children, which were naturally to be begotten of him. And then answers the Objections that may be made against it from Rom. 9.8. Neque repugnat quod dicit Paulus. The cause of this mistake in our Author is mere carelessness, for he never examined Calvin, but finds in Mr. Tombs his Examen: pag. 50. This passage quoted by him, viz. Estius annot. ad Gen. 17.7. Colligit hìnc Calvinus eo ipso quo quis est semen Abrahae, ad eum pertinere promisstonem Abrahae factam: that is, hence Calvin gathers, that the promise— belonged to the children of Abraham as they were his natural or carnal Seed. To which Estius replies— thus— Responsio manifesta; promissionem illam de benedictione spirituali intellectam non ad carnale semen Abrahami pertinere, sed ad spirituale quemadmodum eam ipse Apostolus interpretatus est Rom. 4.9.— Which is according to the Author's Translation— It is manifest that the promise underdood of spiritual blessings, pertaineth not to the carnal Seed, etc. here I might pass some observations upon this mistake of the Author. 1. That he is very careless in quoting Authors, and taking one for another, and that the testimony he citys for himself is against him. 2. That he and his party, and the Jesuits and Papists agree very well in the interpretation of those Scriptures that relate to the Covenant. The Author lies open to the lash also in what he quotes out of Amesius, de praedest. For Amesius speaks but just half of what he sets down, in one and the same character, and the promise that he disputes of there against the Remonstrants, is that in the ninth of Romans 8. So that it is not ad idem, for we are speaking of that, Gen. 17.7. God said indeed he would not establish his Covenant with Ishmael, but with Isaac, Gen. 17.27. but by Covenant there is not meant the Covenant we stand in to God in regard of our persons, for our own personal benefit, but the Covenant of special Prerogative to Isaac, that Christ should come of, and the Church remain in his posterity.  
Next follows the dismal Consequences, which, as he saith, the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism is attended with. But they are only imaginary, not real ones. Quicquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis; as the man thinketh, so the Bell, etc. But let us hear what they are.  
1. If God made his Covenant with the Posterity of Believers, as this Doctrine asserts, then saith he, all the Posterity of Believers should certainly have grace bestowed upon them.  
Reply. No such matter, for we have proved they may be said to be in Covenant, in regard of external prividledges only; and not partake of the spiritual grace, or saving benefits of the Covenant.  
Which, saith he, Mr. Blake doth confidently affirm, p. 6. saying, that Christianity is hereditary, that as the child of a Noble man is noble, the child of a Free man free, a Turk a Turk and of a Jew, a Jew, so the child of a Christian, is a Christian.  
But I pray Sir, who told you this of Mr. Blake, was it not your old friend Mr. Tombs Exercit. p. 53. your words differ very little. If this be true saith Tombs, that the Covenant of grace is a Birthright privilege, than the children of Believers are children of Grace by nature, for that which is a Birthright privilege is a privilege by nature, and if as Mr. Blake saith, p. 6. to [but neither of them names the Book] Christianity is hereditary, that as the child of a Noble man is noble, the child of a Turk is a Turk, of a Jew a Jew, the child of a Christian is a Christian, then saith Tombs [just as my Antagonist] Christians are born Christians. O wonderful, that men should so agree! And how are they then, saith he, the children of wrath by nature? and saith our Author this is in contradiction [that's some alteration] to the Scripture which saith we are children of wrath. One would think these men did very well agree, they do so often meet and kiss each other, but 'tis in aliquo tertio, that is, in the point of Baptism, for I hear from those that knows them both intùs & in cute, that they are at a great, if not irreconcilable distance in some other matter: But I would have the reader to understand that those words are not Blakes, though charged upon him by Mr. Tombs to render him odious, which is very sad: And that learned godly man being very sensible of the injury, signifies to Tombs that he disowns it, and adviseth him to forbear such device. I believe, saith he, no such thing that Parents convey to their children, as by Birth-priviledge, a being in Christ Jesus, but if you understand by Christianity the bare name or title of Christian, together with a right to Church privileges, than I shall own the thing, but disclaim the expression: A sufficient vindication from so sordid a Calumny, and if this were so unworthily done in Mr. Tombs, what shall we think of the Author. who hath licked up that vomit again, and cast it upon Mr. Blake, after he had so well cleared himself, which he could not but know.  
Nor doth our Doctrine contradict those Scriptures which saywe are children of wrath by nature, and except a man be born again, etc. Joh, 3.3. for even all the Elect are born sons of Adam, children of wrath, and yet they are the children of promise, Isaac himself was visibly the child of promise in his infancy, he was born by promise, Rom. 9.7.8, 9 and yet in respect of natural generation, he was a son of Adam, a child of wrath.  
Another Absurdity he fancies, 
Mr. Tombs again.  is, That then all the posterity of Believers must b●saved, without, saith he, you will necessitate the Doctrine of falling from grace.  
Down right Mr. Tombs Exerc. p. 52. if God keeps his Covenant, it follows that all the posterity of Believers are saved, or if some are not saved, though they be in the Covenant of grace, there may be Apostasy of persons, etc.  
This is a non sequitur, for the Covenant of Grace is not absolute, and saving to all that are once within it; it is absolute & saving to the Elect Seed, but not to those who partake of the out ward privileges of it, but take not hold of it by faith. It may truly be said of all Elect Infants born of believing Parents, that they are absolutely under the Covenant: (as Isaac in his Infancy) even before they believe, 
Mr. Cotton's Grounds and Ends of children's Baptism. Dr. Proston of the Covenant.  yea their believing in God's time is given to them as the effect, and not the cause of the Covenant; But as for others who only partake of the outward privileges of it, and no more, that do not believe, it is not saving to them.  
As for the other dismal Consequence of Falling from Grace, which they say we must hold, if Infants of Believers be in Covenant, and not all saved.  
This is like the rest; the fear is more than the hurt; for as Mr. Cotton saith, whom soever God taketh into Covenant are in a State of Grace, but what Grace? either common or saving Grace. The Elect are in a state of saving Grace, and they shall never totally fall away, but persons may fall away from a state of common Grace, and from the external privileges of the Gospel, & Covenant of Grace quatenus it respects outward spiritual privileges. Those that stick at this, and will not own it for Truth may do well to give us the sense of those Scriptures, psal. 44.17. Dan. 11.30, 31. Where they are said to be false in God's Covenant, and to apostatise from it.  
Another dismal consequence, which is only the result of an idle and erroneous conceit is, That we tie up the Groce of God's Covenant to the children of Believers only, and then what hope for the children of unbelievers.  
No fear of that, for the children of unbelievers may belong to the Election of God's Grace, but have no right to be baptised, but upon their own personal profession, nor are the children of those who are called Christians to be ranked with the children of Pagans (for they are in a nearer capacity of Salvation, being born in a nation where the Gospel is preached) of whom the Apostle speaks, who being strangers to the Covenant, are said to be without hope: Lastly, he saith our Doctrine overthrows the Covenant of Grace itself, concluding an interest without faith, and deriving a Title by Generation.  
Not so. Whatsoever both they, and Papists would fasten upon us (for in this they are agreed) for we say, that the Infant Seed of Believers are Confederates with their Parents, and God excepts of the Parents Faith, and embraceth the children into the same Covenant with them. Licet pueri Infants, fidem non habent, Deus tamen eorum parentes compellans, ipsos etiam complectitur. God taking the believing Parents into Covenant, takes the children in with them, as we have before more fully shown out of Calvin on Mat. 28.19. Mark 16. according to the Tenor of the Covenant, I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed. Nor do we hold, we derive a Title to the Covenant by Generation, for Foedus non transfunditur per carnem, saith Peter Martyr, the Covenant is not propagated or transmitted by way of natural Generation, [that which is born of the flesh is flesh] the Parent communicates his nature and the corruption of it, 
Mr. Prinsley of the Doctrine & practice of Pedobaptism.  unto his child but nothing of Grace. That is the free gift of God, and this it is that brings the child of the Believer into Covenant as well as the Parent, even the free and gracious promise of God made to both.  
Now Reader see some of the dismal consequences of their Doctrine, who deny the children of Believers to be taken into Covenant with them.  
1. It puts a sacrilegious restraint upon the Covenant, and makes an essential variation in it without warrant.  
2. It excludes them from the ordinary way of Salvation, for if they have no visible interest in the Covenant, (no not so much as externally in regard of God's visible dispensation,) than they have no visible interest in Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant.  
3. It exempts and shuts them out from a participation of the Spirit, and sanctification of their natures, whereby they may be made meet for the inheritance of the Saints: for all the influences of the Spirit, is by virtue of the Covenant: 2 Pet. 1. Now Mr. Tombs himself acknowledgeth that Infants may be sanctified.  
4. They have no ground of comfort in the death of their children, no more than they have concerning a Turk, or unconverted Indians child, for that which affords a visible ground of hope of the salvation of another, is his visible interest in the Covenant of Grace; to be an Alien to the Covenant of promise, is to be without hope, in the Apostles Account, Eph. 2.12. So that we may say (with Mr. Ford, concerning all the children of Heathens, dying in Infancy, They are taken into the hands of God, who indeed may (for any thing we know) save them by Prerogative, and an undiscovered depth of mercy; but he hath afforded us no ground, so much as to hope, that any of them are saved, because the Statute-Law of the Kingdom doth not extend Salvation beyond the Covenant. Now an Anabaptists Faith concerning the Infants of believing Parents, even his own, puts them into the same irrelative condition (as to God and the Covenant) with the children of Infidels and (by consequendce) under the same hopelessness of Salvation. Now let tender Parents consider, who undoubtedly would think it a sad thing to bring forth children to the destroyer, what sad principles theirs are, by, and according to which, they must kiss their beloved Babes, when they are a dying with that sad Farewell, which the dying Heathen gave his departing soul;  
Animula vagula blandula, etc.  
And truly one of their Opinion in this town, and supposed godly, said in my hearing, they had no ground of it.  
5. And consequently they have no ground of hope ever to see them again with comfort at Christ's appearance, for there is no foundation of hope of a glorious resurrection unto life, but by virtue of the Covenant. Luke 20.36, 37, 38. Heb. 11.16. Act. 26.7, 8.  
The other Scripture that he encounters with, is that Act. 2.38. A parallel place to that in Gen. 17. The Argument which we bring for Infant Baptism from hence is this,  
Those to whom the promise doth belong, to them belongs Baptism, but to those that repent and their children the promise belongs, therefore to them and their children belongs Baptism.  
Against this he hath a double Exception.  
1. By the promise there, is not meant the Covenant of grace but the giving of the Spirit, called the promise of the Father, prophesied of by Joel 2.28.  
To which we answer, That though in the fourth and seventeenth verse. Where is mention of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, which refers to Joels' Prophecy, yet the promise in the eight and thirtieth verse is of another nature, and not meant of those extraordinary Gifts; for  
1. Because it is such a promise as is still a fulfilling, and shall be throughout all the times of the New Testament, paralled to that Isa. 44.3. I will pour out my Spirit on thy Seed, and my blessing on thy Offspring. It is such a promise as appertains to Parents, and to their children, and all that shall be called to the end of the world, whereas the promise of extraordinary Gifts, was but pro tempore, for a certain time, and relating to that season.  
2. It cannot be understood of extraordinary Gifts, because Peter's hearers had no such Gifts nor had the Jews or Gentiles, who were afar off, and afterward called such miraculous Gifts; and as Mr. Stephen's notes, if the promise (to you, and to your children) be meant of extraordinary Gifts, how will the parts of the Text agree with each other? The Apostle exhorts them, be baptised every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins: and then gives this reason, For the promise is to you and to your children. If therefore the promise be meant of extraordinary Gifts, than the command, be baptised every one of you, will stand in immediate relation to such a promise. And so the matter will come to this Issue, that all that are baptised: and particularly they that renounce their old, to take up a new Baptism, they will have a promise made to them, and to their children to speak with divers kinds of languages. [Which promise I never understood-was made good amongst them, for few of them have any more than their Mother Tongue.] On the other side, if the promise be taken for the promise of Christ, and for remission of sin by his blood, in this case it will be easy to show the connexion of the words; for what can be more aptly spoken than this? Be baptised every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of your particular sin? for the promise of the pardon of sin, by the blood of Christ doth belong to you and to your children?  
3. The promise here mentioned was to give hope to those poor creatures, and to prevent the despair, which they were ready to fall into upon conviction, that they had crucified the Lord of Life, and what comfort could this bring to their wounded consciences, to tell them they should have the miraculous gifts of tongues?  
2. 'Tis farther objected, by children are no other meant than the posterity of the Jews.  
To which we reply, with Mr. Sydenham.  
1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies off-sping, though never so young. Joh. 16.21. Luk. 1.31. Mat. 1.26. Luk. 1.57.  
2. 'Tis an indefinite word, therefore must not be restrained to grown children, except God had expressed it in a peculiar phrase.  
3. It must be understood of their Infants, because he useth the phrase of speech to these Jews, (which they had been trained up in from their fathers) I'll be the God of thee, and thy Seed, and the Jews must needs understand him speaking in this Dialect of their children included in the promise.  
4. Why should the Apostle name children, if he had not meant Infant Seed? otherwise it had been sufficient to have said, the promise is to you, and as many as the Lord shall call: but therefore names children, because it had relation to the Covenant.  
It is true what the Author saith concerning Dr. Hamond, that he conceives children to be there really the posterity of the Jews, and not particularly their Infant children, but that is but one Doctor's Opinion in opposition to an innumerable company of our judgement, and that not without sufficient ground, if the forementioned reasons be well weighed. The other is, Dr. Taylor who speaks not his own sense upon the Text, but personates (as he tells us) an Anabaptist; we may see his own proper judgement in his last piece, viz. The consideration of the practice of the Church in baptising Infants of believing Parents, pag. 48.49. It is, saith he, in our case as it was with the Jew's children, our children are a holy Seed: for if it were not so with Christianity, how could S. Peter move the Jews to Christianity, by telling them the promise was to them and their children? For if our children be not capable of the Spirit of promise, and holiness, and yet their children were holy; it had been a better Argument to have kept them in the Synagogue, than to have called them to the Christian Church— And indeed if the Christian Jews, whose children are circumcised, and made partakers of the same promises, title, and inheritance, and Sacrament, which themselves had at their first conversion to the faith of Christ, had seen their children shut out from the new Sacrament [of Baptism] it is not to be doubted but they would have raised a storm, greater than could easily be suppressed: since about their circumcision they had raised such tragedies, and implacable disputations; and there had been great reason to look for a storm; for their children were circumcised, and if not baptised; then they were left under a burden, which their fathers were quit of, for S. Paul said unto you, whosoever is circumcised is a debtor to keep the whole Law, these children therefore that were circumcised, stood obliged for want of Baptism to perform the Laws of ceremonies, to be presented to the Temple, to pay their price, to be redeemed with silver and gold; to be bound by the Law of pollutions, and carnal ordinances: ad therefore if they had been thus left, it would be no wonder if the Jews had complained, and made a tumult; they used to do it for less matters, and this may serve to balance what the Author quotes form the Doctors lib. of Proph. p. 233.  
Except. 4.  
Because, saith he, Circumcision was only a Seal to Abraham, not to believers, and their Seed, a Seal of the Faith that Abraham had long before he was circumcised, but so could it not be said of any Infant that had no faith.  
Repl.  
In this the Author doth quadrare with the Papists. So say the Jesuits, and so say the Antipaedobaptists. Bellarmin and after him others object that Circumcision in Rom. 4. 
Bellarmin lib. 1. de Sacramentis.  is not said to be a Seal universally to any faith, but only a Seal of the individual faith of Abraham, which is clear, saith he, in that it is expressly said, it was a Seal of the righteousness of the faith that he had, being yet nncircumcised, that he might be the father of all that believe: but only Abraham could be such a father, etc. your collection, saith he, is naught, when you say Circumcision was a Seal of Abraham's faith, that therefore it is so to others, for you conclude a general from a particular. So he and his followers limits the use of Circumcision as a Seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham only. Paraeus gives an acute reply to this, 
Paraus ad locum. Quod omni Speciei inest, toti generi recte tribuitur: sicut igitur valet: Homo, Equus, & quodvis animal sentit, movetur: & sensus, motus, differentia Systatica generis recte dicitur. Sic. valet circumcisio est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addita foederi obsignationis causâ, ergo. Dr. Sclater on the fonrth of Romans.  thus— That which belongs in common to all the Species, may well enough be attributed to the general, for that which all the Species have in common, they have from their general. But why, saith Dr. Sclater, should circumcision be a Seal to Abraham only, and not to others as well as him? was the Covenant made with him only, or with his Seed also? or was Circumcision a sign of the Covenant to Abraham only, or else to his Seed also? if the Covenant belong to [all] if Circumcision was to [all] a sign of their being in the Covenant, why not to [all] also a Seal of righteousness? Forsooth, say the Papists, one end of Abraham's Circumcision was peculiar to Abraham, as that he should be the father of all Believers, therefore this also of being a Seal of the righteousness of faith. Answ. And I wonder why we may not conclude by like reason, that to Abraham only it was a Sin of the Covenant, because this end they mention had place in Abraham only? But let us more nearly view the reasons; it was Abraham's privilege only to be the father of all Believers, both circumcised, and uncircumcised, ergo his privilege only to have circumcision a Seal of righteousness: how prove they that consequence? Because Paul joins both together, and therefore they are of like privilege: Answ. Why may we not say (ut supra) that the necessity of the sign of Circumcision was also Abraham's privilege, because it also is joined to the rest? But for fuller satisfaction, view the scope of the Text, which is this; to show that justification belongs to Believers of both people: the proof is from a sign: Abraham had righteousness in uncircumcision, therefore righteousness belongs to the uncircumcised; for this was that the Lord mystically intended to signify in justifying of Abraham before Circumcision, and in commending Circumcision to him justified: but why doth he mention that end of Circumcision as sealing up the righteousness of faith? Answ. To obviate an objection which might be made in this manner: if Abraham was justified before Circumcision, what profit received he by that Sacrament? Answ. It sealed unto him the righteousness of faith: and shall we say now it was Abraham's privilege to be confirmed in persuasion of righteousness? belike than his posterity, either needed not such confirmation, and so Abraham's privilege shall be to be the only weakling in faith, that needs means of confirmation, or else his Seed shall lack that help that Abraham had for establishment; though the Covenant was equally made to them. Thus far Dr. Sclater, and I repent not may pains, he hath so cleared the point that I know not what either Papist, or Antipaedobaptist can say against it. I shall add that which every one will subscribe to, that the children of Abraham stood in much more need of a Seal to confirm their faith, than he himself with whom the Covenant was originally made, and for that reason was called the father of the faithful, as well as for the eminency of his faith.  
It could not be, saith the Author, a Seal to an Infant that had no faith.  
Repl.  
I perceive he hath read Bellarmin, for he jumps in with him: his words are these— If it be a Seal of Faith (in that Baptism comes in the place of Circumcision) it is in vain to baptise Infants: and why? because they have not Faith. Farther, saith he, Isaac received not the sign of Circumcision, as a Seal of the righteousness of the Faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised, seeing he was not in the faith, till after Circumcision: to which there needs no other answer than this, viz. Isaac was confederate with his Father Abraham, and upon that account to be circumcised, which engaged to actual Faith, and upon actual believing, it sealed this righteousness of Faith to him.  
[It was a Sign put into his flesh only]  
Repl.  
We must take heed of extremes: The Papists hold that Sacraments do justify, and confer grace modo non ponamus obicem peccati mortalis, provided that we put no bar of mortal sin, which because Infants cannot do, they are all discharged by Baptism from the guilt of original sin. Against this Mr. Calvin in his Institutions doth vehemently inveigh, terming it, Doctrina diabolica a devilish Doctrine, because men hereby are taught to rest in a corporeal Element, more than in God himself: and with as much zeal doth he condemn the Doctrine of [nuda Signa] which makes the Sacraments to be only bare and naked Signs. Caveamus saith he, 
Calvin Instit. de Sacram.  ne vim Sacramentorum enervemus, usumque prorsùs evertamus: We must take heed we do not lessen the virtue of the Sacraments, and quite subvert their use.  
So Chamier (as Mr. Blake observes) is no less zealous against the Papists and Anabaptists. 
Chamier lib. 1. de Sacram. in Gen cap. 10. Sect. 11.  For he having mentioned the use of Sacraments as distinguishing Signs, addeth— Hic tamen nec solus est finis, nec praecipuus Sacramentorum; itaque Anabaptistas aeque cum Bellarmino improbamus— quibus Sacramenta nihil sunt quam Signa instituta, ad discernendum Christianos a Judaeis, & Paganis, ut Romanis olim toga erat signum quo discernebantur a Graecis palliatis. This is not the only or chief end of Sacraments, therefore we oppose the Anabaptists as well as Bellarmin, who esteem Sacraments nothing more than signs, distinguishing Christians from Jews and Pagans, as heretofore a Gown was a sign whereby the Romans were known from the Grecians: so that upon consideration, how apt men are to fly into extremes; we may conclúde that in medio consistit veritas, the truth lies betwixt both, as in this, so in very many other points. As touching the business of Circumcision, it it was a sign indeed or mark of distinction, to distinguish the people of God from Aliens, to separate betwixt Jews by nature, and sinners of the Gentiles; and it was also a Seal to ratify and confirm what the Covenant did hold forth and promise. For God having entered Covenant with Abraham and his Seed, Gen. 17.10. This is my Covenant, which ye shall keep between me, and you, and thy Seed after thee; every manchild among you shall be circumcised. And whereas the Author and Bellarmin before him saith, it was a sign and a Seal to put into the flesh of the Infant, only it was a sign and a Seal to Abraham, Mr. Cobbet enervates this Argument in his Vindication, p. 54. by showing  
1. That the initiatory Seal is not primarily and properly the Seal of a man's faith, or obedience, but of God's Covenant, rather. The Seal is to the Covenant, even Abraham's Circumcision was not primarily a Seal to Abraham's faith of righteousness, but to the righteousness Faith, exhibited and effected in the Covenant, yea to the Covenant itself, which he had believed unto righteousness; hence the Covenant of Grace is called the righteousness of Faith. Rom. 10.1.  
2. I farther answer, that 'tis granted, Infants have not actually the use of Faith, but to that end was Circumcision administered to the children of the Jews (as Baptism is now to our Infants) that when in time to come they should believe to righteousness (as all the Elect, who live to age do) their Faith might receive confirmation by their Circumcision in Infancy, and this was that which heightened David's confidence in his encounter with Goliath, reflecting upon God's Covenant, of which the Circumcision which he received in his Infancy, was a sign and a Seal.  
He goes on, Neither is Baptism more than Circumcision called a Seal, it is sign proper only to men of understanding, representing spiritual Mysteries.  
Repl. And why not as proper to Infants, as to men of understanding? because they represent spiritual Mysteries; and if this be all the reason he can give, he might better have said nothing: for what thinks he of Circumcision, did not that represent and shadow out divers spiritual Mysteries, scilicet, our corrruption by nature, and the nature of mortification [by cutting of the foreskin.] Was not the glorious mystery of our Redemption by the blood of Christ signified by the bloodshed in Circumcision, and yet this Ordinance was applied to poor ignorant Babes, to use the Author's Dialect, and how slightly so ever he speaks of an Ordinance of like resemblance for signification yet the wisdom of God thought fit to have those circumcised that were void of understand-standing. I find the Author and his party too bold in censuring of things, that do any way cross their idol-opinion; and the wisdom of God himself shall suffer, rather than they will recede from the error they have sucked in, yea, ' its observable that some of them are as pertinacious, and inflexible in their principle of opposition to Infant-Baptism, and lay out as much zeal in this matter, as if their Salvation were concerned in it.  
And not as Circumcision which was a Sign not improper for Infants, 
Mr. Tombs Examen page 84. line 12.  because it left a signal impression in their flesh to be remembered all their days, but so cannot Baptism be to any Infants, and some carry it farther, how shall Infants know they have been baptised?  
Repl. It is true, Circumcision left a signal mark upon the Jewish Infants, but what of that? had they any other way to know this mark was given them for any such religious end, and purpose, as a sign or seal of the Covenant betwixt God and them, but by the testimony of others? For instance, suppose an Infant born blind (as we read of such a one in the Gospel) was circumcised, who could never see that signal mark, he must be beholding to others, both to be taught the religous end of Circumcision, as well as to have intimation of the character he received in Circumeision. It is well known that the same Ceremony is used by other nations (though not as a Sacrament) as the Inhabitants of Colchis, the Ethiopians, the Egyptians. The Israelites therefore when grown up, had no other way to know that signal mark was given to a religious purpose (which was the principal end that Ordinance pointed at) than by the information of their Parents, or other witnesses. And the Jewish Doctors tell us there was one appointed for that purpose, whose name they called Baal Berith, and Sandak, that is the Master of the Covenant, and to this sense Junius and Tremelius interprets that in Isaiah chap. 8.2. where 'tis said that he took unto him faithful witnesses, viz. Vzziah the Priest, and Zacheriah: Faithful witnesses, to what? why to the Circumcision of his Son, 
Mr. Brinsley:  and from hence it is conceived ariseth that aneient custom of witnesses (grown now into a mere formality) in baptising children. Concerning which Reverend Mr. Cotton hath these remarkable passages, 
Mr. Cottons Grounds and Ends of Infant-Baptism.  that when children are baptised upon the profession of their Godfathers and Godmothers (for so they call it) it is not the intendment, or Doctrine of the Church, to baptise them upon the Covenant or profession of them (which is one of the mistakes of our Author p. 184. of his Treatise) but to bind the sureties that when the child groweth up to years of discretion, they shall assist the Parents in the Christian education of the child, that he may learn and practise those good things which at his Baptism they promised, or undertook for his, as appeareth by the charge given to the Sureties. I shall add that the same Office may be much mere needful in case the child's Parents die, before it comes to years of discretion.  
5. Except. Circumcision was not administered to Believers, as Believers, and to their Seed, but according to the Institution, to all the natural lineage and Posterity of Abraham, good or bad.  
Repl. In which passage, there are two mistkes, for.  
1. Abraham was a Believer, and was not Circumcision administered to him, as a Believer, and to his Seed?  
The whole body of the Israelites, professing the worship of the true God were accounted Believers, and all the world besides, Infidels, without God, and afar off, Eph. 2.12, 17. But as for the Jews, they have the name of God's people, his peculiar people, they are said to be near unto him, Psal. 148.14. A people called by his name. 2. Chron. 7.14. And God owns them as his. Eph. 3.15. And all upon account of the Covenant God made with Abraham, and his Seed, and 'tis upon the account of the Covenat of freegrace that any among the sons of men are the people of God. 'Tis true indeed, the Apostle says, Rom. 9 All were not Israel that were of Israel, all were not godly, by virtue of Election, and Regeneration; there were many of them his people, nay, most (for though Israel be as the Sea-sand, yet a remnant only shall be saved.) By Covenant relation, or external profession only, as there are Believers only by profession now under the Gospel, by virtue of which they are esteemed within the Covenant, and admitted to the privileges annexed.  
2. That confident assertion too is spoken without book, namely, That Circumcision belonged to all the lineage of Abraham, good and bad. For  
1. His Female-posterity were not circumcised personally: this he himself objecteth against us, and that right enough, for the command was only for the Males, not Females, by reason of their incapacity.  
2. If any credit may be given to the Jewish Doctors: (as who is so silly as to deny it them, in a matter of Fact of this nature) they tell us that the Male-childrens of an excommunicated person that remained impenitent were not circumcised, and that this was one of the ways, by which they punished impenitent excommunicated persons; Buxtorf hath it out of the Epistles of the Rabbins, 
Godwin 's Moses and Aaron. lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 181.  and we have the same attested in Godwin's Jewish Antiquities.  
3. Moreover during so long a time as the Israelites were in the wilderness, there was not one Infant of all that were born there circumcised, and so they wanted the signal mark. We see in some cases the Ordinance was suspended, (as Christ allows us a dispensation in respect of the Sabbath) and we may say of Circumcision, as he did of the Sabbath, Circumcision was made for man, and not man for Circumcision.  
Circumcision belonged to all the posterity of Abraham, good and bad (as he says before) without any such limitation as is put upon Baptism, if thou believest with thy heart thou mayst.  
Repl. And why was that? But because not only the Eunuch there, but the rest of the adult persons, that we read of in the Acts, who were baptzed, were the first Subjects of the Ordinance, and that requires personal profession of Faith; (was in Abraham who was circumcised; but it was not so with his children) and they were all of them Aliens, (for not only the Gentiles, but Jews also were to be looked upon as such, in reference to the new administrantion of Baptism) and therefore it was necessary they should make a profession of their Faith, 
Mr. Geree. Vind. Paedoboptist.  and acceptance of the Govenant-under the new administration, before they were admitted to the Seal thereof, Baptism: so if any Minister of the Gospel should preach to Jews and Pagans, they are to have some account of their Faith, before they ought to baptise them; but upon their believing, and being baptised, the promise takes in their children also to a participation of the same Ordinance. For as we have before hinted, Abraham believed first, and afterward was circumcised, but he having a Covenant made with him and his Seed; Isaac his Son was circumcised before Faith. So was it with the Proselytes, and their children; so that here lies the fallacy, when that shall be taken for a rule absolutely necessary in the administration of Baptism, which is only so in some respect. Farther to what he saith, of no such qualification mentioned, that the Parent should be a Believer to capacitate the Infant for Baptism. It may suffice to tell him, there was no need thereof, for the Apostles knew well enough, the Covenant in the former administration to extend to visible Believers and their Seed: which was never repealed by the coming of Christ.  
But will you deny Abraham to be a believing Parent? was not he a Father to them all? what then? he was a public common Father which reaches not the case in hand, neither have they any other in his stead, therefore the Analogy holds not.  
Repl. This is a poor shift, for that Abraham was a public Father we all hold, according to that of the Apostle. Rom. 4.11. He received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the righteousness of Faith, which he had, yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of them all that believe, though they be not circumcised, that is, the uncircumcised Gentiles that believe, as well as of the Jews. But why is he termed the father of Believers in both people? I suppose no better reason can be given than what I find in Doctor Sclater upon the fourth of Romans: namely, because from him the Blessing of the Covenant is derived as an inheritance passeth from the Father to the Son, or because in him the Covenant is made with all Believers, and their Seed. But what is this to the children of Believers, what benefit redounds to them that do not actually believe, nor profess the Faith of Abraham, having not the use of reason? the same Learned Doctor gives this answer, although Infants have not actually the use of reason (nor can actually believe) yet to that end (as Circumcision heretofore) Baptism is ministered to Infants, that when in time to cime, they shall believe to righteousness, their Faith may receive confirmation, by Baptism in infancy received; as David's Faith did against Goliath, he reflecting upon his Circumcision, (the sign and Seal of God's Covenant with him) when he went out against Goliath, that uncircumcised Philistine. To this purpose saith Augustin, In Abraham praecessit fidei justitia, & accessit Circumcisio signaculum justitiae fidei, etc. In some justification goes before the Seal, as in Abraham, and Cornelius, in others the Seal is before righteousness— Sicut in Isaac, qui octavo suoe nativitatis die circumcisus est, praecessit Signaculum justitiae fidei, etc. As in Isaac who was circumcised the eighth day, the Seal preceded Faith— Ita in Baptizatis infantibus etc. So in infants that are baptised— August. de Bapt. contra Donat. l. 4. c. 24.  
Excep. 6. Because Baptism came not in the room, place, and use of Circumcision, and the reasons he brings to prove it, are divers; we shall now examine them.  
First, he saith, It must not be looked upon to come in the room, and stead of it by any means: and why  
1. Because than Males, 
Mr. Tombs Examen p. 4.  not Females would be baptised.  
Reader, we must now give thee notice, that we are to renew our combat with Mr. Tombs, for this first reason is his, Examen, pag. 4. And the old Answers will do well evough.  
1. The reason why Females were excluded from an actual participation of Circumcision was their incapacity.  
2. They were virtually circumcised, 
Mr. Marshal Defence of Infant Baptism.  and reputed among the circumcised ones in that they were admitted to the Passeover, when the express command of the Law was that no uncircumcised parson must eat of it. Exod. 12.48. And farther it appears, they were reputatively circumcised, by that passage, where 'tis said, the whole house of Israel was circumcised, and by that of Sampsons' Parents, who were displeased that he took a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines. Judg. 14.3. for if the Israelitish women had not been accounted circumcised in the Males, Circumcision could have made no difference between Wife and Wife.  
2. His next reason is, Because all Believers out of Abraham's Family were not circumcised. 
Mr. Tombs Exer p. 4  Mr Tombs Exercit. p. 4. He gives instances of those out of Abraham's Family that were not circumcised.  
Repl. I have answered this before, that some of them lived before the ordinance of Circumcision was instituted, and others for other reasons were not circumcised, as I have shown but I love not to repeat.  
3. His third reason is, because then the circumcised needed not to have been baptised, if they had beem already sealed with the new Covenant Seal, but Christ himself and all his Apostles, etc. were circumcised, yet nevertheless were baptised.  
Repl. If this deserves an Answer, take this, The Covenant of Grace both under the Law and Gospel is one and the same for substance, though as to the external administration thereof, there is a difference, and accordingly the Seals are different. The Landlord if he please, may break the old Seal, and set on a new one to the grant, he makes to his, Tenant.  
2. He saith, it comes not in its room and stead as to the ends and uses.  
Repl. Though as to some circumstances, there be a difference between Circumcision and Baptism in regard of their ends and uses, yet there is no material difference, as to substance.  
But let us see his reasons why Baptism succeeds not Circumcision as to the ends and uses: which are these.  
1. Because Circumcision was a sign of Christ to come in the flesh, but Baptism that he was already come, Tombs exerc. pag. 4. Answ. There is a very good harmony notwithstanding that, quoad substantiam, as to the substance, they both look at Christ, and agree in the main. The one signifies and seals the remission of sins, by and through the blood of Christ to be shed, the other through that blood already shed. There is an agreement in the signification, though not in the manner of signification.  
2. He saith, Circumcision was to be a partition-wall between Jew and Gentile, but Baptism testified the contrary. Mr. Tombs again, quoting Cameron for it, Exerc. pag. 4. and then p, 6, Circumcision separated the Israelited from all nations, but Baptism signifieth that all are one in Christ.  
Repl. Though Baptism be no partition-wall between nation and nation, yet the end and use of Baptism is to distinguish Christians from Pagans, Turks and Infidels. One of the ends of Baptism is to be a badge of distinction betwixt those who are within, and those who are without, as the Apostle speaks, 1 Cor. 5.12.13.  
3. The Author farther tells us, Circumcision initiated the carnal Seed into the carnal Church, and gave them right to carnal Ordinances, but Baptism was to give the spiritual Seed, an orderly entrance into the spiritual Church, and a right to partake of the spiritual Ordinances.  
Repl. Although I have ground to hope my Antagonist is a spiritual or godly man, yet he talks here at a carnal rate; for what thinks he of Isaac and Jacob, and Christ himself, they were the spiritual Seed, as well as the carnal or fleshly Seed of Abraham, for as concerning the flesh Christ came of him. As for his expression of carnal Ordinances, it is Scripture language Heb. 9, 10. And the Apostle means those Levitical outward Ceremonies, which were placed in terrene and earthly matters that reached only the flesh, or did sanctify only to the purifying of the flesh. But sure the circumcised had right to all the other Ordinances of a spiritual nature as well as those, and the Author is to rash in calling the— Church of God under the Old Testament a carnal Church, I scruple not to say it is a carnal speech of him. But 'tis observable, all is carnal with some men that doth not suit with their Genius, when in the mean time the carnality lieth unseen by them in their own proud, censorious, selfconceited, contentious spirits. And did indeed Circumcision initiate into the carnal Church? (that is the Church of God under the old Testament) was Jesus Christ the head of a carnal Church? he was the head of the Church under the Law, as much as of the Church now in the days of the Gospel: and will any sober man say, he was the head of a carnal Church? This were heterogenous indeed that a spiritual head should be joined to a carnal Church: But I pray what singular virtue do these men see, and find in Baptism, that they so much advance it above Circumcision? what is there in it of itself (since they keep such ado about it) more than in Circumcision? It is altogether in itself as carnal as Circumcision, and the people that submit to it as carnal as others; and as carnal, and perverse an use do some of them make of it, as the Jews did of Circumcision. Some I know are more wise and sober than the rest; but too too many make an idol of their Baptism, they make it a firebrand of contention, and the beginning and end of all Religion. When as to speak plainly, the Baptism of water of itself (due reverence being still had to all God's Ordinances in their places) is as low and carnal a thing, as poor a Ceremony, as empty a sign and shadow as Circumeision. Baptism and Circumcision as to the letter, are just alike as to any  worth, the one relates to the letting out of a little blood, the other to the washing of the filth of the flesh. The cleansing of one's hands and feet from dirt is the same with it, 
Mr. Sydenham 's sober Exercit.  and as efficacious, and acceptable as this of itself. In a word there is a Circumcision in the flesh, and a Circumcision in the heart, the former carnal, the later spiritual, and so there is a Baptism of the flesh, and a Baptism of the spirit. The Apostle derides Circumcision in the flesh, where that of the heart was wanting by giving it the contemptible name of Concision. 
Blakes Covenant sealed.  And as Circumcision was Uncircumcision; so Dipping is Non-Baptism where that of the spirit is wanting.  
4. Lastly, he saith Circumcision was to be a Bond to keep the whole Law.  
Repl.  
The place is Rom. 2.25. Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the whole Law. The Apostle intends both ceremonial and moral Law; as else where he speaks, He that is circumcised is a Debtor to the whole Law; the meaning is, he that is circumcised with an opinion that he shall be justified thereby, that same man is fallen from Grace, that is, from the way of justification by a Covenant of Grace, 
Mr. Blakes Covenant sealed,  and puts himself under a Covenant of works, and so is bound to keep the Law in every punctilio; nevertheless Circumcision in itself was properly a Bond binding the faithful to Evangelical Obedience [walk before me, and be upright, or sincere] Gen. 17.1. Circumcision which was the Seal of the righteousness of Faith, did oblige Abraham to walk perfectly, or sincerely before God, and hereunto also Baptism obligeth us.  
5. He adds, Circumcision was administered to all Abraham's natural Seed, without any profession of Faith, whereas Baptisim is to be administered to the spiritual Seed of Abraham only upon profession.  
Repl.  
Here's a double mistake, for first, we have showed before that the children of excommunicated persons, that were impenitent were denied Circumcision: Godwin's Moses and Aaron, lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 181. So Buxtorf. Secondly, we find some baptised in the fourth of Matthew, and Lydias house, when none that we hear of professed Faith, but herself.  
6. Lastly He draws low, & is come to the Dregs, 
Note here Mr. Tombs and he differs, for Tombs grants they are both the same Sacraments, for the spiritual part, viz. Sanctification by the Spirit, and juslification by the Blood of Christ, Examen. p. 83.  & tells us, Circumcision was a sign of Temporal Blessings, and Benefits to be enjoyed in the land of Canaan, whereas Baptism was to be a sign of spiritual Benefits.  
Repl.  
But I pray what Temporal Blessings and Benefits in the land of Canaan, did they enjoy, who never entered into it? But this is but an evasion learned from the Jesuits, as before: For Canaan or temporal Blessings were not the only things which Circumcision sealed, neither yet the main thing; for Gen. 17.7. God promised Abraham to be his God, and the God of his Seed, this was the grand promise, the main of the Covenant which Circumcision sealed up, temporal Blessings were but an Additament.  
The Text saith Circumcision was a Seal of the righteousness of Faith, and so of all spiritual mercies, as much as Baptism. Nor is Baptism only a seal of spiritual blessings (this will not be owned for a true position in Divinity) for Baptism sealeth our deliverance out of afflictions, as well as out of corruption, yea, it sealeth to us the raising our bodies from death out of the grave, 
Cottons Grounds and Ends of Infant-Baptism.  as well as our souls out of the death in sin. Baptism sealeth a much temporal as spiritual blessings; for he that gives Christ, how shall he not with him give us all things else? and indeed Mr. Tombs like a Divine acknowledgeth that both Circumcision and Baptism signify the righteousness of Faith, and sanctification of the heart. Exerc. p. 6. and Exam. p. 83. After all this unsound stuff, the Author is pleased to grant there is some Analogy (little without doubt) betwixt the one and the other, and since he toucheth it only with a light finger, I shall give you the Analogy between them more fully.  
The Analogy betwixt Circumcision and Baptism.  
1. Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant made with Believers and their Seed.  
2. By Circumcision Believers and their Seed had entrance into the Church of the Jews.  
3. Circumcision shadowed forth the corruption of our nature, by cutting off the foreskin of the flesh.  
4. Circumcision shadowed out also mortification to sin, or regeneration by cutting of the foreskin, and casting it away.  
5. In Circumcision there was bloodshed, which pointed at our Redemption by Christ.  
6. Circumcision was a Bond to Evangelical Obedience. Gen. 17.1. Walk before me and be upright.  
So is Baptism. 1 Pet. 3.21.  
So are Believers and their Seed by Baptism into particular Gospel Churches.  
Baptismal washing points at the same. 1. Pet. 3.21.  
The same is signified by Baptism, Rom. 6.3, 4. called by Peter the laver of Regeneration.  
The water in Baptism represents the same, viz. the doing away the guilt of sin by his blood.  
So also is Baptism. 1. Pet. 3.21.  
Notwithstanding all this, if we will follow the Author's advice, we must not by any means conclude that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision, and for this reason which lies at the bottom, because than he must renounce his opinion, for it will thence follow, that Infant-Baptism is an Ordinance of Jesus Christ. But he hath learned from Mr. Tombs to give a ponderous reason why (though there be some Analogy) we must not own it to come in the room and stead of Circumcision, 
Tombs again Exercitation p. 7.  viz. Because there is an Analogy between other things and Baptism; and we may on the same account say it comes in the room and stead of them, As the— Ark, Manna, Rock and from such like Arguments drawn from Analogies, what Jewish Rites may by our wits be introduced to the countenancing the Papists in their Highpriesthood, Tithes. But will he never have done with Mr. Tombs? we find this in his Exercit. pag. 7.— Where he saith,— By like manner of Argumentation it will be lawful to bring in the whole burden of the Jewish Rites,— and who shall put a bound to men's wits— and this manner of arguing will countenance the Arguments of the Papists, for an universal Bishop, because there was such an Highpriest among the Jews, etc. And that Tithes are due to Ministers, Jure Divino, form Analogy of Melchisedec and Aaron, etc. Exam. p. 86.  
Well, since we have this Crambe bis cocta, that is enough to turn one's stomach, being tainted with long standing; I think Mr. Gerees stomachical medicines may be proper— We bring in, 
M. Gere. Vind. Padebaptismi.  saith he, no new Rite by Analogy, but only apply that which God hath brought, unto those, to whom by Analogy it doth appear to belong.  
And again Baptism is not instituted or bronght in as a new Rite by us; but being appointed of God, is applied by us, by proportion to Infants. And for that of countenancing the Papists in their Highpriesthood: neither doth that follow; for this Argument proceeds, as though we set up Circumcision itself: whereas we neither set up Circumcision, nor Baptism: but apply Baptism instituted of God to Infants. And therefore for you (saith he to Tombs) to infer the bringing in of things not in their kind mentioned, or appointed in the New Testament; is an apparent non sequitur: your instances being far unparallel to ours of applying an instituted Ordinance to children by way of proportion. I shall expect a good answer to this from the Author, or Mr. Tombs, ad Graecas Calendas.  
He next applauds my Lord Brooks (who gives not them a very good character) for that saying of his, viz. That the Analogy which Baptism now hath with Circumcision in the Old Law, is a fine rational Argument to illustrate a point well proved before; but he somewhat doubts whether it be proof enough for that which some would prove by it (besides the vast difference in the Ordinance) the persons to be circumcised are stated by a positive Law, so express that it leaves no place for scruple, but it is far otherwise in Baptism, where all the designation of persons fit to be partakers, for aught I know, saith he, is only such as believe: for this is the qualification which with exactest search I find the Scripture requires in persons to be babtized, and this it seems to require in all such persons; now how Infants can be properly said to believe, I am not yet fully resolved. This is very true which he relates of my Lord Brooks, who speaks not positively, but modestly, that he somewhat doubts, and is not fully satisfied as to the way of Argumentation from Circumcision to Baptism, and withal doth yet commend it for a fine rational Argument to illustrate a point well proved before: that's something, and more than our Author would have had him spoke, but I must acquaint the Reader with more which he speaks, little to their advantage. I will not, I cannot, saith he, take upon me to defend that, men usually call Anabaptism: yet I conceive that Sect is twofold. Some of them hold free will, community of all things, deny Magistracy, and refuse to baptise chilrens. These truly are such Heretics (or Atheists) that I question whether any Divine should honour them so much as to dispute with them. There is another sort of them who only deny Baptism to their children, till they come to years of discretion, and then they baptise them, but in other things they agree with the Church of England. Truly these men are much to be pitied. And I could hearty wish before they be stigmatised with that opprobrious brand of Schismatics, the truth might be cleared to them. For I conceive to those that hold we may go no farther than Scripture [that is the express word] for Doctrine and Discipline, it may be very easy to err in this point in hand; since the Scripture seems not to have clearly determined this particular; but for his part, he saith, many things prevail with him in this point, as  
First, for aught he could ever learn, it was the constant custom of the purest and most primitive Church to baptise Infants of believing Parents. For, saith he, I could never find the beginning and first rise of this practice; whereas 'tis very easy to tract Heresies to their first rising up, and setting foot in the Church.  
Again I find all Churches (even the most strict) have generally been of this judgement and practice: yea though there have been in all ages some, that much affected novelty, and had parts enough to discuss and clear what they thought good to preach, yet was this scarce ever questioned by men of note, till within these last ages: and sure the constant judgement of the Churches of Christ, is much to be honoured, and heard in all things that contradict not Scripture.  
Nor can I clear that of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 7.14. Else were your children— I know some interpret it illegitimate, and holy, legitimate— but saith he, I believe the Apostle means that Relative Church-Holiness, which makes a man capable of admission to holy Ordinances, and to Baptism.  
Except.  
Lastly, the Author excepts against the Argument we usually bring for the Baptism of children; Else our privilege under the Gospel, will be less than theirs under the Law, for theirs were circumcised, they were taken into the Covenant with the Parent, and were sealed, whereby they were distinguished from the world, and this was a great privilege, and to deny Baptism to children, which succeeds Circumcision, is to restrain God's Grace, and make us loser's by Christ's coming. To which he answers not at all.  
1. Because they were not circumcised, because they were children of Believers or sealed with a New Covenant Seal, as being in the New Covenant thereby, as before proved, etc.  
But what an absurd conceit and idle dream this is we have shown before to which I refer the Reader.  
2. Because it ought to be esteemed no more loss of a privilege, than our not enjoying literally a Holy Land, City, Temple, Succession of Highpriest, etc. for all those Types are spiritualised to us under the Gospel— and so far we are better, 
Tombs again Eramen. p. 101.  and not worse.  
Answ.  
But take heed of disparaging the Grace of God in vouchsafing them the Seal of his Covenant, now under the Gospel. For as Mr. Marshal says in answer to such cavilling as this. None of those, City, Temple, Succession of Highpriest, etc. were of the substance of the Covenant of Grace, for though Circumcision was a part of their administration, yet it did belong to the fubstance, it belonged to it, saith he, not as a part of it, but as a means of applying it; and though it be a privilege to have nothing succeed Circumcision, as it bound to that manner of administration; yet it is a privilege to have somewhat succeed it as a Seal of the Covenant, in as much as a Covenant with a Seal, is a greater benefit than to have a Covenant without it.  
Thirdly, He saith if it should be granted, that Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant, belonging to all the children of Israel, then would not the baptising children of Believers answer it. Neither amount to so great a privilege. And why?  
1. There were all the Families and Tribes of Israel (and all proselyted strangers) with their children without distinction of good and bad to be circumcised: But here only one of a City, or two of a Tribe: for Believers are but thin sown, and the children of unbelievers, and wicked men are to receive no such benefit in the Judgement of so many.  
Answ.  
I repent the losing of so much time as I am put upon in answering such frivolous objections, but such wrangling will never advantage their cause.  
First, Than it is not true that all their children were circumcised, for in the case of Excommunication, if a person persisted in impenitency amongst other punishments, this was one, his Male-childrens were not circumcised. Godwin's Moses and Aaron, l. 4. c. 2.  
2. Let it be considered, that the Church of God is now of Greater extent under the Gospel, that it was then, Isaiah 54.12. The desolate hath more children than the married: enlarge the place of thy Tents, and let them spread the Curtains of thy habitation, etc. So chap. 60.6. The multitude of the Sea shall be converted unto thee, and the riches of the Gentiles shall come unto thee— who are these that fly like clouds, and as the Doves to the Windows? v. 8.  
And when these come in, their children come in with them, and so the number of the baptised do infinitely exceed the circumcised, the extent of the Gentile Church so much exceeding that of the Jews, we find three thousand came in a day, and five thousand at another time in the Acts.  
3. Whereas he saith wicked men are to receive no such Benefit, that is, for their children in the judgement of so many; It is the judgement of many more that they ought, if they profess the Christian faith: although I conceive not the privilege of ignorant, and scandalous persons.  
Secondly, He adds another reason which is exceeding weak; and that is, Because we are at an utter uncertainty when we have a right Subject; for if the Parent be an Hypocrite, or no elect person, which is beyond our reach to understand, we cannot know whether the child be fit for Baptism.  
Answ. And how can those of his way tell when they have a fit Subject for Baptism, are they sure all whom they baptise are elect persons and sincere, we have told him before, de occultis non judicat Ecclesia. A serious profession is sufficient, and we are to judge such professors, in probability Believers, and may on that ground admit their children to Baptism. We have a rule for baptising, and that we are to follow, and a rule to know, those that are baptizable, but none, for an infallible judgement of men's sincerity, we are not called to judge of this matter, nor is it in our power, and 'tis not our sin if we be deceived. Mr. Baxter says well to this, in his Answer to Mr. Tombs, how do you know, (saith he to him) whom you should baptise? whom doth the Scripture command you to baptise? If you say as Apol. p. 94. that it is those that make free, serious, understanding profession: I would know whether it be the profession itself, the bare profession which God bestoweth this privilege on? or whether it be the faith professed? if it be real faith, then without that, there is no Baptism; if it be bare profession, or if we may call it false faith, then false faith (or profession without faith) is the condition of baptising, And if it be real faith, the Baptizer cannot know that, if it be said that in common estimation they are Believers, then common estimation renders one capable of Baptism. When these men have answered the point for themselves, they have answered it for us.  
Thirdly and Lastly he saith, Neither can the child (when he is grown up) have any certain knowledge that such a Ceremony hath passed upon him in Infancy, he having no infallible mark thereof; whereas the circumcised Infant had an indelible character and mark in his flesh, to assure him that he had received that Rite.  
Answ. That they had a sensible mark to mind them of their. Circumcision is true, though some of them had an art to make it invisible, as Beza notes upon that place, 1 Cor. 7.18. Let him not gather his Circumcision, 
We have the note in our Margin Bible.  which was done (as he quotes it out of Celsus, and Epiphanius) when the Surgeon by art draweth out the skin to cover the part circumcised. Godwin hath the same in his Moses and Aaron, and puts the question how it is possible for a man, after once he hath been marked with the sign of Circumcision, to blot out that character, and become uncircumcised? For thus some Jews, for fear of Antiochus made themselves uncircumcised. 1 Mac. 1.16. Others for shame, after they were gained to the Christian Faith, uncircumcised themselves, and then tells us what is before. This by the way: But the Author saith, he that was circumcised had a character or mark, to assure himself that he had received that Rite. To this I reply in the words of Mr. Brinsley. True; such a sensible mark they had. But how did they know that that mark was given them for any such religious end and purpose? That they received it as a Sacrament, a Seal of the Covenant betwixt God and them. Other nations there were (and that many) who used Circumcision (even as the Turks do at this day) and I find in Mr. Godwin the same, in his sixth Book of Miscellaneous Rites. It was used, saith he, (though not as a Sacrament) by many other nations, by the inhabitants of Colchis, the Ethiopians, the Trogloditae and the Egyptians. Now then how did the Israelites know it was given them to such a religious intent? why herein they were to give credit unto the testimony of others, viz. the Parents and other witnesses, and Mr. Godwin in the aforesaid Book tells us from the Jewish Doctors, that when a little child was to be circumcised, one who supplied the place of a witness (whom they called by the name of Baal Berith and Sandak, that is, the Master of the Covenant, held the child in his arms, whilst it was circumcised, that so he might bear witness to the Circumcision, and of the name given the child at that time. Such was the use of the later Jews; and it seemeth that the practice was ancient, even as ancient as Isaiah's time. So those two learned expositors Junius and Tremelius interpret that place. Isa. 8.2. He took unto him faithful Witnesses. Witnesses to what? saith Mr. Brinsly; why to the Circumcision of his Son, of whom he speaketh in the verse before; such as might witness that he gave him that name in his Circumcision, as the Lord appointed, viz. Mahershalalhashbaz. Which whether, saith he, it was a thing really done, or only represented to the Prophet in a vision, is not material: for it seemeth however it was a practice then in use in those times. And from hence it is conceived that ancient custom [as ancient indeed as Tertullia's days] of having Godfathers, and Godmothers, (as we call them) in Baptism. Some persons specially appointed to witness the Baptism of such a person; which use is still continued amongst us, with this injunction that they mind the child of that faith into which it was baptised, and that they take care that it be instructed and brought up in the knowledge of Christ, yet now it is in most places become a mere formality, and an occasion only of feasting. But we return to the matter, From those Witnesses or their Parents did the children of the Jews receive the Testimony of their Circumcision; and they might give the more credit to it, because they saw the same practised upon others daily. And even such a Testimony have children now from Parents, or Sureties, besides the Testimony of the whole congregation, and the Records that are kept thereof in a Book kept for that purpose, according to the custom of the Church of England.   

CHAP. IU.  
Wherein the Author attempts to prove that the Ceremony of Baptism, is Immersion, and not Sprinkling; which is an other Rite, he saith) introduced contrary to the signification of the Word, and Nature of the Ordinance, etc.  
SInce the Author hath thought meet to appear thus as a Witness against Infant-Baptism, it had been well if he had followed the good old Rule enjoined Witnesses, that is, to speak the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; and for want of which he hath given such a partial and lame account hitherto. We are now come to a main point, upon which they place very much confidence, viz. the signification of the Word Baptism, and the Author undertakes to prove, that the Manner and Ceremony thereof aught to be by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body, and not by Sprinkling or pouring Water on the Face or Head.  
1. From the proper and genuine signification of the Word, which according to the Greek Lexicons, and the most eminent Critics, he saith, imports nothing less than to Dip, Plung, or cover all over. And that Scapula and Stephens, two as great Masters of the Greek tongue as we have any, tell us in their Lexicons, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mergo, immergo, obruo, Item tingo, quod fit immergendo, that is, to dip plunge; overwhelm, put-under, cover-over, to die in Colour, which is done by plunging.  
Answer.  
To this we Oppose Dr. Featly in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 37. who saith, that Hesychius and Stephanus, and Scapula, and Budaeus, the great Masters of the Greek Tongue, make good by many instances and allegations out of Classic Writers, that the Word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] importeth no more than Ablution, or Washing, which may be done without Dipping. Now what a case is the illiterate Reader in? who shall he believe, the Author or the Learned Dr.? For my part being not willing to take up the matter upon trust, I was the more curious to examine the Critics.  
First, I consulted with Stephanus, and he saith the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies not only mergo, immergo, (to dip, or plung) but also abluo, lavo, (to wet, or wash) and in the same place in his Lexicon he brings in Cyprian (who flourished about 1500 years since) translating the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tingentes, following therein his Master Tertullian; 
Corpus tingere sparsâ aquâ Ovid. 4. Fast. p. 558.  and saith Stephens, Tingere apud prophanos Authores, idem est quod aspergere, the Word tingere, among Heathen-Writers signifies Sprinkling, as he shows out of Ovid and Cicero.  
For Passor the Author tells us, 
Nec enim Herculi nocere Deianira voluit, quum ei tunicam sanguine Centauri tinctam dedit, Cic. de Nat. Deor. p. 98.  he Translates the Word by Immersion, Dipping, Submersion, but he hath left out Ablution, or Washing, which Passor there adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, is Immergo, Abluo, either to dip, or to Wash.  
After him comes Vossius, who is most expressly against the Author's Opinion. The Word, saith Vossius, signifies to Wash, and Washing is not only by dipping as he hints, but by pouring out of Water, or sprinkling it on the Body, and represents the washing of the Soul, according to that in Ezek. 36. I will Sprinkle clean Water upon you; and therefore it seems Baptism may be celebrated either way, by Dipping or Sprinkling.  
Then for our own Countrymen Mr. Leigh, Rogers, Taylor, Mede, Hammond: 'tis tedious to examine them all. We will only bring one of them to the test which is Mr. Leigh, who is instar omnium, for profound knowledge in the Greek and Hebrew. This Man the Author glories in: Mr. Leigh, saith he, in his Critica Sacra, tells us, it's proper and native signification is to Dip into Water, or to plung under Water, and that the proper signification was such a Dipping or Plunging as Dyers use for dying of .  
True Mr. Leigh says this, but he saith more, and 'tis disingenuously done of the Author thus to pick out what serves his turn, and leave the Reader in the dark as to the rest. When-as Mr. Leigh saith in the very beginning, as soon as he names the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that although it be derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Dip, or Plung, and signifies primarily such a kind of Washing as is used in Buks, where linen is Plunged and Dipped; yet it is taken more largely for any kind of Washing or Cleansing, even where there is no Dipping at all: and he quotes these Scriptures for it, Matth. 3.20, 22. Mark. 7.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, They Baptised themselves, it is rendered Washed themselves; and so did eat. So Mark. 10.38. Luke 3.16. Act. 1.5. and 11.16. 1 Cor. 10.2. It is put generally for Washing saith Mr. Leigh, as Luke 11.38. Heb. 9.10. Christ nowhere requireth Dipping, but only Baptising, as he quotes out of Dr. Featly.  
Thou seest, Reader, how little he hath gotten by these Authors. I shall add a few more of great renown in the Church, who are opposite to the conceit of Baptising to signify only Dipping. The first is Cyprian, 
Baptizare etiam morbis laborantes in lectis solitos. Cyp. in Epist. ad Magnum. L. 4. Epist. 7. indicat, & pro Baptismo probat. & sic Baptizatum Cornelius Novatum scribit apud Euseb. L. 6. Cap. 43. qui sic autem Baptiz ablantur, inquit Vossius, non immergebantur nec perfundebantur, sed aquâ solâ aspergebantur, etc. Vossius de Baptismo. p. 358.  who in his Epistle ad Magnum L. 4. Epist. 7. acquaints us that it was usual in those days to Baptise sick Persons in their Beds, and the said Father proves by divers reasons the warrantableness of such Baptism; and that persons are rightly Baptised although only Sprinkled, and he grounds it upon Ezek. 36. I will Sprinkle clean Water upon you etc. In like manner Vossius citys out of Eusebius, L. 6. C. 43. That it was the Custom of those times to Baptise sick Persons in their Beds. Cornelius writes that Novatus was so Baptised, upon which the Learned Vossius makes this Observation; That those who were thus Baptised were not doused or dipped under Water, but only Sprinkled. This is Vossius whom the Author brings to be for Dipping, according to the signification of the Word, as if that were the only way of Baptising; but you see what a false Suggestion it is.  
Estius another very Learned Man, and great Critic, declares his Judgement, 
Probat Estius modum ablutionis, scilicet aspersionis exemplo Apostolorum, Act. 2. Sane interalios Thomae Aquinati veristmile est aquâ persudisse, ob Baptizandorum multitudinem, Vossius de Bap. p. 359.  grounding it on Act. 2.4. which is this, That the Apostles did Baptise by Washing or Sprinkling, for, saith he, it is altogether improbable that the Apostles Dipped 3000 Persons in one day, and 5000 at another time. Non est verisimile propter Multitudinem immergi omnes potuisse, sed vel perfusos, vel aspersos fuisse aquâ. He conceived that they were rather washed, or had Water Sprinkled on them.  
Walfridus Strabo, (an Ancient Ecclesiastical Writer, though since Austin many hundred years) saith in his 26th Chapter, It is to be noted that many heretofore were Baptised, not only by Dipping, but also by pouring Water on them; and that the same way of Baptising may be still retained. This is he whom the Author quotes to be for the Baptising of grown Persons only.  
Lastly, the Magdeburgenses (whose History of the Church the Author much applauds, and that justly being a rare work indeed) tell us that Baptism signifies ting, or Washing, and for this they bring Mark. 7. when the Pharisees come to the Market except they Wash [the Word is Baptise] they eat not, and yet it was but a part, their hands only, and not the whole Body that was so Baptised or Washed. They also quote that place Luke, 11.38. That Baptising is merely Washing, and not only Dipping, The Pharisees wondered at Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he was not Baptised before Dinner, that is, that he did not Wash. Now this must be by all means (according to some men's fancy) by Dipping and not pouring Water upon the hands; yet what more common than to Wash one's hands this way, or by holding them under a Cock or Spout or Your, 2 Kings 3.11. Here is Elisha the Son of Saphat, which poured Water on the hands of Elijah: that is, who was his Servant as 'tis noted in the Margin. It is a very poor Supposition that Washing of hands must only be by Dipping; what if the Pharisees had had a mind to have Washed their Faces when they did their Hands, as is common; must that have been by Dipping? But the aforesaid Text in the Kings puts the matter beyond exception, where by good hap we have found a place, to prove that a Man may Wash his Hands without Dipping.  
In a Metaphorical sense the Word (Baptise) is used for Pouring out the Spirit. But to go on with the Magdeburgenses, they tell us that the Baptism of Christians was taken a judaica lotione, from the Jewish Custom of Washings: which the Apostle speaks of Heb. 9.10. Their service stood in divers Washings. The Greek is Baptisms. Now those Baptisms or Washings were not all of them Dippings; although some 'tis confessed were. Mr. Goodwin in his Jewish Antiquities shows, that the Jews had (amongst other Baptisms or Washings) a threefold Baptization for the Dead; one of which was named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Baptization or Washing the Dead Corpse: 'tis like this was done with some Odoriserous Water, to keep off ill scents. Thus likewise the Grecians had their Ablutio mortuorum, 
Homer saith, Jupiter: bid them do so to Sarpedon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Il. 11.  they Washed the Corpse with Ointment, and poured Ambrosia upon the Head and Face. 'Tis said of Tabytha, that she died and when they had Washed her, they laid her up in an upper Chamber, Act. 9.37. I hope when they washed her, they did not Dip her under water.  
2. It appears to be so, saith he, from the Practice and usage we find thereof in Scripture.  
1. In the Story of Christ's Baptism, Mat. 3.5. Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be Baptised of him; and verse 16. when he was Baptised he went up strait way out of the Water.  
Answer.  
We may be said to come up out of the water, when we have not been under it. Men usually go down into the water to bathe themselves, and and yet keep their Heads above water; but the Words in the Text which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Mr. Sydenham notes, may be better translated, went up from the water; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies more properly; ab from, than ex out; because Rivers for the most part lie low, and in Valleys, in coming to which usually there is a descent, and coming from them some ascent.  
2. A Second Scripture, which he urgeth for his Opinion is that of John 3. verse. 23. And John was Baptising in Aenon near Salem, and the reason why he pitcheth on this place, is given to be, is this, because there was much Water.  
Reply.  
The aforesaid Author gives a sufficient Answer to this, viz. John's Baptising at Aenon, namely because there was much water, is a good reason why he chose that place, for the Country to come in and be Baptised, because they might go many Miles in those hot Countries, and not meet with a drop of water, and it was a great privilege to those places that banked on Jordan, that they had much water, but this is no Argument to prove that John plunged all he Baptised, The Argument, saith Mr. Sydenham, must be this, John Baptised in Aenon because there was much water: ergo Baptising is by Dipping all the whole Body. This is a dangerous and ominous way of arguing, to those who deny Consequences and Deductions for to warrant duties, without express syllabical Precept— None of our Consequences for Infant-Baptism are so strained and far-fetched. It was necessary for them, that had so many of several parts to Baptise, to go where there may be much water, when they could get hardly a drop many miles. You may in England go twenty miles in some Countries, and not find a River to plunge a man's whole body under water, what would it be in Spain and other hot Countries, where Water is sold as Wine and beer with us, how far might they go ere they could get a River to plunge themselves in? etc.  
A third Scripture is that, Act. 8.36.38.— And they went both down into the Water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he Baptised him, and when they came up both out of the Water. etc.  
Answer.  
I see not how this Text can serve their turn, for there is nothing in it to prove that Philip plunged him over head & ears; if they will prove it from any thing it must be from their going down into the Water, or coming up out of it; but that will not do, for I may go down into the Water, and come up again out of it, and yet not be up to my Ankles: and how can it be proved hence they went any farther, or whether Philip did not flash water into his Face, or cast it over his Head, or whether he dipped only his Head, or his whole Body under water; the Scripture is silent as to this, and Men may conjecture what they please, but must not impose upon others. The Text faith, they both went down into the Water, but their going down into water was no part of the Baptism, for than they had both been Baptised: for they went both together down into the water, but it is said that Philip Baptised him after they went down into the water. That the Eunuch was Baptised is clear, but after what manner we are yet to seek. We cannot from hence learn the management of this business, whether Philip took up this great corpulent Person (for such Eunuches use to be) quite out of the water by the strength of his Arms, and so Dipped down again or no, or whether so much of him only as was above the water was Dipped, & that of him under the water left alone. And besides, as for this Eunuch, if his whole body were Dipped whether it were in puris naturalibus, altogether naked, or in his wearing , this latter cannot be conceived for they went presently up in the Chariot, nor could he have any conveniency of shift for such a purpose, for their meeting was accidental as to the Eunuches part: so that we conclude, nothing for plunging the whole body under water can be pretended to from this Text.  
The last Scripture the Author mentions is that Rom. 6.4. Buried with him in Baptism, etc.  
This is a Metaphorical expression signifying partaking of Christ's Death by virtue of Union, but Plunging the whole body doth not hold similitude neither with Christ's burial, nor the manner of burials in the most part of the World: for as Mr. Sydenham notes, Christ's burial, and the manner of it was not by throwing under the Earth, for his Body was wrapped up in a linnen-cloth by Joseph, and laid in a Tomb or Sepulchre, hewn out of a Rock, and this was the custom of the Jews, Matt. 27.60. to cut out a place like a Cave, out of a Rock to lay their dead Bodies in; and besides, Christ is said to stay three days so buried, and so must they under the water, if they are for an exact resemblance to his Burial; but of this we may have occasion to speak more in our Answer to the 6th Chapter.  
After this the Author brings divers Learned Authors, who affirm that the ancient way of Baptising was by Dipping, as Cajetan etc. And amongst the rest he hath a passage out of Mr. Fox his Acts and Monuments who takes it out of Fabian viz. That Austin and Paulinus did in the 7th Century Baptise here in England great multitudes in the River Trent, and the River Swall, where note by the way (saith Mr. Fox) it followed there was no use of Fonts.  
To this I Answer, there could not well be any use of Fonts, because as Bede says, it was in initio Ecclesiae ubi jam cito templa [non potuerunt extrui, it was before Temples were built, and therefore saith he, passim ad Flumina turba Baptizata est, Beda Lib. 2. Angl. Hist. cap. 14. And I shall mind the Reader with a pretty Observation of Mr. Fuller upon this occasion; we have it in his Church-History, p. 66.  
That (saith he) which they bring for Dipping, because they were Baptised in the River Swall, makes against it. For Cambden in his Preface of Britain pag. 136. citys a certain Author who reports how in the River Swall near Richmond in Yorkshire, Austin in one day Baptised above ten-thousand Saxons— Though Bede ascribes this numerous Baptising to Paulinus Archbishop of York. Now, faith he, if so many were Baptised it may be well urged against the Anabaptists and Papists; against the former, that all these could not be dipped in a day; and for the latter it appears that in that Age the Administration of the Sacrament was not loaded with those Superstitious Ceremonies, as essential thereunto, of Crossing, Spittle, Oil, Cream, Salt, etc.  
Lastly, the Author frames an Objection or two on our behalf, which he undertakes to Answer thus.  
Objection.  
But the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies if not to Sprinkle, yet not only to Dip, and overwhelm, but also to Wash. Mark, 7.4. where there is mention of Washing of Hands, Cups, Pots, Vessels, which may be done without Dipping or Plunging under Water.  
Answer.  
That Baptism in a sense is Washing, saith he, I no ways doubt, for you can not dip a thing without you wash it: But may not Cups and Vessels be washed though not dipped? True (saith he) they may though not from this Scripture, the Word being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for though all Dipping be Washing, yet all Washing is not Dipping in a proper sense.  
Well argued Sr. I perceive you are very ingenious and logical, you are now at your termini convertibiles, where shall we have you next? No wonder that (as some boast) you convert many to your Judgement. But by your leave I will lay a Rub in your way: What think you of that place Luk. 3.16. I Baptise you [with Water] if by Baptism had been meant Dipping, must it not have been said I Baptise you [in Water]?  
Once more Act. 1.5. John Baptised [with Water] is not this a very improper speech if it be meant of dipping, for 'tis as much as to say John Dipped with Water— The same may be said of Christ's coming after John, whom, he saith, shall Baptise with the Spirit; is this to be understood of Dipping, or is it not rather of the pouring out of the Spirit which was promised?  
If this will not satisfy, I shall offer one Text more, and that I think is beyond exception; it is concerning Nabuchadnezzar; Dan. 4.30. of whom it is said he did eat grass as the Oxen and his Body was wet with the dew of Heaven, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Septuagint hath it: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here rendered Wet, and that with the Dew of Heaven: It is the second Aorist of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from whence comes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So now we have found that which the Author said he could never do, namely, that the word is simply taken for Washing, by pouring on Water, or Sprinkling; for if the Root signifies so, then doth the Branch also. And thus my Antagonist having shown so much of his Acumen in the Greek, he will also give us a taste of his skill in the Mystery of Huswifry.  
I presume, saith he, you will account her but a Salut, and give her no thanks for her pains, that having unclean Hands, Vessels, or  to Wash, doth only Sprinkle, or pour a little Water upon them as though that would serve.  
'Tis a commendable thing to be cleanly, and let all Maids take special notice of this item, and as they would not willingly incur the brand of Sluts, let them be mindful of this that when ever they set about that necessary work of Washing Dishes to look well to their business, and let them be sure they dip them quite under water, or they will never be clean: and I question whether this will do without some rinsing and rubbing, for I have observed your cleanly Huswives to fetch off the filth that way, and then they will shine like Crystal, if afterward they scour them with Sand. But we must be more ferious in a business of this nature, and I hope to be excused, being tempted thus 10 Answer our Author in his own kind. I will leave that word of Mr. Baxter to the consideration of the Judicious viz. It would be but folly for any to think Men must needs fill themselves full of Bread and Wine, because it best signifies the fullness of Christ; so it is no better to say, that we must needs be washed all over because it best signifies the fullness of Christ. Christ told Peter that the Washing of his Feet was enough to cleanse all.  

Eight Argument against the Administration of Baptism by Dipping.  
1. BEcause we are not to presume to do that which is not written, that is, that is not founded upon Scripture-precept, either Thetice, in so many express words, or Dianoetice, by clear consequence: They will not allow us the privilege of deducting Consequences from Scripture, although never so clear, yet they presume to make use of Consequences, and think they can demonstrate that which is impossible to be done, from Scripture. There is a positive saying in Mr. Leigh's Critica Sacra upon the Word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Christ nowhere requireth Dipping but only Baptising, and as for the manner and method how this should be done, there is altum Silentium in the Scripture, a deep silence: and therefore 'tis I very great boldness, (to say no worse,) for any to lay the whole essence of Baptism in Dipping.  
2. As there is no express Command for it, so there is no Precedent in the New-Testament; they cannot instance in any one Person that ever was so severely dealt with as to be Plunged over Head and Ears. Nor is there any convincing Circumstances to be collected thence, that any was so served. And is it not strange that upon search of all the Sacred Register, from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministry, to the time that John the Evangelist ended his, which was above sixty years, during which time thousands and ten thousands were Baptised; that if Plunging over head and ears had been the way, than no error ever should be committed, no fainting, or drowning of persons under water, or some accident or another happen, to demonstrate that Baptising was after that manner. Me thinks there should fall out something, either of Omission or Commission, that might argue the thing. But we have not so much as one Circumstance of that nature.  
3. Because as the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both to Plunge and to Wash, so it is mostly used in Scripture for Washing. It is a good Rule to be observed that when we find a word in Scripture of a double sense, and it hangs as it were in Equilibrio, so that we know not which to take, our safest course is then to observe which way the Scale doth most incline, that is we are to embrace that sense which is most common in Scripture. But in the matter before us I think we need not be much at a loss, for we shall not easily find any explicit place in all the Bible, where the Word Baptise is used positively for Plunging.  
4. Let it be granted that in Scripture the word can be found to signify Dipping, yet for as much as it is also in Scripture used simply for Washing, we are also to observe and follow another Theological Rule, that where a word is of doubtful interpretation, admitting a double sense, that sense is to be taken for right, which agrees best with the Mind of God in other places; and the general Anatogy of Faith, and Evangelical Doctrine. Hence than we conclude that Baptising is not Dipping, because this Practice runs directly cross to a Vital Maxim of Religion, which is self-preservation, required not only in the Moral-Law, but Charactered in us by Nature: and under the Evangelical Dispensation, we find our Lord Jesus so tender of Man's health and life, that rather than it should be endangered, even the Sabbath itself must be dispensed with; and the Reason Christ gives is, because Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for Man; so may it be said Man was not made for Baptism, but Baptism Instituted for Man, for his good, not hurt; and therefore Dipping which we know hath not been only to the damage of some men's health, but the loss of some lives, is to be suspected to be none of Christ's Ordinances. And for this Reason Mr Cradock (a great Independent as they call them) in his Treatise of Gospel-Liberty, saith, the Practice is to be restrained by the Magistrate, for the preservation of the lives of his Subjects.  
Let us a little dive into this Dipping-Principle, and we shall see how inconsistent it may in some cases be to the Life of Man.  
1. We know the Command of Baptising takes place immediately upon Believing; for this is certain, every one that Believeth aught presently to be Baptised (if he can have it) for so it was without delay, as appears by several Instances in the Acts of the Apostles. If then only Dipping be Baptising, what shall become of them that are weak and sickly, that have Catarrhs, Consumptions, Palsies; These, if they Believe, although it be in Winter, in frost and snow, must to the work without any delay, they must I say be covered all over with water: and if so, may not this hasten their end, which may endanger the lives of the soundest Bodies? Is this think you suitable to the mercy & tender Bowels of Christ, whose Yoke is easy and Burden light? Certainly such a penance as this to some Persons and to those that live in extreme cold Countries, is more unsupportable than the burden of the Ceremonial-Law, and more dangerous than what ever the Ceremonial Law requited. And what though our bodies may endure it better than theirs who live under a more severe Climate, yet we must know Christ's Ordinances are calculated for all Meridian's, and all are bound to submit unto them. That therefore cannot be Christ's Ordinance, which must needs compel some to self-cruelty and destruction. To those therefore who are such stubborn asserters of the Doctrine of Dipping, that of Peter may be well applied, Why tempt ye God, to put such a Yoke upon the necks of Christians, not able to bear it, when nothing else but your mistaken expounding of the Text hath brought it on them? what then Mr. Baxter speaks in respect of weak Constitutions, is (for aught I know) a truth, viz. The way of Dipping is good for nothing but to dispatch Men out of the World, that are burdensome to it, and to ranken Churchyards.  
Secondly, Baptism cannot be by way of Dipping, because Christ hath Instituted no Ordinance, to thwart and cross the pure and chaste Rules of the Gospel, which prohibits all appearances of evil, and the unclean glances of the Eye. Can we therefore imagine that Christ's Baptism should entrench so much upon the laws of Civility, Chastity, and Modesty; as to require Women and Maids, to appear openly, in the light oh the Sun, out of their wont habit, in transparent and thin Garments next to nakedness, and in that posture to be Plunged, in the face of the whole Congregation, before Men and Boys? for my part I cannot bring myself to believe that Christ owneth any Practice of so uncomely an aspect, and that is seemingly so scandalous and ignominious to the honour of Christianity.  
5. Christ's Ordinances are calculated for the Universal World, for the Inhabitants of all Countries, and on that consideration, I see not how Dipping can be one of them: for how can Persons be strictly obliged to that in all places, which cannot be practised but in some, and that too at certain times; for some Countries are so hot and dry, that People must travel many miles before they can find any River up to their Knees, and in other places at Winter the water is frozen up, that the Ice cannot be perforated or broken up.  
6. I cannot think that by Baptising we are to understand Dipping under water: for the prime end of Baptism (as the Author saith Chap. 4th of his first Part, pag. 15.) is, that the Baptised might have the Mysteries of the Gospel represented in a sign, and preached to his Eye in the Ordinance, which hath been Preached to his Ear. But what of that can be seen or apprehended at that time when the Ordinance is celebrated? how can any one, especially such as are timorous, and of the weaker Sex, be free to exercise their Minds or Faith upon Divine Mysteries? What can such think of, but their danger, and how they shall escape being throttled or drowned? And I cannot conceive (if there were nothing but this) that Christ hath instituted an Ordinance, that shall so confound the senses, and put tender folks into such an affright and amaze for the present, and at such a time when they had need have their minds most serene to contemplate of the glorious Mysteries represented in the Ordinance.  
7. Baptising cannot be by Dipping, for if so, than the Body must be either naked, or clothed: if cloated, then certainly the person is not Baptised but his ; for Vossius says true, de Baptismo pag. 357. Baptismus non vestium est, sed humani corporis: Baptism is not that of the , but of the body of Man: for if one be Dipped in his , the Flesh cannot be said to be washed primarily, but secundarily, and by consequence, and 'tis the Garment that is properly Baptised, 
Mr. Sydenham's Exercitation on Baptism.  or Washed; and yet that part that is to be Baptised aught doubtless to be naked, that the Water may fall immediately upon the flesh that hath been the instrument and subject of sinning: and therefore anciently, for above sixhundred years, Vossius shows that (through an erroneous mistake) Men, Women, and Infants, 
Vossius de Bapt. p. 357. Eo etiam, posito pudore toto penitûs corpore nudabantur, adeo ut ne fasciâ quidem (qualem pictores honestatis causâ appingere solent) obduxisse videantur partibus pudendis.  were Baptised naked, and the Christians gloried in it, that for the sake of Christ they could expose themselves to shame, until afterward they came to more light, and had regard to modesty; which taught Christians that the washing of one part may suffice, and may well enough signify the purifying the whole Man, as Christ told Peter as before, in a case of like resemblance, John 13.10. And this is the reason, as Mr. Sydenham well observes, why we only pour Water on the Face, because it is the principallest part wherein the Image of God most appears, and the Soul shines forth most eminently, on which all the workings of men's humours and affections leave the visiblest impression and symptoms. And 'tis observable that the same Word in the Greek [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] signifies both the Face and the Person, because the whole Person is represented by the Face; and thus we Baptise the Person when we Baptise his Face, which we can look upon without shame.  
8. Baptising is not by Dipping, but some other way, for 'tis said of John that he Baptised all Jerusalem and Judea, and the Regions roundabout, and three-thousand were Baptised in one day, and five thousand another, which is hinted brawny Arms, to go through such work as to Dip them all; and how all these could be Dipped Men and Women promiscuously in their , or how they could get Garments to render the act comely, is not easily to be conjecture, and therefore it is more likely Water was flashed, or cast upon or over them.    

CHAP. V.  
Wherein we have an account given of some pretended Mischiefs, Absurdities, and Contradictions chargeable upon the Practice of Infant-Baptism.  
WE were once resolved to have pretermitted this Chapter, being a Recapitulation of the Author's former Arguments against us, and containing nothing that is material and pertinent to the Question, that hath not been already either Actually or Virtually resolved: but had I persisted in that resolution, and said nothing, it would have been imputed by some to be, by reason of some difficulties that I found therein, which made me unwilling to meddle with it. I have, to prevent all such imaginations, encountered it with assurance, that the ingenious Reader will approve my Husbanding time better, than to make a large repetition of what hath been already said; when in truth it is sufficient only to point to such places in my Book, where the same things are pressed as we find here, and to which answer hath been given. Nevertheless I shall superadd a few things. He gins with Mischiefs.  
1. The first Mischief is, by altering Christ's Order in the Commission, Matt. 28.19. wherein Teaching, Repentance & Faith; are required always to precede Baptism, which this makes to follow after.  
Reply.  
Notwithstanding what is said to this in the first Chapter of my Book, I add, That I deny the Proposition to be Universally true, that Teaching, Faith, Repentance, ought always to precede Baptism. For Persons to be Baptised are, either;  
1. Original, which have no precedent title. To such, Teaching, Repentance, Faith, must precede their Baptism; for such having not precedent Evidences of being in Covenant, must put forth some acts of Faith & Repentance of their own, that so they may have evidence of right.  
2. Secondary, and derived, viz. Infants of former Believers, and 'tis not requisite, that Teaching, Faith, Repentance, should precede their Baptism. This distinction of Primary, Original, or Secondary and Derived Persons in the Title to the Sacrament of Baptism, would answer most of the Author's Arguments for him, if he would please to consider it. We call the Believing Parents Original, and their Infants Secondary and Derived Persons for distinction sake: Not as if the Father were the Original of his Son's right to the Covenant or Seal; No, God's mere Grace in Christ, who at the first Institution of the Covenant was pleased to take in both the Believer and his Seed, is the Original of both their Rights; The Seed Deriving it immediately from the Tenor of the Covenant, as well as the Father: But because the Relation of that Infant to that Believer as his Seed, is a determining Mean, bringing him within the Covenant, from which his Right proceedeth. If you say, How prove you this distinction of First and Original Persons, and Secondary and Derived, out of the Word? I prove it, 1 From the Tenor of the Covenant itself: I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed after thee; where there is this distinction of persons in the Covenant, 1 To thee, Abraham, actually believing. 2. To thy Seed after thee, brought within the Covenant, by being thy Seed, and by thy actual Believing, though they for the present are not actual Believers; and so the Seal was to be put on them in that Right even before their actual Believing. 2. So is there ground for it in applying and holding out the Covenant in the same Tenor under the Gospel, as is before shown from Act. 2.39. There are the same two states of persons. 1. You, and others, as many as shall be actually called. 2. The Seed of them and others, so actually called. 3. In the constant Practice according to this warrant, in the taking in of the Proselytes: He who came in, and took hold of the Covenant, was Circumcised on his actual taking hold of it, but then the Original-people actually professing, they stayed not for such actual profession in the Seed of such a one, but gave them the Seal, as persons in Covenant, even before actual Profession. I have been the larger, because this is the Key which must open the way to be satisfied in the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism; and to repel all Arguments against it.  
2. Those places in the Commission, Go teach all Nations, Baptising &c. to which he should have added the other, Mark 16.16. He that believeth, and is Baptised, shall be saved, must be taken in the Latitude of Original Persons, not of Derived, for of such alone doth Christ speak there, giving Commission of the planting and first-gathering of Churches, for that the Whosoever in Mark must not be taken in a full Latitude of necessity, is plain from the other clause to which it is convertibly prefixed, viz. Shall be saved: for if the Universality of the speech reach Infants to exclude them absolutely from Baptism; it must also reach them in the same manner to exclude as full from being Saved, as is before noted in the first Chapter of this Book.  
2. By changing the Subjects of Christ's appointment, viz. Men and Women of knowledge and understanding, capable to Evidence Faith and Repentance, for ignorant unconverted Babes that know neither good nor evil.  
This was answered just now, in what was said to the altering Christ's Order in the Commission: and there is more in the first Chapter of my Book, Part 1.  
3. By frustrating the Holy and Spiritual Ends of the Ordinance.  
See what a full answer we have given to this, and how short he comes of making good this charge, Chap. 4. Part 1.  
4. By inverting the order and manner from Dipping to Sprinkling.  
Which is answered Chapt. 2. Part 2.  
5. By introducing much Error and false Doctrine, as  
1. That it was to take away Original Sin.  
Answer.  
Although some of the Fathers have spoken too highly of Baptism, and our Authors own Theophilact, whom he quotes Chap. 7. pag 82. for one of his eminent witnesses for Believers Baptism, speaks very Hyperbolically of it, as that all our Sins are drowned in Baptism, as Pharaoh and the Egyptians were in the Red Sea; that Infidels die in their Sins, because unbaptised, for which extravagancies and others, (as that Christ by Baptism had opened Heaven's door, which was shut against us by Adam's Sin) he is censured by the Magdeburgenses, Cent. 10. p. 190. And likewise Bellarmine, and the Popish Schoolmen, speak magnificently of it: as Baptismo reipsa tolli peccata, ita ut non solum non imputetur, sed nec sit quod imputari posset ad culpam: which he intends not only of Original Sin in Infants, but Original and Actual in grown Persons; but notwithstanding this error, Infant-Baptism, as to its warrantableness, receives no prejudice, no more than the Baptism of grown persons.  
2. It is also acknowledged that very many Episcopal Divines, and others, who are Protestants, hold that Original Sin is done away by Baptism, but in a way quite different from the Papists; for they assert Original Sin to be removed by Baptism ex opere operato, from the Work done; and that it is so done away as that there is an utter abolishment of it, so as not to render the Baptised person obnoxious to God's Wrath and Condemnation: for not only the reatus peccati Originalis, the guilt of Original Sin, but in Baptismate tollitur id quod veram & propriam rationem peccati habet: the very essence or being of Sin is taken away [it is with them annihilated], 
Concil. Trident. Sess. 5.  for so speaks the Council of Trent, with a si quis neget Anathema sit; if any one denies it, let him be Anathematised. On the contrary, Protestants ascribe the doing away only of the guilt of Sin by the Blood of Christ, & applied by the Spirit in that Ordinance; but they assert the inherence of Original Sin in Infants after Baptism, which shows itself early in the fruits thereof, when they are capable of acting Electively. And all that I apprehend they say upon the point, is, that there is a possibility and probability, as some say; others go higher, to a certainty, that in elect Infants, those that die in Infancy, the Season of God's doing that, which all acknowledge to be done at one time or other before death, viz. the doing away the guilt of Original Sin, is at the time of Baptism; and that Text Act 22.17. Arise and be Baptised, and wash away thy Sins, hath a  aspect upon Gods designing and blessing that Ordinance, for the sealing of pardon in reference to grown Persons.  
2. To work Grace and Regeneration, 
This is Mr. Tombs his 7th Argument against Infant-Baptism. Exer. pag. 30.  and to effect Salvation by the work done.  
Although the Author knows all Protestants disclaim this, and condemn it for a damnable Error, yet he seems indirectly at least to charge it upon the Church of England, which for my part I look upon it as very unjustly done. What means else those reflections of his pag. 148. upon that passage in the Service-Book in the Rubric before the Catechism, viz. That Children being Baptised, have all things necessary for their Salvation, and be undoubtedly saved; and then after Baptism the Priest must say, We yield thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased thee to Regenerate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit; just comporting (saith he) length and breadth with Pope Innocent's first Canons.  
Answer.  
'Tis fit the Church of England should be believed in what sense she intends those words, 
Baptism by the Ancients was commonly called Regeneration, or a new-Birth, so 'tis by the Scripture, Tit. 3.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Washing of the new-Birth or Regeneration.  and we may learn it in her Articles, which speaks her at an infinite distance from the absurd and irrational Error of Salvation by merit, or ex opere operato: and 'tis not for others to put what interpretation they think meet, especially, such as are Obnoxious to her Lash. Will you hear what Mr. Cotton of New-England (an Independent as they call them) speaks in Vindication of the Church of England in this particular matter, and at a place where he needed not her favour; and as I take it at a time, when she could not help him: which are circumstances that will not suffer us to suspect him of flattering or fawning. We have it in his grounds and ends of Child's Baptism. Notwithstanding (saith he) those expressions in the Service-Book, yet the Church of England doth professedly teach the contrary Doctrine, not only in their Pulpits, but in Books allowed by public Authority: She doth assert that the Scraments do not beget Faith, nor Regeneration ex opere operato; but they are signs and seals thereof: Nor do I find that the public Prayers of the Church are contrary hereunto, but as in judgement they do believe that God by Covenant promiseth to pour clean Water upon us and our Seed, Ezek. 26.25 Is. 48.3. and that he Sealeth the Covenant and Promise by Baptism.  
3. That it was an Apostolical Tradition.  
And for that we have the Testimonies of Origen and Cyprian as before, 
Mr. Tombs his 4th Argument against Infant-Baptism; Exerc. p. 28.  Chap. 3. Part 2. who lived near the Apostles days; and in which Chapter we have also shown how Tradition is, both by the Fathers of old and Reformed Churches, taken in a safe sense different from that corrupt one of the Papists, and not derogatory to the authority of the Scripture.  
4. That Children have Faith, and are the Disciples of Christ.  
Answer.  
No Paedobaptists ever held Children had personally actual Faith, for their condition is insufficient for the production of Intellectual Acts, but as for the habit and grace of Faith, the inherent infused power of believing, it is more than any Antipaedobaptist in the World can prove they have not; for 1. Their condition makes them not uncapable of Sin and Corruption in the Roots and Principles of it, (most of them confess it, 
Anabaptistae ut Paedobaptismum prorsus tollerent, peccatum negârunt Originale, ut non sub esset causa cur Infants Baptizarentur Dr. Prideaux Lect. 22. pag. 331.  though some of them deny Original Sin) and therefore not of the Roots and Principles of grace of which Faith is one, for the acts of both are Moral and Intellectual: But whether Infants Baptised have any such thing as a distinct habit of Faith or no, this question of their Baptism depends not upon it: It is a hidden thing. The ground on which we give them Baptism must be visible; and so it is, viz. their being the Seed of Believers, and hereby visibly entitled to the Covenant, and so to the Seal of it. We look not to what they have, but to whom they pertain, viz. to God, as being the Seed of his Servants.  
That they are Disciples is sufficiently proved, Chap. 1. Part. 1.  
5. That all Children of Believers are in the Covenant and federally Holy.]  
That's abundantly made good Chap. 3. Part 2.  
6. By defiling and polluting the Church, viz.  
1. By bringing false matter therein, who are no Saints by calling, being neither capable to perform duties nor enjoy privileges.]  
Notwithstanding their inability to perform Duty, yet they are capable of enjoying Privileges as we have abundantly made good, Chap. 6. Part 1. and are as true matter for the Church now under the Gospel, as formerly under the Law, as is there made out.  
2. By laying a foundation of much Ignorance and Profaneness.]  
Cujus contrarium est verissimum. The contrary is most true: for,  
1. Infant-Baptism lays a singular good foundation for knowledge; for in that Children are taken into Christ's School, they are in a near capacity to be taught, and those who recommend them to that Ordinance are obliged to promote their knowledge, and to see them brought up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord.  
And we know the Liturgy of the Church of England, 
But the neglect hereof is much to be lamented, the Children are not looked after as they should be, nor do Ministers mind them of their duty.  gives charge— You must remember that it is your part and duty to see that this Infant be taught so soon as he shall be able to learn— And that he may know these things the better, ye shall call upon him to hear Sermons, and chief you shall provide that he may learn the Creed, the Lords-Prayer and the ten-commandmentss in the English Tongue, and all other things that a Christian man ought to know and believe to his Soul's health, etc.  
Secondly, it lays a good foundation for Holiness: They are minded by their Baptism to cast of the Devil's service, as soon as they are able to reflect, that they were from their very Cradles dedicated to God, whose Livery they have worn. And some have repelled great temptations, by virtue of their engagement to God by Baptism in their Infancy; hence saith Mr. Ford in his 2d Dialogue concerning the Practical use of Infant-Baptism, pag. 87. There is a very Profane Spirit fomented under the Wings of Anabaptism; for how can it be otherwise than such which endeavours to extirpate so considerable a means for the advance of Conversion and Sanctification, as he shows Infant-Baptism to be? Hence, saith he, arise grievous prejudices against those Ministers, Societies, and Ordinances, in which God hath been wont to scatter saving Grace in this Nation, which are if not raised, yet fomented by Anabaptism. And their Principle he conceives, hath been very prejudicial to the Conversion of young-ones (amongst whom usually the stream of converting Grace runs) because it speaks an actual disingagement from all relation to God, his Covenant, Church, and Ordinances, till of their own choice they take them up at years of discretion: Now whilst persons live lose from such engagements, as in their proper nature and tendency further Conversion, no wonder if the work goes slowly on among them.  
3. By confounding the World and the Church together, which Christ hath separated.]  
Not so, For Baptism is God's Sheep-mark (as Mr. Ford calls it) to distinguish those that are of his Fold from such as graze in the wild Common of the World; what confounding is there in this Principle?— That not only they who do actually profess Faith in, and Obedience to Christ, but also the Infants of one or both Believing Parents are to be Baptised, and they only.  
7. By introducing and establishing many Humane Traditions and Inventions of Antichrist.] 
This is Mr. Tombe's his 6th Arg. Exercit. p. 1.   
Many of which, and some of the worst attend the Baptism of grown Persons in the Church of Rome, as Chrism, Exorcism, etc.  
And when Mr. Tombs urged this very Argument against Infant-Baptism, Mr. Geree tells him, it was rather a Motive than a Reason against it to move people's affections against the inconveniences following it, rather than to convince the unlawfulness of it— But that which is lawful in itself, cannot reflect any scrûple of unlawfulness upon that which occasions it. And if any corruption occasioned accidentally and separable from an act of Worship, could cashier it; then farewell Baptism itself, Prayer, Lords Supper, and all that is Sacred: for what a world of superstitious devices have the wanton and superstitious Heads and Hearts of Men, taken occasion from them all, to devise and practise, it is so clear there needs no instances to be given.  
8. By being (saith he) such a Make-mate, such a Bone of Contention, and that among themselves too that own it, as well as with those that oppose it.  
The Lord open the eyes of those who are so zealous against Infant-Baptism that they may see their own nakedness, & consider the beam that is in their own eyes; certainly whilst they judge our principle, condemnation is written in their own foreheads. First, how furiously do they contend among themselves? What a heat is there between Mr. Bunyan and Mr. Paul, both of them for Baptising Believers? the former (having published a little Book whose Title is, Differences in Judgement about Water-Baptism no Bar to Communion, or to Communicate with Saints as Saints proved Lawful; of which I have before hinted, complains in the Epistle to the Reader, That the Brethren of the Baptised way would not suffer them to be quiet in their Christian Communion, but did assault them for more than 16 years, and (as they had opportunity) sought to break them in pieces, merely because they were not in their way all Baptised. First, He professeth that he denied not the Ordinance of Baptism (though they feigned it); but all that he asserted was, That the Church of Christ hath no warrant to keep out of their Communion the Christian, that is discovered to be a visible Saint, and walketh according to his light with God. And for this Orthodox position, they charge him to be a Machivelian, a Man Devilish, Proud, Insolent, Presumptuous; words, saith the poor Man, fit to be spoken to the Devil than a Brother. He puts out his Confession of Faith upon which Mr. Paul makes reflections, and tells him, he defies all the Brethren of the Baptised way, and Blasphemes them that dwell in heaven, p. 3. That he belies all Expositors, p. 13. and calls upon the Heavens to blush at his insolency, p. 35. that his Inferences are ridiculous, top-ful of ignorance or prejudice, and deserve no other answer than contempt, p. 43. and then falls to prayer, the Lord judge between us and this accuser, to whom we shall say no more but the Lord rebuke thee. And what says Bunyan to this, in his Book of Differences in Judgement about Water-Baptism? First, that in his simple Opinion, their rigid, and Church-dividing, disquieting Principles are not fit for any Age and State of the Church, pag. 1. and I wish there were not too much truth in what he saith: he accuseth them for endeavouring and persuading him to break Communion with his Brethren, tampering with others that their Seeds of division might take, and prevailed so far as to rend and dismember some from them, and that the judgement of God so followed their design, that the presons which then they prevailed upon became afterward a stink and reproach to Religion. I find our Author falling upon this good Man, (two to one is odds) and lashing him to the purpose, for his last Book, you have it at the end of his Treatise of Baptism: He chargeth Mr. Bunyan with absurdities, contradictions, traducing the Wisdom of Christ, heinous Errors and fundamental mistakes; whose Principles, saith he, are presumptuous, savouring of ignorance and folly, contradicting the Wisdom & Authority of Christ, ridiculous man of egregious ignorance and self-condemned: and at last, that he is one that pleaseth not God, and is contrary to all Men, which last must be understood with a limitation, (of all Men like himself). But why should Professors of Religion throw so much dirt in the Faces of their Brethren that descent from them? Tantaene animis caelestibus irae? Sure such language becomes not Christians: Let it be supposed that they have truth on their side; this is no good way to propagate it, it needs not tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis. The Wisdom which is from above is first pure, then peaceable. The Servant of the Lord must not strive, but must be gentle towards all— In meekness instructing those that oppose, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgement of the Truth. 
2 Tim. 2.24, 25.  But haughty and uncharitable Spirits follow not this Rule, if they be set upon a point (though controvertible) they have such a fire of zeal within, that it breaks out into a flame that consumes the good name and credit of any that dare oppose it. Your Opinionists if they have Faith, they will not follow Paul's advice and keep it to themselves; but are infinitely desirous to propagate it, and are the severest Censurers in the World.  
Two other Antipaedobaptists, viz. Mr. Allen, and Mr. Lamb (being come off from that hidebound Spirit of having Communion with none but those of our own Judgement) are also lashed in the Author's Postscript. They have (saith he) both declined the Truth; and their Books, which were penned with great Judgement, strength of Argument, and Authority of Scripture in his Opinion shall rise up in Judgement against them (without Repentance) for declining the Truth; so confident is the Author that he speaks by way of Prophecy, that what they have writ shall not only live as a Witness for God, and his reproached Truths, but as a living Testimony against themselves, in their unreasonable and unrighteous departure from the same (except they repent) to all generations: if these Man cannot appeal to Heaven touching their own integrity, so thundering a Sentence must needs trouble their Consciences. Moreover, if I mistake not they are divided amongst themselves about the Administrator of Baptism (as unwholesome word because unscriptural, Pastors, Teachers, Ministers we read, of but no Administrators) some holding none but men in Office may give Baptism, others that a private Man may do it, especially in case of necessity; and Mr. Tombs favours this Opinion, Praecursor pag. 72. and he gives his reason for it, viz. because all, or most of the Ministers ordained in England are against Baptising of Persons of years Sprinkled in Infancy: and there lying upon them that see Infant-Baptism a corruption, a necessity to be Baptised upon Profession of Faith; there is a necessity that they be Baptised by Persons not Ordained.  
I like a man that will speak plainly his mind: & I will be as plain in opening mine; and I think I have hit upon the truth, namely that the Opposers of Infant-Baptism must hold that unbaptized Persons ☞ may Baptise, and a Church with true Ordinances may be of unbaptized persons; or else they must disown their new Baptism, and all their Ordinances, and turn Seekers: For the first of their Administrators must either Baptise himself, or else was Baptised by some Person Baptised in Infancy, that is with them, by an unhaptized Person. Lastly, I want not Instances to show how impatient they are of having their adored Opinion contradicted, and must prepare myself for the hard Censures of my Antagonist and his Party; and had it not been for the honour of truth, and love that I bear unto it, they should have gone on till Doomsday (though I believe God will shortly break the neck of their ridged Principle) before I would have disturbed their quiet, and exposed myself to their ill-will. It is sufficiently observed and deplored by sober Christians that are unaddicted to faction, how turbulent this fort of men have always been, as in foreign parts, so in our own Country, in the propagation of their Opinion, and how distasteful it is to them to have any thing said against their way. There is a sad passage quoted by the Author himself, pag. 308. of his Treatise, out of Cloppenburg's Gangrene, viz. The Troops of Anabaptists that dwell in Friestand, although they trouble not the Commonwealth, they suffer not the pure Reformed Churches to be edified without daily conflicts; and what a stir they kept in Gemany with those Godly Ministers Luther, Zwinglius, Musculus, contesting with them, disturbing their Churches, you shall hear shortly in our Animadversions upon the Author's historical part at the latter end of this discourse.  
9 By being an occasion (saith he) to stir up much bitter hatred, wrath, strife, enmity, persecution against those that oppose it. How have they been followed with Stripes, Imprisonments, Confiscation, yea Death itself.]  
Something of this may be laid at their own door, as before hath been manifested in the persecution of the Tongue, to which they are so much addicted; but as for those Martyrs he speaks of, that have suffered stripes, imprisonment, death, we find very few of them in Fox his martyrology, and none of them punished purely for opposing Infant-Baptism, but the Antichristian Tenets of Rome, Transubstantiation, the Mass, etc. for which other Protestants suffered, and some of them, were put to death for asserting dangerous errors, and for sedition here in England, and multitudes for horrid acts beyond the Seas, as shall appear in the Historical Narrative.  
10. By confirming hereby the whole Antichristian Interest as made good by the Preface.  
An unworthy calumny, and spoken without the least ground of reason; only because Mr. Baxter hath declared his single Judgement in some things in reference to Baptism, in some of which he speaks not positively and dogmatically, but as I remember he qualifies it with such expressions, as I think so, or suppose so; and how doth the delivery of his private Opinion about it, render Infant-Baptism itself, a point that confirms the whole Antichristian Interest, that is not derived thence, and hath no reference to, or favour for it, and when many Paedobaptists differ from Mr. Baxter, and are unsatisfied at those passages in his Christian Directory?  
Absurdities.  
11. By ushering in great Absurdities, viz.  
1. That Persons may have Regeneration and Grace before calling.  
This is no Paradox to those who have heard of John Baptists being Sanctified in the Womb. I could here turn the Author to several places in Mr. Tombs his Works, where he dares not deny but Infannts may have the seed of Grace, but I have spoken to this before: only take notice of that is his Praecursor pag. 13. It is not doubted, but Infants belong to the invisible Kingdom of the Elect, but how they attain Salvation is not so certain: if by a Seed of Faith and Holiness without actual exercise, the thing is more easy to conceive etc. And again he saith, There are Believers of two sorts, either in the Seed or Fruit, either by Ordinary or Extraordinary Operation, in one of which ways Infants are, or may be Believers.  
2. That Persons may be visible Church-members before Conversion.]  
And is that such a wonder? We have proved that Chapter 6. Part 1. They were Church-members under the Law, why not under the Gospel? when were they excluded?  
3. That Persons may Repent, Believe, and be Saved by the Faith of another.]  
We own no such thing.  
4. That Types and Shadows profit after the Antitype and substance is come, introducing thereby the Birth-priviledge.]  
The weakness of this is discovered before, proving the Covenant made with Abraham still to continue to Believers, and their natural Seed, as you may see towards the end of the 3d Chapter, Part. 2.  
5. That the better to exclude Believers-Baptism, new Church-Covenants are invented.] etc.  
This is directed only against one sort of Paedobaptists called Independents, whom he saith in point of order, do err more than Prelate or Presbyter, owning Infant-Baptism and yet denying them the right of Church-membership: this is answered Chap. 6. Part 1. by showing that they own the Infant Seed of Believers to be Church-members, that is, of the Universal Visible Church before Baptism, and the reasons for it; as also why they admit them not into their particular Churches when grown up, till they make a serious Profession of that Faith into which they were Baptised, and claim the privilege of Communion.  
Contradictions.  
12. By the manifold Contradictions that attend the Practice.]  
1. By asserting, that Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration wrought, and yet apply it to ignorant unconverted Babes, so uncapable of Regeneration.]  
This is a cram bis cocta, answered again and again, but especially in Chap. 4. Part 1. about the ends of Baptism, of which this is named for the third.  
2. That it truly figures and represents a Death, Burial, & Resurrection, and yet do nothing but sprinkle or pour a little Water on the Face.]  
This is another repetition, being brought by the Author for the 4th End of Baptism, and answered Chap. 4. Part 1. likewise again, Chap. 4. Part 2.  
3. That Faith and Repentance are required in Persons to be Baptised, and that it is ridiculous, yea impious and profane to do it without, and yet confess that Children, to whom they apply it have neither.]  
Say no more of this for your honour's sake, which hath already suffered much for abusing Authors; you know Baxter, Piscator, Perkins, Paraeus, Calvin, all speak of grown Persons, and the last with an Asterisk— Notandum haec verba fieri de Adultis. Therefore, saith he, that Men offer themselves rightly to Baptism, Confession of sin is required, otherwise the whole action would be but sport. But you must note, saith he, that these words are spoken of Adult Persons, but as for the Infant Seed of Believers the case altars there; for they being taken into Covenant with their Parent, it is instead of Profession; Calv. upon Mat. 19.28. and Mark 16.16. look to the first Chap. Part 1. There you have a Vindication of our Divines from the Infamy cast upon men, as to their say about Baptism in contradiction, as he would have people believe, to their own Practices.  
5. That the Baptismal Covenant enters into the visible Church, and yet deny Church-members the privilege thereof.]  
This is co-incident with what we have before, and spoken to already.  
6. That separate from Rome as a false Church, and yet own their Baptism the foundation thereof.  
A little before he hath this Odious Reflection upon infant-Baptism, that it confirms the whole Antichristian Interest] and now the Assertors of it are condemned for owning their Baptism. I conceive it therefore fit that something be briefly said for our Vindication. First then, I take this to be the common Judgement of Divines: That Parents ought not to tender their Children to be Baptised by Heretics, or by Romish Priests in a Superstitious way; yet being done, Baptism so Administered, ought not to be reiterated. For even Austin himself, as zealous as he was for Baptism, 
Danaeus ex lib. 1 August de Bapt. contra Donatistas'.  is express upon the Case in his first Book de Baptismo against the Donatists— Non damnari Baptismum Christi ab Haereticis Pastoribus, ut nullus censeatur, sed damnamus illos qui scientes illic accipiunt; That Baptism is not to be condemned for a Nullity, which hath been received from Heretics, but such are to be condemned, who knowing them to be such, do yet receive it of them. Bucan states the Case in his 16 Question de Baptismo, 
Bucan: Institutiones Theolog. Loc. 47. Quest. 16. p. 614.  thus, Anne qui vere Christianam Religionem edocti sunt, parvulos suos sacrificulis pontificiis Baptizandos bonâ conscientiâ offerre possunt? Whether they who are truly taught the Christian Religion may with a good conscience tender their Children, to Mass-Priests to be Baptised? he holds it negatively for divers weighty reasons. As,  
1. Because by that Act we own their false and Antichristian Ministry, 
Quia corruptelis tum Doctrinae, tum Sacramentorum & superstitiosis Cultibus, falsae item & illegittimae vocat●●ni Antichristi Ministrorum, exemplo nostro probandis & confirmandis, nullam occasionem praebere debemus etc.  and confirm them in their Superstitions. Whereas we are bound to abstain from all appearance of evil, and not to partake with them in their sins.  
2. Because we are not to do evil, that good may come thereof.  
3. Because we are to departed and go out from amongst them, and touch no unclean thing, Is. 52. 11. and to abstain from Idols, 1. Joh. 5.21.  
4. Because if our Infants die unbaptised (we refusing to have them Baptised in a Superstitious manner, which is best) they are not thereby deprived of their interest in the Covenant of God's Grace [and Salvation is from the Covenant and not the Seal] for it is not the want, but the contempt of Baptism that is damnable.  
It was on this account that the Waldenses kept their Children from Baptism; for Perin in his History of that people tells us, 
Paul Perin, Hist. Walden. Cap. 4. p. 15.  That they delayed the Baptism of their Children until their Pastors came home who were employed abroad in the service of the Church; because they had in detestation those human inventions, which were added to that Holy Sacrament, which they held to be but pollutions thereof: which the Popish Priests observing, stigmatised them with that calumny that they were against the Baptism of Children, [and from their Mouths the Author hath taken up that false report, and published it to the World; but God will not bless such unjust courses.]  
On the other hand the Rule holds true in many Cases: Fieri quod non licet, factum valet; A thing which ought not to be done, yet being done, it may be of force and valid; as in other Cases, so likewise in this of Baptism: though none should tender their Children to be Baptised by Romish Priests in a superstitious way; yet being done, Baptism so Administered ought not to be reiterated. Austin gives divers Reasons in his first Book of Baptism against the Donatists that were for Rebaptisation; showing most convincingly, that because Baptismus ex personarum & Ministrorum dignitate non pendet, neque dantis aut accipientis Baptismum error delet & mutat id quod a domino constitutum est. Because Baptism depends not upon the dignity of Persons or Ministers, 
Danaeus ex L. August. contra Donatist. p. 674.  the Error of him that gives or receives it doth not nullify the Ordinance of Christ; yet this is always to be remembered, that if the essential form of Baptism hath been corrupted in the Administration thereof, the Baptism becomes invalid, and is a mere nullity, and persons taking up the Ordinance de novo, in a right way, cannot be said to be rebaptised, because the former was not Christ's Baptism but a Nullity: for as Zanchy speaks, he that Baptizeth, but not in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, but is corrupt in the Doctrine of the Trinity, as the Arrians and Manichaeans were] such a Baptism is none of Christ's Baptism. Decst enim vera Baptismi forma: the right form of Baptism is wanting. I shall conclude this with the Judgement of two Divines of the Congregational way: The first is Mr. Cotton of New-England in his Grounds and Ends of Infant-Baptism, where he answers this Objection: How can we think that Baptism Valid, and not Null, which is Administered by Dumb-dogs & c? viz.  
Answer.  
Though God delighteth not to make use of such instruments, yet I dare not say that their Administration of the Seals, which are given not for Conversion, but Confirmation of Grace are mere Nullities, or that the Baptism Administered by them is to be reiterated. Take an instance in the Circumcision of the 10 Tribes after Jeroboam's Apostasy, and the casting out of the Priests and Levites, 2 Chron. 11.14, 15. It was generally Administered by wicked Priests, and Men that had no regular call thereunto: when the Priests and Levites were cast out of Office in the 10 Tribes, Jeroboams Priests came in their room, which were as ignorant and unskilful to expound the Law, as those ye call Dumb-Dogs; 1 Kings 13.33. 2 Cor. 15.3.  
2. We must put a difference betwixt the Essentials of an Ordinance, and some Circumstantial Additions, and Corruptions: if there be a Corruption in the Essenee, or substance of the Ordinance, as for Instance, if Persons be not Baptised in the Name of God the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghost, but into the Name of a Creature, than such Baptism is void and null, and the party ought to be Baptised again: But if there be a Corruption only in the External Administration of the Ordinance, though every Christian should labour to avoid such Corruption, and if he hath been entangled therewith, humble himself deeply before God for it; yet such Baptism is valid for the substance of it, and should not be reiterated. At this day the Protestant Reform Churches do hold it unwarrantable to Rebaptize those Persons who were Baptised in the Church of Rome, which being administered in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy-Ghost, is held for true Baptism, for the substance of it.  
The other is Mr. Bartlet in his Model of the Congregational way, pag. 70. Those Christians, saith he, which of late days (calling into question the Truth and Lawfulness of their Baptism) have fallen upon the Practice of Rebaptising, and taking up the Ordinance of Baptism de novo, are utterly void, and altogether to seek of a true and just ground from the Scripture, for their Practice herein; and so this latter Baptism of theirs, will be found as unlawful, because unlawfully Administered. For if the Administration of the Seals be now tied to ordinary Officers, and those to a particular Church, since the Apostles times, that give them their lawful and right Call to Administer the Ordinances; than it will follow that there is no Lawful Baptism, but by him that is an Officer of some particular Church, and he that is an Officer of some particular Church, must have a Lawful Calling from the Church to which he is an Officer; for all extraordinary Officers that had their Call and Commission immediately from Heaven are ceased. Now those that Rebaptize cannot prove the taking up of that Ordinance again after this manner; but are enforced to hold that a Disciple in Common, that by the exercise of his gifts doth convert a Sinner from the evil of his ways, may also Baptise him: [which Doctrine Mr. Hooker calls a Frenzy of the Anabaptists, 
Mr. Hooker of new-England, in his Survey of Church-Discipline, C. 2. part 3. p. 9  which gins to labour with the loathsomeness of itself]; For if that were true what need of Christ's Ordaining Officers in his Church for these purposes? or why may not a Godly Woman (by her good exhortations and chaste conversation, Converting her Husband) Baptise him?   

CHAP. VI  
Wherein the Author endeavours to show the Nullity, and utter insignificancy of Infant-Baptism.  
THus he proceeds— That it is no-way safe for any to rest contented with that Baptism, which they received in their Infancy, may appear, because such their Baptism is a mere Nullity. How doth he make this out?  
Why thus:  
Because, saith he, as the right matter, so the true Form is wanting; for the External Form, as before is showed is not Sprinkling, or pouring a little Water upon the Head or Face, but a Dipping the whole Person under Water, and raising him up again, to figure out Death, Burial, and Resurrection, as before: if then Matter and Form be wanting which is so essential to its Being, it must needs be a Nullity.  
Although enough hath been said already to confute this in the 6th Chap. of the first Part of our Book, to prove Infants of Believers fit Matter for the Church, and consequently Subjects of Baptism, besides what hath been said in the 4th Chap. Part 2. concerning the Ceremony of Baptism: yet being willing to give the Author full measure, pressed down and running over; We shall say something more to evince the weakness of his Assertion in this Chapter.  
First 'tis observable, that he who hath undertaken to write a Treatise of Baptism, [mark well], should mistake both the Matter and Form of it; for certainly he is out in both.  
1. First for the Matter of Baptism, all Divines hold it is Water, mere, pure Water without mixture. Take the Judgement of two very eminent Divines: The first is the Learned Zanchy, Tom. 1. Lib. 1. pag. 404. Materia Externa Baptismi est Aqua, Interna, Sanguis & Spiritus, Christi; The External Matter of Baptism is Water; the Internal, the Blood and Spirit of Christ: The other is Bucan, Professor of Divinity in Academia Lausanensi: He in his Theological Institutions or Common places, answereth several Questions concerning Baptism, & this is the 18th, Quae est Materia Baptismi? What is the Matter of Baptism? To which he gives this answer; it is twofold, Externa & Interna, External and Internal; the External is, Aqua pura, munda & naturalis sine discrimine, simplex, vulgaris, non prius peculiaribus Consecrata, non mixta, non Oleum, etc. That is, it is pure, clean, simple, common Water without mixture of Oil, Spittle, and such kind of things as the Papists add to it: de Baptismo, locus 47. p. 616. The Materia Interna, the Internal Matter of Baptism, is Sanguis & Spiritus Jesu Christi, the Blood & Spirit of Jesus Christ; de Bapt. loc 47. Quest. 22.  
2. For the Form of Baptism they agree in this, that it is those Words of Institution, I Baptise thee in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So saith Zanchy in the aforementioned place, and he brings the Words of the Apostle for both Matter and Form, Ephes. 5.26. That he might Sanctify and cleanse it by the Washing of Water through the Word; citing that famous speech of Austin, Accedit verbum ad Elementum & fit Sacramentum; The word joined to the Element [(i.e.) the Word of Institution] makes the Sacrament. So Bucan Quest. 22. Quae est igitur forma Baptismi [scil. Externa?] what is therefore the External Form of Baptism? Ans. The rehearsing the words of Institution, by a Minister of the Word of God, viz. I Baptise thee in the Name of the Father, etc. which he calls aspersio aquae, and then Intern Baptismi Forma est Interna illa actio, quae Jesu Christi ipsius per Spiritum Sanctum agentis propria est; The Internal Form is that Internal action of Christ working by his Spirit, etc. Take notice, Reader, what a pitiful mistake it is in the Author to call Dipping the Form of Baptism, for if that were it, than any man may Baptise himself, and every Boy that baths, and dives under Water may be said to be Baptised: But one would think he were conscious to himself of a wilful mistake, by the Objection he frames for us.  
Object. But 'tis said, there was the right words of Baptism, it was done in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy-Spirit.  
Answer.  
So there was, saith he, in Baptising Bells, Churches.  
But doth he take this for a sufficient Answer? Are Bells Subjectum capax, a Subject capable of a Sacrament? 
Quia in ipso initio Regenerationis, cujus sigilium est Baptismus, homo se habet merè passive; undè etiam homines vel Circumcindendi vel Baptizandi nulla actio Externa requiritur— sed tantum receptio passadas Infants igitur sunt capaces hujus Sacramenti respectu praecipui ejus usus atque Adulti.  Children were heretofore, and so they are still, as Dr. Ames in his Medulla Theologiae Lib. 1. c. 11. p. 186. Baptism, saith he, comes in the room of Circumcision, Col. 2.11, 12. and belongs as much to Children of Believers, as Circumcision did formerly; for at our first Regeneration, saith he, of which Baptism is a Seal, Man is merely passive. As it was in Circumcision so is it in Baptism, he is not Active, but Passive; and therefore Infants in respect of its chief use (of being a Seal) are as capable of the Sacrament of Baptism as the Adult.  
Now though this may suffice, yet having promised to be liberal; We will suppose Dipping to be of use in the Apostles days, yet it will not follow that it is essential to the Sacrament of Baptism, so that in the want of it, Baptism is a Nullity. For the clearing of which we must know:  
1. That in every Ordinance there are some things essential, which failing, the very being of the Ordinance is destroyed. 2. Some things requisite because enjoined, but yet not essential; but only needful to the complete and well-being of an Ordinance. 3. Some things merely indifferent, as being the determination of some Circumstances (left undetermined in the Institution of it) As in the Lord's Supper, the hour when, the kinds of Bread and Wine, the posture, and number of the Partakers, either sitting or standing or the like. So in Baptism, whether the Person be Baptised by day or by night, in Rivers or Pools, or Vessels (so he be able to bear it), whether the Water pass on all his Body or some parts, & the rest unwashed. And so for this of Dipping, it comes under the nature of an indifferent Circumstance, although some place Superstitiously such necessity in it. I say it may be accounted an indifferent Circumstance; so that Baptism in other things right, is true Sacramental Baptism, whether done by way of Sprinkling or Dipping, which is thus proved.  
1. That which equally represents the grace signified, is of indifferent use, but the Baptism either by Dipping or Sprinkling, doth equally represent the grace signified.  
The first Proposition is clear; for in a Sacrament are but two things necessary, viz. (1) The matter or Element. (2) The use for representation of the Grace. The Minor, or Assumption is evident, by considering the Grace of Baptism, which is principally twofold, viz. First our putting on of Christ, our Union to, and Communion with him, in which respect we are said to put him on therein, and to be Baptised into him, Gal. 3.27. into his death, Rom. 6.3. that is, by Baptism we are Sacramentally enrighted into him and his death, and the fruits of it, in which respects we are in the same place v. 4. said to be buried with him by Baptism into death. Now this putting on of Christ is as fully signified, by putting on of water on us, as by putting us into water. Application of Water to the Person, either in one way or other is a Sign of our Union to him: and so of our putting him on, our burying and rising with him, and Communion with him, in all the effects of his death, which flow from the Union.  
But it is Objected, that Sprinkling doth not represent our burying with him, as Dipping doth. Ans. It is a fancy to imagine that every Metaphorical ☞ expression used in Scripture signifying our Communion with Christ, should be punctually expressed in the Sacrament; for the expressions are various, putting him on, burying with him, Sprinkling with his Blood: one sign cannot represent our Communion with him in all these Metaphors. A partaking a Communion with Christ, and his death is the Sacramental Grace intended by those various expressions, & that being represented, as well by Sprinkling as Dipping, it follows that water in either way of application, is Sacramental. 2dly, Our washing or cleansing from Sin by the Blood of Christ, this is the principal effect of Christ's death represented, and Sealed in the Sacrament, which is equally set out by Sprinkling as by dipping. First in as much as washing may be done by both, and indeed it is the application of Water under the formality of Washing, not either of Dipping or Sprinkling, which is the ☜ Sacramental use of it; so that were Washing with Water, though neither by Dipping nor Sprinkling, yet it were a Sacrament as well as either: for the Sacramental consideration in the use, is the Washing. 2. 
Numb. 19.18. Heb. 9.13.  Under the Law the Sacramental cleansing was done by Sprinkling in some cases, and by Dipping in other; and the purifying by Christ's Blood equally represented by both. 3. The Blood of Christ in respect of this purifying and washing virtue and use of it, is called the Blood of Sprinkling, Heb. 12.24. and the Sprinkling of his Blood, 1. Pet. 1.2. All which are abundant proof, that the Grace of the Sacrament is as well, and as fully represented in the use of Water by Sprinkling, as by Dipping.  
2dly. Those Uses of Water which are equally included in the Scripture-acceptation of the Word under the word Baptising, are of equal and indifferent use; but both these, Dipping and Sprinkling are so: ergo.  
The Major proposition is undoubted: the Assumption is confirmed from Texts of Scripture, where the Word is used to signify Washing, by Sprinking, as Mar. 10.38. where is a washing by Blood, which could not be by Dipping, but by Aspersion. 1 Cor. 10.2. Is a Baptism by Sprinkling, but not by dipping. So Mark. 7.48. Heb. 9.10, where all the Ceremonial Washings under the Law are called Baptisms; now we know some of them were done by Sprinkling, and some by Dipping.  
3. That which in all the examples and instances of Baptism, we find not restrained or defined, that is in this Sacrament of indifferent and arbitrary Use; But this manner of Baptising in Scripture-examples and practice, we do not find restrained, or defined either to Dipping or Sprinkling.  
We read of many Baptised, but nowhere specified by which of these ways; whereby we may gather that the H. Ghost hath no intent ☜ to bind, and determine our Practice to this or that; for seeing the word he useth, is indifferent for both, he would have left us some light either from precept, or example which way he would have Sacramental. This Assumption is confirmed by this, that nowhere is it expressed, that it was done by Dipping: yea in some, it is more than probable that it was not, viz. Act. 2.41. there being in one day 3000 Baptised; which might well be done by Sprinkling but not by Dipping. So Act. 10.47. there be many Baptised at a time and place when there could not be accommodation of water and other conveniences for total Dipping. Yea Peter's phrase, can any Man forbidden Water? imports a bringing in of Water to the place for the use which might well be done for Sprinkling, but not for Dipping. Also Act. 16.33. There is a Man & all his Family straightway Baptised in a Prison, and in the night, at which time and place Water for Dipping so many could not be had, but easily for Sprinkling.   

CHAP. VII.  
Wherein there is a pretence to some eminent Witness, that hath been born against Infant-Baptism from first to last.  
THe first that we shall mention (saith the Author) is that Excellent Testimony Tertullian bore against it upon the first appearance of it in the 3d Century.  
Reply, 1. It is acknowledged that Tertullian who was the first Writer of note in the Latin Church, hath divers passages seemingly against Infant-Baptism; but yet withal it must be considered, that his Testimony (such as it is) is but the Testimony of one single Dr. in opposition to the general custom of the Church, and even from this instance we may learn the great Antiquity of Infant-Baptism, that it hath been in use above 15 hundred years, as it appears upon record; for Tertullian according to Helvicus wrote his Book of Prescriptions about the year 195. which was about 97 years after St. John's Death; and 'tis probable, 
Mr. Baxter, of Infant-Baptism.  when he wrote his Book, he had arrived to the years of thirty or forty; so that according to this calculation he lived about sixty or seventy years after St. John, and yet as early days as these were, Children were then Baptised; for else why should Tertullian be so earnest in dissuading them not to be overhasty in the doing it: Cunctatio utilior praecipue circa parvulos; he would have them defer the Baptising of Infants, aswel as those of riper years; which shows that it was then the custom of the Church to Baptise Children aswell as grown Persons.  
Reply 2. Whereas the Author saith, Tertullian lived in the 3d Century, 
Irenaeus contra Heretic. Lib. 2. c. 39  this is true, but that the first appearance of Infant-Baptism was in this Age is certainly false; for Irenaeus (who lived in the second Century) makes mention of it.  
Reply 3. Tertullian's Testimony in this case, is so far from being excellent, that it is contemptible, and not to be regarded, as may appear by two Reasons.  
First, Because he was very corrupt, and unsound in his judgement. 
P. Martyr loc. come. Clas. 4. Loc. 8. Sect. 5.  It is observed by Peter Martyr in his Common places, that when Tertullian wrote his book de Baptismo, he was fallen from the Church, and from the Orthodox-Faith into the foul error of Montanism. Had he been sound in the Faith in all other points, it had not been enough to scruple any one touching the point of Infant-Baptism, because of his dissent; because he only was the man we read of that seems to be against it, how much less is this authority to be valued, when so corrupt, that Jerom counted him little less than a Heretic? The Magdeburg Divines, (whom the Author makes so much use of) give us a Catalogue of his Naevi, or errors. As  
1. That he did Deo corpulentiam tribuere, ascribe unto God, Grosseness, or Fleshiness.  
2. That he did speak concerning Christ incommode & periculose, unsafely and dangerously.  
3. That he condemned second marriages, ut stupra, as Whoredoms.  
4. That he brought in and augmented, many filthy Ceremonies in the Church, which he borrowed from the Montanists, as anointing the body after Baptism. etc.  
5. And lastly (though they mention many other gross errors) he affirms in his Book de Baptismo, that it is the peculiar prerogative of the Bishop to Baptise, 
Dandi Baptismum jus habet summus sacerdos, qui est Episcopus.  and none must do it but by his leave: Presbyters and Deacons he allows to Baptise but not without his Authority, and in case of extremity (that is when one is like to die, and in the want of a Minister) it may be lawful for a layman to Baptise, not excepting Women provided they did it privately and not in the Church, by which passage it is more than probable he was for Baptising Infants, rather than that they should die without it); now let any indifferent Reader judge what a precious witness the Author hath singled out to lead the Van against Infant-Baptism.  
A second Reason why Tertullian's Testimony deserves not to be styled excellent, is this; because his arguments are so poor and weak, that they will sooner administer occasion of laughter than conviction. I acknowledge the Author hath dressed them up very handsomely, and shown so much artifice herein (leaving out somethings that are most gross) that some (who have weak heads, and no very charitable thoughts towards the way of Infant-Baptism) will think Tertullian and he were of one mind, both against it, and that on very good grounds.  
1. Because saith the Author out of Tertullian, The practice of Baptising Children was built upon the mistake of that Scripture Matt. 19.14. Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbidden them not &c. It is true (saith Tertullian) the Lord saith do not forbid them to come unto me: let them come when they grow elder, when they learn, when they are taught why they come etc. upon which the Magdeburgenses have this sentence seutit Tertullianus Mira opinion Cap. 3. Cap. 4. etc. Tertullian was of a strange opinion, & then they repeat those weak passages before mentioned; 
As before intimated in Chap. 7.  according to which Dotage, the Disciples did wisely in forbidding Children to come, and Christ did weakly in rebuking them for it, & inviting them to come Let them come (saith Christ) though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, little Children; the wise men found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the young-Child, or Infant with Mary. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (according to Luke the exactest Historian) newborn Babes, or sucking Children that are carried in Arms, and such wore those whom Christ invites to come unto him, brought in all likelihood, by their Parents that did believe or made some profession of their Faith, as appears by this, because they brought their Children for a Spiritual end, to receive some special favour or blessing from Christ; and for this, Christ would have them come, but saith Tertullian, let them come when they grow elder, when they learn, when they are taught why they come: etc. What pitiful stuff is this? what ingenious person would not be ashamed to introduce such a witness that paraphraseth at such a rate upon this Scripture? Christ had a mind they should come presently as the words plainly show, but Tertullian would have them stay longer, till they were elder. It seems by the Argument that this Father, and the Disciples were much of a mind, and it must arise from some such mistake as this, which is still retained by the Antipaedobaptists, that Children are not capable of any good by the Ordinance, and must first be taught; and that only grown Christians and Professors of Faith, are fit and capable subjects of Christ's Kingdom. But what resentment had Christ of the morose carriage of his Disciples, the Evangelist tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he was much displeased; the word signifies to have the Spirit moved with indignation against a base unworthy action; and Christ would have them know how meanly soever they might think of them, yet they had a right to the Kingdom of Heaven aswell as grown persons who can profess their Faith: For let us take the Kingdom of Heaven either for that of Glory, or for the visible Church, it amounts to the same thing; for if they have a right to the former, much more to the latter, for what is it to be a member of the visible Church, but to be one that in appearance belongs to the invisible Church, 
Mr. Baxter of Infant-Baptism.  or the Kingdom of Glory; for the Church is but one, and the difference only Respective. As for the Cavils that are made against our improving this Text for Infant-Baptism, we have before refuted them.  
2. A second Argument which the Author citys out of Tertullian is, because they that understand the weight of Baptism will rather fear the attaining of it than the deferring it.  
Reply 1. If this were a good reason against infant-Baptism, it lies as full against infant-Circumcision, as a sign of God's covenant, which they did not understand, and it may be never would. 2. Nor do I see how this can have any reference at all to Infants, who are void of understanding; and the Argument is as much levied against the Baptising grown persons, who upon consideration of the weight of the Ordinance, may rather fear to attain it, than defer it; for it is well known that ancient Father was so shy of Baptism (as I said in C. 7.) that he dissuaded youngmen as were innupti unmarried, & those that were newly married & young-widows, from being Baptised, until the lust of concupiscence was quite extinct, and then to take up the Ordinance, Risum teneatis amici! For verily if persons in this capacity must forbear Baptism till then, for aught that I know it will be long enough before they will meddle with it, and one would think they should have less need of it when freed from lustful appetite, than before.  
3. A third Reason brought out of Tertullian is; because we must not give Holy things to Dogs, and Pearls to Swine, which sure must be understood of grown Persons that were Pagans or their Children; for this is too gross to be spoken of the Children of believers, and Tertullian himself speaks more charitably in his Book de Anima Cap. 39, 40. upon those words, else were your Children unclean, but now are they Holy, 2. Cor 14. from whence he thus infers, hinc enim Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexum sanctum procreari ait, tum ex seminis praerogativa, 
Vossius in his Thes. 11. de P●dobaptismo. Pars 2.  quam ex Institutionis disciplinâ etc. i.e. from hence also the Apostle affirms that of either sex sanctified, are procreated those that are holy, a● by the prerogative of the Seed, so by the Discipline, or Rule of institution: so that Tertullian could not without self-contradiction call Believers Children Dogs.  
4. A fourth Reason (which is a sorry one too) is, Because we commit not earthly or secular things to Children, by reason of their incapacity, and therefore should not commit Heavenly things; Which is also as strong an Argument against God's Ordinance to Circumcise Children, as to Baptise them: And we need not look farther than the Text before us, to confute this Argument; for 'tis said (notwithstanding their incapacity) Christ laid his hands upon them and blessed them; to denote unto us, that though Children are uncapable of laying hold on Christ, yet they are capable of being laid hold on by Christ, and of participating Spiritual blessings, whereof, as imposition of the hands, so Baptism is a sign.  
5. A fifth Reason hath respect to the promises which the Sureties made in Baptism in the behalf of the Infants that were Baptised; for if it should so happen that they should die before the Infant was grown up, they should then frustrate their promises. Now this speaks nothing against Infant-Baptism, but only of the inconveniency of making such promises.  
6. Lastly the Author would have us take it for granted that the Adult were the only proper Subjects of Baptism, because Tertullian saith Fasting, Confession, Prayer, Profession etc. is called for from them.  
Reply. We have shown before out of the Magdeburgenses, That though the Infants of Believers were Baptised, of which we have instances given by them, in several Centuries, yet they required Fasting, 
Cent. 4. c. 6. p. 417.  Confession, of Aliens &c. before they were admitted to Baptism; & therefore having spoken so much to this before, I shall only add one passage out of Athanasius in Lib. de passione Imaginis Domini, where he speaks concerning-some Jews, who prostrated themselves at the feet of the Bishop, and desired Baptism; so after they had been instructed several days in the Doctrine of Christianity, and had Fasted three days, they were Baptised. I shall add one Reason more of Tertullian's against the Baptism of Infants, and it is inserted between his fourth and fifth, and therefore the Author could not be ignorant of it, but hath purposely omitted it, and it is this; Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum? etc. Why should innocent Children hasten to be Baptised, for the remission of sins? 'Twas his error (as of other of the Fathers) that Baptism did away the guilt of sin; and either he owned not Original Sin, as his words seem to imply, or else he thought it more prudential to defer Baptism, till the Child had contracted, or heaped up more, that so it might be washed away altogether. This the Author took notice of, but was so subtle, as not to give the least hint of it, for that would have quite spoiled his excellent Testimony. And besides what we have said to invalidate what is brought from Tertullian, let the Reader know that though he would have Infant-Baptism delayed, yet it was not because he judged it unlawful, but inexpedient as before: for even this Father himself allowed of their Baptism rather than they should die unbaptised. And thus we see the Author hath made a great cry of a little Wool.  

Concerning the Witness pretended to be born by the Waldenses against Infant Baptism.  
4 Waldenses.  
IT is a miserable cause indeed, whose Advocates must still have recourse to lies for its defence, and an Argument of the want of honesty, and conscience for men to persist in this course, when more than enough hath been said to convince them of the evil thereof. It was a solemn rebuke which Job gave to his mistaken friends when they put such false interpretations upon God's deal with him, Will ye lie (said he) for God? surely he hath no need of, nor doth he require us by any sinister and sinful way, to justify him in his Attributes, providences, cause, or truth. As touching the matter in hand before us, if the Antipaedobaptists have the truth on their side, yet certainly it is little beholding to some of them, who have attempted to defend it by so many unwarrantable ways. In particular I shall make it appear that the present Author with whom I have to deal, is foully criminal in laying out the utmost of his skill in traducing those famous ancient Christians, the Waldenses, as if in their several generations they had witnessed against Infant-Baptism, when he cannot but know (being so well read in the Histories of that people written by Perin, and Dr. Usher): that they were falsely, and maliciously charged here with by their cruel Antichristian enemies. Besides the Author (whose Treatise about Baptism is a Compendium of what Mr. Tombs hath long since written upon that subject) knows well enough, (and is therefore the more inexcusable) how much Mr. Tombs was rebuked, by two Reverend Divines, 
Mr. Marshal & Mr. Baxter.  for endeavouring to defend his opinion by popish Frgeries and Slanders.  
I find by the Author's discourse that he is well read in Mr. Baxter's Plain-Proof for Infant-Baptism, who in his Apologetical Preface Pag. the 10th tells us, That the lying Papists do accuse the Albigenses and Waldenses (our first Reformers) to be Witcher, Buggers, Sorcerers and to deny the Baptism of Infants. Hereupon they raise war against them, put them to the Sword, and burn their Cities to ashes. These Godly men deny their Accusations, and show that their Ministers being much abroad to spread the Gospel, they kept their Children unbaptised, till they came home, because they would not have them Baptised by the Priests in the Popish fashion. Upon this (mark it) the Slander was raised that they would not have Infants Baptised, which they purge themselves of, and profess their judgement for Infant-Baptism; all which being so well known to the Author, (as appears by his often quoting of Perin, who treats of these things) it is a strange boldness (to say no worse) that he should dare affirm, that the Waldenses amongst other Ordinances of Christ, that they defended and witnessed to, to death & banishment, and bonds, that of Baptising Believers, in opposition to that of Infants, was not the least: Which he attempts to prove, 

1. By their public Confessions of Faith.  
2. By some particular Witness, that some of their principal Men bore thereto.  
3. In the more general Witness born by the body of the people as appears by the decrees of Councils, decretal Epistles, and general Edicts given forth against the whole party for the same.  
4. In the footsteps that we find thereof in the several Countries, whre they have heretofore imprinted the same.    
Reply, There are two sorts of People that 'tis like will be imposed upon by the flourishes which this Champion makes, those who are Ignorant, and those who are prejudiced against Infant-Baptism: no doubt but all this will pass for Gospel amongst such. But I may say of the Author, multa loquitur, sed nihil dicit, or rather probat, and that what he says is but Vox & praeterea nihil, a great sound of words, but no proof: And this I shall make appear in order.  
First, for the Witness born in their Public Confessions, he citys Perin, and if he can find any thing in that Author to serve his purpose I am much mistaken: I shall shortly produce the same Author verbis rotundis, most expressly against him. But my Adversary hath a notable dexterity to prove quidlibet ex quolibet, let us now hear what he quotes out of Perin, and then judge Reader, whether it be answerable to what he affirms under this first Head.  
First of all the Author tells us out of Perin, That in their ancient Confession of Faith bearing date 1120, Article 13. they say We acknowledge no other Sacraments but Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. P. Perin, 87. Reader thou hast here every Syllable of the Article, and is not this a knocking Argument against Infant-Baptism, that they acknowledged two Sacraments, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord? This is a Witness indeed, but 'tis of the Author's weakness to produce it.  
The next is Article the 28. of an other Confession, viz. God hath Ordained certain Sacraments to be joined with the Word, as a means to unite us unto, and to make us partakers of his Benefits, and that there be only Two of them: this is a Witness with a witness, here is alsO altum Silentium, a deep Silence, as to Infant-Baptism, not a word pro or con, and he that sees any thing against it in this Article wears Antipaedobaptistical Spectacles.  
And in another Ancient Confession of Faith Article 7. saith the Author, we have this, viz. We do believe that in the Sacrament of Baptism water is the visible and external sign, which represents to us that which is within, viz. Renovation of the Spirit, and mortification of our Members in Jesus Christ, Perin 89. There is a Harmony between all the Protestant Churches in the World, and the Waldenses in this Article, we all who are for Infant-Baptism believe the same.  
After this we have a passage out of Vigniers Ecclesiastical History, namely, That they do expresly-declare to receive the Canon of the Old and New-Testament, to reject all Doctrines which have not their foundation in it; therefore all the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church of Rome the condemn, and abominate, saying she is a Den of Thiefs, and the Apocalyptical Harlot. This is all very good, but what have we in all this against Infant-Baptism? but the Author would put their words upon the tenterhooks, it may be, and strain them farther than their intention, and would have us think doubtless, that they judged infant-Baptism to be a Romish Tradition, and to have no foundation in the Word of God; and is it not strange that it should be a Romish Tradition when it was in use in Tertullian's days, as the Author himself intimates a little before: But the Waldenses themselves have declared their judgement otherwise, and seconded it with their Practice, as shall be shown by and by. They were indeed against the Romish Ceremonies used in Baptism, as Exorcism, Chrysm, etc. but not against Infant-Baptism itself.  
Another Citation is out of an Ancient Confession, Artic. 11. The words are— We esteem for an Abomination and as Antichristian all Humane Inventions, as a trouble and prejudice to the liberty of the Spirit. And in their Ancient Catechism. Perin. de Doct. de Vaud. Liv. 1.168, 169. When Humane Traditions are approved for God's Ordinances, then is he Worshipped in vain. Is. 19 Matt. 15. Which is done when grace is attributed to the external Ceremonies and persons enjoined to partake of Sacraments without Faith and Truth. This also is insignificant to the purpose for which the Author quotes it, and doth not in the least touch Infant-Baptism. It is a good Testimony against Humane Traditions, and they tell us what they mean; which is done (say they) when Grace is attributed to the External Ceremonies, and 'tis one of the Popish Errors we know, that Baptism confers grace ex opere operato; it is also a good Testimony against Compulsion to the Sacraments, and that wicked practice of the Spaniards in forcing the Indians to be Baptised, and whoever shall compel ignorant, and scandalous persons to receive the Lords Supper.  
Lastly we have something brought out of their ancient Treatise concerning Antichrist, writ 1120. And if we can find nothing there against our Practice, then may we say of this Antagonist, Promisit montes, nascitur ridieulus mus.  
The words of that Treatise are, That Antichrist attributes the Regeneration of the Holy Spirit unto the dead outward work of Baptising Children, and teacheth that thereby Regeneration must be had. And here at last by good hap we have the word Children named, but not a jot serving the Author's design, for they do not hereby except against children's Baptism, but only against the corrupt ends that Antichrist hath in it; for whether it be in Children or grown Persons, it is an Antichristian, or Popish Tenent to ascribe Regeneration to the dead outward work of Baptism, and this is that before mentioned that Baptism confers grace ex opere operato.  
By what hath been said any unprejudiced Reader may see how meanly the Author hath acquitted himself in the beginning of his undertaking to prove the Waldenses against Infant-Baptism, from their public Confessions of Faith; and 'tis not unlikely we shall find him as defective in what follows. We have seen much confidence in the man, but not a grain of proof, and 'tis impossible any man's belief should be shaken by what he hath hitherto faid touching the Lawfulness of Infant-Baptism.  
2. His second proof is the Witness of the eminent and leading Men. The first he gins with, is the Famous Beringarius of Turain in Anjou, and he quotes the Magdeburgenses Cent. 11. c. 5. p. 240. That Beringarius did in the time of Leo the 9th about the year 1049. publicly maintain his Heresies, which they set down to be denying Transubstantiation, and Baptism to little ones.  
Now we must have to do with Mr. Tombs again, 
Mr. Tombe's Praecursor,  Examen p. 20.  
Reply, 1. That Beringarius was a famous Champion for the Truth against Popish Errors and Superstitions is beyond all dispute, but still 'tis questionable whether he was against Infant-Baptism; Why, saith the Author, the Magdeburgenses tell us so, that is 4 Protestant Divines that drew up the History of the Church. Here the incautelous Reader is in danger of a snare; for those Divines accuse him not of this, but only tell us what the Popish records speak of him; Beringarius, say the Magdeburgenses, maintained his Heresies, which they (that is the Papists) set down to be denying Transubstantiation, and Infant-Baptism, who being such false accusers may very well be excepted against as insufficient evidence. We know what Calumnies they have cast upon those eminent Reformers, Luther, Calvin, Beza, that lived nearer our times; what errors they charge them with both Intellectual and Moral, as if they had been very Heretical in judgement, and men of debauched lives: they have their witnesses too more than a jury, to justify all their malicious charges, Books written by divers Authors, enough to make up a considerable Library: If we must credit them against one, why not against all? the Testimony is the same.  
2. Since this instance of Beringarius is taken out of Tombe's, let us hear what answer Mr. Marshal gave him pag. 65. of his defence of Infant-Baptism; It is true (saith he) that Deoduinus Leodienses took it up as a common fame, & upon his credit Guitmond a Popish Bishop relates it, that Beringarius opposed the Corporal presence in the Eucharist, and the Baptism of little ones; 
Usher de Success. Cap. 7. Sect. 37.  but (saith Bishop Usher in his Succession of the Church) in so many Synods beld against Beringarius we never find any thing of this nature laidto his charge; and Bishop Usher farther adds, that to him it appears, that they who in those days were charged to hold that Baptism did not parvulis proficere ad salutem, held nothing but this, that Baptism doth not confer Grace ex opere operato. And indeed, in those Popish times to deny the greasy Ceremony of Chrism was ground enough, for a charge of denying Infant-Baptism, as you shall hear suddenly.  
Next we have an impertinent citation out of Clark's Martyrology, where it is said, that God raised up Beringarius, who did boldly and faithfully preach and witness against Popish errors, whereupon the Gospelers were called Beringarians for above an hundred years after, but Clark gives no hint that any of these Gospelers were against Infant-Baptism, but relates the quite contrary, for (saith he) (in the same place, and in the words following what is before quoted by the Author) They Baptised their Children, taught them the Belief, and ten Commandments, and carefully kept the Sabbath day; upon which Lewis the 12th of France, (that had been otherwise informed, but now satisfied of the truth of their faith, and practice by his commissioners, and Confessors,) said (and bound it with an Oath) that they were honester than he, and his Catholic Subjects.  
To as little purpose as the former is that he quotes out of Dr. Usher in his Succession of the Church out of Thuanus; 
Dr. Usher.  That Bruno Archbishop of Tryers did expel several Beringarians that had spread his Doctrine in several of those Belgic Countries, and that several of them upon examination did say, that Baptism did not profit Children unto Salvation.  
And well might they say so, all Protestants are of the same judgement, and in the same we have Dr. usher's Paraphrase on it— nec aliud videntur negavisse, etc. They seemed (saith he) to deny nothing else but this, that Baptism doth not confer Grace by the work done; and so we have done with his first witness.  
2. The next he brings are Peter Bruis, 
P. Bruis.  Arnoldus, and Henricus, three famous Waldenses; they were of their Barbes, that is, Teachers. I shall speak of the first and last being joined together in History, as the two first great Preachers of the Albigenses and Waldenses: the first was a Priest, the last a Monk, hated and persecuted very much by the Romish-Church. These being driven out of several places, where they stoutly opposed the Popish errors, were at last received at Tholouse in Provence, and they that followed their Doctrine were called Petro-Brusians and Henricians. Now to prove these to be against Infant-Baptism, the Author in conformity to his old friend Mr. Tombs, betakes himself to the Ecclesiastical Historians that have written of the State of the Church in the several Centuries since Christ, for from them must we fetch our light touching matters of Fact in the Countries where they lived; or from such who have made it their peculiar work to write the History of the Waldenses as Perin etc.  
The Protestant Century-writers, are either the Magdeburgensian Divines, or Lucas Osiander. I shall give a brief account of what they say of the Waldenses, concerning the point under debate, and so leave the Reader to judge on which side the truth lieth, whether on ours or our Opposites; and shall premise this caution, that the Reader do not mistake, and take that to be the judgement of those Writers concerning Peter Bruis and Henricus, which they transcribe out of the Popish Records, Councils, Edicts etc. And what they relate of them they have it from two Popish Abbots viz. Bernard, and Cluniacensis.  
1. Concerning Bernard the Magdeburgenses tell us Cent. 12. c. 5. that he in his 66th Sermon in Cantica, flies out against these men accusing them to be Heretics: he chargeth them, 

1. To be Manicheans.  
2. To deny the Lawfulness of Oaths.  
3. That 'tis unlawful to Baptise Children.  
4. That it is unlawful to eat any thing quod ex coitu generatur, and accordingly (saith Bernard) they denied the lawfulness of eating Flesh and Milk.    
These were then a terrible sort of Fellows, if we may believe that old Superstitious (though otherwise devout, and some think Pious) Abbot, who is commonly known by the name of St. Bernard. And certainly if these Petro-brusians were guilty in these things, they were even Monsters in nature. What to deny our little ones both Milk and Water too, O Cruelty! But as these good men cleared themselves, from these false imputations and calumnies; so also do the Magdeburgenses in their History speak highly of them, and that which is sufficient for their Vindication.  
The other cited by the Author, is Lucas Osiander, Cent. 12, 262. And I doubt some prejudice to his cause, 
Osiander.  may arise from citing him. Whatsoever Osiander saith (concerning Peter Bruis. and Henricus, of their being against Infant-Baptism) he taketh it out of the Works of Peter Cluniacensis, another Popish Abbot; and he doth Calumniari fortiter, lay very many abominable errors to their charge; and among others he accuseth them of this Venial one of denying Infant-Baptism. Now if any credit may be given to this Abbot, it must be per totum, throughout, in all, or else in nothing: And verily if his Testimony be valid (as Mr. Tombs would have it accounted, and the Author from him) our opposites need not glory in such Waldenses, that they comported with their opinion, nor we be troubled at their dissenting from us.  
Let us now look into the wicked and false Testimony or Account, this lying Abbot gives of those two precious Ministers, Peter Bruis, and Henricus, as Osiander takes it out of his own Writings.  
Exorta est, & progressu temporis vires acquisivit haeresis Albigensium. Ea Romae primo caepisse putant, postea verò in comitatu Tolosato (etiam intra viros Illustres) long lateque sparsa dicitur; quin etiam in Angliam penetrasse scribitur.  
Dogmata haec illis attribuuntur, (inquit Osiander).  
1. Baptismum abjiciunt.  
2. Corporum resurrectionem negant.  
3. Carnem comedi prohibent.  
4. Christum non esse Deum, nec assumpsisse de Virgin, sed de Caelo carnem duxisse.  
5. Ecclesiam non posse aliquid possidere, nisi in communi, etc.  
There arose and in progress of time gathered strength the heresy of the Albigenses, that is said to take its rise at Rome, then dispersed far and wide over the Country of Tholouse, (& that amongst men of quality;) & moreover they say that it got into England.  
They are charged to hold these Opinions, saith Osiander.  
They cast of Baptism, meaning that of Infants.  
They deny the resurrection.  
They forbidden eating Flesh (as Bernard before.)  
They say Christ is not God, neither took he flesh of the Virgin, but brought it down from Heaven.  
That the Church should possess all things in common.  
By this time I suppose we may conclude, that these Waldenses were vile persons, or Cluniacensis a lying Abbot; and this latter we do not in the least question. Furthermore (as if the Author had never enough of him) he tells us, that the Magdeburgenses set down the Assertions of Peter Bruis against Infant-Baptism, Transubstantiation, 
Tombe's Examen pag. 25.  Worshipping of Images, Purgatory, which are distinctly, and at large answered by Peter Cluniacensis: But you must know he had never any personal conference, or dispute with him. But that I may not remain in the Author's debt, for what he quotes out of the Magdeburgenses, I shall requite him with what I find in Osiander, who tells us that the said Cluniacensis doth profess twice in his Writings, that he would not accuse the Waldenses upon uncertain report, but from their own Writings; nay farther, he chargeth them that they denied the Divine Authority of the Old-Testament, and all the New, except the Gospels: Evangelium creditis, Epistolas Fauli cur non Suscipitis? Respondetis, quia non adeo certa nobis autoritas est earum. i e. You believe the Gospel, why not also the Epistles of Paul? your answer is, because the Divine Authority of them doth not so certainly appear to us. And upon that account (saith Osiander) Cluniacensis spends too whole Chapters to prove the Divine Authority of the Scriptures against them. I shall conclude this with Mr. Marshal's words to Mr. Tombs upon his quoting Cluniacensis, to the same end as my Antagonist doth. He (saith that Reverend Minister) that reads that railing Book of Petrus Cluniacensis, will find that he acknowledgeth most of what he lays to their charge to be upon the report of others. Now me thinks the Author should blush at his indiscretion for introducing such a Popish Calumniator for an evidence in this matter; and if he believe this Abbot slandered Peter Bruis and his followers in these things, I hope he will excuse the Reader if he believe he did noless, when he chargeth them to be against Infant-Baptism, & that Children who died before they could actually believe, were damned; which is another Article Cluniacensis brings in against them, & one as true as the other. I see by this that when men are engaged in a cause, and wedded to an opinion, they will not refuse the most sordid and shameful ways to promote it. They will fall in with slanderous Papists, and take up what they say to defend their Opinions. Witness my Antagonist, and his Predesessour and Tutor Mr. Tombs, who was checked by Mr. Baxter for his evil carriage in this very thing, he boldly justifies himself, and tells us in his Precursor, pag. 29. That Petrus Cluniacensis was (though a zealous Papist) yet thought fit by Illyricus to be reckoned among Witnesses of truth in his Catalogue; and if such as he (and especially Bernard) be not taken for Witnesses of things in their times, I know not how Protestant's will make up their Catalogue of Witnesses for them in all Ages: I think these are dangerous words, somewhat derogating from the honour of the Protestant Religion.  
The other eminent Person which is joined in History with Peter Bruis, is Henricus. These two, as is said, were the first and most famous Preachers of the Albigenses and Waldenses. This Henricus (saith the Author) witnessed to this great Truth, being a Friend and Colleague of P. Bruis; whose Doctrines and Positions are also recorded by the Magdeburgenses under eleven Heads; the first whereof was denying Baptism to Children. Cent. 12. p. 843,  
We have observed before that Bernard is so ingenious, as to acknowledge that he takes up these things by hear-say, and upon report; ab iis qui ad Pontificiam ecclesiam redierunt, of such as were returned again to the Church of Rome, and who is such an infidel as not to believe what they say? Furthermore the magdeburg's tell us, that when the Henricians, or Disciples of Henricus were examined, Bernard himself confesseth, they denied the things that were Objected against them, and that haply (say the magdeburg's) because they Objected such things as they never taught. 
Ait porr● in Examine eos Objecta negasse. Haec ille, sc. Bernardus. Quia forte alia ●is Objecta fuerunt, quam docuerunt. Magd. Cent. 12. p. 845.  Mr. Tombs told his Tale about Henricus a little handsomer than the Author, in his Praecursor. pag. 29. And is not ashamed to say, it seems utterly unlikely to him that be, and his followers should be belied, and tells us what Bernard said of them in 204th Epistle: the same also he hath in his Exercitation p. 31. and let us compare the Author with him, and we shall see he hath the Story from him; for thus he concludes this Section.  
The Author.  
The same Bernard in his Epistle to Heldefonsus' Earl of St. Gyles, saith, The Henerici did deny holidays, Sacracraments, Churches and Priests, complaining that the Children of Christians were excluded the life of Christ, whilst they denied them the grace of Baptism, and not suffered them to partake of Salvation.  
Mr. Tombs Exerc. p. 31. and Examen. pag. 21.  
The same Bernard in his first Epistle to Heldefonsus' Earl of St. Gyles, complains of Henricus, that he took away holidays, Sacraments, Churches, Priests, that the life of Christ is stopped to the little ones of Christians, while the grace of Baptism is denied, and they not suffered to draw near to Salvation.  
Thus far we find the Author exactly following Tombs, having little else but what is transcribed out of him; only he omits that ingenious passage of Mr. Tombs Praecursor pag. 30. As for the Albigenses and Waldenses it might be (saith he) that some might be against infant-Baptism, yet others not; or it may be in the beginning beld so, but after left it. But this Author makes as if the whole Body of the people had been against it which follows next to be examined.  
Thirdly (saith he) in the Witness, born not only by some particular Men, but by the body of the People; 
3. By the People themselves, suffering for the same.  as appeareth by decrees of Councils, Decretal Epistles, and Edicts given forth against them aswell as the Testimony of many Learned Writers.  
Reply.  
There is no convincing Proof to be fetched from hence, of their being against Infant-Baptism; because they were their Enemies, calumniating malicious Papists, that loaded them with all manner of reproaches, to render them Odious: And no marvel (saith Mr. Marshal) such Opinions should be charged upon them, 
Marshal's Defence. p. 66.  though they held them not; seeing we find this particular charged upon Luther, Calvin, and Beza, who did all in a special manner oppose this error; so that (saith the same Author) unless some one doth out of their own Confession give better evidence, 
Ies. Vicecom. Obser. Eccl. Vol. Lib. 2. c. 1. p. 103.  I shall believe that this Doctrine of opposing the Baptising of the Infants of Believers, is an Innovation no ancienter than the Anabaptists in Germany.  
And whereas the Author citys two Canons of Alexander the 3d, one made in the Gallican, and the other in the Lateran Council, against the Waldensian, or Catharian Heresy, the latter Anathematising them as for other Heresies, so particularly for denying Infant-Baptism, and for their Contempt of all the Sacraments.  
We are informed by Perin (the French Historian,) that these Canons were discharged against the Waldenses as soon upon the matter, as they were known by this name. For (saith he) in the year 1160 Peter Waldo Citizen of Lions courageously opposed Transubstantiation, with divers other corruptions crept into the Church of Rome, blaming the Vice, Luxury, Excess and Avarice, of the Pope and his Clergy, and he was the more hearkened to, being held in great esteem for his learning, piety and great charity. Now the Pope considering that at Lions, there were so many persons (by reason of Waldo's teaching) that questioned his Sovereign Authority over the whole Church, fearing what this might come to, being chased out of Lions, they spread themselves in divers companies and places; and from this Waldo, they were called Waldenses, Perin Hist. Lib. 1. p. 2, 3.  
The Monks, Inquisitors and others, (saith the Historian) being their Mortal Enemies, poured out Reproaches, and laid Opprobrious Imputations on them, affirming they were the Authors of all Heresies in the World, and that they were Confederates with the ancient Heretics.  
Because they made profession of Purity, they called them Cathares i e. Puritan. Because they denied the Bread which the Priest shown in the Mass to be God, they called them Arrians, as if they denied the Divinity of Christ; and because they maintained that the Authority of Emperors and Kings depended not on the Pope, Manicheans; and for other causes which they feigned, they called them Gnostics and apostolics. This Protestant Historian is large in these things, but I must contract, among others laid to their charge he mentioneth these 3 following.  

1. That they held Community of Goods.  
2. That it was unlawful to swear at all.  
3. That they rejected the Baptism of Infants.   
This Bernard and Cluniacensis, charged them with as before.  
They acquit themselves (faith Perin) from these Calumnies by putting forth a Book called the Spiritual Almanac, Fol. 45. They assert and maintain Propriety of Estate, the Lawfulness of Oaths grounded on Heb. 6.6. and allegeth 'twas God's Ordinance, that the people of Israel should swear by his Name. Deut. 16.53.  
And lastly for Infant-Baptism (the matter in dispute) Perin gives this account pag. 15. [which I desire the Reader to observe it, because we have so ancient a declaration of their faith in this particular.]  
That they being constrained for some hundred years to suffer their Children to be Baptised by the Priests of the Church of Rome, they deferred the doing thereof, as long as they could, having in detestation those Humane inventions which were added to the Sacrament, which they held to be but pollution thereof.  
And forasmuch as their Pastors were many times abroad, employed in the service of the Churches, they could not have Baptism Administered to their Infants by their own Ministers. For this cause they kept them long from Baptism, which the Priests perceiving, charged them thereupon with this imposture viz. That they were against Infant-Baptism. Which, saith Perin, not only their Adversaries have believed, that is, the Papists: and from hence came all that Beadrole of Decrees, Councils, Decretal Epistles, and Edicts against them, but also others (saith he) who have well approved of their Life and Faith in all other points; amongst the number of which we must reckon Mr. Tombs, and the Author of this late Treatise of Baptism now under examination.  
This ample account, given by such an excellent impartial Historian; so many years since, before the World was so troubled with disputes about Baptism, and from one of their own Countrymen, a man unconcerned, as to interest, or dissenting parties in this controversy, and being so faithful in his relations of the Faith, and sufferings of the Waldenses, that he was never (that I could hear of) questioned or suspected, will undoubtedly be credited by all ingenious Persons, and is sufficient to dismount thousands of those Canons, Edicts, etc. the Author brings.  
Besides this, that I may (if possible) undeceive the Antipaedobaptists, who are hardly brought to believe any thing that is against them; I will add two other Testimonies, from whence we may conclude the Body of the Waldenses were not against Infant-Baptism; one of them is Luther, the other Bullinger, both of which have written smartly against Anabaptists, and would never have given such a large Encomium of the Waldenses, had they apprehended them to be touched with the error of denying Baptism to the Children of Believers.  
Luther professeth that he hated the Waldenses (whilst a Monk) as desperate men, until he knew their piety and truth of their Belief by their own Confessions and Writings, whereby be perceived that those good men were much wronged, and that the Pope had condemned them for Heretics, being rather worthy of the praise that is due to the Martyrs.  
And Bullinger that wrote a Book against the Anabaptists, saith in his Preface to his Sermons upon the Revelations, That above 400 years since the Waldenses have made Profession of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, throughout France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Bohemiah, and other Kingdoms.  
4. If this be not enough to clear the Waldenses from what the Author would have us believe from the Testimony of their Enemies the Papists, we are willing to give him full measure, pressed down and running over; and that is by the Testimony which they give of themselves in their Public General Confessions of Faith. We have before shown the Author could find nothing in any of their Confessions against Infant-Baptism, let us now see whether we can find any thing for it.  
First they purge themselves from the imputation of denying Infant-Baptism, 
Hist. Wald. Lib. 1. c. 4. p. 15. So Lib. 1. c. 6. p. 43.  and show the reason why for some hundred years they forbore it, as before; he that writes the History, professedly sets down in his 3d part of it, the Doctrine of the Waldenses and Albigenses, and particularly what their Faith was, touching Baptism in these words of their own, viz. And whereas Baptism is Administered in a full Congregation— And for this cause it is that we present our Children in Baptism, which they ought to do, to whom the Children are nearest, as Parents, etc.  
In the year of our Lord 1535, an Assembly of the Waldenses from all their Valleys met at Angrongne, 
Perin. Hist. Wald. L. 2. Cap. 4. pag. 57  and there was signified what they understood of their Brethren of Provence and Daughine, namely, that they had sent into Germany their Pastors, George morel, and Peter Mason to confer with Oecolampadius, Bucer, and Capito, touching the belief which they had time out of mind: [Mark hereby the way how unworthily the Author Prevaricates and endeavours to blind the Reader, pag. 329. of his Book, as if all the Waldenses were declining, or Apostatising, towards the Antichristian Abomination of being present at Mass: if some of them of Provence were faulty; yet this Assembly at Angrongne stood fast in the Truth] where (saith Perin) when they had read certain Letters of encouragement sent from Oecolampadius, both to those of Provence, Dhugtony and to themselves.  
Afterward concluded on certain Propositions and Articles of Faith, which were read and approved, signed and sworn to by all the Heads of the Families and their Pastors, with one mind and consent, to Conserve, Observe, Believe, and retain amongst them inviolably without any contradiction, as being conformable to the Doctrine which hath been taught them, (mark it) from the Father to the Son, for these many hundred years out of the Word of God.  
If therefore among any of these Articles we can find Infant-Baptism owned, what becomes then of all the Crack that the Author makes, as if they had been of his judgement.  
The Articles there agreed on were in number 17, too long to be inserted, the last is about Baptism, and thus it is to a Syllable.  
Article 17.  
Touching the matter of the Sacrament, it hath been coneluded by the H. Scriptures, that we have but two Sacramental signs, the which Christ Jesus hath left unto as, the one is Baptism, the other the Eucharist, which we receive to show what our perseverance in the faith is, as we have promised when we were Baptised being little Infants.  
This is the Confession of the Faith of the Assembly at Angrongne, where a letter was read from Oecolampadius to those of Provence, who (it seems out of fear) were sometimes present at Mass with the Papists, or at least some of them, who did in heart doubtless abhor it: but how doth this prove they were not hearty for Infant-Baptism? And because the Letter is so Excellent a Dissuasive from any Compliance with Superstitious and Idolatrous Worship, I shall here insert it.   

Oecolampadius his Letter to the Waldenses of Provence, 1530.  
WE understand that the fear of Persecution hath made you to Dissemble in your Faith, and that you bide it. Now we believe with the heart to Righteousness, and confess with the mouth to Salvation. But they that fear to Confess Christ before the World, shall not be received of God the Father. For our God is Truth, without any dissimulation, and as he is a jealous God, he cannot endure that they that zare his, should join together under the Yoke of Antichrist: For there is no Communion of Christ with Belial. And if you Communicate with the Infidels in going to their Abominable Masses, you cannot but perceive their Blasphemies against the Death and Passion of Christ. For when they glory in themselves, that by the means of such Sacrifice they satisfy God for the sins of the Living and the Dead, what can follow, but that Jesus Christ hath not sufficiently Satisfied by the Sacrifice of his Death and Passion, and consequently that Christ is not Jesus (i e.) a Saviour, and that he died for you in vain. If then we have Communion at this impure table, we do declare ourselves to be One Body with the Wicked, how irksome soever it be to us. And when we say Amen to their Prayers, do we not deny Christ? What death should we not rather choose? What Pain and Torment should we not rather suffer? Nay into what Hell ought we not rather to plunge ourselves, than to witness by our presence, that we consent unto the Blasphemies of the wicked. I know that your weakness is great, but it is necessary that they that have learned that they are bought by the Blood of Christ, should be more Courageous, and always fear him that can cast both Body and Soul into Hell. And what shall it suffice us to have a care of this life only? Shall that be more precious to us than that of Christ? And are we contented to have tasted the delights of this World only? Crowns are prepared for us, and shall we turn back again? And who will believe that our Faith hath been true, if it fail and faint in the heat of Persecution? Let us therefore pray unto God to increase our Faith. For certainly it shall be better for us to die, than to be overcome by temptations. And therefore Brethren we exhort you to dive into the bottom of this business; for if it be lawful to hid our faith under Antichrist, it shall be likewise lawful to hid it under the Empire of the Turk, and with Dioclesian to adore Jupiter and Venus; nay it had been lawful for Tobit to adore the Calf in Bethel. And what then shall our faith towards God be? If we honour not God as we should, and our life be nothing but Hypocrisy and dissimulation, he will speve us out of his mouth, as being neither Hot nor Cold. And how do we glorify our God in the midst of our Tribulations if we deny him? Brethren, it is not lawful for us to look back when our hand is at the Plough: neither is it lawful to give ear to our Wives enticing us to evil, nor to our Flesh which, notwithstanding it endureth many things in this World, yet in the Haven it suffereth Shipwreck.  
These Godly Admonitions confirmed the weak, and came seasonably, for the persecution immediately began, and was more cruel than ever.  
4. Lastly the Author attempts to make good what he hath said of the Waldenses. From the Footsteps, saith he, we find of this truth in the several Countries and places where the Waldenses had heretofore imprinted it, as appeareth by the following instances.  
Reply.  
The Rise of Error like the Head of Nilus; is not easily found out: and as Diseases do not always come of Infection, but own their Original to the pravity of the humours, as the Principal Cause, and Seminary of them; so is it with Errors there being a weakness, and corrupt disposition in the mind of man to fall into the same without the Ministry and Teaching of Impostors. That the Waldenses (by reason of the sore persecution under Alexander the 3d, and his Successors) wege dispersed through Germany and France, (as the Author tells us out of Du-plessis) is not to be doubted, yea throughout all Italy, Poland, Bohemia and other Kingdoms, some hundred years before they had spread themselves, as Bullinger hath told us. But that the Opposers of Infant-Baptism in upper and lower Germany were the remains and Offspring of those the Waldenses had afore instructed, is a conceit foreign to all History, and hath no foundation in Reason or Truth: his ipfe dixit, or saying so, is no ground for us to believe it. And he affirms it only upon conjecture, and this waek Conjecture, ariseth from his will, that it should be so, according to that saying, quod ●●lumus facile credimus.  
We have before shown that in the year 1535. the Waldenses in a general Assembly of all the Valleys met at Angtongne, and declared their Faith, as touching other Articles of Religion, so in particular that of Infant-Baptism, which they professed to own; declaring farther that it was a Doctrine taught them from Father to Son many hundred years before. These were the legitimate Offspring of the Ancient Waldenses inheriting the Patrimony and Faith of their Ancestors. It was near upon the time of that Assembly that the Germane Anabaptists did appear upon the stage; I am sure it was not above 10 or 12 years before: for the Waldenses, as was said, sent to Oecolampadius for advice, and he, as the Author hath it pag. 307. disputed with the Anabaptists at Bazil, Vlme, Ausburg 1527, & 1529. I will not say, but in some points the Germane Anabaptists might agree with the Waldenses, as the worst of Heretics do in some things with the Orthodox, but 'tis the Author's private fancy, that the Fathers of those Germans, had been the Disciples of the Ancient Waldenses, which if true, their Children did horribly degenerate. For if any credit may be given to the Histories of divers Religious, sober Protestants, besides the Testimonies of those glorious Lights, Luther, Melanchton, Zuinglius, Bullinger and others, concerning the men of the Anabaptist Judgement in those Countries; we shall hardly meet with the like execrable persons, in in any of the Records of time, since Christianity was professed. Let not those who are against Infant-Baptism in these days (many of whom, are not only sound in their judgements in other points of Religion, but holy in their conversation) be condemned for the miscarriages of those in foreign parts, more in former times, than of late: Nor let those Godly men, who are dissatisfied with the practice of Infant-Baptism, be offended at the Zeal of God's holy Ministers, against those evil men, who under a pretence of Religion perpretrate all manner of villainies. It was long since, and is still the judgement of very wise and holy-Men, that those Germane Anahaptists were a Faction raised up by Satan, and fomented by the Pope in that juncture, on purpose to retard and hinder the work of Reformation, so hopefully begun, by those burning and shining lights . At that time the learned Councillor Conradus Heresbachius expresseth the same in an Epistle of his to Erasmus: 
Satan ejusmon● pests in illum finem excitavit, ne se●l, reformatio orbis Christiani, in Doctrina & moribus, per Lutherum, Zuinglium; Melancthonem, Bucerum; dliosque Dei viros suscepta, perficeretur.  And Melchior Adamus (in his History of the lives of the Germane Divines) saith, that at that time the errors of the Anabaptists broke forth, that the Devil might sow his Seed, who first declared against Infant-Baptism, and afterward rebaptised themselves, & then followed an inundation of all the Heresies that ever were; Vita Zwing lii, pag. 30. And yet my Antagonist towards the latter end of his Discourse hath the confidence to Apologise for those Monsters, who were the abomination of all Europe, and whose memory is accursed, and stinks to this day in the Netherlands, and who are the Scard●● and abhorrency of Protestant Churches throughout all the World. By which undertaking, 
Irr●psit intereae temporis ut Diabulus sua zizania semper interserete consuevit, Catabaptistarum haeresis qui primo Infantes Baptizare veta●int, & seipsorre-baptizabant; postea colluviem omnium, quae unquam fuerunt, haeresean inundabant.  I conceive he hath done dishonour to himself, and his cause, and shall have no thanks from his party. And for his questioning the verity of those Testimonies, (being herein singular) wherewith all the world is satisfied, and endeavouring to lessen and mince the Crimes that can admit of no Extenuation, he hath hereby little advantaged himself, and certainly he that durst Advocate for such a business is a daring Person indeed.  
He tells us they were dispersed all abroad throughout upper and lower Germany, and it is true; but wherever they came (as he himself quotes out of Cloppenburg) they suffered not the Reformed Religion to be edified without daily conflicts.  
We shall speak first of Vpper-Germany, and we are necessitated (something against our will) to give an account of the carriage of that People, fearing lest it should reflect upon the Godly Antipaedobaptists of these times.  
There were multitudes of them (saith the Author) in that Country, as appears not only by the opposition made against those persuasions by the Popish party, but by the Protestants also, and that from those who were called chief of the Reformation: as Luther, Micarius, Zuinglius, Brentius, Calvin, Junius, Oecolampadius.  
Here the first thing Ishall observe is, that these Gallant men stood up for Infant-Baptism, in opposition to those that were against it, who (for that very reason it seems) are not worthy to be accounted chief of the Reformation, by him, and his party; for observe, Reader, that he doth disown them as such, in saying those who were called chief of the Reformation. Next let us inquire how the Anabaptists did promote the Reformation, then newly begun in those parts. The life of Junius, (who was Preacher at Limburg) speaks out how much they hindered the progress of the Gospel there: how grievously they disturbed Regius at Ausburg, and afterward Musculus at Augusta, 

Vrbani Regii vita, pag. 73.  
Muscui● vit. p. 373.   Melchior Adamus tells us in their lives. Musculus, although a famous, learned and Godly Divine, (as appears by his Comments upon several parts of the Old and New-Testament) yet was very poor after his Marriage, and seeing that he could not maintain his Wife with that little Money that was remaining, agreed with a certain Weaver for a certain Sum, to learn his trade. The man unknown before to Musculus, was an Anabaptist, and there dwelled at that time a Teacher of that way in his house, miram Sanctitatem simulans (as the Story hath it) conterfeiting a wonderful deal of Holiness. 
Melchior Adam. in vit. Mase. p 373.  Musculus soon found him out to be a very naughty fellow, and reproved him of his faults, charging him to be a lazy, idle, hypocritical Person; at length his Master took offence at him and turned him out of door, contrary to Agreement, of whose perfidiousness he very much complains; for it seems the Weaver had gotten poor Musculus his Money and not fully taught him his Trade, and dismissed him because he was opposite to their Opinion. Musculus now being in great want, and not knowing well what to do, was fain at length to work for 4 pence per diem in a Town-ditch, whilst his Wife (during this time) was a servant, or she might have been starved. Afterward God provided better for them, for he was advanced to be Minister at Augusta, 
Erat autem illo tempore ejus Ecclesiae afflictus & perturbatus status, non solum propter Episcopi Canonicorum, reliquorumque pontificiae Religionis Machinas etc. verum etiam ob Anabaptistarum furorem etc.  where the Anabaptists troubled him very much; for at that time the Church of Christ there, was not only vexed by the Papists on one hand, but by this sort of men on the other hand; who not being contented to Preach in private, did impudently rush into the public places for God's Worship; and there cause disturbance, and sometimes get up into the Pulpit and preach their errors, as the same Author tells us, pag. 376. in Musculus his life. At which (and by reason of some other seditious carriage) the Magistrate being offended, put divers of them into Prison. Cum res ad tumultum & seditionem, Populo vehementer commoto spectaret: But it was not till they occasioned a great Tumult and Commotion amongst the people, 
Ingeniam hominis animum esse docebat, qui●d uci magis quam cogi velit. Eoque magistratum ad clementiam & longanimitatem cohortabatur.  etc. Musculus dissuades the Magistrate from severity, daily visits and relieves the Prisoners, forbearing to insist upon any matters of difference in opinion. At first they vilified him, called him false Prophet, and Wolf under sheep's Clothing: till at last by his Christian moderation and sweetness of Spirit, he had insinuated himself so much into them, that seposito omnī affectu pravo ipsum patienter audiebant, laying aside all prejudice, they harkened to his reasonings and forsook their Error; whereas some a little before professed they would rather undergo any torment than relinquish the same, and one of them afterward became a Minister of the Church.  
In like manner one Thomas Munzer made a great uproar in Saxony: for first he pretended an extraordinary call from Heaven, and that he was raised up by the command of God for the punishment of wicked Princes, and altering of Politic Government; whereupon he stirred up the people to cast off the Yoke of obedience to Civil Magistrates, as they had cast off the Pope, for the one saith he oppresseth us in Civil as the other doth in Religious Rights. Thus he goes on Preaching up Liberty, and that all men were by nature free, and that all things ought to be free and common: and when he could not persuade Luther to comply with him, nor make good his Doctrine by Argument before Luther, with whom he had frequent conference at Wittenberg, but on the contrary was rebuked by him, and earnestly admonished not to disturb the peace, but submit to God's Ordinance: he began to rise up and thunder against Luther himself, crying out that Luther was in as much fault as the Pope of Rome, and as bad as the Pope: and that all the Gospel he preached was a Carnal Gospel; till at length the common People being stirred up by this Trumpet, and enticed with the seeming sweetness of Liberty, began every where to imbroile themselves in dangerous mutinies and troops, and all reverence to Magistrates was contemned and cast off. Hereupon the Duke of Saxony cleared his Country of Munzer, who wandered here & there through Germany, and came at length to Mulbuysen, a famous Town in Thuringia; there as before Preached he up the same Doctrine of Liberty from Oppressors, many addicted themselves to him, some of the richer sort having been overpressed with Taxes, & others of small and beggarly estates, whom he made sure to himself by telling them, not only the Monasterirs should be prey and spoil to them, but likewile Preached up Community of all things, according to the Example of the primitive Churches. Having thus gotten a party of factious Persons fit for his turn, he became at length a Senator; whatsoever he commanded was done: his pleasure was a law, and his direction in all thing, as he said, a divine Revelation. His first work was to displace the Magistrates, and to take all power into his own hand. In Zwevia and Franconia, near 40000 Peasants took Arms upon this occasion; who rob a great part of the Nobility, and plundered many Towns and Castles, Munzer being their chief Captain. At length the Germane Princes, sensible of the danger prepare, forces set upon them, and kill some Thousands: Munzer himself was apprehended, and brought to the Duke of Saxony and Landgrave; being asked why he had thus abused the miserable Peasants, and raised these Tumults; his answer was, he had done but his duty, and that such Princes as hindered the Reformation of the Church ought to be opposed. The Landgrave on the contrary proved by Scripture that Governors ought to be had in honour; that all Sedition is forbidden by God, and that by the Laws of the Gospel, no Christian may take arms against their lawful Prince, upon any pretext whatsoever. To this when he replied nothing, he was first put upon the Rack to know what his purpose was, and who were his confederates: afterward he was brought on the Stage, and was so extremely confounded and dejected, that he was not able to give any tolerable account of his Faith; yet in general terms Confessed his Fault and his Error, and his Head being cut off, was carried upon a Spear through the Army.  
After the same mode, the Anabaptists carried themselves in Switzerland; there they likewise troubled the famous Zwinglius, that eminent Servant of Christ, in the work of the Ministry at Zurith. This Zwinglius was a person of that note, that Bishop Jewel in his Defence of the Church of England, gives this honourable Testimony of him, and of Luther, pag. 360. Mirtin Luther (saith he) and Hulderick Zwinglius, are most excellent Men, even sent of God to give light to the whole World. This same Zwinglius, whilst he was busy in carrying on the work of Reformation, (as we are informed by Melchior Adamus) was interrupted by the Anabaptists. First they declaimed against Infant-Baptism, and rebaptised themselves as before was hinted. Zwinglius was very tender of them, and treated them with much gentleness, 
Quod Autores & anoics erant, & docts, & oves, & cives, familiariter egit. Melchior Adam. in vita Zwinglii p. 30.  for some of them were his friends and of his own Flock; until he found much falsehood and untruth in what they said, and that they made a grievous rent, broke off communion and erected a new Church. This moved Zwinglius to try his strength with them, and indeed the Anabaptists first made a challenge on the 6th November 1525 to dispute the point with any of the Reformed Divines. Hereupon Zwinglius and some others had the patience to argue with them publicly in the Court before the Senate, three several days; and when (as Spanhemius tells us) they were by strength of argument in full demonstration of Spirit and of power, confuted, they fell to Railing, and poured out reproachful speeches. Melchior Adamus gives the same account in the History of Zwinglius his Life. 
Habita sunt disputationes cum ipsis seriae, in quibus errorum convicti, Blasphemiis, & conviciis despumarunt in Antagonistas. Melchior Adam.  The said Zwinglius so overpowred them with Arguments at that time, that one of them had a pretty conceit beyond the rest, and said Zwinglius was a learned man, and could prove any thing, but saith he, O Zwinglius, I adjure thee by the living God to speak thy Conscience and tell us truth. I will said he: Thou art a seditious Fellow, since milder answers will not serve the turn, I speak plain and home. After which disputation on the 15th November, the Senate made a Decree against them, and declared that Zwinglius had said enough to convince them; established Infant-Baptism, commanding the Anabaptist Teachers to be silent and quiet. Notwithstanding which the trouble of the place ceased not, for the Anabaptists increased and others adjoined to them, and they fell to preaching and disputing again, that the Tumult was great and the Citizens fell together by the Ears. The Magistrate once more taking cognizance of the matter, how that by these contentions the City became obnoxious to the forces of the house of Austria, and the Idolatry of Rome; for the prevention hereof, 
Tandem carcere, proscriptionibus, morte, contra perjuros, inabedientes, seditiosos, non jam Catabaptistas', Senatus agere coactus; ut malum intestinum averruncaret. Melchior Adam.  passed a severe Edict against them, not as Anabaptists, but as perjured, disobedient, seditious persons, which was done in the year 1530. five years after they first began to dispute with Zwinglius. Vid. Spanhemius & Melch. Adam.  
2. In the next place the Author tells us how the Anabaptists spread themselves about this time over all the low Countries, which is very true, both in Westphalia, Friesland, Holland, to the horror and confusion of those parts; for the light of the Gospel which broke out but a little before in High-Germany, darted down its beams to the Low-Countries, and the blessed work of Reformation was carrying on apace, had not the same sort of People broken in again, to distract the Churches then planting, and disturb the Ministers. Take but one instance, which is instar-omnium: At Munster in Westphalia this troublesome Sect first appeared, there they soared high, pretended Divine Revelations, they insinuated themselves into the esteem of men by an appearance of Sanctity at first, and in a short time gained a great multitude of people over to them. We must know that at this time Popery was the prevailing Religion here, as in other Towns of the Netherlands, and the people began to relish the sweetness of the Gospel, and Truth did every day triumph over Popish errors. Several Ministers were sent down from Magburg to propagate th' Gospel, and the Popish interest lost ground apace, and their Doctors durst not dispute with the Reformed Divines from Scripture. Upon this the Senate ordained some of the Churches, for the use of the Reformed; this indeed displeased the Bishop, but it came not to Arms or Blows (as the Author falsely suggests) pag. 324 of his Tretaise. But notwithstanding the Bishop's dislike, the Senate revoked not their former grant, and the work of Christ was hopefully carrying on, when in a few months there came privily into this City of Munster, certain Anabaptists in the year of our Lord 1533. of whom the principal were John Mathias a Baker of Haerlem, and John Becold a Tailor of Leyden. These begin their Deformation, with a new Catechism, preach down children's Baptism, and preach up Community of Goods, and by a notable faculty of language, and show of piety which they expressed at their first entrance, they ingratiated themselves and their Tenants, with many of the people. In a short time their party was greatly augmented, many flowing into them especially of the poorer and base sort, as those that knew not how to live for debt, and such as were inclined to Tumult, and disposed to mischief. Then fell they to the old work of contending with the Reformed Ministers: The Senate perceiving how much the City was divided in their judgement, appointed also here a day for a public disputation, at which again it was the lot of the Anabaptists to be worsted. The Senate afterward makes a Decree to clear the City of them: some depart for a little space and re-enter secretly, others conceal themselves within the Walls, and not long after assembled themselves openly, and appeared with greater Audacity than ever; new Tumults every day arose, and from disputing they came to fight.  
The New-Prophets john Mathias and john Becold feigned Raptures, Ecstasies, and Revelations; and perceiving their own strength, began to rant it to the purpose and to act all manner of Violence and Rapine: They encouraged the people to fall upon the Monasteries and Churches, and in a short time the Suburbs, were burned and the Churches spoiled. They ordained community of Goods on pain of death, destroy Libraries, abolish Schools of Learning, and commanded, all Books except the Bible to be Sacrificed to the flames.  
Then did these two Impostors send forth horrible cries about the street, exhorting all to repent. They sent to other Towns where any were addicted to them, invited them to this City as their, common Rendezvous, promising a hundred-fold, for  was lost in this cause. The Tumult mult and Consternation was so dreadful, that the Senators (many of them) forsake the City, and the rest were displaced: forthwith they choose new ones of their own Faction, run armed up and down, and chase out of the Town all that did not favour their Sect, without respect to Age or Sex; so as many Women with Child misearried with the fright. By this time the Bishop brings an Army, besieged the City: Mathias makes a desperate sally and was cut off, and now john of Leyden assumes absolute Dominion, sits upon a Throne of State, and ascribes to himself this Title, I john King of Righteousness over the whole World. During his Reign (which God in mercy shortened) he cut off whom he pleased, the Estates and Lives of men being at his devotion: he perpetrated horrible Villainies, ordained Polygamy to cover his Adulteries and monstrous Lusts, murdered divers persons, stood out so long against the Besiegers, that the Famine increased miserably in the City, and the people perished in great numbers, and those that escaped out were pitied and spared by the Besiegers, being nothing but skin and bones. At length the place was taken by Storm, the prodigious Impostor (with two of his chief servants after a great slaughter of others being taken alive) were sent up and down to the Princes of Germany, as Spectacles of Scorn and Wonder, and many Divines laboured to convince them of their Errors; and in some things the King would seem to yield, which was thought only to save his life, for he promised upon pardon to reduce all the Anabaptists in Holland, Brab●nt, Friesland (where they were in great numbers) under the obedience of their Magistrates.  
Being brought back again to Munster, after the Exhortations of many pious men, that they would confess their Erros; the King relented, the other continued stubborn; being all brought to Execution, the King was fastened to a Post, and the other two in the same manner had their flesh pulled off with hot burning Pincers, and at last run through with a Sword. Their Carcases were enclosed in three several Cages of Iron, & hanged up upon the highest Tower of the City, the King in the middle, and higher than the rest.  
I shall now proceed to make some remarks upon what the Author acquaints us with in favour of some of the German-Anabaptists.  
The first is that of Cassander who in his Epistle to the Duke of Cleve, says That the Anabaptists of the Belgic and lower Germany, are followers of Menno Simonis, and concerning whom he gives a good report as of a Godly man.  
This is Mr. Tombs again, 
Mr. Tombs.  Exam. p. 25. only with this difference, Tombs quotes Cassander's words in Latin, which the Author translates, and Tombs is so ingenious as to acknowledge both Munzer, and those at the City of Munster, to have rebelled against Magistracy, for whom my Antagonist doth Apologise. But, saith Mr. Tombs, But since those days it cannot be found that the Anabaptists by Writings or Actions have done it.  
Now to this Mr. Marshal makes Reply, that he doth not here much of their denying the Magistrate's Authority, nor will he take upon him to Divine what they would do, if they should increase to much strength, but prays that it may not be so.  
And as for Cassander, I find indeed he speaks favourably of some of their persons, but doth not in the least excuse their Doctrine or Principles; and for Menno Simonis, as Spanhemins tells us, he declared a dislike of their actings at Munster, nevertheless acknowledged them for Brethren, though weak ones, and professed that notwithstanding their calamity, they might find God merciful unto them. This Menno indeed renounced Popery, and came over to the Anabaptists: but withal is said to embrace and preach up divers Heresies and Blasphemies concerning the Human nature of Christ. and other Errors about the office of the Magistrate: and though 'tis true, (as the Author saith) from Menno, many Anabaptists of the Low-Countries are called Meunonites at this day, yet let him know from Spanhemius (one of their own Country, and lately public Professor of Divinity at Leyden) that the Anabaptists are not so bad all of them as to follow his opinions. 
Tombe's Praeeursor. Sect. 82. p. 62.  To let pass what he citys out of Cloppenburg, taken out of Tombs Praecursor. p. 62.  
The next man applanded by the Author, (who was Contemporary with Munzer) is one Balthasar Huebmer, a Dr. in Waldshnot, a great Preacher of this way in Bohemia and Moravia, who was taken Prisoner with his Wife by the Emperor's command, who was himself burned at Vienna, and his Wife drowned for Heretics in the year 1528.  
This is Mr. Tombs again, 
Mr. Tombs.  Examen pag. 23. But because we have such an ample Character of this man, I have been the more curious in enquiring what account we or him in History: and before I shall enter upon that, I shall tell thee Reader, that the Author minds me with what I lately met with in a Book entitled plus ultra, being an Examination of Dr. Heylins' Discourse of the Reformation of the Church of England, the Examiner observes that when the said Dr. speaks of Harding the Jesuit (a base Apostate, and grand enemy of the Gospel) it is with terms of honour and reverence as Dr. john Harding, one of the Divines of Louvain, and the most learned of the College, pag. 128. but when he speaks of those Glorious Lights of the Reformation, 'tis barely Luther, Zwinglius, Calvin: in like manner we have here one Balthasar Huebmer a Dr. in Waldshnot a great Preacher of this way in Bohemia etc. when in a leaf or two before we have no venerable Title given to those famous Divines of the Reformation, but 'tis plain Luther, Zwinglius, Calvin.  
I have met with this Huebmer in several Authors, without the Title of Dr. which made me think he was a Dr. of H. D. his Creation, until I found it in Mr. Tombs to be otherwise, in his Examen, pag. 23. who says, that Zwinglius gives him that stile in his Epistle, before his answer to his Book about Baptism: be it so, and if he were regularly admitted to that degree, I think he was the first and last Dr. that ever was of the Anabaptist judgement. Concerning this man Mr. Tombs relates out of one of Zwinglius his Epistles, that Huebmer came to Zurich, and there made a Recantation, but it appears he was afterwards taken by the Emperor and burnt at Vienna, for what cause I know not saith Mr. Tombs. Then farther he relates more of what he finds in Zwinglius his Epistle to Gynoraeus viz. We approve dexterity and moderation in a man; but in that man (I wish I were deceived saith Zwinglius) I never perceived any thing in him but an immoderate thirst after profit and glory. Mr. Tombs concludes modestly, and says only this, I leave him to his judge to whom he stands or falls.  
This Huebmer is called by Melchior Adam, Princeps Catabaptistarum, the chiefest of the Anabaptists, and the head of them that disputed with Zwinglius at Zurich; 
Alpha eorum fuit Balthasar Hubmerus, Apostatà iterum iterumque factus, qui Zwinglii beneficio liberatus, tantis convictis utrum bene de se meritum onerare nebulo non dubitavit, ut apologiâ satisfacere fratribus habuerit necesse. Melch. Adam. pag. 30.  and he tells us he was an Apostate several times, who being freed out of Prison by Zwinglius his endeavours, was so ungrateful, as to load him afterward with such reproaches, that Zwinglius was fain to write an Apology for himself, to satisfy the Brethren. That Learned and Godly man Bullinger says of him, that whilst he was pastor at Waldshnot the whole Cit became proselytes to his opinion, and that they banished out the Citizens, that were men of good conscience and sincere, and drove them from their possessions, by which means the Gospel which did there excellently flourish, was utterly rooted out. Spanhemius hath this of him, That Bul-Diol. Huldricus, Zwinglius that valiant Champion of the Truth confuted that Turbulent fellow, who by his words and writings had troubled the consciences of many, and yet at Zurich recanted his Error, and did forswear the Tenants of the Ambaptists. 
Spanhem c. ●●.   
But he was burnt at Vienna for an Heretic (saith the Author), whereas his Tutor Mr. Tombs. saith, be knows not what he was burnt for, and this might have been his lot, if he had been for Infant-Baptism: they do not use to distinguish of men that go under the notion of Protestants, all are in their account Heretics, and deserve burning that are not of the Church of Rome. Sad instances you shall have by and by, and unless I mistake, we do not find in our Martyrologies very many of the Author's judgement to have suffered death, purely for their opinion of Antipaedobaptism; and in truth, I have not faith to believe ever any one did: as for those which suffered in Henry the 8th his time we shall find it was for some other causes, and usually (as the rest of Protestants) for denying the Real presence in the Eucharist and the Pope's headship.  
After this he tells us out of Comenius, the distresses that befell the Anabaptists upon the defeat of Frederick, by the Emperor's forces at Prague, how that the Enemy began the year after the victory with the Anabaptists in Moravia, and banished a great company of them, etc.  
To which I have this to say, that they dealt kindly with them, in comparison of their deal with the Godly Ministers that were for Infant-Baptism: for as soon as ever Fredrick Elector Palatine (the Defender of their Faith and Persons) was defeated, the faithful Ministers of Christ (as in the Marian days) were the proto-Martyrs. It was the precious blood of those men that was first spilt, and the Antichristian cruelty shown itself most barbarously against them. Divers of them were shot to death, excruciated, and tortured with new-invented Torments, covering some with hot burning coals, twisting about the forehead of others knotty Cords, and with a stick straining their heads, till their eyes were ready to start out; cruelly burning one with his Wife, broiling another to death with a fire made under him; cutting another in small pieces; hanging another by the privy members, being 70 years old, with his Books fired under him; and at last shot through the body and slain: another being above 70 years old was brought into the market place, laid upon the fire and burnt to death. Thus the poor Ministers in every place suffered: all banished out of Prague, twenty one out of Cuttenburgh, many Citizen's accompanying them, one of which preached on that Text, They shall cast you out of the Synagogue; all the multitude present bewailing their loss with great lamentations. Thus did they deal with them at Boslavia, Radecium, Zaticum, and in other places, and some were stifled and poisoned with the stink of Prisons: 
Comenius, Clarks Martyrology. pag. 183, 184.  see all this in Comenius his History of those persecutions; which is Translated, and in Clark's Martyrology taken thence.  
As for that which follows, That the Anabaptists which were banished out of Moravia into the neighbouring Countries of Hungaria and Transilvania, were of the Waldensian stock, he hath nothing for it, but a Conjecture.  
And whereas he adds, that these were of the Stock that had been instructed by the Waldenses of old, because of their living together in Houses or Colleges, which was the custom of the Waldenses: But forasmuch as we have heard before, that it was their custom to baptise their Children, we have better reason to conclude they were none of their Stock. And if that be true which the Scholar saith (who came from those parts about 5, or 6 years since) that they live together after that manner in Hungaria, Transilvania, I wish them good fellowship and safety.  
We have two or three impertinent Stories more, viz.  
1. Some of the Waldensian Sect were punished at Oxford in Henry the 2d's time, and doth he think this was for denying Infant-Baptism? Nay rather it appears they were no Anabaptists; for if they had, no doubt Holinshhead in his Cron. or Bishop Usher in his History of the state of the Church would have told us so. And 'tis strange the Author should thus impose his groundless Conjecture upon the Reader. Take the Story as it is in Holinshhead and then judge. About the same time came certain Dutchmen of the sort called Valdoys over into this Realm, to the number of thirty or more, who held Opinions in Religion, contrary to the Faith of the Roman-Church: Those which at that time came were indifferently well learned, and their principal or Ringleader was named Gerard. Now also was a Council assembled at Oxford, whereat the Dogmatists were examined upon certain points of their Profession. The aforesaid Gerard undertaking to answer for them all, protested that they were good Christians, and had the Doctrine of the Apostles in all reverence. Moreover, being examined what they thought of the Substance of the Godhead, and the merits of Christ, they answered rightly, and to the point. But being farther examined upon other Articles of Religion then received, they swerved from the Church, and namely in the use of the Divine Sacraments, derogating such grace from the same, as the Church by her Authority had then ascribed to them; and what was that think you? but this that they did not confer grace ex opere operato, from the work done; for this Romish Tenent, the Waldenses ever opposed, as before in their Confessions, and can any Man rationally pick any thing out of this Story against Infant-Baptism.  
Next we have a Relation of seven Dutch Anabaptists indeed, that came over with Anne a Cleve in Henry the 8th's time 1528. near about two years after John of Leyden sent out his 12 Apostles to propagate their Opinions over all the World, and the King might well judge these to be some such that might occasion disturbance in this Nation likewise; so that this instance will appear to signify nothing, for Henry the 8th burned more Paedobaptists than Anabaptists. And that these were not put to death purely on the account of Anabaptistry is beyond all doubt, but as Heretics for disowning the Pope's Supremacy, Transubstantiation etc. or why might it not be possibly on the same score, for which those suffered in Queen Elizabeth's time? For in her time also, saith he, in the year 1575. a Congregation of Anabaptists were taken at the Meeting within Aldgate, 27 of whom were imprisoned, and of them four recanted, two were burned and the rest banished; and he quotes Stow's Cron. for it, but very darkly and partially: for he neither tells us out of him (as he ought to have done) what Anabaptists they were, nor what they held, nor for what they were burnt, as Stow, and also Holingshead doth in their Chronicles, viz.  
1. That they were Dutch Anabaptists (coming hither not long after the Germane Commotions).  
2. That they held Vile, Blasphemous, and dangerous Opinions against Christ, and the peace and welfare of the State, for which they were thought worthy of Death. I shall give it to you in the Words of Stow, and Holing shed, which is thus in both verbatim.  
In Queen Elizabeth's time Anno Domini 1574, on Easter day, which was the third of April, about nine of the Clock in the forenoon, was discovered a Congregation of Anabaptists Dutchmen, in a house without the Bar of Aldgate Prison; and four of them bearing faggots recanted as follows.  
Whereas 1 I. T. R. H. being seduced by the Devil, the spirit of Error, and false Teachers, his Ministers, have fallen into certain most detestable, and dangerous Errors; namely: 

1. That Christ took not Flesh of the Substance of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  
2. That Infants of the Faithful ought not to be Baptised.  
3. That a Christian may not be a Magistrate, or bear the Sword or Office of Authority.  
4. That it is not lawful for a Christian to take an Oath.    
Now by the Grace of God, and through conference with good and learned Ministers of Christ his Church, I understand and acknowledge the same to be most damnable and detestable Heresies, and do ask God and his Church Mercy for my said former Errors, and do forsake and renounce them. Now let any man judge whether these be not fine fellows to be brought in for a Testimony against Infant-Baptism, & whether the Author hath done well in endeavouring to reflect dishonour upon the Reign of that Famous Queen, as if they had been burnt merely for not owning Infant-Baptism: To tell such blind Stories is not for the honour of his cause; but 'tis his humour and he cannot leave it. And now at length we are come to the dregs of his Treatise, and there indeed he seems very culpable in his Essay to Palliate those foul and enormous Crimes, which were perpetrated by the Anabaptists of Germany, which is such a piece of weakness as will expose him to the just Censure, not only of all judicious Persons besides, but even of his own party. Even Mr. Tombs himself acknowledgeth the actions of Muncer, and what was done at the City of Munster, and when Mr. Marshal had spoken of the World of mischief that people did, and what dangerous Heresies & Blasphemies they held, Mr. Tombs ingenuously confesseth; That much of this is true, I make no question, Examen p. 24. Then again in his Praecursor p. 29. he complains (and that upon good ground) of the abuse of charging those Tenants, and practices upon all of the same Profession, which is true of some, as that all Anabaptists are wicked because those of Munster were so. Mr. Tombs is so knowing a Man, and so wise, that he durst not question the verity of those things, and that because, as Mr. Marshal says, the things have been done so lately, and so many agreeing Stories are written of them, and by Men of such undoubted faith and honesty, that it leaves no place for doubting. And, as Mr. Baxter saith on the same occasion, if the Testimony of these holy and precious Men whose service the Lord so graciously made use of in the Reformation of those Countries from Popish darkness, as Luther, Melanchton, Zwinglius, Bullinger and others, that did, and suffered so much to accomplish it, and lived in the Country and times where, and when these things were acted, may not be credited, than we may call in question the truth of all History whatsoever. Add hereunto the Testimony of those famous Men, Peter Martyr, Calvin, Beza, Bucer; who can scarce speak of the German-Anabaptists with patience, or give them any other title ( the charitable Author says) than Furies, Blasphemous, Unclean, Seditious, Frantic wretches, etc.  
Two material Objections he hath a mind to clear.  
1. The first is concerning the Miscarriages of these Men.  
2. The Second is some of the Waldensian Confessions which seem to own the Baptising of Infants.  
But it had been more to his honour to have let those Objections lain dormant, unless he had said more to the purpose.  
To the first, he saith, That take it for granted, that things were so as to matter of fact, that is, that many Anabaptists did prove so horribly wicked as is reported, yet 'tis both unreasonable & uncharitable, to render all the people either in those times, or since to be such persons also, and to judge an Error in the Principle, from the Error in the Conversation of some that Profess it.  
Reply.  
Thus far the Author speaks well, for it is not fair dealing to judge at such a rate, and Mr. Tombs before him argues rightly in the case, in his Praecursor p. 56. I am sure, saith he, it is no Rule to judge a Doctrine false by this that the Professors miscarry, but only to make Men wary and fearful; if it be, we must judge the same Doctrine false by reason of some men's miscarriages; and true because of others godly living. Nevertheless we may safely affirm that Doctrine is to be suspected false, which is usually attended with gross miscarriages in the Professors of it, for that speaks the Doctrine Ominous, and looks like a Spiritual Judgement of God upon it. And I hearty wish there were no ground to say, that of such a nature is the Doctrine of Baptising grown Persons in opposition to that of the Infant-Seed of Believers. For not to insist upon the horrid Errors and wicked Lives of those in Germany, nor of the Blasphemies and Immoralities of divers Persons here in our own Nation; the very principle itself of Anabaptistry is of a dangerous nature, which, in that rigidity as some men hold it, is of such a disquieting tendency, that as Mr. Bunyan speaks before, it is not fit for any Age or State of the Church. I cannot but sigh to consider the ways of some men, whose Spirits are impregnated therewith, so that their very constitution inclines them to nothing more than to rend, and tear, and divide the Church: The Zeal for their Opinion hath and doth still prove the greatest hindrance to the conjunction of Christians here in this Nation. For as soon as they become Baptists as some call them (and our opposites love to appropriate the name to themselves they fall off from Godly Ministers, and People differing from them, though never so Holy. But let Men calmly consider whether this be not an effect of ignorance and pride, and more from an erring, than well instructed Conscience, and what a scandal and shame it is to the Christian Religion to make it thus a fomenter of faction and disturbance in the World; and what an injury is hereby done to Christ by contracting, and narrowing his Interest in such a manner. But I see not how it can be otherwise, if men adhere and strictly keep themselves to the Antipaedobaptistical Principle; for if our Ministers be no true Ministers, and our Baptism a Nullity, and consequently our Churches no true Churches, how can they hold Communion with us? & though some that are for the Baptism of Believers only, do, yet it must be imputed to their good nature, and not their Principle, which they cross in so doing.  
Farther, saith he, if it be granted many Anabaptists did prove so horribly wicked in Germany, yet others that owned that Principle, were Men of another Spirit, both in that as well as in former times, for which we have most ample and authentic Testimony from their greatest enemies. Witness that honourable Character that Raynerius, the bloody Inquisitor gives of them in those days in France, Cassander, Bellarmine, and Baronius of those in Germany, and Mr. Baxter of them in this Nation.  
But hold, Sir, I doubt your ample and authentic Testimony will fail you: and first I must tell you, Rainerius is not for your turn, for he never gave any honourable Character of Anabaptists. That favourable Character which he gives relates to another sort of People called the Waldenses, which you and I had some discourse of not long since, and found to be none of your kindred; for they were for Infant-Baptism. Verily, 

Dr. Featly's Roma Ruens.  
Rainer. contra Wal. C. 4.  
Inter omnes sectas quae adhuc sunt, & fuerunt non est periculosior Eccles. Leonistarum, idque tribus de causis.  
Prima; quia est diuturnior, aliqui entm dicunt quod duravit a tempore, Sylvestri alii a tempore Apostolorum. Secunda, quia est generalior, fere enim nulla terra est in qua haec Secta non sit. Tertia, quiae cum omnes aliae Sectae immanitate blasphemiarum in Deum audientibus horrore m inducant, Haec sc. Leonistarum magnam habet speciem pietatis, eo quod coram omnibus just vivant, & bene omnia de Deo credant, & omnes Articulos, qui in Symbolo continentur. Solummodo Roman. Eccles. Blasphemant & clerum.   saith Dr. Featly, (who wrote a Book against Anabaptists) Rainerius the Inquisitor, though entertained against us, [not against the Author's party] yet speaks he so much for us, that he deserveth a Fee of us. The Sect, saith he, of the Waldenses or Lyonists, is more pernicious to the Church of Rome, than all other Sects.  
1. Becanse it hath been of longest continuance, for some say, it hath continued ever since the Apostles time. 2. Because it is more general than any other, for there is almost no Country into which it doth not creep. 3. For that all other Sects do bring an horror with the heinousness of their Blasphemies against God, but this hath a great appearance of Godliness, because they live justly before Men, and believe all things well concerning God [neither of which could be said of the German-Anabaptists] and all the Articles, which are contained in the Creed; only they speak evil of the Roman Church, and the Clergy. And that Rainerius did not look upon the Waldenses as Anabaptists, is demonstrated by this, because he gives not the least hint of it in the Catalogue of their Errors, which follows upon the former words. The Waldenses, saith he, do not receive the Canon of the Mass, they say the Church doth err in forbidding Priest's Marriages, they allow not the Sacraments of Confirmation, and extreme Unction, they condemn Latin Prayers, and affirm prayers for the Dead do not profit the Souls of the departed: but never a word of denying Infant-Baptism, which is very strange if he had udderstood any thing thereof. Rainer. contra Wald. C. 5. Canonem Missae non recipiunt, etc.  
Next for Bellarmine and Baronius, I cannot learn yet where they give any honourable Characters of the Anabaptists, only they do not so much condemn some of them as others, and do hope their intentions might be good, and that they erred more out of igmorance than malice; if this be honour according to the Author's computation, why then I see a little honour will serve their turn, who are of his judgement: & I find a singular faculty in him to make much of a little at every hand. And what though Cassander saith, in two of them, namely Menno Simonis and Theodoricus there were tokens of a Godly mind; yet Spanhemius [whom I shall rather credit than that Papist] tells us (and that out of his own Confession of Faith) that he held Blasphemous Tenants against Christ, and opinions destructive to Magistracy; and therefore saith Mr. Marshal to Mr. Tombs (when he brought this Testimony of Menno out of Cassander) this Menno, saith he, (whom you plead for by Cassander's Pen) his whole Doctrine is as full of blasphemy about our Saviour's taking Flesh of the Virgin Mary, and other Heretical, and abominable stuff as the rest of his fellows, though I think his spirit was not so seditious as many of theirs; and what Mr. Tombs saith of Menno is not much to his commendation, it is in his Examen p. 25. And from thence the Author fetcheth the honourable Character (such as it is); yet herein Mr. Tombs shows most ingenuity, in that he speaks out all that Cassander saith in this Epistle to the Duke of Gulick and Cleve; Hujus quem dixi Mennonis cui nunc hic Theodoricus successit, etc. They were, saith he, imperito quodam Zelo incitati, moved by an ignorant Zeal to do what they did, having a fancy that they must destroy the wicked, per vim externam, by force of Arms, and this in order to the setting up the Kingdom of Christ [just of the same strain with those they called 5th Monarchy-Men that put all London into such a fright some years since]: and this Satanical delusion put them on upon such Exorbitancies. But  hath a mind to understand fully, what kind of men the Germane Anabaptists were, 
Vide Baxter's Plain-proof. p. 143.  let them read Mr. Bullinger's Dialogue against the Anabaptists; he lived in those times when, and near the place where they played their pranks, and gives a large account of their abominable uncleanness, treachery, sedition, etc. But some, saith he, may object, many things are charged upon them falsely, and fame addeth somewhat. To which he replies, that whatsoever he mentions may be all proved by signed Letters, and by certain Testimonies; and tells us that in judgement he hath silenced many of their crimes, and spoke less than they have committed, for saith he, they far exceed the Nicolaitans and the Valentinians, in wickedness. And then comes home to our Author's plea, viz. They were not all thus defiled, and if a few among them are such, what is that to the Godly? To which Learned and Holy Bullinger gives this answer, I have long ago known this kind of Men, and am not ignorant how much by guile, and deceit, Hypocrisy can do; and it is true, that the wickedness of a few should be no disparagement of the innocent, but you cannot show me one man of them, who is not blemished with some of the foresaid wickednesses; I mean Lying, Treachery, Perjury, Disobedience, Sedition, Filthiness.  
There is one more whom the Author hath found out that gives an honourable Character of the Anabaptists: And they requite him well for it, do they not? Mr. Baxter (saith he) one of their severest enemies in these Nations, yet hath done himself and his Opposites that Right, as to witness to the innocency of their Conversation, in his Defence of the Principle of Love. p. 7. viz That Anabaptists are Godly Men, etc.  
But what Anabaptists doth he speak of? Not those of Germany but England, and not all here neither. I know, saith he, as good and sober Men of that mind, as of theirs that are most against them. And God forbidden that he, or I or any one, should be so uncharitable as to think there are no Godly Anabaptists; but that the number of Godly sober Men of their mind is small, is the judgement of some Godly, Sober, and observing Christians. Some good and sober Men Mr. Baxter knew amongst them, but the generality of them were bad enough, for so we are to understand him in his Plain-Proof, p. 143. I have had, saith he, too much opportunity to know very many of these called Anabaptists, and to be familiar with them, and having first Examined my Heart, lest I should wrong them, out of any disaffection, through difference of judgement, as I clearly discover, that I bear no ill will to any one man of them nor ever did, nor find any passion, but compassion moving me to say what I do; so do I impartially and truly affirm concerning the most of them that I have conversed with, that I have known few of them, [speaking first of their Ministers] so much as labour after the winning of Souls from Sin to God, and bringing them into love with Christ, and Holiness, and Heaven. But the main scope of their endeavours in public and private is to propagate their Opinions, and if they do preach any plain wholesome Doctrine, it is usually but subservient to their great design.  
He chargeth them farther to be the greatest hinderers of the Work of God in converting Souls, by endeavouring to alienate the hearts of the People from Godly and painful Ministers, making it their business to disgrace them, etc. Moreover, that in his own experience he never knew the labours of any zealous Anabaptist that ever God blessed to the true Conversion of many Souls: But many they made mere talkers, Censorious Opinionatists, and usually three leave them-yea I desire, saith he, any sober Christian but to look impartially through all the Land, and tell me where ever any such Teachers lived, but the place in general was much the worse for them; where the Gospel before prospered, and Christians spent their time and conference in the edifying of each others Souls, and in Heavenly duties, and mutual assistance, and living together in unity and love, according to the great Command of Christ, they ordinarily turn all this to vain janglings, and empty, windy, unprofitable disputes: So much for the Teachers. Then after this he shows, Anabaptistry hath been the ordinary inlet to the most horrid Opinions & that few came to the most monstrous Doctrines but it was by this door, and how negligent many of them are of Family-duties, the Lordsday, etc.   

We now come to examine the Apology which is made for the Germane Anabaptist.  
1. First, he saith, They were not the Anabaptists that first began the Sedition, but it was from a conspiracy of Husbandmen against the Bishops, and Canons, which was called the Rustic League, for which he quotes Baronius, how that it began in the year 1502. which was the Praeludium of that great Sedition, which was in its Vigour 1525. according to Osiander's account. But how doth this mend the matter, they were not first in the wickedness, in the sedition, but seconded it? A sorry evasion: and besides the Author is gone off from that which he should speak to, and that is of the uproar and Confusion that was made in Swevia in the year 1525. and did not the Anabaptists begin and propagate that? Spanhemius tells us in his first Chapter, that Nicolas Storch, Mark Stubner, and Thomas Muncer three Anabaptists, were the Persons that began that lamentable Sedition.  
2. The Author tells us Persons of all sorts concerned themselves in it. Like enough, for so it is usual in all popular commotinos, persons of all sorts, and interests, join in. No Man is so weak as to think those 40000 peasants in Swevia, and Franconia were all Anabaptists; but Sleiden in his Com. L. 5. and also Spanhemius informs us, that the Trumpeter and Ringleader was Thomas Muncer, who (with other Anabaptist-Teachers) stirred up the discontented people to rebel against the Magistrates, and embodied them into an Army. It was that impostor, who was their General, that set out his Declaration that his design was to restore Liberty, and to deliver Subjects from the Youke and Tyranny of Princes, which was as much to be cast off, as the Popes of Rome.  
3. He makes an odious comparison between the Protestants of Geneva in the recovery of their Civil and Spiritual Liberty, and these Germans, who, if they had miscarried in their attempt, might (he conceives) have fallen under as much Obloquy, as the chiefest of those People did in their defeat.  
But the actings of Geneva, the Swissers and the Cantons were more justifiable than theirs, and not so barabarous, nor their Tenants so blasphemous as theirs: Notwithstanding the reflections of the Papists, and some others of late, who have in print branded our first Reformations for Rebellions, and they are Men too that would be thought obedient Sons of the Church of England, and of great names: but yet one that hath but half an Eye, may easily see that these Theologasters, either wanted discretion, or affection to the Protestant Interest; and 'tis pity the Virga Censoria is not taken from them, and they turned out of their office, as the Romans used to serve the Censors, when they abused it. But I hope no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can charge those of Geneva to have robbed the Nobility, plundered Towns and Castles, and rifled all that is Sacred as those Germans did, but that they fell off from popery, and sought Reformation in a more regular way.  
4. The Author speaks not right concerning the Commotion at Munster, in saying, Spanhemius acquaints us, that the first stir in the City was about the Protestant Reformation, the Synod (he means Senate) siding with Mr. Rotman and other Reformed Ministers against the Papists and the Bishop that opposed them to Arms. For though the Senate would not obey the command of the Bishop, (who was then at a distance from the City) in taking away some of the Churches, which a little before they had granted for the use of the Reformed Divines, yet this difference was soon composed and it never came to Arms or Blows, Spanhemius tells us.  
5. That which follows is exreamly scandalous, namely, That there is good ground to doubt of the truth of what is reported concerning the Monstrous wickedness, and villainies of John Mathias, and John Becold of Leyden; and what are those grounds of doubt? why,  
1. Because, saith he, the things are written either by malicious Papists their mortal enemies, or else by some of their most inveterate enemies the Protestants, who were willing to take up and improve such reports, to blast not only the whole party of the Anabaptists, but their Principle also.  
Reply.  
I dare say that here are in the latter part of this Sentence, so far forth as it relates to Protestants many untruths, and may sigh over it, that old saying, Quot dicta, tot maledicta. Alas to see whither affection to a cause will carry Men!  
1. Then, the Protestants were not inveterate Enemies to the Anabaptists, but very loving Friends to some of the chiefest of them, both before and after they took up the Opinion, until the Rebellion of Muncer, and that at Munster. Witness the Friendly and Brotherly conference that was between Luther and Muncer at Wittenberg where they had often Conference, and Luther entreated him to be quiet, and not broach such Doctrines as were against Magistracy and Civil Government. Zwinglius dealt tenderly and gently with those that fell off from his Church, for they were his intimate Friends, Musculus visited them in Prison, relieves them, and was their Advocate, and persuaded the Magistrate to be kind, and to use no severity; for that was not the way to reduce Men from their errors.  
2. Bullinger (of whom we have before spoken) gins his Book with a Lamentation at God's Judgements on Christians, for their not profiting by the Word; for which God gives them up to delusions and to a reprobate Sense: he professeth that before he did in silence conceal their Crimes, and spoke less than they committed. Luther, hearing of their vile pranks at Munster, was necessitated (and so were divers other Ministers for the honour of the Reformed Religion which did so much suffer by those Exorbitancies) to put forth a Testimony in print against them; in which he saith, It was plain that Munster was become the habitation of Devils; for so the Justice of God had punished the Sins of Germany, and especially the lose and profane life of those that professed the Gospel; but in this Tragedy of Munster the marvellous Mercy of God evidently appeared, that e had not permitted that old subtle Serpent and cunning Satan, to contrive and govern that business, but only had given way to some Silly Blockish Devil, who seemed not well skilled in Villainy, to be their Guide and Conductor; and that though the State was disturbed by it, yet he conceived the Church on that account would receive the less prejudice by it.  
3. Spanhemius, in his History of their Actings, saith, That the Protestant Ministers were extremely troubled at what happened, and the Papists vilified the Gospel by reason of it; for the Popish party said this was the fruits of revolting from them; and they were afraid the Magistrate would have an evil eye upon them, and suspect that the liberty which they granted, might tend to the sowing of Sedition, if they did not declare against them, and preach down the Doctrine, and Practices of those Anabaptists.  
4. Lastly, What other thoughts can we have then of that uncharitable passage, That the Protestants were willing to take up and improve such reports, to balst not only the party of Anabaptists, but their Principle, but that it is the Ebullition of a Malicious, or at best Prejudicial Spirit? and yet for all that if such tumultuous and rebellious carriages proceed from the distempered brains of some Men, I see not why they should be imputed to those amongst us who are of a better temper. But if from their Opinions and the very Constitution of their Sect, as we have cause to judge much of it doth, it will be something difficult to make it out how it may not be chargeable upon all. But I think our Antagonist is the only Man that ever Apologized for those Germans: But welfare a sure friend in a corner! it seems he loves them so well that he would fain save their credit, though by laying an imputation of forgery on the most faithful Historians and grave Divines since the Reformation. Yet these Historians cannot be so put off; for they are punctual, name Persons, Time Place, Opinions, Condemnation, and Punishment, all matters of Fact open to the World: But if all who bear witness against an evildoer must be held as Enemies, and their Testimony be rejected under that Plea; and nothing believed but what themselves are pleased to acknowledge upon record, who will be guilty?  
2. His other Plea is as follows: Another thing there was, saith he, by which people in all Ages took occasion to misrepresent this People at Munster, That they were for Community of Goods, casting their Estates into one common Stock, and was the same thing that Osiander tells us Muncer did in Mulhusian in Thuringia 1524. And which the Waldenses did respecting the Example, Act. 4.34.  
O fearful! And did not John Mathias their chief Prophet (as they called him) take an excellent course to effect it, by setting forth a Proclamation to be read through the City, requIring all Persons upon pain of Death to bring forth their Glod and Silver, Silver, and all their Goods, unto a public place appointed for that purpose; the severity of which Edict so astonished the People that they were fain to obey it.  
The other Objection which the Author attempts to Answer, is that of the Waldensian Confession in favour of Infant-Baptism. The first is that of Laodislaus King of Bohemia 1508. presented to Ferdinand 1535. Which Confession he looks on as signifying nothing to the point, because they were a mixed People, some for, and some against Infant-Baptism, and disowned the name of the Waldenses. This indeed is something to invalidate the Authority of that Confession, to which I can say nothing, having not had the opportunity to see it. However if it be so, as he saith, than we understand that those of them that were against Infant-Baptism were not Waldenses, no more than they who were for it.  
The other, saith he, is a passage in the Spiritual Almanac, owning the Baptism of Children, which he conceives was written by George Morel, 1530. one of the Ministers sent by the Waldenses of Provence to Oecolampadius, Bucer, and Capito, at a time when they were in a declining condition, and for self-preservation were ready to comply with the Mass.  
I must take the freedom to tell the Author that he doth prevaricate again, and is more than ordinarily at a loss how to come off handsomely in this thing: For;  
1. He cannot deny the Confession; that's smething for us: you have the Confession taken from Perin the French-Historian, in pag. 62. of the 2d Part of our Answer, to which I refer you.  
2. He supposeth it was put forth by G. Morel about the year 1530. and why so late? others suppose it of an ancienter date, but however the Church unanimously did assent to Infant-Baptism.  
3. Farther; he supposeth the Confession to be made at that juncture when they sent Morel to Oeclampadius for Resolution, whether they might not be present with their bodies at Mass, so they kept their hearts right with God? This is not to the purose, for we gathere hence no more than this, that God's own People are Subject to sinful fears, and are sometimes tempted to sin rather than to suffer, and that the fear of Man worketh a snare: all which you may observe from the excellent Letter sent them by Oecolampadius, p. 67, 68 of the 2d Part of our Answer. But all this while, what is this to take us off from believing that they were against Infant-Baptism, which they say had been owned and practised amongst them for some hundred years. This they scrupled not, nor sent for any Resolutin in the case; nor did they Baptise their Children out of fear of the Papists, who accused them that they were against it, because they had in detestation their humane Inventions added to the Sacrament, and for that reason delayed the Baptising their Children until their own Pastors came home, which were often and long abroad in Propagating the Gospel.  
4. He saith, Oecolampadius sharply rebuking them [in his Letter] they thereupon promised to suit themselves to the Documents they received from him. What they are, see in the aforesaid Letter, I am sure there is nothing of Baptism in it, but only good counsel to stand fast in the Truth, and keep themselves from Idolatry: and there was a good effect of it, as appeared by their constant suffering, for persecution came suddenly upon it.  
He saith, In conformity to those Documents they received from him, it appears there is little or no difference between the French, and German-Protestants , especially those that own Calvin's way, being most shrunk up into little more than a bare form.  
But why doth he talk in this manner, when all the Documents they then received was to endear Christ, and his Truth to them, and to fortify them against suffering? And what an extravagancy is it in the Author to take occasion from this Circumstance to slur the French, and Germane Protestants, many of whom doubtless have as much of the power of Godliness as himself, or as any of the Mennonists, or Anabaptists at this day in Holland, whose Religion we understand by some friends of theirs, is pitifully shrunk up to little more than the Form of Dipping, & which is worse, they say they be very Erroneous in more considerable points.  
6. Yet more against them: he accuseth them to have little of the old purity left amongst them. And what need hath the Author to vilify them at this rate, and how impertinent is it to the Province he hath undertaken. The Lord enable us to search our own hearts, and we shall see cause enough to judge ourselves, and not be forward in Censuring others: and it is to be feared the Author condemns them the more, as having little of purity because they are for Infant-Baptism, his Zeal is so much carried out about the little things of Religion.  
7. But this, saith he, cannot at all weaken or enervate their old Confession, Practice, and Witness, confirmed with so great authority, and for so many Ages together. The words are good, but being applied to a cipher, a nonentity, they become a piece of Ridicule; for there is no such Confession to be found, unless it be in Utopia: Nay there is nothing looks like a Confession that excludes Infants from Baptism, as appears after all their endeavours to prodace it. See this, p. 46, 47, 48. of the 2d Part of our Answer.  
8. He Professeth ingenuously amongst all his search, that except those two passages, (1) the Confession presented to Laodislaus, the 12th Article of which is for Infant-Baptism, and that in the Spiritual Almanac [which declares the Baptising of their Children] he can find none. Very good: however he hath not gained much advantage to his cause; having found two Confessions for Infant-Baptism, but never one against it; for he must reckon the lying accusations of the Papists, that they were against Baptising Children, when they only abhorred their filthy Ceremonies, and purged themselves from the calumany, by putting forth their Confessions in which they Profess their judgement for it.  
9 Lastly, In may little search I have found another Cnfession, and such a one as may shame the Author for his prevarication, and that is it which we have before mentioned in the 2d part of our Answer p. 65. The Confession made at Angrongne; where the Heads of every Family, with the Pastors signed several Articles, and the 17th is for Infant-Baptism as before.   

Of the Witness pretended to be born by the Novatians and Donatists.  
THe Novatians and Donatists, saith the Author, gave Witness against Infant-Baptism, as Austin's 3d and 4th Book against the Donatists doth demonstrate, wherein he manageth the Argument fof Infant-Baptism against them with great Zeal, etc.  
Reply.  
1. In this the Author is guilty of a great mistake, and we have no Authority for this thing but his ipse dixit, his own saying so; neither the Magdeburgenses that writ largely of their Opinions, nor any of the Church-Histories; nor Danaeus in his Opusculum, nor Zanchy who treats of them in his Volumes, nor Beza, nor Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments, nor Clerk that hath a large Story of them, nor any other that ever I could meet with, assert this, that the Donatists were against Infant-Baptism.  
2. Though the Novatians, Donatists, and Pelagius denied Original Sin, yet all three allowed and practised Infant-Baptism. Dr. Featly in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pag. 31.  
3. Danaeus in his Opusculum, speaks of the Origianl, 
De Donatistis, & corum Origine, Progressu, & Doctrina. pag. 673. to 676.  Progress, and Doctrine of the Donatists, from pag. 653. to 676. where though he sets down the Errors of the Donatists, and gives us the sum of all Austin's Disputes with them, speaks not a word of this, but in divers places shows they were for Rebaptisation of such as were Baptised by Heretics, or not in their own Churches, which Austin vehemently opposeth; and this I conceive is the ground of the Authors mistake, and which I am the more inclinable to believe, because he hath a particular tract of all the Heresies collected by Austin, 
Augustinus de Haeresibus Cap. 69. p. 995. Danaeus.  and the 69th Chapter is, de Donatistarum Erroribus: The Errors of the Donatists. And in it is no mention made of their being against Baptising Children, and in the 38. Chap. of the same Tract we have an account of Novatus, from whom they are called Novatians, and of the Errors they held, but not one hint of any such thing as Antipaedobaptism: they were also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quatenus a reliquo Christianorum hominum caetu se tanquam Sanctiores separant; pretending that they were more pure than any of the Churches of Christ besides: 
Posterior aetas ad praegravandam bonam S. Sancti Evangelii causam, homines vere Evangelicos infami Catharorum nomine calumniata est— ut Waldenses pauperes de Lugduno, Arnaldistae ab Arnoldo quodam, etc.  which title of Catharists [or Puritans] came in process of time, saith Danaeus, to be used to the reproach of Holy-Men; so, saith he, the Waldenses and poor Men of Lions were branded with the infamous name of Catharists.  
4. But let it be taken for granted that the Novatians and Donatists were of kindred to the Author and his party [as indeed the Lineaments of their Faces and Complexion are in many things alike with some that are against Infant-Baptism], ye●● do not know what honour will redound to then cause from it, for both the Novatians and Donatists were vile persons and always condemned for Heretics. We shall therefore give the Reader an account of their Rise, Errors, and Agreement; I dare not say with those called Anabaptists amongst us in every thing, that shall be set down, but most exactly with those in Germany before mentioned.  
Novatus.  
Under the Persecution of Deeius the Roman Emperor Anno Christi 250, being the 7th Persecution, risen up the first Quarrel and Heresy of Novatus, who in those days made a great disturbance in the Church, holding this Opinion, That they who once renounced the Faith, and for fear of torments had offered incense to the Idols, although they repent thereof, yet could not afterward be reconciled nor admitted to the Church. This Novatus being first Priest under Cyprian at Carthage, afterward by stirring up discord and faction, began to disturb the Bishopric of Cyprian, to appoint there a Deacon, against the Bishop's mind or knowledge. and also to allure, and separate certain of the Brethren from the Bishop. After this he went to Rome, kept there the like stir with Cornelius, setting himself up as Bishop of Rome against Cornelius [altar contra altar, as the Magdeburgenses have it] which was the Lawful Bishop of Rome before. The which to bring to pass he used this practice: First, he had alured to him to be his Adherents 3, or 4 good Men, and Holy Confessors, which had suffered before great torments for their Confession. Afterward he enticed three simple Bishops about the coast of Italy to repair to Rome, under pretence to make an end of certain Controversies then in hand. This done, he caused them (whether by making them drunk, or by other crafty counsel) to lay their hands upon him and to make him Bishop, and so they did. Fox Acts Monum. 1. Part, p. 84. We have it also for the most part in the Magdeb. Cent. 3. Cap. 7. p. 186. Sub Decio Schisma Novati. He for his wicked Opinions was condemned in a Synod at Rome, Magd. Cent. 3. Cap. 9 p. 293.  
Donatus.  
In the year of our Lord 331, or a little more early, there sprang up in Africa the Donatists, taking their name from Donatus. This Man, 

Initium ejus haereseos Hieronimi Chronicom in Annum Christi, 331. & Paulo antiquiorem Donatum facit. Magd. Cent. 4. C. 5. p. 375.  
Donatus cumsua parte Schisma illud in Haeresim convertit. Magdeb. ibid. They speak of their cruelty, Cent 4. Cap. 5. p. 379. Clark of the Persecution of the Donatists p. 89, 90. in his Martyrology.   as the Magdeburgenses inform us, Cent. 4. c. 5. p. 375. fell out with Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage, because he was against his will Ordained Bishop, but when Donatus and his party could not prove what was Objected against Cecilianus, and they were found liars; they were not contented to make a Schism only in the Church, but afterward broached Heresies, as the magdeburg's tell us in the same place, and this Schism ended not there, but came at length to Persecution. For, as Glark in his Martyrology informs us, Austin complains in sundry places, and in his 50th Epistle he thus writes; In hoc labore multi Catholici, & maxim Episcopi, & Clerici, horrenda & dura perpessi sunt quae commemorare longum est. In this disturbance the Orthodox, especially the Bishops and Ministers, suffered cruel and horrible things, the particulars whereof are too long to recite. For some had their Eyes put out, some their Tongues cut off, some slain outright; to speak nothing of their plunderings and outrageous burn, not only of private Habitations, but Churches also. Julian the Apostate favoured these Heretics, because he knew they were such a pest to the Church of Christ.   

How the Anabaptists of former times did Symbolise with the Novatians and Donatists.  
1. The Novatians & Donatists denied Original Sin.  
2. 
† Ex Novatianorum sontibus Ortum esse hunc Errorem non dubito. Danaeus in Opusculo suo; de Pelag. Errore, p. 678.  The Novatians & Donatists confined the Church of Christ to their Sect only. Magdeb. Cent. 4. C. 5. p. 376. Ecclesiam dixerunt nullibi, esse quam in Africa & quidem tantum esse in parte Donati. No true Church but of their own party, and all others esteemed Heathens.  
3. If any were Converted, or rather Perverted to the Donatists, they Rebaptised them. Magd. Cent. 4. C. 5. p. 376.  
4. The Novatians held every man had ; so did the Donatists, and from the Novatians Pelagius sucked in that Error. And say the 
* The Donatists hold— cum arbitrio libero homo creatus est; & si vult credit in Christum, si non vult, non credit, si vult perseverat, si non vult, non perseverat. Magdeb. Cent. 4. ut supra.  Magdeburgenses, the Donatists hold, if a man will believe, he may; if not, he may not believe; if he will persevere he may, if he will not he may choose.  
5. The Novatians and Donatists both held that upon the commission of a great Sin, a Man was not to be Communicated with, though he repent. Magdeb. Cent. 4. ut supra.  
6. 
* d The Magdeburgenses speak the same of the Donatists. Cent. 4.  supra. Non sine peccato volunt videri, sed etiam justificatores esse hominum, etc.  Zanchy tells us, that the Donatists putant se esse puros, & ab omni peccatorum labe immunes esse, adeo ut nihil necesse habeant veniam peccatorum suorum a Deo postulare. They are so pure and free from Sin, that they have no need to ask pardon of God. And Beza upon John 1.3, 8. says, the Donatists and Anabaptists hold the same— Itaque; non homines sed monstra hominum sunt. Pelagiani, Cathari, Donatistae, Anabaptistae, qui ex hoc loco perfectionem illam somniant aqua absunt ipsi omnium hominum longissime. The Pelagians, Novatians, Donatists, and Anabaptists, do from this place dream of perfection etc.  
1. 
* Dr. Prid. calls the Germane Anabaptists: Evangelii opprobrium, and saith, isti ut Paedobaptismum prorsus tollerent, peccatum negarunt Originale, ut non subesset causa, cur Insantes Baptizarentur.  So did the Anabaptists heretofore in Germany, and some still in England. Pontan. Catalogue. Haeret. Dr. Prid. de Pec. Origin. Lect. 22. p. 331.  
2. 
* Dr. Prid. calls the Germane Anabaptists: Evangelii opprobrium, and saith, isti ut Paedobaptismum prorsus tollerent, peccatum negarunt Originale, ut non subesset causa, cur Insantes Baptizarentur.  Anabaptists judge none of the true Church, but those of their way and Practice.  
3. So if any be admitted into the Churches of the Anabaptists, they must be Rebaptised; so formerly in Germany. Pontan. Catal. Haeret.  
4. The Anabaptists in Germany and some in England have held the same, viz. — thence they are known by the name of Free-Willers. Pontan. Catal. Haeres.  
5. As the Novatians heretofore at Rome, so the Anabaptists now, saith Zanchy, hold there is no hope of pardon for him that falleth into a great sin after Baptism, upon a misunderstanding of that place, Heb. 6. It is impossible to renew them again by repentance. Zanchy Tom. 7. Loc. 8. de Symbolo Apostolorum p. 756. So Sleidan tells us the same p. 529. denying absolution to Men sinning after Baptism, though they repent.  
6. Alsted in his Compendium says, The Anabaptists held they were pure, and without Sin. Beza saith the same upon John 1.3, 8.  
Let not the Reader mistake, as if I designed to represent those who are called Anabaptists amongst us, were all of them tainted with the forementioned Errors of the Novatians and Donatists, for I suppose the generality of them here in England do abhor the owning of such Tenets; not but that some are tainted with some of them, but others I know to be as Orthodox in judgement (the denying Infant-Baptism excepted) and holy in conversation, as any other Christians that I know.  
I shall conclude this with this observation of the vain attempt of my Antagonist, in bringing in those Ancient Heretics for a Testimony against Infant-Baptism, which I persuade myself was never before done by any man; and then I cannot but smile to see how neatly he hath dressed them up, and in such a comely habit, that they look just like those called Independents; yet it is certain they have no affinity with them. For:  
1. He tells us, They were for purity of Church-members, and that none ought to be admitted into Churches but visible Saints.  
This is very good, but Beza (whom I shall believe before the Author) says otherwise in his Annotat. upon Ephes. 5.27. That he might make unto himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle, etc. From this place, saith he, the Donatists gather, that the Orthodox Churches were not worthy of the name of Churches, 
Donatistae ex hoc loco colligebant Orthodoxorum Ecclesias nomine Ecclesiarum indignas esse, & perfectionem justitiae volebant in hac vita constituere. Beza in Ephes. 5.27.  and that from hence they conclude a perfection of Holiness in this life. In this then the Author hath misrepresented the Donatists, and abused his Reader.  
2. He saith, they were for purity of Church-Discipline, and keeping-out such as apostatised or sinned scandalousty, when we find they were for keeping-out all that so sinned, although they repent. So Novatus and Donatus, and their followers held, that after Baptism there was no Reconciliation, or readmittance to the Church, though never so penitent.  
That they both agreed in Asserting the power, rights and privileges of particular Churches against Antichristian Encroachments, of Presbyters, Bishops, Synods: When Novatus from an ordinary Priest was so ambitious to be made a Bishop; opposed Cornelius the lawful Bishop of Rome, and by ungodly means set up himself Bishop, after he had also disturbed the Bishopric of Cyprian; and for his wickedness was at last condemned by a Synod. And for the other Donatus, he set himself against the lawful Bishop of Carthage, and he, and his adherents were found liars, and afterward turned cruel Persecutors, destroying all Churches that were not of their mind.  
4. That they Baptised again those whose first Baptism they had ground to doubt, but not because they were against Infant-Baptism, but for other reasons.   

Of the Witness pretended to be born by the Ancient Britain's  
Confidence's is a great matter, but when the groundlesness of it is discovered, it doth not in the least advantage a cause, but reflect shame upon the owners thereof; and truly our Antagonist hath not wanted it, throughout all his Discourse: And there remains yet a high degree of it in this pretence of his, that the Ancient Britain's were also against Infant-Baptism; for in all the Volumes of History relating to this Island, he can find but one slender hint to fasten a Conjecture (for it is no more) that the Ancient- Britain's were of his side, and that is from a passage which he finds in Fabian's Chronicle which you shall hear by and by.  
Know therefore that in the year Anno 596, Austin was sent from Gregory Bishop of Rome, with near forty more, to preach the Gospel to the Inhabitants of this Island, who were then Pagans, and as Vestegan saith, without the knowledge of God serving, and Sacrificing unto their Idols of Thor, Woden, Friga: It pleased God to make them in a short time instrumental to convert Ethelbert then King of Kent; Now after he was Baptised into the Faith of Christ, with an innumerable company more, (Regis ad exemplum); The foresaid Austin with the concurrence of some others, as Mellitus and Justus, two sent as Coadjutors from Gregory, assembled and gathered together some of the British Bishops and Doctors who were then dwelling in- Wales, to which place the Britain's had long before been driven, and there Professed the Christian Faith, and worshipped God in purity): In this Assembly Austin charged them that they should preach with him the Word of God to the Englishmen, and also that they should reform certain Rites and usages in their Church, specially for that of keeping Easter-Day, Baptising after the manner of Rome, and such other like. To this the Britain's would not agree, refusing to leave the custom which they so long had continued without the assent of them all which used the same. After that Austin gathered another Synod, to the which came seven Bishops of Britain with the wisest Men of that famous Abbey of Bangor, who took offence at Austin's Lordly carriage, never rising up out of his Seat, nor giving them that respect they looked for. Fox, Acts and Monuments 1. Book p. 154. But Fabian expresseth himself otherwise as the Author notes, thus, viz. Then he said to them, since you will not assent to my Hosts generally, assent you to me especially in three things. The first is that you keep Easter in due form and time as is ordained. The second, that you give Christendom to Children. And the third, that you preach to the Saxons, as I have exhorted you; and all the other debate I shall suffer you to amend amongst yourselves; but, saith Fabian, they would not. To whom then Austin said, that if they would not take peace with their Brethren, they should receive War with their Enemies, etc. From their denial to comply with Austin's Propositions, whereof that was one the giving Christendom to Children, the Author doth confidently conclude, they were against Infant. Baptism: But that there is no sufficient ground hence for such a Conclusion will appear.  
1. First, Because no such thing is mentioned by other Historians as Beda, Cretensis in Polychron. Huntingtonensis, which writ of this matter, they speak only in general. Mr. Fox relates it, viz. of Baptising after the manner of Rome, without mentioning Children.  
Secondly, Because Fabian is nigro carbone notatus, looked upon as no faithful Historian; and I find Mr. Fox in his Martyrology, refuse to give credit to his Relation in other things, as he doth not observe his words of giving Christendom to Children, in the Story which he gives us.  
Thirdly, Neither do Fabian's Words import that they were any more against Baptising Children, than Preaching of the Gospel, for they refused to do both to the Saxons; and that possibly because they would confine their labours to their own Diocese, and attend their own Flocks; or rather because they would not Subject themselves to the Bishop of Rome (for they told Austin to his Face they owed him no Subjection) and to the imperious command of such an upstart, proud Prelate, as Austin was, between whom and them there had passed some heat of words, which made them rise in disdain, and departed thence in great displeasure.  
Fourthly, Or they might refuse to give Christendom to Children after Austin's mode with the corrupt Rites and Ceremonies in use by him. For other Historians express the Injunction given that it should be after the Roman Manner.  
Fiftly, But to put it out of all doubt that the Words of Fabian was not Austin's, but rather Fabians own Paraphrase upon them, appears by what we find in the Preface to Fabian that what he relates of this matter he hath it from Beda; if therefore no such passage can be found there, than we are sure the Author is mistaken in his Conjecture, and it is a great presumption to lay such stress upon a doubtful passage that may admit of several interpretations. We shall now give the Reader an account what Beda saith to the thing, viz. Dicebat autem eyes, quoth in multis quidem nostrae consuetndini, immô universalis ecclesiae contraria geritis; & tamen si in tribus his mihi obtemperare vultis, ut Pascha suo tempore celebretis, ut Ministerium Baptizandi, quo Deo renascimur juxta morem sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae, & Apostolicae Ecclesiae compleatis, ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis Verbum Domini, caeteraque agitis quamvis moribus nostris contraria, aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus. At illi nihil horum se facturos, neq, 
Bed. Hist. Ecclesiast. Lib. 2. c. 2.  illum pro Archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant. In English thus— But he said unto them, in as much as you do contrary to our custom, yea to the custom of the Universal Church, nevertheless, if ye will obey me only in these three things. sc. That you keep Easter in its proper time, Administer Baptism, whereby we are born again to God, after the manner of the Holy Church of Rome, and the Apostolical-Church; and preach the Word of God together with us unto the English Nation, we will patiently bear all other things which you do, although contrary to our customs. But they answered they would do none of these, or own him for Archbishop.  
What now is become of Fabian, that sandy Foundation, upon which the Author builds his belief and assertion, that the Ancient Britain's were against Infant-Baptism. When therefore Austin perceived that they were so refractory, he told them, if they would not take Peace with their Brethren, they should receive War with their Enemies  
And if they disdained to preach the way of life to the English Nation, they should suffer by their hands the revenge of Death. And which Austin accomplished, faith Fabian, accordingly, by bringing the Saxons upon them to their utter ruin. This also is supposed to be another Paraphrase of Fabian's upon Austin's Words, which according to 
* Sicque completum est praesagium isti pontifici Augustini. Hist. Bed. L. 2. c. 2. Editione whelochianâ.  Bede were delivered by way of Prophecy, and not that he had an intention to revenge himself by bringing in Enemies upon them for their destruction. And we find Mr. Fox in his Act. and Mon. put a favourable construction upon the Words of Austin, and lays most of the blame upon the British Bishops, whose Words are; Of both these parties the Reader may judge what he pleaseth, I cannot see but both together were to be blamed, and as I cannot but accuse the one, so I cannot defend the other. First, Austin in this matter can in no wise be excused, who shown no more humility in this Assembly to seven Bishop's coming at his commandment to the Council. Again, the Britain's were as much or more to blame, who so much neglected their Spiritual duty, in revenging their Temporal injury, that they denied to join their helping labour to turn the Idolatrous Saxons to the way of Life and Salvation, in which respect all private cases ought to give place and be forgotten. For which cause, it is no great marvel that thestroak of God's punishment light upon them, according to Austin's saying, that if they would not take Peace, etc.  
We shall now leave all to the Reader, and let him consider (if it be worth his while) and weigh the Story with all circumstances, and believe as he please; I shall add one thing more, and that is, Let it be taken for granted that these Britain's were against Infant-Baptism: Nevertheless about 200 years before, Infant-Baptism was owned by Pelagius himself (although he denied Original Sin) which was a Britain, and a member of the Monastery of Bangor, as the Author himself quotes in his History of Christianity pag. 11. And Mr. Tombs himself in pag 20. of his Answer says, the Pelagians did grant the Baptising of Infants etc. And I have better Authority than he, even Austin himself, that had so much to do with Pelagius in his Book de peccato Originali Cap. 32. hath this saying, Pelagius etsi Baptisma Infantium verbo concedit, re tamen ipsa tollit & negat. Though Pelagius grants Infant-Baptism in word, yet he takes it away and denies it in deed. And again Cap. 18. upon the same point of Original Sin Austin hath this passage;— Baptizari parvulos ut in regnum Dei ingrediantur ex Pelagii Sententia. 
Danaei Opus. omnia Genevae ex Lib. Aug. de peocato Orinali. p. 692.  'Twas Pelagius his opinion that Children were to be Baptised, that they may have entrance into the Kingdom of God. So ex Lib. Aug. Cap. 19 de peccato Originali; there is more. Thus than you see we have a more ancient Testimony for Infant-Baptism by this Britain, than those whom the Author fancies strongly to be against it; who lived 200 years nearer the Apostles times than they. I will conclude it in the Words of Mr. Fuller in his Church-History: Pelagius, saith he, was bred in the Monastery of Bangor, where he lived with 2000 Monks, whose hands were the only Benefactors for their Bellies, Abby-labourers, not Abby-lubbers, like their Successors in after Ages— Infinite are the deductions and derived consequences of Pelagius his Errors amongst which Mr. Fuller says, there are these two in reference to Infants:  
1. That Infants were born without Original sin.  
2. That they were Baptised not to be freed from Original sin, but thereby to be Adopted into the Kingdom of God, as was before noted out of Aust.  
There are yet remaining 4 or 5 trifling Arguments to prove the Ancient Britain's did oppose the Baptising Infants.  
1. Because they received the Christian Faith, Doctrine and Discipline from the Apostles and Asiatick-Churches, who hath no such thing as Baptising Infants amongst them as you have largely heard] When the Magdeburgenses tell us expressly, that it was in use in the Asiatic Churches. Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 124. In this Age they say, Baptismus Infantibus datur— Children were Baptised: and this we have abundantly shown before from the Testimony of Cyprian.  
2. Because it appears they so fully prised, and faithfully adhered to the Scriptures, etc. And no such thing is to be found there] This is the old Objection which we have often answered. See Chap. 1. Part 1 of our Answer. So Chap 5. Part 2.  
3. Because they did so vehemently reject Human- Traditions, in the Worship of God, especially all Romish- Innovations, Rites, and Ceremoneis] We find no such vehemency of spirit in the Story as the Author speaks of, unless it was against Austin's pride; or beacuse Austin shown them not that honour which their own proud hearts expected. And whereas he saith, they so rejected Romish Rites, but Infant-Baptism came from Rome's Ordination and Imposition] This is pitifully poor, for it was practised as we have shown in Africa and Asia hundreds of years before this time,  any Popes as Universal Bishops were in being. It was practised in Tertullian's and Cyprian's days, this none denies.  
5. Because Constantine the Great, the Son of Constance and Helena (both Christians) born in Britain in the year 305. was not Baptised till Aged, as before. And we have before given you the reason why his Baptism was put off. I refer the Reader to Chap. 7. Part 1. of my Answer; you have it in Cent. 4. p. 18.  
5. Because of the Correspondency and Unity, that was betwixt the French Christians, afterward called Waldenses, and them. And for this very reason if we had none else, we conclude the Britain's were for Infant-Baptism, because the Waldenses were, as we have sufficiently made appear. There is one Reason more so weak that I think not meet to say thing to it; and in reference to the confidence of my Antagonist, that the Waldenses, Donatists, Britain's were all against Infant-Baptism, when neither of them were.  
I shall conclude with a Distich, which I think may not improperly be applied to his whole Discourse; 
Ridiculus tandem ecce cavis mus prodit ab antris,  
Quem gravidi Montes parturiere diu.      

ANACEPHALAEOSIS, Or, a Recapitulation of the History of the Magdeburgenses concerning Infant-Baptism, from the first to the thirteenth Century.  


CENT. I.  
1. THey tell us Cent. 1. L. 1. C. 4. p. 152. That Baptism was taken from the Jewish custom of Washing: and forasmuch as Infant-Baptism was in use among the Jews together with Circumcision, as a Rite of Initiation for both the natural Jews, and Proselytes of Age, who were with their Infants Circumcifed and Baptised, as Ainsworth shows upon Gen. 17. out of the Rabbis. Also Goodwin in his Moses and Aaron, and Mr. Selden the great Antiquary; and Dr. Hammond in his Resolution about Infant-Baptism proves, that Christ took up the usage of Baptising from the Jews, and made it a Sacrament, and accommodated it, as a Rite of Initiation into the Profession of Christianity; it follows by proportion, that the Children of them that profess the Christian Faith are to be Baptised with their Parents, as was the custom of the Jews.  
2. There is nothing in Christ's Commission, Mat. 28. that is against it; for the Teaching there that is required, excludes not the Children of Believers from Baptism, as appears by the consideration of the Condition of the Persons to whom Christ sent his Apostles to Baptise, who were Aliens, and the whole World in regard of the new-Administration were such. Nor is that in Mark 16. exclusive of Infants; though it requires believing to go before baptising. And the reason is, because the same condition that is required there, to precede Baptism, is required to precede Salvation: So that if the sense of the place be that Infants must not be Baptised because they cannot Believe, it will as directly follow they must not be saved, because they cannot Believe. The way of answering one, answers both, and by the same distinction the Salvation of Infants may be maintained, their Baptism may.  
3. If the Import of the Commission had not been to take in the Children with the Parents in Baptism, it had been needful for Christ to have given them a Caveat, when be sent them forth to disciple the Nations, to this effect.— See that ye forbear to Baptise the Children of the Nations, and that because the Apostles knew, that Children under the former Administration were reputed disciples, belonged to the Covenant; and had Crcumcision the Seal thereof applied to them, and that Baptism succeeded in the place thereof. Col. 2.11, 12.  
4. The Magdeburgenses say, though we have no particular example of any Infant's Baptised in this Century, yet Origen and Cyprian (that lived in the time of those that saw the Apostles) affirm that Infants were Baptised in the Apostles days. Cent. 1. L. 2. C. 6. p. 496. and that the custom of Baptising them was transmitted from them to Posterity. Cent. 1. L. 1. C. 4. p. 151.  
5. Though we have no express example, yet we have something Equivalent thereto. As,  
1. The Baptising whole Households or Families, of which we have such frequent mention in the Acts. As Lydia's Family Act. 16.15. though there be no hint of any one that Believed but herself. So Stephana's Household, 1 Cor. 1.16. and divers others. When once the Head of the Family Professed his Faith, all the Family were by and by Baptised. As under the Law when the Master of a Family was Proselyted, he and his were forthwith Circumcised. And 'tis altogether improbable that in so many households that are said to be Baptised there should be no Infants, when we can scarce find one Family without them.  
2. No Children of Believing Parents are mentioned to have been Baptised afterwards, during the space of 60 years, for so long it was from the time that John the Baptist began his Ministry to the time that John the Evangelist ended his: in which time there could be no less than thousands and ten thousands of Children born of Christian Parents, and grown up to Maturity, and yet we find not one of all these Baptised at years of discretion, and therefore may well conclude they were Baptised in Infancy.   

CENT. I.  
Nothing in Christ's Commission against it, nor in the Apostles Writings.    


CENT. II.  
The Ancient Fathers of the Greek-Church for Infant-Baptism.  
Justin Martyr who lived (by calculation) in St. John's days, must needs know what was done amongst the Apostles, gives several hints for Infant-Baptism in is unquestionable Works, as in his Dialogue with Triphon, Part 2. Prop. 3. wrote 150 years after Christ.  
Irenaeus that lived in the same Age, within a hundred years after the Apostles, and was a Bishop in France according to Helvicus in the year 170 of our Lord, within 73 years of St. John: and as noted by Mr. Baxter must live consequently within 43. years of St. John, for he would not be Bishop till about 30 years old; and we have his Testimony for it very plainly, Lib. 2. Advers. Haeres. C. 39 speaking of Infants being born again, that is, by the Laver of Regeneration viz, Baptism. Dr. Hammond Resolution. Sec. 4. p. 212.   

CENT. II.  
Infant-Baptism opposed by none. Magdeb. Cent 2. Cap. 4. p. 48. de Baptismo.  
Nec usquam legitur Infantes hoc seculo a Baptismo remotos esse. Infants were not excluded Baptism in this Age.    


CENT. III.  
Infant-Baptism was in use in this Age as appears from Tertullian, who lived in the first hundred years after the Apostles, and expresseth himself thus in his Book de Anima, viz. That the Children of the Faithful are holy by birth, which is Parallel to that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7.13. And whereas 'tis said he was for the delay of it; the Magdeburgenses tell us, so he was also in respect of the Aged, he had such a superstitious conceit of Baptism that he thought it best for all people to delay it, of all conditions and Ages Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 124. and they say that he held a strange Opinion indeed, that it was not fit for youngmen, unmarried, nor young. Widows to be Baptised, & why? because in these the lust of Concupiscence was not extinguished. Cent. 3.  
More Greek Fathers for Infant-Baptism.  
1. Origen, who lived Anno 226. is most express for it, affirming that it was transmitted to the Church from the Apostles, as in his Comment upon Levit. C. 12.13. Hom. 8. and in Hom. 14. on Luke, and upon the 6th Rom. And though we have them not extant in Greek, yet being translated by Jerom, as the magdeburg's and Dr. Hammond observe from his Epistle to Heraclius, prefixed to the Comment; we have his Authority to secure us that they are his own.  
2. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who besides his own Testimony (who flourished about 248. and according to Bucol nearer Christ, in 222) gives us in his Epistle to Fidus, the Testimony of an African Council of 66 Bishops. Magd. Cent. 3 C. 9 p. 205. Synod Afric. de Infant. Baptizandis.   

Opposed by none.    


CENT. iv  
We have in this Age the Testimony of divers other Greek-fathers' for it, as Nazianzen, who lived in the year of Christ 375. and shows it was in use in his time in his Orat. 3. in S. Lavacrum. Magdeb. Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 417. where he is for it in case of death, and in his 40th Oration he owns is absolutely thus— Hast thou a young-Child, saith he, let it be Baptised from an Infant, let it be early Consecrated to the Spirit.  
Farther, the magdeburg's say, they have before shown out of Origen, and Cyprian, that the Baptism of Children was in use in the African Churches; and they also prove it continued in this Age from the 124th Question of Athanasius, and from Nazianzen, that it was Practised in the Asiatic Churches. Magd. ut supra.  
Chrysostom, another Greek Father, who lived Anno 382 was for it: so was  
Bazil, that flourished about the same time; he gives Testimony to it, Lib. 3. contra Eunomium— What say you of Infants, may we Baptise them? Yea, for so we are taught by the Circumcision of Children.  
In Concurrence with them, we have the Testimony of the Latin Fathers who were their Contemporaries, as  
1. Ambrose, who lived about Anno 381. he speaks for Infant baptism in his Book of Abraham, the Patriarch.  
2. Jerome also, contrà Pelag. l. 3. and in his Epistle to Laeta, he is much for it.  
3. Austin is for it, none more; he lived about 391. The Church, saith he, always had it, always held it: 
Aust. Serm. 5. de Verb. Apost.  and in lib. cont. Donatist. cap. 24. disputing against the Donatists (who denied Original Sin, but not Infant Baptism any more than Pelagius, whose Disciple he was) saith, That which is universally received, and practised, etc.    


CENT. V  
In this Age Children were baptised, say the Magdiburgenses, Cent. 5. C. 6. p. 654. Both the Adult and Infants   

CENT. V  
Not opposed by any, not the Donatists, as H.D. falsely suggests; for though they denied Original Sin, yet not Infant-baptism, and therefore not mentioned in the Catalogue of their Heresies. Magd. Cent. 5. C 5. p. 628. de haeresi Donatistatum,    


CENT. VI  
In this Age Infant-baptism was in use, as appears by the Speech of Maxentius, which the Magdiburgs quote, viz. We believe Inants' newly born are to be baptised, Magd. Cent. 6. c. 4. p. 227. They inform us also that Gregory the Great was for it, by the doubt he resolves about Abortives.   

CENT. VI  
Not opposed by any we find in this Age, but by one Adrianus: though H. D. without any good bottom, confidently affirms, that the Ancient Britain's were against Infant-baptism: this Conceit is vain, as we have shown in the Examination of that History. He doth also very weakly bring Gregory's Testimony against it, and yet tells us (which is true) that Gregory accused Adrianus to John Bishop of Larissa, that he turned away young Children from Baptism. You have it Chap. 7. of the first Part of his first and second Edition: Chap. 7. Cent. 6. and p. 231. of the 2. Edition. Compare them together, and you have a perfect Contradiction.    


CENT. VII.  
Adult persons and Infants were both baptised in this Age, as we learn from the Magdiburgenses, Cent. 7. C. 6. p. 145.  
It should not be Constance but Constantinople.  
It should be Constantinople.   

CENT. VII.  
Not opposed by any that we find in the Magdiburgensian History, under this Century; yet doth H. D. misrepresent 3. Councils.  
1. The Bracarens in Spain, as if they had made a Decree against it, when 'twas only this, That none ex adultis that were grown up, should be baptised, that were not first indifferently well instructed in the Doctrine of Christianity, Cont. 7. And in p 146 and 147. they tell us the very manner how this Bracaren Council ordained Infants should be baptised.  
2 The Council of Constance decreed, as in the Bracaren, that no Adult persons should be baptised, unless, as before, they were instructed— For, say they, none shall be baptised, that are not instructed, except Infants, which by reason of age cannot speak. And then they tell us, this whole Council was invited to the Baptism of the Child of Heraclius, p. 167.  
3. Concerning the Toledan Council, the Magdiburgenses say their Decree was, That the Children of the Jews that were [Baptizati] baptised, should be recommended to some Christians to be taught, Magdiburg. Centur. 7. p. 146.  
H. D. is a very heedless Writer, and doth overlash again in his Story of B●rinius (he is named Berinus by the Magdiburgs) how that he was a great Oppugner of Infant-baptism, when 'tis not so; for all that they say of him is— [Eundem morem servat Berinus,] that is, Berinus followed the Manner of the Council of Constance, i.e. to baptise no Adult persons, but upon Profession after Teaching; but this Council shut not out Infants from Baptism, as before, but was for it. And, to make it more plain, the East-Saxons, whom Berinus baptised, with their people (as the Magdiburgs express it out of Bede) were Pagans, as Bede shows in his 3. Book, 7. Chapt.    


CENT. VIII.  
From the 4. Book of Bede upon the Canticles, they show that Infants in this Century were accounted fit subjects of Baptism, Cent. 8. c. 4. p. 218.   

CENT. VIII.  
None are found to have opposed Infant-baptism in this Age; and therefore H. D. is to be blamed for wronging Haimo. The Magdiburgs quote two passages amongst others, which show he was most express for it, as that in Rom. 5. Item parvuli in Baptismate mundantur— Children are made clean in Baptism, Cent. 4. C. 4. p. 145. And again In fide parentum ait Haimo baptizari Infants.    


CENT. IX.  
The Magdiburgenses acquaint us with one of the Grounds upon which Inants' were Baptised, viz. Sinite parvulos, etc. Suffer little children to come unto me.   

CENT. IX.  
It was opposed by none in this Age but by one Popish Bishop, named Hincmarus, Bishop of jaudum in France, who was most severely rebuked for it by his Uncle Hincmarus' Bishop of Rheims— Etsi, saith he, tremendum Dei judicium te non terruit, etc. timere debueras nè tu solus hoc ageres, quòd nullus Christianorum unquam facere ausus est: He had cause to fear he did that which never any Christian did before him. This man was condemned by a Synod sub Carolo Calvo, Anno 870. and put out of his Bishopric, and writ his Recantation with his own hand, Cent. 9 C. 9 p. 444. And afterward was restored to his Bishopric, Cent. 9 C. 9 p. 447. sub Carolo Crasso.  
H. D. in his Abstract presents us with divers others in this 9 Century, as Opposers of Infant-baptism; as one Gislebert and English Monk of the Order of Benedict (a precious Witness) but though the Magdiburgs recite much of his bad Doctrine, yet not a word of his being against Infant-baptism; and therefore he wrongs his Reader and them too, by referring to Magd. Cent. 10. C. 4. p. 234. of his 2. Edition. This Gislebert was very erroneous; he held all sin done way by Baptism ex opere operato; he was for Merit, and held the Virgin Mary to be without Sin, and to make Intercession; and is not this a pure Witness, think you, against Infant-baptism? Cent. 10. C. 4. p. 188, 189.  
Under this 9 Cent. H.D. brings in Rabanus, in both his Editions. This Rabanus was an Abbot. He was for Infant-baptism, as appears by that Saying of his, That the Spirit of God enters into the Infant before he comes out of the Font, though we know not how. The Magdib. quote it out of his 10. Chap. of his Book of the Eucharist, Cent. 9 C. 4. p. 143.  
Again he saith concerning little ones that are uncapable of teaching, they that offer them up in Baptism, must answer for them.  
H. D. brings Remigius for Believers Baptism in opposition to Infants, or else he trifles. This Remigius was also a Monk of the Order of Benedict, and was for the Worshipping the Virgin Mary, as the Magdiburgs tell us, but not a word against Infant-baptism, Cent. 9 c. 10. p. 533.    


CENT. X.  
They tell us in their 6. Chap. pag. 293. that in this Age they baptised both the Adult and Infants.   

CENT. X.  
It was not opposed in this Age that we find from the Magdiburgenses, and Smaragdus is no Witness for H, D. for he is express for Infant-baptism, as they snew us, he grounding it upon that Passage, Sinite parvulos, etc. Suffer little children to come, etc. Cent. 10. C. 4. p. 138. and who hath also this Expression, Infants are made pure by Baptism, which they quote from his words upon the 2. Chap. of the Epistle of Peter.  
Ausbertus speaks nothing pro or con, but only of the Virtues of Baptism, and the danger of Mortal Sins.  
Theophilact is not for H. D. his turn; for he saith, That the Faith of him that offereth the Child in Baptism or baptizeth it, cleanseth the Child, quam vis nondum valet corde credere ad justitiam, & ore confiteri ad salutem, i.e. though he be not able to believe unto righteousness, nor confess with the mouth. Cent. 10. c. 4. p. 187. de Doctrina.    


CENT. XI.  
They tell us that in this Age they baptised not only Adult persons but such as were newly born, Cent. 11. C. 6. p. 260. And then giving divers Instances of Children that were baptised, 〈…〉. They quote Anselm 〈◊〉 it, that the Dies Baptismal, the Day of Baptism as the 8th day, he grounding it upon Circumcision, Cent. 11. c. 4. p. 169. They quote also his Note upon that place. And her daughter was made whole the selfsame hour, how the Mother's Faith stood the Child in good stead, Mat. 15. So the Faith of the Parent, saith he, may avail for the Infant in Baptism, though he be at present uncapable of good or evil, Cent 11. C. 4. p. 171. and not withstanding all this; Anselm is brought by H. D. in opposition to Infant baptism.   

CENT. XI.  
None againsT Infant-baptism that we can find upon good ground in this Age; for as for that which H. D. brings concerning Peter Bruis, Arnoldus and Henricus they are only Popish Calumnies, as we have shown in the Examination of the History of the Waldenses.  
Durandus also is under this Century brought in by H. D. as a Witness against Infant-baptism, though most severe against Anabaptists.    


CENT. XII.  
They baptised, as they tell us, as well Infants, as grown persons, and give instances of Children baptised, Cent. 12. C. 6. p. 872.   

CENT. XII.  
None that we find who opposed it in this Age.  
H. D. misapplies Peter Lombard, as if he had been for Believers Baptism in opposition to that of Infants, when his words are, Children are cleansed from Original Sin by Baptism, Cent. 12. c. 4. p. 596. H. D. doth abuse the saying of Peter Lombard, viz. The person that is to be baptised, should first believe and confess. We have it in his 18. Chap on John. Which is spoken of Pagans as appears by what follows. Again, All that are baptised. saith he, whether little ones or great ones, receive in their foreheads the sign of the Cross, in his 8. Book on the 13. Chap. of the Revelation.  
Albertus Magnus, the Conjurer (another of H.D. his Witnesses) hath not, that I can find, a word to his purpose.    


CENT. XIII.  
The Magdiburgenses do end with the 12. Cent. and 'tis remarkable, that (excepting the Waldenses who are calumniated by the Papists) they mention but one person that was against Infant-baptism, viz. Hincmarus. They indeed speak of one Peter Apamen a Bishop of Syria, Cent. 6. c. 5. p. 304. de Haeresibus, and Zoaras the Monk that agreed with the Heretic Severus, and was condemned with him in the Synod of Constantinople. They have it out of Nicephorus, lib. 17. c. 9 These they say, were accused of Rebaptisation, and other heinous Crimes, but not for oppugning Infant-baptism; and therefore Mr. Henry Danvers needed not to have put these in for Witnesses in his 2. Edition.   

CENT. XIII.  
The Waldenses are here falsely pretended to be against Infant-baptism. See our Examination of the History before.  
The Name of Wickliff being famous, H. D. would fain get something out of him for his turn, but cannot; for none of the words quoted from him, are against Infant-baptism, unless he thinks that is Cap. 2. de Trialog. viz. That they are presumptuous and foolish who affirm Children dying unbaptised cannot be saved: Or because he rejected the Popish Traditions of Salt, Cyl, Spittle, Chrism; this in H. D. his account renders him an authentic Witness against us; for he concludes thus: And may we not from as good evidence say that he rejected Infant-baptism also? Treatise of Baptism, 2. Edition. There he also quotes a Popish Writer, which chargeth Wickliff with denying Infant-babtism, and in the same place saith, it was the Albigensian Heresy; one as true as the other.  
From what hath been said, I see no reason why Mr. Tombs and Mr. Danvers should be so much offended with Mr. Marshal and Mr. Baxter, for saying Infant-baptism was but lately opposed by the Anabaptists of Germany; and I appeal to the Reader, whether Mr. Baxter speaks not true in is Plain Scripture-proof, p. 153. who saith, That for his part he cannot find in his small Reading, that any one Divine or Party of Men did certainly oppose or deny Infant baptism, for many hundred years after Christ. And then again, p. 261. The World may see what a Cause you put such a face upon, when you cannot bring the least proof, so much as of one Man (we will allow them one, viz. Hincmarus) much less Societies, and least of all godly Societies, that did once oppose or deny Infant's Baptism, from the Apostles days till about Luther 's time.     

A Persuasive to UNITY amongst all that fear the Lord, though of different judgements about Baptism, enforced from Scripture-Arguments, and the dangerous Consequences of Divisions.  
IT is well advised by Jacobus Acontius, in his Book entitled Stratagemata Sathana, that in all disputes about points of Religion, this should be engraven upon our hearts, That we have not to deal with the man with whom we dispute, but with Satan himself; and that the main quarrel is not that point about which we argue, but something of a greater concern. For the design of that envious One hath been in all Ages to sow tares of Division: He it was that made the first Schism in the glorious Communion, and hath ever since out of an intense hatred to the peace and quiet of mankind stirred up Emulations, Wrath, Strife, and mutual Antipathies in the minds of men; especially among Christians, hath he laboured to his utmost to foment and cherish Differences, to agitate Schisms, and to rend and tear the Church of Christ into divers Sects and Parties, and by his notable subtlety and influence upon our corrupt nature, to make our very Arguings and Contending for the Faith once delivered, too often managed with Pride, Prejudice, and carnal Interest, a means rather of widening than healing our Breaches. So that in our Contests of this nature, if we gain but a grain of Truth, we are in danger of losing a pound of Charity. There is (as the Apostle James terms it) a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a bitter Zeal, bitter indeed in its root, issuing from a root of bitterness within, and bitter in its fruits, accursed discords and irreconcilable distances amongst Brethren. The consideration whereof hath made me even jealous of myself, lest in the foregoing Responsatory-discourse, any thing hath dropped from my Pen, which may tend rather to the exasperating than convincing our Opposites; for 'tis hard in disputes both not to be provoked, and not to provoke. Nevertheless, I hope the Godly, Sobery, and Ingenuous amongst them, will put the best interpretation upon all; and the rather, because they cannot but perceive how tender I have been of them, manifesting respect to such throughout all the Discourse: And though I contend with what I conceive is an error in them, yet I cannot but love their persons; for I know there are some of that Persuasion who for their eminency in Grace, aught to be had in estimation by us: And I would always distinguish the Humble and Holy from the Heady and , the Tender and Conscientious from the Turbulent and Factions of that Party. And Oh! how much do I long to see all rigidness on every side removed, and a sweet correspondency and compliance between God's People, though of different judgements, as to the Subject of Baptism. I have for more than twenty years considered the point, and weighed what hath been said on both sides, and cannot possibly be brought to judge it a matter of that moment as to break Communion, or to be prosecuted with so much Vehemency, as it is by some of the Dissenters. 1. It being only about a point not so expressly revealed, but that Godly Persons both in Christ visibly, may differ in their light about it. 2. Also it being only about the right or wrong application of an external Ceremony, or Solemnity of Christ's Institution (for Baptism in the outward Act of it can be esteemed no more). Wherefore I could hearty wish there were a reviving of the Primitive Moderation, when Christians did bear one with another, and allow a liberty in matters of an higher nature, without breach of Communion. For I verily believe, the Church of Christ hath received more prejudice by contesting about this thing than is commonly thought of; for it hath always produced heart-burnings amongst Christians, and undermined the Power of Godliness. And it would be more for the honour of Religion, if our Spirits were so attempered and sweetened, as to indulge each other a latitude of practice according to our light and persuasion, without imposing or condemning, according to the Apostolical Rule, Phil. 3.15, 16.  
Certainly the differences that are amongst us about Baptism, were they put in the Balance of the Sanctuary, to try whether they bear proportion to the distances and animosities attending the same, they would be found too light. And if Austin did so much lay to heart the breach which was between two single persons, Jerom and Ruffinus (concerning which we have spoken before in our Answer) that he cried out, Hei mihi qui vos alicubi simul invenire non possum, etc. Woe is me that I cannot find you both together, I would even fall down at your feet with much love, and many tears; I would beseech you for yourselves, and for one another, and for weak Christians for whom Christ died, that you suffer not these dissensions to spread. Oh! how much more cause have we to lament the breaches of so many thousands of God's People, and to use our utmost endeavours to repair the same. I wish there were more of Melancthons' Spirit amongst us, who professed that though he had many domestical troubles, yet the public wounds of the Church (arising much from the difference 'twixt Lutherans and Calvinists about the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which Christ intended for a bond of love, as he did the other of Baptism) did most deeply afflict him. Oh! how sad is it to behold the Staff of Beauty, and the Staff of Bands, 
Zech. 11.10, 11. Zeph. 3.9.  so broken amongst us. And that we cannot call upon the Lord, and serve him with one consent. Those were Halcyon and blessed days when the multitude of Believers were of one heart and one soul; when they held communion in Doctrine, in Fellowship, in breaking of Bread, and Prayer. When the People of God could hear together, and pray together, and receive together, Act. 4.32. When those thousands of Believers were as if they had but one heart and soul to animate and actuate them in God's service. What an eminent answer was this of Christ's Prayer, Joh. 17.21. That they all may be One, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the words are very emphatical; it is not said that they may love and agree, though this be intended, 
Burges on Joh. 17.21.  but those words— that they may be One, is, as if the Church of Christ should be but as one person; and, as the Apostle argues, none ever hated his own flesh, Eph. 5.30. and we are members of his Body, and of his Flesh, and of his Bones. On this account there should be no divisions amongst the Members of Christ, for they are one Spirit as it were. They should no more hate one another, than a man doth his own flesh; And Dionysius the Arcopagite calls the Godly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, persons closely compacted into One, according as the Apostle hath it, Eph. 4.16. where he speaks of the Body's being compacted. For they should be as the Pearl, which is united in itself, and is called Vnio. He that is joined to the Lord, saith St. Paul, is one Spirit, One Spirit in himself, One with God, and One with all his People. In order to this blessed Unon and Accommodation of the Godly, I shall in all humility address myself to both Parties, to them who are for, and to them that are against Infant-Baptism. 1. To the Dissenters in general. 2. To the Antipoedobaptists in particular.  
1. Concerning the first of these, the Dissenters in general that fear God, I can with great confidence expect to meet with better measure from them, than to be condemned for an overweening conceit of my own sufficiency to undertake the Work of a Conciliator; I only humbly submit what I have to say to their judicious & godly Consideration, Whether it be not their duty to entertain and keep up Fellowship and Communion in all other Ordinances wherein they are agreed, notwithstanding this their difference about Baptism? which to me seems clear for several Reasons; as,  
First, Because they are Members of the same Body, of which Christ is the Head. Rom. 12.4, 5. We being many, are one body in Christ, and every one Members of another,— the import of which is, that all Believers stand to Christ in the same relation that the natural Body doth stand to the natural Head, and that they all stand in relation one to another, as the Members of the natural Body do stand one to another. To the same purpose is that, 1 Cor. 12.12. where from the 4th to the 7th verse, the Apostle shows, That there are diversities of Gifts, and differences of Administrations, and diversities of Operations; but all come from the same Spirit, Lord and God, and are given for this end, that they may be for the profiting of the whole. And that we might more plainly apprehend him, he further tells us, that as in the natural Body there are divers Members joined, and each Member hath its several office for the good of all; so is Christ, saith he, that is, Christ collectively and mystically, Christ and all his Members: and then he adds, vers. 13. That by one Spirit we are all baptised into one Body, 
Christum intellige cum Ecclesia suâ conjunctim, et quatenùs est corporis mystici caput. Beza in loc.  whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free; which cannot be meant of Water-Baptism, saith Mr. Jesse (an eminent godly Antipaedobaptist) in regard all the Body of Christ, Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, partook not of that Sacrament of Christ instituted for the Gospel-Administration) and are made to drink into the same Spirit; which is also to be understood metaphorically and spiritually, Potionati sumus, saith Piscator, and so prove ourselves to be of one and the same Corporation of Believers. Like to this is that Eph. 4.16. from whom the whole Body fitly joined and compacted together, etc. From what hath been said there follow these five Corrollaries.  
1. Unity of the Body in the Church floweth from Unity to the Head; first, the Members are united to the Head, and then to one another, and with the Head.  
2. This Spiritual Union and Conjunction with the Lord Jesus, is the foundation of all their Communion with one another.  
3. As in the Natural Body, all the Members do not only meet in the Head, as the Lines in the Centre, but have real Union one with another; so in this Mystical and Spiritual Body, all Believers have not only each for his own part Union and Conjunction with Christ, but also a real Union and Conjunction with each other, which is the ground of all offices of Love, and reciprocal Fellowship and Communion, wherein they stand obliged amongst themselves.  
4. Union to the whole, the Catholic or Universal Church or Body of Christ, gives right to Communion with any particular Church of Christ in the World; and there is no Believer (as Mr. Marshal observes) in any part of the World, but wherever he comes, might demand, upon the profession of his Faith, and his voluntary subjection to the Gospel, his right in the Ordinances, to hear, and pray, and receive the Sacrament with them.  
5. To deny Communion to any who give evidence that they are of the same Body, is to be guilty of a great Schism in the Body, and most opposite to the design of God's Grace, in compacting all his People into one Body; which was, 

1. That there should be no Schism in the Body.  
2. That therefore the Members should have the like care of one another.    
They therefore who in contrariety hereto stand at a distance one from another, and refuse Communion, do that which is not practicable from Scripture: for it is unnatural and destructive to the Body, and not only so, but foully scandalous to the Christian Religion: for, as the Lord Verulam speaks, 
Lord Bacon's Essays.  like a Divine as well as a Philosopher, Schism is one of the greatest Scandals, yea more than corruption of Manners: For, as in the Natural Body, a Wound or Solution of Continuity is worse than a Corrupt Humour, so in the Spiritual: So that nothing doth so much keep men out of the Church, and drive men out of the Church as breach of Unity. This then is the first Argument, they are both visibly Members of Christ's Body, and therefore should have Communion one with another.  
2. Because both parties agree in the main Fundamentals of Religion; and Union in the great things of Religion should oblige them to bear with one another in lesser matters. Phil. 3.15, 16. If in any things ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even that to you: Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same thing. Here's an excellent direction to preserve Unity amongst God's People, notwithstanding difference in judgement, and for composing and healing of differences when they arise.  
1. Christians are to consider whereunto they have already attained, and how far they do agree, Whether there be not a mutual Consent in the Principles and Fundamentals of Religion; for, if this be wanting, all Union is but a daubing with untempeted mortar, and a Conspiracy against Christ: but when there is a Consent in Fundamentals, and the Marks of Godliness upon Persons, Wisdom and Charity should teach us to condescend unto, and forbear one another: but alas, how much is this wanting! may we not sigh out that doleful sentence, Heu pro quantillo pacem perdidimus! for what poor inconsiderable things do we jar and differ!  
2. To walk by the same Rule, or to put in practice those Truths wherein they do agree. They agree in Prayer, in Hearing, in the Lord's Supper, let them walk together in these. The best way to attain Unity in Judgement, is to maintain it in Obedience, and jointly to walk together in the Ordinances and Duties wherein Christians do agree.  
3. To mind the same thing; that is, I conceive, to propose the same ends in Religion. Nothing causeth more difference than poor, narrow, selfish-ends. If Professors had all one common end, viz. to be really Godly, and to advance the Glory of God in the World, there would be an end of these bicker. St. Paul hath an eye to this, Phil. 2.1, 2. There he useth most pathetical Arguments to Love and Union; and for to further it, he presseth the Philippians to be , and let nothing, saith he, be done through strife or vainglory. v. 2, 3. and in the 4th verse— look not every man at his own things, etc. that is, at his own Interest, Honour, Party, etc. Were we better United in our ends and aims, and did jointly levelly at God's Glory, and Christ's Interest in the advancement of piety, we should quickly agree in the use of means.  
3. Because we are Commanded not to refuse Christian Communion, though the difference be in far greater matters than this of Baptism. Rom. 14.1. Him that is weak in the Faith receive you etc. By Faith is meant the Doctrine of Faith, as Beza notes on the place. Him that is weak, and so weak, 
Fides hoc in loco declarat Christianam ipsam Doctrinam in qua sit aliquis rudis, ac proinde discrimen Ciborum & Dierum nondum intelligat Christi beneficio fuisse sublatum.  as not to discern that by Christ's coming the difference of days and meats was taken away. There was it seems a great difference amongst them, and some were more thoroughly instructed in the doctrine of Christian Liberty, as touching the cessation of legal Ceremonies, who held all days alike, and all meats in themselves indifferent; whereas others being not well informed, observed still a difference both of meats, accounting them clean or unclean, and of days accounting them holy or servile, according as they stood in under the Levitical-Law. This caused no little stir and trouble amongst them— Now the course the Apostle takes to heal these breaches is worth observing: He doth not cast the Balance to one side, requiring the other to come up to their Practice, but exhorts them to allow a Latitude; and not only for Opinions, but Practices, and to forbear one another in love, and not to censure and condemn those that differ from them. Seeing the Men of contrary Persuasions in lesser matters may yet agree in the main fundamentals; and the reason why the stronger should receive the weaker, is, because God had received him, that is, into Communion with himself. We have the same urged again Chap. 15.6. Wherefore, receive ye one another as Christ also hath received us: by all which it appears that no supposed or real error can be a reason why others should not be received to Communion, farther than it is a reason to prove that the Lord hath not received them; & the conclusion is that let the Error be where 'twill, either on the Paedobaptist's or Antipaedobaptist's side, it is all one, if God and Christ have received these of both Persuasions into Communion with himself, they break the Command, if they refuse to receive one another into mutual Communion.  
4. Is that Command of the Apostle, to follow after such things as make for Peace, and mutual Edification. Rom. 14.19. The Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, let us eagerly pursue after it as the Hunter doth his Prey; and it denotes,  
1. That we are not barely to desire it, or accept of any reasonable terms that are proposed for accommodation and agreement, but we are to pursue and go after it, if by any means we may overtake it, or apprehend it. The same duty is pressed; Eph. 4.3. where the Exhortation is to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bound of Peace; the Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies a most earnest studying which way it may be effected: Ita alicui rei studere, ut ad eam omni impetu feraris, & approperes; to be so intent upon a thing, as to further it with might and main as we use to say. The Gramarians oppose this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies Inconsiderate, Perfunctory, & extempore aliquid agere; to do a thing carelessly; but this in the Text signifies Diligenter, & intent â cogitatione efficere; to be diligent and very thoughtful how to accomplish a thing, and it points out this, that we ought on all hands to use a sedulous endeavour to preserve the Unity of the Spirit.  
2. It denotes unwearied patience in the pursuit after it, notwithstanding all disappointments and discouragements met with in our attempts after it. We ought not to give over, but persevere in so good a Work. I like not that speech of Hornbeck Summa Controu. L. 9 de Luther. who saith, The Calvinists had done too much in overtures for a Reconciliation with the Lutherans; much less can I approve of such who by word and writing endeavour to widen breaches, and set Christians at farther distances. Certainly the Pride, Conceit, and Discontent of some spirits have done much mischief this way: and to speak plainly the inconsiderableness of our differences, and inconsiderateness wherewith it is pursued, argues that much of the Zeal of the Dissenters, is not, as one says, that holy fire which is kindled by a Coal from the Altar, but rather an Ignis fatuus that leads men quite out of God's Way; or a Wild Fire that rends and tears where it goes. Now in as much as nothing hinders endeavours like to despair, and all Essays for Union hitherto have proved successless, and there are few to be found of healing, and peaceable Spirits, but much of Pride, humour, and self-conceitedness appears , even in those that we cannot but think are good Men in them main; we may conclude, if we look no farther than ourselves, that the differences amongst us will never be composed. But we are to look higher than ourselves, and for the erecting of our hopes and quickening our endeavours after it; we should consider,  
1. Christ hath prayed that all Believers may be one, John 17.21. and he was heard in all that he prayed for. That they All may be one, (All) of them there is, the Universal Extent of it; One in Affection, and not only so, but also One in Worship, and Communion and Ordinances, although there may be variety of Opinions amongst them.  
2. God hath promised to bring this about. Jer. 32.39. I will give them one heart, and one way. And in Zeph. 3.9. They shall call upon the name of the Lord and serve him with one consent, the Word in the Original is one Shoulder. They shall all of them have as it were but one Shoulder, that they shall set to the service of God. And Hosea 1.11. Then shall the Children of Judah, and the Children of Israel be gathered together; Here (saith Mr. Burroughs) we have a Promise both to Israel and Judah together; great was their Enmity, heretofore they Worshipped the same God, though in a divers manner, Judah keeping close to God's Institutions, but Israel not. There was a great deal of bitterness between them, though Worshipping the same God. But God hath promised they shall be gathered together, upon which he raiseth two Observations.  
1. That there shall be Union between Judah and Israel. Here's a mercy, (saith he) a wonderful work of God Many times between such as profess the same Religion, and seem not to differ much, and yet to differ; their Oppositions are most bitter and irreconcilable, and requires a mighty Work of God to bring them in and Reconcile them.  
2. God hath a time, [there is a set time appointed] to gather Judah and Israel both together, that is, to bring Peace to his Church; God hath a time to gather all his Church together in a way of Peace, that there shall be a Universal Peace amongst his Churches; for though 'tis true it be meant here of Judah and Israel literally, yet Israel and Judah is to set out to us all the Churches of Christ, that shall be afterward amongst the Gentiles So that Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not envy Ephraim. Isa. 11. 13. The envy of Ephraim shall departed. God will take away this Envious, Vexatious Spirit.  
3. Let it be considered that we (upon whom the ends of the Earth are come) live nearer the accomplishment of these Promises than the former generations: yea,  
4. The day of their fulfilling gins to dawn, the Spirits of many excellent Christians incline, and work towards Union; yea some are actually in Union and Communion in all other Ordinances, though they differ in the point of Baptism: they are come off from their former rigidness, and can hear and pray, and receive together in divers places of this Nation.  
5. Light increaseth more and more, whereby they see what is the right Basis, and ground of Communion; That it is for grace-sake and not a Syncretism, or agreement in Opinions, That Christians should love and embrace one another; and that heart-Religion, and Godliness is to be preferred before Notions and Forms.  
6. They do also see the dismal and fatal consequences of their Divisions, and those who are wise and solid, must needs on that account be studious of Accommodation: they do now experimentally find that it is this:  
1. That strengthens the hands of the common Enemies of Religion, Divide & impera; Dissolution is the Daughter of Division: It is even Nuts to the common Enemy to see how God's People wrangle and divide: they may well conclude that though they are quiet and let them alone, destruction will arise out of themselves; they may fit still, and laugh and say, Aha so would we have it. And as the Apostle speaks, if eye by't and devour one another, take heed ye be not consumed one of another. This is like to be the finis operis though not operantis, 
Gal. 5.15.  the Event though not the Intent. Si colligimur frangimur; these Clashing, if not stopped, will prove (horresco scribere) fatal to the interest of Religion, and welfare and safety of Professors in the Nation.  
2. This also opens the Mouths of Men to Blaspheme, and speak evil of the good ways of God. Dioclesian (that persecuting Roman Emperor looked upon the Christian Religion as a wretched device of wicked Men, and that because of the pride and dissensions he observed amongst the Pastors and Bishops; so now adays some Atheists, and time-servers set their Wits on work to vilify the pure Worship of God, and to bring the power of Godliness into contempt, and the main Topic from whence they fetch their Hellish Arguments is the Divisions and Dissensions of Professors. There be some of late have been notable Factors for Hell, and would deride and jeer Men out of strictness and purity; and not a few Books of this kind have been printed whose design have been merely to discountenance Religion, and the Authors of them have done as much for the Devil this way, that he can hardly tell what to desire more of them; and 'tis to be feared he will pay them their wages shortly: And verily the Divisions of God's People have occasioned much of these men's Blasphemies, it hath been a woeful stumbling Block before them.  
7 It is that which in all likelihood will draw persecution upon all their heads at last; they fear it, and they need it, and it is just with God to bring it upon them. 
Remarkable is that saying of Cyprian, viz. non venissent Fratribu● haec mala, si in unum Fraternitas fuisset animata. These evils had not happened to the Brethren, if they had joined together in Brotherly Unaminity.  As when there is no quietness in the house but a continual clamour, and brawling among the Children, and they scratch and fight and tear one another, the Father comes in, and whips them all: So if Christians will not be quiet, but still go on to persecute one another with their Tongues, and tear one another by Dissensions, God's way to divert this humour, is, to set the Common Enemy upon them, if they rend themselves from one another, and forsake the Assembling themselves together, God will let lose the Dogs to worry them and drive them together. He will melt them into one piece in the fire of persecution. Common sufferings long since under those persecuting Emperors Constantius and Julian, 
Zozomen. Lib. 4. C. 20.  brought the Christians to agreement who before were at great Enmity. And Bullinger in his Book of the Persecution of the Church, saith more than once, that the dissensions of God's People is that which gives them up into the hands of their Enemies ad abstergendum aeruginem, to scour off their rust as he phraseth it. And Mr. Burroughs ut supra in his Comment upon Hosea Chap. 3. saith, God may justly give us over into the hands of our Enemies, if we agree not among ourselves, and they may Chain us together: perhaps a Prison may make us agree, as it was said of Ridley and Hooper, though Ridley stood much against Hooper in point of Ceremonies, and they could not agree, yet when they came to Prison they did well enough there; the Lord deliver us, saith he, from that Medicine of our dissensions, that we be not made so to agree, yea that we be not sodered together with our own blood.  
2dly, There is one thing yet behind, and that is to apply myself more particularly to those who are Antipaedobaptists, that fear the Lord in this Nation, and let it be resented, as offered to them in all love and humility. There are a few things I would leave with them by way of Caution. The Lord knows I desire not to scatter in Israel nor to divide in Jacob.  
1. Take heed lest your Zeal for your own way, which you take to be most agreeable to Truth, doth eat up your love to Peace and Union with the Godly, 
Cautions to the Antipaedobaptists.  who are otherwise minded; The Apostle Exhors us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to speak the Truth in love, to truthify it in love, as Mr. Crook translates it, aiming to reach the fullness of the Greek in one Word. So 'tis your duty (if your opinion be true as we suppose it is not) to manage your Tenants with love, meekness and moderation of Spirit towards those who are otherwise minded, and yet agree with you in other things: For though every Truth be precious, yet every Truth is not necessary to Salvation, nor to be found in all, with whom notwithstanding it may be necessary for you to hold Communion; and that because you cannot but know that many Paedobaptists are as Godly as yourselves, Sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be Saints. 2. In not doing so, you deprive yourselves of the benefit of their Gifts and Graces, and of that help which you might have from many eminent Ministers of Christ; and that assistance for Conversion of Souls and Edification, which in some of your Meetings you very much want; and when those that are able of your way shall be removed by death, you are like to be straitened for want of Men, of competent and fitting parts for the carrying on the work of the Ministry, as it ought to be done amongst yourselves.  
2. Beware of Pride; for where this is predominant, it will not suffer men to recede from those rigid Principles and Practices they have taken up. As Pride makes men unwilling to receive the Truth from others, so it will keep them from retracting an Error, though convinced thereof. Luther confessed to Melancthon before his death, that he would have retracted many things, (especially in those Sacramental Controversies) but that he feared it would lessen the Authority of his Works. So much of Pope hath every man in his own breast, as to affect to be thought infallible, malunt semper errare quam semel errasse videri; they had rather always err, than seem once to have erred. But  a man may lose in reputation of knowledge, he shall be sure to gain in estimation of candour, ingenuity, and sincerity. Austin got as much esteem by his Book of Retractations, as by any other of his works.  
3. Take heed of a Censorious judging-Spirit: do not condemn those that close not in with you to act against their light. It is a very uncharitable passage which I find in Mr. Tombs his Praecursor pag. 91. Unless, saith he, I speak against my conscience, I must needs say, that it is ignorance or wilfulness, holds Ministers and People in their stiff asserting & Practice of Infant-Baptism. But what it was that kept him so long in the practice of it, in his Parish-Churches before the Assembly of Divines sat, is best known to the searcher of hearts; & yet this very man 17 lines above in the same page, hath that which amounts to self-contradiction, viz. That he reverenceth many Paedobaptists as Godly Ministers of the Gospel far beyond himself. The Lord banish from among you this Censorious spirit, unto which some of you have been too much addicted. How often have we been arraigned at your bar for sinning against light, for Obstinacy and Wilfulness? & your Censures have lighted most heavily upon Ministers, sparing none, neither Conformists nor Non-conformists. Heretofore 'twas worldly Interest, Parochial Maintenance, and fear of displeasing the people that blinded and corrupted them (a hard Censure to be passed upon the whole body of the Ministry of the Nation) and how could it consist with Godliness for them to persist so many years in the Practice of that which they thought in their own consciences to be but a mere Tradition and Innovation. But you have lived to see your mistake herein; and tell us now (if you can) what the temptations are that blind the Non-conformists, since their Ejection, and keeps them from coming over to you? They were in number (as they say) about 3000. and I think you cannot show us a Catalogue of one in a County, no not in ten Counties, that is proselyted to you. God by his inscrutable and wise Providence, hath found out a strange way to clear the innocency of his Servants, that were so often branded for Hirelings, and there hath been an effectual course taken to clear their eyesight, had Worldly Interest blinded them: They are now out of the reach of Compliances on that account.  
4. I would also humbly advise you to take heed of dividing Principles, that are inconsistent with the Word, especially in this Circumstance of the Church wherein we are in danger to be overwhelmed with other difficulties: if it were tolerable, and venial to divide at other times, yet now the fault is irremissible and irrational. Luther counselled the Synod at Norimberg to silence the Disputes until a fit opportunity; Meum Consilium est, ut causam hanc sinatis ad tempus sopitam jacere, hoc tempore enim & animis sic affestis, venenum est disputare. I counsel you that in this juncture of time, and when your minds are so much out of tune, you would let this Controversy sleep, and not dispute about it, for it will prove poisonous.  
5. Take heed of rejecting those Overtures for Union, which are made by your Brethren. We are commanded to follow after those things that make for Peace, and shall we run away from them? You say they differ from you, and do not you likewise from them? We all see but in part, and know but in part, and therefore should bear with one another. Why should you not have the like freedom which your Brethren have? Their Arms are open to receive you. You are straitened in your own Bowels, and not in theirs. O why will you not embrace where Christ embraceth? and receive those whom God receiveth? Or why do you refuse Communion with those here in Ordinances that you have ground to believe you shall have Communion with in Glory. 
Persuasive to Peace.  If you say, because they are not Baptised after Believing: This can be no more necessary for Church-Communion, than it is unto Salvation; for the means cannot be more necessary to the subordinat end, which is Church-Communion, than it is to the Principal which is Salvation And Baptism is necessary to Salvation but by way of duty where opportunity concurs, but not by way of means where opportunity is wanting. And if to be Baptised after Faith, were indeed the Paedobaptists duty, the true reason why they do not perform it, is the want of a Moral opportunity, that is, the want of Conviction that it is their duty, they verily believing they were sufficiently Baptised in their Infancy: and that it is not lawful for them to be rebaptised. And all the while they remain under this persuasion, they can no more lawfully receive an after-Baptizing, by a voluntary submission to it, than they can who desire to be Baptised, but want the opportunity of health or such an Administrator (as you call it) as is necessary thereto. And if their Right to Salvation under these Circumstances, be not cut off, as doubtless it is not for the reason before given, than no more can their Right to Church-Communion thereby be cut off for the same reason. To conclude, let us all pray for the Peace of Jerusalem, that our Father which is in Heaven, the God of Peace, would look down upon his Divided Children, and create Peace among them; That Christ Jesus who is the Peacemaker, and Prince of Peace, that prayed for it, and bequeathed it to his Disciples as his last Legacy, would reconcile our hearts one to another: That the Spirit of Peace whose fruit is Peace would compose our differences and make up our breaches, and give us enlarged hearts to embrace each other: That the Blessed Trinity, which hath nothing so proper to itself as Unity, would pity Zion, and raise up healing Instruments, and rebuke fiery Spirits, and remember the Promise that is made to the Church to be fulfilled in the times of the Gospel, That all her Children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the Peace of her Children.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 5. 7.  
FINIS   

Errata.  

PART 1.  
Page 2. line 2. for our read your. P. 9 l. 3. r. only manner. Chapt. 4. P. 51. l. 29. for one r. own. Ch. 7. P. 4. l. 11 for not Dipping r. not only Dipping.   

PART 2.  
Chap. 3. P. 152. l. 7. r. on l. 9 deal is meant ibid. P. 154. l. 22. r. we. idem P. 165. l. 22. Deal when. Ch. 7. P. 105. l. 23. r. as idem P. 106. r. prejudiced. Ib. P. 120. l. 7 for this r. the for Kidderminster r. Beaudly, etc.    

To the Bookbinder.  
By reason of the Author's remote distance from the Press, some great mistakes have happened, so that several Leaves must be canceled: the Alphabet is also confused, wherefore observe these directions.  
The Title is a quarter of a Sheet; after that place the Preface, then B C. [cut off 25. and 26. Pages, and supply them with a leaf printed on the Title sheet] D E F G. Then A a B b C c* a half-sheet: then G g H h I i K k L l M m N n O oh P p Q q R r S s T t a half sheet. after T t place C c, but cut of the 2 first leaves of the said C c] D d E e F f, but be sure to cut off the 4 last leaves of the said F f] then G g g H h h I i i K k k a half sheet, and a leaf marked K k k* printed with the Title sheet. lastly L l l.