A JUSTIFICATION Of two Points now in Controversy with the ANABAPTISTS Concerning Baptism: The first is, That Infants of Christians ought to be Baptised, with grounds to prove it, and their Objections answered.  
With a brief Answer to Master TOMBS twelve doubtful Arguments against it in his Exercitation about Infant's Baptism.  
Also a brief Answer to Captain HOBSON'S five Arguments in his fallacy of Infant's Baptism, being (as he saith) that which should have been disputed by him, and Mr. Knowles, and some others; against Mr. Calamy and Mr. Cranford.  
The second Point is, That the Sprinkling the Baptised more agreeth with the mind of Christ then Dipping or Plunging in or under the Water: With grounds to prove it, and a brief Answer to what they have to say against it.  
By T. B.  Joh. 3.1. 
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whither they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world.  
Imprimatur John Downham.  
London printed for Henry Sheperd at the Bible in Tower-street, and for William Ley at his shop in Paul's Churchyard near Doctor's Commons. 1646.   

To the Reader.  
CHristian Reader, considering it ever was, and still is the custom of all Christian Churches in the world to baptise their Infants, and to sprinkle the Baptised; although it hath been long opposed by the Anabaptists, yet they never left it in any age; then although those men have published many Books of late against it, and no Answer to them is yet come forth, which makes them ready to say with the King of Assyria, I have gathered all the earth, and there was none that moved the wing, or opened the mouth, or peeped forth against it, Isaiah 10.14. Yet let not this little book be despised for the unworthiness of the Author, but read it till some more able hand shall move for thy better satisfaction; thou knowest not but God may sometimes hid things from the wise & prudent, and reveal them to babes, because it so pleaseth him, Luke 10.21. Aquilla and his Wife took Apollo that was mighty in Scriptures, and shown him the way of God more perfectly, Acts 18. Naaman harkened to his Maidservant, when she told him of a Prophet in Israel that would cure him of his Leprosy; and to the advice of another servant, to observe the Prophet's directions, 2 King. 5. Then look not on the Author, but weigh the matter and arguments in the balance of the Sanctuary, and if they hold weight give God the praise, and me thy prayers; and I shall remain thine in all Christian duties to be commanded  
Thomas Bakewell.   

The first Point in Controversy with the Anabaptists is, That Infants of Christians ought to be Baptised: the grounds to prove it are these following.  
FIrst, if Christ commanded, and his Apostles practised the Baptism of Infants, than it ought to be done; but Christ commanded to Baptise all Nations, whereof Infants are a part, Mat. 28.19. and the Apostles Baptised whole Households, whereof Infants are a part, Acts 16.15.33. 1 Cor. 1.16. therefore Infants of Christians ought to be baptised.  
Secondly, if Christian Infants have the promise to be baptised with the Holy Ghost, than they ought to have the outward form of Baptism; but the Holy Ghost is promised to Christians and their children, Acts 2.38, 39 therefore their children ought to be baptised.  
Thirdly, If Infants of Christians be separated from Turks and Infidels by virtue of their Parent's Baptism, than they ought to be Baptised; but Infants of Christians have this mark of distinction, For now saith Paul, Your children are holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. that is, they have an outward sanctification, being distinguished from Infidels, for the visible Church therefore they ought to be Baptised.  
Fourthly, If Christ did admit Infants to come unto him, and blamed them that would keep them bacl, and giving this testimony of them, that those little children which he had in his Arms did believe on him, and that they had a right to the Kingdom of Heaven, than they ought to be Baptised; But the first is true, Mat. 18.3.6.19.13.14. Mark 9.36.10.14.10. Luke 18.15.16. therefore Infants of Christians ought to be Baptised.  
Fifthly, If infants of Jews were circumcised, and Christ came not to take away that benefit from them, but to change it to a better and larger benefit, from Males alone to Males and Females, and from one Nation to all Nations, and from a painful duty to an easy duty, than I say that Christian infants ought to be Baptised as well as the Jewish infants were circumcised; but Christ never repealed that Command, but did enlarge it to all Nations, Mat. 28.19. and to both men and women, Acts 8.12.16.15. therefore Christian infants ought to be baptised.  
Sixthly, if the Apostles business was only to convert men of years from false religion to the Christian Religion, before they did admit them to Baptism, and did not wait till they were converted, from the state of corrupted nature to the state of Grace, because they knew no man's heart, having the first conversion they baptised many without the second; than Christian infants who have no falls religion to be converted from, aught to be baptised, although they be not converted from the state of corruption to the state of Grace; but the Apostles only required men to believe that Christ was the Son of God, the Eunuch believed this and was baptised, and Simon Magus believed this and was baptised, although still in the gall of bitterness, and in the bonds of iniquity, Acts 8.12.23.37. and many believed the Scripture, and the words of Jesus, many believed in his name, yet Christ would not trust them although they were his Disciples, for he knew their hearts, and needed not that any should testify of them, yet those went away from Christ and never returned to him, Joh. 2.23, 24.6.66. this shows they had only the first conversion, and not the second; and Jewish infants were circumcised, if the Parents was but of their Religion, never waiting for the child's conversion from corrupted nature to the state of Grace, and Christians have as much power to bring up their children in the Christian Religion, as they had to bring them up in the Jewish Religion; than it is a clear truth that Christian infants ought to be baptised.  

Their Objections are next to be answered.  
FIrst they Object; If they must first be taught before they be Baptised, than infants may not be baptised; but the first is true, Mat. 28.19. ergo, so is the second. I ans. The teaching them to observe, and to do all that is commanded in that place, follows both Preaching and Baptism that both may be observed; else it were to affirm that Christ would have one Ordinance to be observed and not the other, when as he saith, Observe and do whatsoever I have commanded you; ver. 19.20. And to say Teaching is first set down is not much to the purpose; if it be, than John did Baptise in the Wilderness, and then it is said, he Preached the Baptism of Repentance, Mark 1.4. and Christ saith, A man must be borne of water, and then of the Spirit, john 3.5. and John the Baptist said, I baptise you with water, but he comes after that baptizeth with the holy Ghost, Mat. 3.11. but Master Tombs saith, To baptise infants is to baptise those whom the Lord hath not appointed to be baptised; and yet he grants, that infants may be baptised with the holy Ghost, and might be baptised if they were known to us from that Text, Acts 10.47. But saith he, To baptise infants because Christ commands to Baptise all Nations is very faulty; First in casting away that restriction which Christ hath put. Secondly, in determining that all men whatsoever are to be baptised, and so it is no privilege to believers and their children, But as common to Infidels as to their children. I answer. Here he denies the command of Christ to be a Rule, and would make a restriction where Christ makes none, and then he makes a false conclusion, as if he ever said, or did intent to baptise the children of Infidels before their Parents be taught the Covenant, and so by baptism were admitted into the Christian Church, but yet in other places he saith himself, that believers children have no privilege above the children of Infidels, but because he slights this general command to all Nations, which includes all sorts of Mankind, because he hath not a special command for Infants only, I may say to him as Christ said to the Pharisees, when they said, to swear by the Temple was nothing, but he that swore by the gold of it was a debtor; so the command to Baptise all Nations is nothing, unless it were for infants only, when as the Temple sanctifies the gold, Mat. 23.16.17. and the whole Nation includes infants, but he must have them Disciples first, because it was reported that Christ made and baptised Disciples, John 4.2. when as he grants it to be a false report, therefore nothing can safely be drawn from it, but I shall give a further answer to this, and Captain Hobson's third agreement together. Again, suppose we grant that men of years, who are converted from false religions to the true Christian Religion, that such must be taught the Covenant, being capable of Teaching before they have the token of it given to them; thus it was with Abraham, and with many Heathens when they were converted to the Jews religion; but when they were admitted their infants had a right to it without any teaching going before; and when they were capable they taught them the Covenant as they were commanded, Deut. 4.10.13. and so they taught them the meaning of the Passeover, Exod. 12.26.27. then why may not Christian infants be taught the Covenant after they have received the token of it as well as Jewish infants. Again, as they were mere passives when they received the token of the Covenant, so are our infants, the work is done upon them therefore they may be baptised.  
Secondly, they Object, That if they must repent before they be baptised, than infants may not be baptised; but the first is true, Acts 2.38. ergo, so is the second. I answ. It is true in men of years that are converted from Heathens to the Christian Religion, but it is neither required of Jewish infants before Circumcision, nor of Christian infants before Baptism; for as they Circumcised their infants, so John baptised them before or unto repentance, Mat. 3.11. therefore Christian infanta ought to be baptised; but what if the Saduces and Pharisees, and the bloody Murderers of Christ be called upon to repent before either John, or Peter will admit them to baptism, will it follow that infants of Christians must do so actually before they be admitted to Baptism? the one of these was a generation of Vipers, having the leaven of false doctrine that must be purged out, Mat. 16.13. else like Vipers it would eat out the heart and life of Christian Religion, Mat. 3.7. and the other was the leaven of profaneness, which like savage Beasts would trample Religion under their feet, than this also must be purged out, 1 Cor. 5.7.13. then as both must be purged out, so they must be both kept out. But will it follow, that infants must repent of Murders and Heresies before they be admitted to Baptism, let them that would have them to repent of those foul sins prove them guilty of them, or else they are very unjust to debar them of the Privileges of the Church, and actually Excommunicate them without any trial or just proof against them, and till than we must hold that they ought to be baptised.  
Thirdly they Object, If none must be Baptised but such as are called, than Infants of Christians may not be Baptised. But the first is true, Act 1.39. ergo, so is the second. I Answ. It is true, to those afar off, they must be called to the Christian Religion, but it is not true to Christians already called, nor required of their Infants any more than it was of Jewish Infants, for by virtue of their call their Children are holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. and aught to be baptised.  
Fourthly, they Object, That if none must be baptised but those that confess their sins, than Infants must not be baptised. But the first is true, Mat. 3.6. ergo so is the second. I answ. This also is true in men of years, who are converted from Heathenism to the Christian Religion; so it was when any were converted to the Jewish Religion, but what is this to Infants, either Jews, or Christians. Again, when multitudes came to John to be baptised of him, some few of them might confess the sins of all, as being the mouth of the people to God, as any Minister is in his Congregation, than this hinders not; but theirs and our Infants may be baptised.  
Fifthly, they Object, if none must be baptised but such as believe, than Infants may not be baptised. But the first is true, Mark 16.16. Acts 8.36, 37. ergo, so is the second. I Answ. If none but such as we know do truly believe must be baptised, than we must baptise none at all, because we know no man's heart, and Faith is that new name written which none knows but he that receives it, Revel. 2.7. Again, if none must be baptised but true believers, and we cannot know them, we may soon mistake, and set the token of the Covenant upon Reprobates, and refuse to give it to the Elect. Again, Christ said, Those little ones that he took in his Arms did believe in him, see Mat. 16.6. compared with Luke 9.26, and their hearts may as well be known to us as the hearts of men of years, for we know the hearts of none. Again, that faith that was required was but to believe that Christ was the Son of God, and that the Christian Religion was the true Religion; but Infants of Christians have taken up no false Religion, than it need not be required that they should believe the true, being brought up in none other. Again, to baptise none but those that do truly believe were the direct way to cast out the token of the Covenant altogether, because we cannot truly know them, than we ought not to neglect this duty to baptise Infants.  
Sixthly, They say, if none ought to be baptised but such as make profession of justifying faith, than Infants ought not to be baptised; but Infants cannot make such profession. And saith Master Tombs, Neither John the Baptist, nor the Apostles would baptise any without some shows of faith and repentance. And although he grants, that Infants may have a right to Heaven, yet they must not be baptised till that appear. But I say, their hearts will never be known to us, than they had as good say they shall never be baptised, as to say, they shall not be baptised till they know their hearts. Again, would not the Apostles baptise any unless they profess a lie, & that in the presence of Christ who knew their hearts, and then might they lawfully be baptised when they had professed a lie in the presence of Christ, for they baptised always in his presence before his death, John. 3.22.26.42. that they might be his Disciples and not theirs. And would Christ have all those to profess that they had true justifying faith? when as he knew their hearts and would not trust them, John. 2. v. 23, 24. What horrible blasphemy is this? No, they were required but to believe that Christ was the Son of God, and his Religion was the true Religion, and then they had right to Baptism in the approbation of Christ and his Apostles; and their parent's profession might be imputed to the child, because they have power to bring them up in that Religion they profess, as well as the Jews had power to bring up their Infants in their Religion; neither had their Infants any other profession but that of their parents; then christian Infants may as well be baptised as Jewish Infants were circumcised.  
Seventhly, They object against my second ground, saying, The gift of the Holy Ghost there promised, Act. 2.39. is not the sanctifying Gift, but the gift of Tongues, and miracles to cast out Devils, and to cure all manner of diseases, Mark. 16.17. I answ. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb, Luk. 1.15. to show that as he was fit for Baptism from the womb, so he should judge of others: Neither could that be the gift of tongues, nor the gift of miracles as soon as he was born, but the gift of sanctification which Jeremiah had before he was borne, Jer. 1.5. Then if Infants may be so baptised with the Holy Ghost, we may not deny them the outward form of Baptism. But saith Master Tombs, That promise is to Jews that were called of the sending of Christ, from these Texts, Act. 3.25.26.13.32.33. This we grant. But then he saith, Mention is made of a Promise, not as of itself, yielding right to Baptism without repentance, but as a motive to those that repent and are baptised. But to this we grant, that Baptism without repentance is of no value; But when we hear the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is promised to christian Infants, and they have power to bring them up in the christian Religion, than I would know why such may not be baptised, having no false Religion to repent of, and the promise of the inward Baptism; thus sure their parents that have power to bring them up in the true Religion, have also power to set the mark of a christian upon them, to be known from Turks and Infidels. But then he saith, That Promise was made to Jewish Infants, and therefore not to christian Infants, but this is a mere cavil against the Text, and not worth answering.  
Eighthly, They object against my third ground, saying, That the holiness which children have from their parents, is nothing else but this, those parents have a sanctified use of them, for unto the pure all things are pure, Tit. 1.15. I answer, If all things be pure unto them, than other men's children, yea Infidels children are pure unto them, yea the stones and Beasts of the Field are at peace with them, Job. 5.23. yea they have a sanctified use both of the evil of sin and the evil of punishment, for all things shall work together for their good that love God, Rom. 3.28. but this benefit comes not by marrying of believers, but by our marriage with Christ; but this had been to small purpose for Paul to say, That believers have a sanctified use of their children, when as he had not only said before, they have a sanctified use of them, but of all things else; then the meaning is this, they have such a holiness as the Jews had, to distinguish them from other Nations, to be of the church of God, a holy Nation; so Infants of christians are distinguished from Turks and Infidels, to be of the visible church, as well as the Jewish Infants by this mark of distinction: now they are holy, therefore they ought to be baptised. But Master Tombs saith, That holiness spoken by Paul, 1 Cor. 7.14. is nothing else but this, they are legitimate, that is, they are not bastards. To this I answer, That the Corinthians were Gentiles or Heathens before Paul preached amongst them, and by his preaching some times he converted a wife to the christian Religion, and could not convert the husband, and sometimes the husband and not the wife, but if either of them was converted from their dumb Idols wherein they were led, 1 Cor. 12.2. to the christian faith, now, saith Paul, your children are holy: It seems when either of them was converted the great question to the Apostle was this, Whether their children had a right to the Ordinance of Baptism, and so to all other privileges of the christian church? To this a secret answer is employed, That they had a right to all the Ordinances and privileges of the christian church, for now, saith Paul, your children are holy, that is, they are distinguished now from Heathens and Infidels children, so that now one of the parents is become a christian, it cannot be said now that they are Infidels children; but when both the parents were converted to the christian Religion, than the matter was out of question, so that then they need not ask whether their children should enjoy the privileges of the christian church; this being the true genuine meaning of the Text: Now let us see what truth is in Master Tombs interpretation of it, saying, Now they are legitimate, now they are not bastards; but can any rational man think this, that if a man's wife was converted to the christian Religion, that then she would come to the Apostles to ask them whether or not their children were bastards; could any man living tell that better than she herself; if she were a whore than they were bastards, but not else. Again, them that were lawfully married before Paul came amongst them, and had children, they were not bastards by Master Tombs own confession; but saith Paul of those children, that they were unclean then, but now saith he, they are holy, because one of the Parents is become a christian, now those children are not heathens but christians; so then, if the same children which before were unclean, and now are holy by the conversion of one of the Parents, it must needs be such a holiness to distinguish them from Infidels, to be of the true christian Church; then he that denies this truth, must needs draw this conclusion, that the same children which before Paul came there were bastards, but now one of the Parents is converted to the christian Religion, those children that were bastards and unclean, are now holy and no bastards. Again, shall we be such fools, as to think, because the husband is a Christian, that his christianity will so sanctify his wife, that she cannot have a bastard, or will her being a christian so sanctify her husband that he cannot have a bastard; if this were true, then how comes it to pass that we have so many bastards in Engl. when both the husband & the wife profess themselves to be christians, and yet sometimes both of them are so profane as to have bastards? then I say, that holiness spoken of by Paul is that mark of distinction to be known from Turks and Infidels to be of the visible Church of Christ, and therefore have a true right to baptism, and so to all other Ordinances and privileges of the christian Church, although infancy or sickness may hinder them from some of them, yet it cannot from baptism, being only passive, the work is done upon them, and no action required of them, therefore they may and aught to be baptised.  
Ninthly, they object against my fifth ground, saying, that command of God ceased, which did command to set the token of the Covenant upon Jewish Infants, when Christ came and changed that token of circumcision into baptism: But I say, the command remains, although the token be changed; as for instance: God commanded the children of Israel to keep holy the seventh day, for it was the Sabbath of the Lord their God; but this command remains, although by Christ the day was changed; and so for other commands to Israel, thou shalt have no other gods but me; thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor bow down unto it, nor take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; but although the Church of the Jews be cut off, and the christian Church grafted in, we may not say these commands were repealed when the Church was changed, and so conclude that Christians may have other gods, and bow down to them, and worship them, and take the name of Israel's God in vain, because the command was not made to us, but to them; nor keep no Sabbath, because the command was made to them and not to us; nor set the token of the Covenant on our children, because it was to them and not to us, because our Church and Sabbath, and token of the Covenant was all changed; then unless you be minded to cast off God, the Sabbath, the Sacraments, the true Religion, let your children be baptised.  
Tenthly, they object, saying, those that have a right to one of the Sacraments, have a right to both, but Infants have no right to the Lords Supper, because they cannot examine themselves, nor remember the death of Christ, nor discern his body in the Sacrament, than Infants may not be baptised. I answ. Those impediments that hinder them from receiving the Lords Supper, are no impediments to hinder them from Baptism, because nothing is required in the baptised Infants; they are merely passive, the work is done upon them, when as the Lords supper requires many actions, as to take, eat, do this, in men of age and understanding. Again, I doubt not but Infants have a right to both Sacraments, and all other Ordinances, although by natural infirmities they are for the present disabled from some of them, as by sickness or infancy; yet this hinders not, nor disables any from Baptism, therefore Infants ought to be baptised, although baptism is not of absolute necessity where it cannot be had, yet this contempt of it is damnable, but in times of persecution, or in a journey, it may be deferred, as Israel did in the Wilderness forty years, Josh. 5.5. but they might not do so in Canaan, for if they do, it may be their children when they come to age would despise that Ordinance, and then they are to be cut off from Israel, because they have broken the Covenant, Gen. 17.14. and how do these men know but their children will despise the covenant when they come to age? Nay, I dare say, it is the only way to make them despise it when they come to age; for it is said, all the people that heard Christ, and the Publicans, justified God, being baptised with the baptism of John (that is) with water, Mat. 3.11. but the Pharises and Lawyers rejected the Council of God, being not baptised of John, Luke 7.29.30. And it were a just judgement of God upon such Parents, that will not set that mark of distinction, to sever their children from Turks by baptism, that they should never be severed from corrupted nature to the state of grace; then to avoid this, let them be baptised.  
Eleventhly, they object, that if Christ, who saith, learn of me, was not baptised till he was 30 years old, than Infants must not be baptised, Luke 3.23. But the first is true, ergo, so is the second. I answ. It is true that Christ bade us learn of him to be humble and meek, Mat. 11.28. but he did not bid us learn of him to be 30 years old before that we be baptised, and if we learn that, we must neither be more nor less but just of his age. Again, he was both circumcised and baptised, but he did not bid us learn both. Again, at thirty years old he put an end to the Jewish Religion, and could not be baptised before; neither could he set up Christian Religion, till he had put down the Jewish Religion: But I would not have the Anabaptists to tarry till they be thirty years old before they become Christians, and say they learned to do so of Christ. Again, at the same time, others were baptised at several ages, some more, some less than the age of Christ; then the matter lay in this, whether they were converted from false Religions to the true Religion, although they were not converted from the state of corrupted nature to the state of grace, they baptised them; we read of none that ever were denied to be baptised but the Pharises and Sadduces who came to John to be baptised; but he refused to baptise them, because they would not leave their sects and schisms, they would be Pharises and Sadduces still, therefore he calls them A generation of Vipers, Mat. 3.7. because such would eat out the bowels of the christian Church; this might be an item to all the sects and schisms amongst us, who are no better than Vipers both to Church and State; but when any was admitted to Baptism, if they did but believe that Christ was the Son of God, and his was the true Religion; I say, although they should become Papists or profane drunkards, or swearers, or adulterers, and should be excommunicated for such wickedness, yet still they having a right to the Ordinances, as a Freeman hath of a Corporation, although for the present he be in prison, and cannot make use of it, till he hath compounded with his adversarice, and this man given satisfaction to the Church; therefore his children ought to be baptised, unless the Parents turn Turks, and so renounce Christ and christian Religion, yet if but one of them should do this, their children are holy, and aught to be baptised, notwithstanding all other failings whatsoever.  
Twelfthly, thee object, if none must be baptised, and so receive the token of the Covenant but such as have the Covenant, than Infant's 〈◊〉 not be baptised; but they say the first is true, because they are uncapable to receive the covenant, therefore they ought not to be baptised, which is the token of the covenant. Here I might answer, that christian Infants are as capable both to receive the covenant and the token of it, as the Jewish Infants were; but it is not true to say they only that have the covenant must have the signs and tokens of it, for the male children of the Jews all had the token of the covenant, both the elect and reprobates without any difference, and women which were in the covenant of grace as well as men, yet the sign and token of it was set only on men, though reprobates, rather than on women, though never so faithful; for the token of the covenant is not given as a personal benefit to all that have it, but it is given for the good of God's people, who ought to rejoice and be thankful for it wherever they see it; God made a covenant with Adam, but the token of it was set on trees; and God made a covenant with Noah, but the token of it was set in the clouds; so God might have set the token of the covenant of grace in the clouds or on trees, or only on wicked men if he had so pleased; then shall we quarrel with God, and say, we will have the token of the covenant set only on such as have the covenant, as if the rainbow should be set on all men since Noah's flood; no, let us do as faithful women did in the Church of the Jews, who could rejoice and be thankful for the token of the covenant of grace, although it was not set on them but on men only, and many of them reprobates; you we do not find that ever they murmured against God, because they had not the token of the covenant upon them as well as men; then I conclude, notwithstanding these objections, that christian Infants ought to be baptised.  
But Master Tombs hath some more places of Scripture to examine, the first is Gen. 17.7. from which we prove that God did establish his everlasting Covenant to Abraham; and verse 21. he established that everlasting covenant also with Isaac; and being established thus to Abraham and Isaac, than it was also confirmed unto Jacob, for an everlasting covenant, Psal. 105, 10. But this covenant was made with Christ from all eternity; so Prov. 8.23. 1 Pet. 1.20. Titus 1.2. now circumcision was a token of that everlasting covenant, Gen. 17.10, 11. and not a token that they should enjoy the land of Canaan, and so it suits with baptism, which is also a token of that everlasting covenant, which God the Father made with God the Son from all eternity; but Master Tombs saith, that Covenant to which circumcision had relation, being established to Abraham, that he saith was a mixed covenant, and therefore not the same with ours. I answ. All temporal promises both to Abraham's posterity and also to us, are but the overflowing of those promises contained in that eversting covenant, for godliness hath the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4.8. seek the righteousness of Christ, and all these things shall be added unto you, Matth. 6.33. so then, we have as many promises of outward things as the Jews had; but then to increase his doubting, he saith, Abraham's seed is many ways to be taken. I answ. The seed to whom the covenant was made was but one, and that was Christ, Gal. 3.16. and to all the elect when they are grafted into Christ by faith, as we enter into the first Adam's covenant when we come to have his image of nature, so we come into the second Adam's covenant when we come to have his image of grace; now circumcision was the token of this covenant to the Jews, as baptism is to Christians; but I shall speak more fully of this, in answer to Captain Hobson's first argument.  
Secondly, Master Tombs saith, to increase his doubtings, that if baptism succeed circumcision, than none but males ought to be baptised, because none but males were circumcised, and John Baptist did baptise before circumcision of right ceased, therefore it doth not succeed circumcision, although they both signify the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11.6.3. 1 Pet. 3.21. and the same sanctification of the heart, Col. 2.11, 12. But saith he, they differ in some things; first, circumcision did signify, that Christ should come of Isaac, Gen. 17.21. but baptism doth signify his death and resurrection. I answ. although they are both tokens of the same covenant, yet they may in some things differ in their signification, and yet agree well together, thus: circumcision more lively signified mortification, and the death of sin in the crucifying and death of Christ, and of justifying the sinner by the blood of Christ; and baptism more clearly signifies the burial of sin in the burial of Christ, and rising from the death of sin to the life of grace by the resurrection of Christ, and washing away our sins by the spirit of Christ, he being under water, and arose out of the water, and as water washeth away the filth of our bodies, so the blood of Christ washeth away our sins; but to say circumcision was a token, that Christ should come of Isaac, Master Tombs contradicts it himself, saying; John baptised before circumcision should of right cease, and yet Christ was borne thirty years before, which hangs together like harp and harrow; and Paul circumcised Timothy after Christ's ascension, see Acts 16.3. and after he had preached of his resurrection many times; but this had been notoriously wicked, if circumcision had signified that Christ was yet for to come of Isaac: secondly, he saith circumcision signified that the Israelites were separated from all Nations; but I say no, for if any would turn to the Jews Religion they should be circumcised, let them be of what Nation they would; so than it was only a note of distinction of their Religion from all other, and that they only had the true visible Church of God, and so baptism is one mark of the christian Church, whereby it is known from Turks and Infidels: Thirdly, he faith circumcision signified that Moses Law was to be observed, from Gal. 5.3. But how can that be, when it was not given till four hundred years after: fourthly, he faith circumcision did sign the promise of the Land of Canaan to them, and baptism signs eternal life by Christ: But I say, they both signify and sign the promise of that everlasting covenant made with Christ for the elect, yet not to all that have it, but to God's people that are amongst us; and for Canaan, I say it was but an overplus, of those promises which we enjoy as well as the Jews, when as spiritual and eternal mercies were the principal things intended in that everlasting covenant; and whereas he said, if baptism succeed circumcision, than none but males must be baptised. I have answered, the command by Christ is now enlarged to all Nations, and to females; if this man be not faithless, but faithful, I suppose this may satisfy the doubt from this Scripture, why christian infants may not be baptised.  
Thirdly, his examination of other Scriptures, to increase his doubtings are these, Acts 16.15, 32, 33.18.8. 1 Cor. 1.16. he saith, the words to the Jailor were spoke to all in his house, and he rejoiced, believing God with all his household; and Crispus believed God with all his house, and was baptised; hence he concludes, that the name of the whole house is to be understood, that those which believed in it only were baptised: But I have answered already, that if but one of the Parents become a christian, the children are holy, which cannot be denied by any Scripture or sound reason: And again, he hath said nothing of Liddiahs' household; and besides, although the Jailor had servants which believed by hearing and seeing the Apostles carriage in the prison, yet Liddia was a stranger, going to hear Paul preach, was converted, and he came and baptised her whole household immediately, and it may be never saw them before; neither was it material, whether children was of age or not, it may suffice, that they baptised whole households, of which Infants was a part; and I say again, although they were unclean before, if but one of the Parents believed, and was baptised, yet now they are holy, and if both Parents profess themselves christians, which is our case in England, the matter is out of doubt, there Infants ought to be baptised. Again, when God gave the token of the covenant to Abraham, he commanded that the token should be set on all the males in his house, and he accordingly obeyed, and did so, Gen. 17.12.27. and saith the Lord, I know that Abraham will teach his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord, Gen. 18.10. and saith Joshua, as for me and my household we will serve the Lord, Josh. 24.15. Now I have said and proved before, that Christ came not to take away the token of the covenant, but to change it, and to enlarge it, but the covenant and the command are both the same, and remain still; see my answer to the ninth Objection; than it is clear, that if households were circumcised and baptised, than our Infants may and aught to be baptised.  
I shall answer two Questions: Suppose where heathens and christians live in a land together, yet at some distance, and the heathen should take away a christians Infant before it be baptised, and resolve to keep it by violence from them, only they will give the christian leave to come with a Minister and baptise it, but they will not part with the child; now may this man go and baptise it, and engage himself to bring it up in the christian Religion: I answ. No; it were sin and folly to promise that which he cannot perform, the child being kept out of his hands by Infidels; yea, it were as bad and sinful to do as those did under the Prelates government, who did engage themselves, that the child should forsake the devil and all his works, and all the lusts of the flesh, and believe the Articles of the christian faith, and keep all God's Commandments, therefore it ought not to be done. The second Question is this; suppose a child of heathenish Infidels should by some providence of God, lawfully come under the government of christians, ought the child to be baptised? I answ. Yes, because they have power to bring it up in the christian Religion, therefore Abraham was commanded to circumcise all the males in his house, some of them being children of Infidels, because the Lord knew that Abraham would command his household to do that which is right in the sight of the Lord, Gen. 18.19. and christians have the same power to bring up those under their government in the christian Religion; and this also may answer Master Tombs, when he saith, Infant's baptism may be a means to baptise them of uncertain progeny: But I say, if christians have power to bring them up in the christian Religion, and they can bring them up in no other, because the whole Kingdom hath embraced it; neither need they now to have any sureties to engage themselves to bring them up in it, seeing the whole Kingdom hath embraced it and do profess it.  
Fourthly, Master Tombs saith, Baptism is doubtful, because it cannot be proved that it was in use in the next age after the Apostles. Fifthly, Master Tombs saith, Infant's baptism is doubtful, because in the succeeding age afterwards, it was held to be a written tradition. I answ. If it be proved that it was in the Apostles times, and that by the command of Christ, than the Apostasy of the times cannot make it unlawful; but the first is proved sufficiently, yet more shall be said to it in answer to Captain Hobson's third argument; then this doth not justly hinder christians Infants from baptism.  
Sixthly, Master Tombs saith, Infant's baptism hath occasioned many humane inventions to underprop it: First, sureties in baptism; secondly, episcopal confirmation; thirdly, the reformed union by examination before the Communion; fourthly, the Church-covenant as it is in New-England. I answ. these are all mere scandals cast upon the Presbyterial government, which doth utterly suppress them all.  
Seventhly, Master Tombs saith, Infant's baptism hath occasioned or hath been as the birth to foster many errors; first, that baptism confers grace by the work done; secondly, baptism is regeneration; thirdly, that Infants dying, are saved by the faith of the Parents; fourthly, that some regenerate may fall from grace. I answ. The abuse of Infant's baptism doth not nullify it, neither can it be truly said to be the ground of these errors, for we hold that it may be done upon reprobates as well as circumcision was, neither is it a personal benefit to those that have it, but it is only given as a benefit to the godly, who live amongst them; and so the baptism of reprobates may benefit the godly, although it doth not benefit themselves that have it.  
Eightly, Master Tombs saith, baptism of Infants causeth many faults in discipline, and in divine worship, and in conversation, such as these; first private baptism; secondly, baptism of Infants; thirdly, baptism by women; fourthly, baptism of uncertain Progeny; fifthly, baptism in the name of the Lord, who know not the Lord nor have ever consented, and perhaps will never consent to the confession of the name of the Lord: sixthly, it hath brought in the admission of ignorant and profane to the communion of the Lords supper: seventhly, it perverts the order of discipline to to baptise and then to catechise: eighthly, it turns the Sacrament into a ceremony or profane feasting: ninthly, it makes men forget that ever they were baptised: tenthly, it takes away or diminisheth zeal and industry to know the Gospel. I answ. Most of these are scandals without any proof, as the five last, and there is but one of the other five altogether unlawful, and that is baptism by women; and yet this is held by some Anabaptists to be lawful, which is not lawful, but abominable, and he makes a perhaps to the fifth, where there is no cause, for the Parents have power to bring them up to profess the christian Religion, which is as much as the Apostles required before they did admit them to baptism; then these ten faults are not sufficient to hinder christian Infants from baptism.  
Ninthly, Master Tombs saith, that Infant's baptism is an occasion of many unnecessary disputes, fostering contention, which can never be determined by any certain rule, such as these; first, baptising Infants of excommunicated persons: secondly, baptising Infants of apostates: thirdly, baptising Infants of Parents that are not members of a gathered Church: fourthly, baptising Infants of those whose Ancestors were believers, and the next Parents remaining still in unbelief. I answ. the first and last of these the Church of England makes no doubt of, nor of the second, unless they turn Turks, and so renounce the christian Religion; and the third is a mere cavil of Independents, for he that is baptised into the christian faith and Religion, is a member of the christian Church, wherever he is; then notwithstanding this argument, christian Infants ought to be baptised.  
Tenthly, Master Tombs saith, That Baptism of Infants was opposed in the midst of the darkness of Popery, by the same men that opposed invocation of Saints, and prayer for the dead, and adoration of the Cross. I answer, In the midst of that darkness some light might be hid from those that sought to bring in the light of the Gospel; but we need not to fetch proof from those dark times, for Luther denied some part of Scripture to be the Word of God, and he held consubstantiation, ubiquity of Christ's body, and yet he withstood Popery more powerfully than any of those before him. Then this cannot hinder Infant's Baptism.  
Eleventhly, Master Tombs saith, the assertors of Infant's Baptism do not agree amongst themselves, upon what foundation they may build it. I answer, Though several men bring several arguments for it, this cannot 〈◊〉 it. Again, they all agree in the command of Christ, and the promise of sanctifying grace, and the blessing and testimony of Christ on them, and of that holiness of distinction from Turks and Infidels; and if some bring more arguments to confirm it, shall this make it void? and what truth is that which was never opposed by some? then this cannot hinder Infant's Baptism,  
Lastly, Master Tombs saith, Infant's Baptism seems to take away one of the prime ends of Baptism, which was to show and confess himself to be a Disciple; but this I have already answered several times, so then, notwithstanding all these doubtful arguments, here is nothing that may justly hinder Christian Infants from Baptism.  
All these doubts are briefly mentioned by Master Tombs in the beginning of his Book, Entitled, An exercitation of Infant's Baptism, before his Answer to Master Martial, therefore I forbear to set down the several pages to find them.  
Here I shall speak something touching rebaptising, or often baptising, because Master Tombs in his great Book seems to favour it, saying, If we had as clear Scripture for Infant's Baptism as we have for rebaptising, our controversy would soon be ended; and by other such like passages in his Book. It appears that he favours rebaptising or often Baptism; then suppose any that is baptised in the Church of England should question the lawfulness of their Baptism, saying, I was not rightly baptised because I was an Infant, and knew not what was done, but this I have already answered; then suppose another say, I was sprinkled, which is to rinse and not to baptise, therefore I was not rightly baptised; this I shall answer in the second point. Then suppose another say, I was baptised either by a drunken Priest, that cannot preach and baptise as he ought, Mat. 28.19. or else by a Popish Priest, who had his Ordination from Popish Bishops, therefore I was not rightly baptised, and may be rebaptized. But here I would know how our Anabaptists Preachers can prove their own calling lawful; If they say that they are teaching Disciples, then where is their Ordination? it was either from men of other callings, who have nothing to do in it, or else they have none at all; and how was their first teacher made? it was sure the Devil that first moved him from his place and calling to become their Teacher. And if they say, his Calling was extraordinary, like that of the Apostles, than we would see their extraordinary Gifts, and till than we cannot believe their Calling to be lawful, and so themselves ought not to preach nor baptise; thus while they judge our Ministers they condemn themselves; And for our Bishops and Ministers I answer and say, That they were ordained by men of their own calling, to preach and to administer the Sacraments, and thus it hath been successively from the Apostles, and although the Bishops had power and authority given them by men to rule over their Brethren, which they ought not, yet that did not make void that which they had from God, for then that or any other sin, would make that or any other calling void, so that a man must either live without sin or be cas●●red of his calling; so than our Ministers standing is lawful, and their Baptism warrantable. I need not speak of the Service Book, the Cross, and Sucplesse, which were the only things that troubled them, but they are removed, and yet they stand out as much as ever, which shows they have proud and froward hearts, rather than any just cause given to them, why they should forsake our Churches. But suppose there were some exception against our Minister's entrance or execution of their office, yet that will not make their Baptism void; the Lord was wrath with Moses, and would have killed him because his child was not circumcised, but when that was done his wrath ceased, although it was done by his wife, a woman, and an outlandish woman, and in her rage against God for commanding such a service, and against Moses for being willing to yield unto such a service, see Exud. 4.24, 25, 26. Then may not our Ministers baptise as lawfully and acceptably as this woman might circumcise. Now I grant, if our Ministers should baptise in their own name, than their Baptism would be void, 1 Cor. 13.15. but they use the right form which Christ gave the Apostles, in the name of the Trinity, Matth. 28.19. and they use the right matter, which is water, Mat. 3.22. and on the right Subject, Christian's Infants, as hath been proved, and to the right end, which is, no distinguish them from Heathens and Infidels, and to engage them to obey the Covenant, of which Baptism is a signe or token; and all this is done by Ministers lawfully called, therefore they ought not to be rebaptized. Again, Baptism is a Sacrament of the new birth; and although we may come often to the other Sacrament, 1 Cor. ●1. 25. yet we can be borne but once; therefore we must take this Sacrament but once, which is the sign of it. Again, there is but one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism, Ephes. 4. therefore the Sacrament of Baptism is to be administered but once. Their Objections are now to be answered.  
First, they object, That if Christ said he had another Baptism beside that he had of John, Matth. 3.17. Then we may be again baptised, but he saith, I have a Baprisme to be baptised with, and how am I straightened till it be accomplished, Luke 12.50. than they may be again baptised. I answer, That Baptism of Christ was his sufferings, for, saith he, to the Sons of Zebedy can ye drink of the Cup that I drink of, and be baptised with the Baptism that I am baptised with, and they said, we are able; Then he said, you shall indeed drink of the Cup that I drink of, and be baptised with the Baptism that I am baprized with, Mark. 10.38, 39 Therefore, saith Paul, We are baptised into his death, and buried with him by Baptism, Rom. 6.3, 4. So then Christ was but once baptised with water, no more must we; but then as Christ was killed and crucified afterwards, so must we kill and crucify our fins daily afterwards; Then here is no warrant to be rebaptised.  
Secondly, They object, That if those that look for a resurrection must be baptised at their death, than there is more Baptisms than one; but Paul saith, if the dead rise not, why are they baptised for the dead, what shall they do that are baptised for the dead, 1 Cor. 15.29. therefore they may be again baptised. I answer, Baptising signifies washing, and it was the custom to wash the dead Corpse, for when Doreas was dead they washed her body, Act. 9.37. but they that will be so baptised must tarry till they be dead, neither shall it be done by the Minister, but by them that shall wind them up and put them into the Coffin to be buried; but here is no Warrant to be rebaptized, from this Text, till after they be dead.  
Thirdly, they object, That if some were twice baptised, then so may we, but some were first baptised by John, and afterwards by Paul, Act. 19 v. 3, 5. then we may be again baptised. I answer, some do expound those words to be thus understood; saying, They were first baptised by some false Disciples of John into his name, and so it was void, and therefore theywere baptised again in the name of Christ, but this cannot be the meaning, for then Paul would have inquired after those Heretics, for Paul was newly come from Corinth, v. 1. where he had cleared himself from the same thing, 1 Corinth. 1.13, 15. then sure he would not so put it up at Ephesus. 2. Some expound those words thus, saying, They were when Paul came to Ephesus only taught the Doctrine of John, but not baptised of him, and so were baptised by Paul; but this is not the meaning neither, for they were believers and they were Disciples, v. 1, 2. therefore they were baptised of John, and yet they had not learned his Doctrine, for they neither knew Jesus Christ nor the Holy Ghost till Paul had told them, v. 3.4. Thirdly, The Anabaptists expound it thus; saying, They were baptised with water first by John, and then again with water by Paul; but this is not the meaning neither, for their second Baptism is not done with water; but while Paul was expounding to them who it was that John said should come after him, and baptise them with the Holy Ghost, that is, saith Paul Jesus Christ, v. 4. Now when they heard this they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, v. 5. that is, while Paul was expounding, their souls was converted and baptised with the Holy Ghost; neither is here any word that Paul baptised them, only he made known Christ to them, and when the work was done they were baptised, as it was while Peter spoke the Holy Ghost fell on them which heard the Word, Act. 10.44. So then here is the full meaning of these words, they were baptised with water by john, for they were Disciples and believers, that is, they believed that the Christian Religion was the true Religion, so that they were converted from heathenism to christianity, but they were not converted from the state of corruption to the state of grace, though john had said, He that comes after me shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, but him they knew not, till Paul said, that is Jesus Christ; by that word when they heard that they were converted and their souls washed or baptised with the Holy Ohost. But it may be they will object, saying, The Holy Ghost was given to them afterwards, v. 6. I answer, That was the gift of miracles, to cure all diseases, to cast out Devils, and to speak with divers Tongues, yet this also is called Baptism, for saith Christ, You shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost not many days hence, Act. 1.5. that is, the gift of miracles, but they had the sanctifying gift before, for it was the sanctifying gift that john had from the womb, Luk. 1.15 this is that promise made to us and our children, Act. 2.38. so than some times the outward form is called Baptism, and sometimes sanctification is called Baptism, and some times the gift of miracles is called Baptism, as Act. 1.5. and all these three are together in that 19 of the Act; for first they were baptised by water of john, and then baptised by the Holy Ghost by Paul's teaching, and then they received the gift of miracles by Paul's laying on of his hands, and all this is but one Baptism, only the outward form is distinguished from the inward and real work of the Holy Ghost. Then this Text will not warrant their rebaptising the second time with water.  
Fourthly, they object, That if Paul spoke of Baptisms in the Plural Number, than there is more Baptisms than one; but Paul speaks of Baptisms in the plural number, Hebr. 6.2. therefore there is more than one. I answer; It is like Paul speaks of the outward and inward Baptism, and the gift of miracles, and calls them altogether Baptisms in the plural number; or it may be he puts the sufferings of Christians, and washing their corpse after death, which are called Baptisms, because the very next thing Paul speaketh of is the resurrection; howsoever if Paul here speaks of divers kinds of baptisms which it is most likely he doth, than this Text will not warrant a second baptism with water, but Paul here speaks of the Doctrine of Baptism and not of the form, therefore it makes nothing for the outward form to re-baptize them again with water.  
Now as I was desired I shall give a brief Answer to Captain Hobson's five Arguments; First says he, the Baptism of Infants doth directly deny Christ to be come in the flesh, because it keeps on foot that which was before Christ, and ended by Christ as come in the flesh; That is saith he, the Covenant God made with Abraham which ran in the flesh, and was entailed to Generation, Gen. 17.7, 12. to this Covenant saith he, Circumcision had reference, now those natural branches are cut off Rom. 11.20, 21. and now there are no Seed or Sons of Abraham, but believers, Gal. 3.9.14.22.28.29. now the Promise is not a carnal, but a spiritual, John 3.5.  
I answ. To say the Covenant which Circumcision had reverence to was a Carnal Covenant, shows but a carnal understanding of it, for it is called an everlasting Covenant many times in that Chapter, Gen. 17. neither was this Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, but saith the Lord, I will establish my Covenant with thee, and thy seed, every man child shall be circumcised, and this shall be a token of the Covenant, and this token shall be in your flesh for that everlasting Covenant, and my Covenant shall be established with Isaac. Then the Covenant was no more made with Abraham than it was with Isaac, but established to both by that token of Circumcision, so then that circumcision was not a token of a carnal covenant, but a token of that eternal Covenant made between God the Father, and Christ his Son in our nature from all eternity: For, saith Christ, I was set up from everlasting before the world was, Pro. 8.23. he was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world, 1 Pet. 1.20. God made promises to Christ before the world began, Titus 1.2. so than this eternal Covenant was not manifested by a token of it from the beginning of the world till Abraham had it, because till than no whole Nation was called into the visible Church; but if Abraham and his posterity had only a token that they should enjoy the Land of Canaan it had been but Esau's blessing. Again, to say that eternal Covenant was made to Abraham is to make him our Redeemer, for than he must perform the conditions of it for all the Elect, but (poor man) he had failings as well as other men, and not able to satisfy for his own sins, much less for the sins of all the Elect; so than that covenant was made with his seed, and saith Paul, that seed was Christ, Gal. 3.16. Again mark the conclusion of Master Hobson, who said, Abraham received a token but of a carnal covenant, but if that were true, Abraham is damned; and then by and by he saith, the Seed and Sons of Abraham must be believers, Gal. 3.7.9.14.22.28.29. then sure he received the token of that everlasting Covenant. But how are we Gentiles the Seed and Sons of Abraham? I answer. By receiving the sign and token of that everlasting covenant as a seal to our faith, as he did, Rom. 4.11. and we are his children by receiving the same faith in Christ as he had, but we are not Abraham's children as Christ is our everlasting Father, who stood as a general Person representing all the Elect, and receiving a covenant for them, and able to fulfil the conditions of it, and to satisfy God's Justice for the breach of Adam's covenant, and able to work faith in us to enter into his covenant: But when Abraham is named, we must understand him as an Ambassador, representing Christ the King of his Church, with whom alone the new covenant was made, as the first was made with Adam, and all we come under it when we take upon us his natural Image; so the second covenant was made with Christ, and the Elect come under it when they receive his spiritual Image: so than the tokens of the covenant were before Christ came in the Flesh, and Christ did not come to take away the token of the covenant, but to change them from Circumcision to Baptism, and to enlarge them to all Nations, and to Females as well as Males, Acts 8.12. than the keeping on foot this token of the covenant which Christ instituted after his coming in the flesh doth not deny his coming in the flesh, neither is this to hold circumcision which was the token before his coming in the flesh, than this Argument falls to nothing, whereby he would prove Infant's Baptism to deny the coming of Christ in the flesh. But then he saith, the Pharisees and Saducees pleading that they were Abraham's Seed, and would be Baptised, and yet John would not till they repent and believe, Mat. 3.7.8.9. I answer. If they had repent of their Sects and Schisms he would have Baptised them, for no ignorant Person was refused by him, although they had not heard whether there was any Holy Ghost, yet John baptised them unto repentance and bid them believe, and such were made Disciples, Acts 19.12, 34. but John knew that such Sectaries would be but as Vipers to the true Religion, therefore he would not baptise them unless they would leave their Heresy and Schism. Then it was not because they were of the Seed of Abraham that he refused it, but because they would not leave their Heresies and Schisms, this cannot keep Infants from Baptism which have no Sects nor Schisms to repent of. But he hath another Argument to prove that the baptising of Infants directly denies the coming of Christ in the flesh, and that is this, He saith it takes from Christ his Prophetical and Kingly Offices, which the Holy Ghost gave him, as come in the Flesh. I answ. Christ had those Offices before he came in the flesh, he was King, and Priest to the Church of the Jews, although not so manifest as to the christian Church, but how the baptising of infants should rob Christ of those Offices is a Paradox to all wise men. But he saith, because it makes the Old Testament to expound the New, but what of this, Christ eats with sinners, and some were offended at it, and he sends them to the Old Testament, saying, Learn what that meaneth, 〈◊〉 will have mercy and not sacrifice, Mat. 9.13. but did Christ by this lose his Prophetical Office, by sending them to the Old Testament to expound his do in the New? there is no truth in this Argument, nor in the thing that he would prove by it. But then he saith, baptising of Infants robs Christ of his Kingly Office in giving Laws, and making it a duty to baptise infants. I answ. They have a command from Christ to teach and baptise all Nations, but how is a Nation taught but when those of years receive the christian Religion, and make profession of it by a positive Law of that Land, or else it were impossible that any Nation should be either taught or baptised, and so the Commission of Christ would be to no purpose, and if children were excluded, how shall the Nations come in, as is promised? Isa 22. Micah 4.2. but the truth is, if the Parents be of the Christian Religion it is potentially in the child, and the Parents have power to bring them up in that Religion, and therefore aught to baptise them in it, but I shall speak more of this in answer to his third Arment; but this may suffice to prove that we have a command to baptise infants. Then we do not entrench upon the Kingly Office of Christ, and there is neither sense nor reason to say, if we did entrench upon his Kingly Office, that this were to deny his coming in the flesh, when as his Kingly Office was before as well as since his coming in the flesh, than all this hinders not infant's Baptism; so much in answer to his first Argument, I shall be briefer in the rest.  
His second Argument is this, Infant's Baptism hath no part of Righteousness in it, therefore it ought not to be done, his Proposition is proved thus; Whatsoever is considered as a part of Righteousness was seen in the Person or Practice of Christ, but infant's Baptism was neither seen in his Person nor Practice, for he was not baptised in his infancy, neither did he baptise any infants, and yet he saith it becomes us to fulfil all righteousness, Mat. 3.15. therefore infants may not be baptised. I answer; Christ came to fulfil the Moral Law, and so to free his people from that bond of perfect obedience to it, and he suffered the penalty due to our sins to free us from the curse of it; thus by his Active and Passive obedience he fulfilled all righteousness, this he did in his own Person alone, and there was none with him, Isa 63.3. Psal. 47.8. but here in his answer to john Baptist he doth not say, it becometh me, but it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness, Mat. 3.15. Nay the action was john's, and not his, for Jesus came to him to be baptised, verse 13. so then I conceive the meaning to be this, john was sent or commanded to baptise with Water, see John 1.33. and he that believed that Jesus was the Son of God was to be baptised, Acts 8.37. but Jesus, as a man, believed this, and therefore in obedience to that command was to do it, and Jesus to suffer it, thus saith Jesus, It becometh us to fulfil all righteousness, but it did not become john to baptise before he was sent to do it, nor Jesus to suffer before the command was given to john to baptise, John 3.33. Then he could not be baptised in his infancy, because the command was not then given. Again, if he had been baptised in his infancy, than it might be questioned whether men of years might be baptised; neither would the Heathen have suffered their children, unless themselves had been admitted to baptism; and Christ was baptised in the middle of his age, that neither infants; nor old age might be excluded from baptism. Again, Jesus came to be Baptised as soon as there was one appointed and sent to do it, then if we have lawful Ministers found to baptise our Infants, we ought to suffer them to do it, because it becometh us to fulfil the righteous command of Christ; but if it be with us as it was with Christ, that we have no lawful Minister to do it till we be of his age, than we may lawfully stay as long as he die before we baptise our infants. But then the Captain saith, If God would have had Jesus baptised sooner, he would have sent one sooner to do it. To this I may say, If God would not have our infants baptised, than he would not send Ministers to them so soon to do it. And whereas the Captain faith, It is no part of righteousness because Christ baptised not infants. To this I may answer, Christ baptised none at all with water, John 4.2. then if this Argument were good, it is no part of righteousness to baptise infants either young or old; but I shall prove it to be a part of righteousness to baptise infants in answer to his next Argument, but for the present you see his proves removed by which he would prove infant's baptism to have no part of righteousness in it, and therefore his Proposition must needs fall; and notwithstanding this Argument christian infants ought to be baptised.  
His third Argument is this, The baptism of infants is not the baptism of Christ, because it doth not answer his commission, Mat. 28.19, 20. which is, Go teach, discipling and baptising, hence he concludes, that they must be taught, and disciplined, and believers before they can be baptised, Mark 16.16. and this no infant can be, and so cannot answer the commission, therefore must not be baptised. I answ. That infant's baptism is according to the commission of Christ, for according to his Exposition whole Nations must be taught, and disciplined, and made believers, else they were sent to do that which is impossible. But how can a whole Nation be taught, disciplined, and made believers I answ. There is a twosold conversion, and two Sacraments answerable to this twofold conversion; the first conversion is a turning from false religion to the true religion, and the other is a conversion from corrupted nature to the state of grace? now he that hath the first of these to believe Christ to be the Son of God, and that the Christian Religion is the true Religion, this man may be discipled being thus taught, and so may receive the first Sacrament; yea thus a whole Kingdom may be taught and may believe the true Religion, and so discipled, and receive the Sacrament of Baptism; yea when the Governors of a Kingdom shall be taught and believe the Christian Religion to be the true Religion, and shall settle it amongst them by a positive Law of the Land, and all parents and people of years in that Kingdom consent unto it, than all that Kingdom is taught and must all be baptised; for, what the parents have done, the children have potentially done, because it is in the power of those parents to bring them up in that Religion, and not suffer their infants to be of any other; and having this power, they may also set the token or mark of distinction upon them, to baptise them that they may be known from Turks and Heathens. Now if parents had not this power, than no Kingdom could ever receive the Gospel and be a holy Nation as the Jew's was; and so their privilege would exceed the privilege of all Christian Kingdoms; for there will be children to the end of the world; for till then, they will marry and be given in marriage till the last day. Then, as Abraham and the Jews received their Religion for themselves and their children, so must Christians, and set the token of the Covenant upon them as they did. But then, for the other conversion which makes them fit for the other Sacrament, the Lords Supper, it is not in the power of the parents; although they can bring them up in the Christian Religion, yet they cannot convert them from the state of corruption to the state of grace; and although they be able to discern when they conform to the true Religion, yet they cannot see into their souls whether there be true Faith in them; that new name written none knows but he that hath it: then, although it be said, Teach and baptise all Nations: yet it is not said, Teach and give the Lords Supper to all Nations; for it is not in the power of man to teach effectually the heart of another, nor to know when they are so taught; none but himself knows whether he discern the Lords Body, or whether he seed by Faith or remember the Death of Christ, or whether he have truly examined himself; therefore the worthiness or unworthiness lies upon himself, and the charge also. Let every man examine himself, and so let him eat. Neither must any baptised Christian be kept from the Lords Supper, unless he by the leaven of error seek to undermine the truth of Christian Religion, or by profaneness trample the Christian profession underfoot, Matth. 16.12. 1 Cor. 5.12, 13. 2 Cor. 2.5, 6. Gal. 5.9, 10. and then it must be done in a legal way, not by the Minister alone nor by the Congregation alone, but by the Eldership, the offence being scandalous. So then, the first conversion being in the power of the parents, and potentially in the children already, they may and aught to be baptised. But then he saith, The Baptism of infants cannot be a Baptism of Faith and Repentance, and therefore it is not the Baptism of Christ. But in regard he hath no proof for it, I refer him to my answer to the second and third Objection, and conclude that Baptism of infants is not excluded from the Commission of Christ; and it is a Baptism unto Faith and Repentance, and therefore they ought to be baptised.  
His fourth Argument. He saith, Baptism of infants doth cause inconveniences in the Church; first, because we make them Members of the Church before they be called of God, which is contrary to these Scriptures, 1 Cor. 1.1. and 2 Cor. 1.1. I answer, Though the Corinthians were sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be Saints, yet all in the Church were not such; for there was heresies and profaneness: the incestuous person was not cast out; and the Lords Supper was profaned; and more carnal men then spiritual; and many divisions, some of Paul and some of Apollo. Then, Were these all Saints? No. He writes in the judgement of charity, and directs his Epistle chief to such as were Saints indeed; so then in the judgement of charity, we should think the best of those in the Church that use the means to attain salvation; and so you may judge of infants who are brought up in the true Religion: And although Heathens must have a call to Christianity, yet when Christians are called, their children need not to tarry for such a call, because they have no false Religion to be called from. Neither was it any inconvenience to the Jews that their infants had the token of the Covenant upon them before their calling; but rather a grace and glory to their Church, and a benefit to those infants to engage them to obedience of that Covenant when they came to age, of which they had received a token. So all the people and the Publicans justified Christ when they heard him being baptised of John; when as the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Counsel of God against themselves, being not baptised of him, Luke 7.29, 30. Then as we would have them justify Christ and not to reject his Counsel, let them be baptised. But he saith, Another inconvenience it is to have our infants baptised, because it will entail privileges to us in reference to generation. But to these privileges he saith, They must be sanctified, quoting that place I answered already, 2 Cor. 1.1. Yet I say they are sanctified or set apart from Turks and Heathens for the Christian Church; else were they unclean, but now they are holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. than they ought to be baptised. But he hath a third inconvenience, and that is, If infants be baptised, it will make a separation and distraction in Christ's conjunction, and that is to baptise such as they will not give the Lords Supper, nor admit them nor others to break Bread; Christ would have them to do both, and they will admit such as cannot do both. But he hath no reason why some may not do some duties when they are disabled to do others; and therefore I refer him to my answer to the tenth Objection, and hither too: for all his inconveniences, I see no good Argument to keep infants of Christians from Baptism.  
Fifthly: He saith, The baptising of infants doth directly cross the proceed both in the time of the Law and in the time of the Gospel, and therefore it ought not to be done; for they did all, both under the Law and in the time of the Gospel, by a rule; else Lot might have pleaded the same privilege with Abraham, being a Believer as well as he; and Ishmael who was no Believer in God, yet he was circumcised. I answer: The promise to Abraham was, that his seed in Isaac should be the visible Church, who only should have the token of the Covenant; and this excludes Lot from this privilege: and for Ishmael, he being one of his Family, by virtue of another command, was circumcised, when the Lord would have Abraham to make his own house an example or a pattern for all his posterity, to circumcise in his house, Gen. 17.12, 13. But, saith the Lord, I will establish my Covenant with Isaac, ver. 21. Only Strangers had this benefit by living amongst them. So then, by the like reason our children (although as bad as Ishmael) may be baptised; when as some true Believers amongst the Turks may not be baptised except they come to us and make an open profession of the Christian Religion; then they may have this benefit amongst us. But have not we a rule for what we do, when as the command of Christ is our direction, who commands all Nations to be taught and baptised? and if he command it, he will have it done, although the Anabaptists would bar the Christian Church from that benefit to be a holy Nation, as the Church of the Jews was flat against many promises that whole Nations should come into the Christian Church, and Christ's command to teach and baptise all Nations. But I have answered this in reply to Master Hobson's third Argument; and so notwithstanding their Objections and Arguments made against baptising of Christian infants, I see no sufficient ground to bar them from the Ordinance of Baptism.    

The second Point is, that sprinkling the baptised more agreeth with the mind of Christ, then dipping or plunging the baptised in or under the water.  
Now I come to the second Point to prove that sprinkling the baptised more agreeth to the mind of Christ, then dipping or plunging the baptised in or under the water:  
First, Because Baptism is a Sacrament or visible sign to our corporal eyes, to put us in mind of the thing signified, as the Rainbow shall be seen in the clouds, which was the token of the Covenant, Gen. 9.11, 14. and Moses took blood and sprinkled it on the people and said, Behold the blood of the Covenant, Exodus 24.7. But when the baptised are plunged under water, they can neither behold the signs or token of the Covenant, nor hear the words of Institution to put them in mind of the Covenant or thing signified; they cannot have their senses exercised as they ought, Heb. 5.14. because their life is in danger to be lost; and a drunken man or a mad man is as fit to make use of the sign, as a man under water, being out of his element; therefore the baptised ought not to be plunged under water.  
Secondly, If they should stand on the bank and plunge the baptised into the water, in so doing they may break his neck against the bottom, if the water be shallow; or if deep, they may drown him; neither date they jump in to save his life lest they drown themselves; and if they should hate one in the River to catch him, than there cannot be less than two to baptise one man, which is contrary to all examples in Scripture. Then, it being so dangerous to plunge the baptised into the water, whether it be deep or shallow, I would entreat them to show me when there is neither too much nor too little water, to avoid these dangers; for till then, I shall hold it unlawful to plunge the baptised in or under water.  
Thirdly, The Jailor and all his were baptised in the night; but if they had been so plunged, sure they would have either killed or drowned them; neither could they avoid it, because at midnight they could not see their rising; neither do I read that they jumped in to endanger their own lives to save them: then sure they were not plunged into it.  
Fourthly, If they so plunge the baptised into the water, being naked, it is against modesty; But, saith Paul, let all things be done decently, 1 Cor. 14.40. and so doing were a temptation; for David seeing a naked woman washing herself, was tempted to that foul sin of adultery, 2 Sam. 11.2, 4. and Christ hath taught us to say, Led us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, Matth. 6. Then sure the administration of this holy Ordinance must be free from so foul a temptation as to see the nakedness of each other. Then it is unlawful to plunge the baptised naked into the water.  
Fifthly, If they have drawers for that use, they are sure the holy Breeches of Aaron, as bad as the Prelate's Surplice; and for Women to wear them, being man's Apparel, is an abomination to the Lord, Deut. 22.5. therefore not to be plunged in drawers appointed for that use.  
Sixthly, If they say that they were plunged in their Wearing Clothes, is more than they can prove; yea, it seems they were not so plunged in their Wearing Clothes; for when Lydia and the Jailor were baptised, although at several times, they feasted the Apostles straightway, Acts 16.15, 33, 34. But we do not find that they shifted themselves either before or after that Ordinace; Then, did they sit at meat together dung-wet as they came out of the water? If they say, yea, than they must prove it, and till then, we shall not believe that they were plunged into the water in their Wearing Clothes.  
Sevently, If they had any Clothes upon them when they were plunged into the water, than the water could not touch them all over, and so they had as good be sprinkled on one place for all.  
Eightly, Many were baptised in their Houses, as Paul and Cornelius, and others, Acts 9.17, 18. and 10.25, 48. And the Jailor was baptised at midnight in the Prison; But what Vessel could these be so plunged in, and where had they such a Vestel in the Prison, and filled with water so suddenly, as to be all baptised the same hour, and at midnight? And what Vessel had Peter to baptise three thousand in some few hours space? Acts 2.41. If their Vessel could hold but two or three together, did they empty it so many times? And who fetched all that water? And it may be some of them were diseased, and others would not be plunged in the same water, and so they emptied it three thousand times over: But did Peter stand in the Vessel all that time, or was he in the water at all, or Ananias when he baptised Paul in the House, or Peter when he baptised Cornelius in the House, or Paul when he baptised the Jailor? Till this be proved, we shall not believe that they were plunged in the water.  
Ninthly, The Sacraments must be Administered where the Word is Preached; for saith Christ, Teach all Nations baptising them, Matth. 28.19. He doth not say Preach in one place, and then take them to a River to plunge them: And to hold that one Ordinance alone is to be administered apart from the meeting place of the Assembly for all other public duties, is sure the Popish Pilgrimage, or at least his going a Precessioning; for it was never justified of Christ, and therefore to be abhorred of Christians.  
Tenthly, Water is a sign of the Blood of Christ, which is called the Blood of sprinkling, having sprinkled our hearts from an evil conscience, Heb. 10.20. and 12.24. And Moses sprinkled the people, and said, Behold the blood of the Covenant, Exod. 24.8. And the Lord saith, I will sprinkle you with clean water, and ye shall be clean, Ezek. 36.25. Then why should not this Prophecy be fulfilled in sprinkling the baptised? And why should not the sign of Water resemble the substance by sprinkling? Therefore the baptised aught rather to be sprinkled, then plunged into the Water; and because Christ saith, If I wash one part, thou art clean every whit, John 13, 8. Then sprinkling and not plunging, is most agreeing to the mind of Christ.  
Lastly, I fear they do not so plunge the baptised as they do profess, but rather let them wade into the water themselves, and so themselves baptise half their body without their help, and without any word of Institution from them, and then they come afterwards and baptise the other half in the name of the Trinity: But if this be their manner, they contradict their own Tenet, and condemn themselves in so doing: And what shameful thing it is for them to report that they plunge the baptised into the Water, when as they wade in themselves? And so while they judge us for baptising one part for all, they condemn themselves for doing the same thing, Rom. 2.1. From these grounds we may safely conclude, That sprinkling the baptised is more agreeing to the mind of Christ, then to plunge the baptised into the water.  
But to these Arguments Master Patience said some thing, although to small purpose.  
First, saith he, I take dipping to be the command of Christ, because Master Daniel Rogers doth say That the Greek word doth signify washing by plunging; and he saith, Sprinkling is rinsing, and not to baptise, as Master Blackwood doth prove from Greek Authors; but I than replied saying, Are you a Teacher in Israel, and know not these things? John 3.10. Have you the care of souls committed unto you, and do you feel them by hearsay, because you are not able to interpret the Word yourself? What is this But the blind leads the blinds, till both fall into the ditch? And what comfort will it be to you at the day of Judgement, having seduced many souls, in giving them poison instead of wholesome food; for you to say then that men told you it was good for them, when as Christ never told you so? And if we should go by hearsay, we might bring multitudes of Orthodox Divines and Churches that well understand the Language in which Christ spoke unto his Church, to witness, That the word Baptise signifies as well Sprinkling as Plunging.  
Secondly, But then he said Baptism signified Burial, and putting on whole Christ on whole man: But this I grant, For in sprinkling, the baptised are under water, as well as in plunging; for the Minister holds the water over the baptised, and so the baptised is wholly under it; when as in plunging them into the water, it may be some part of them was not wholly under it: And besides, when the Minister holds the water over them, it is all one as to put them under it, when as it may be the Anabaptists wade in and put themselves half under, flat against their own Tenet: And then they grant, that the putting the other half into the water, is a putting on whole Christ: Then by the same Argument, by sprinkling one part, Christ may be wholly put on as well as by their practice; and the Jews by circumcising one part, they were circumcised all over, and so put on whole Christ. Again, although it be said Baptism saves, it is not by the outward washing, because every part of the body was washed, but rather by the answer of a good conscience. But this is not done by Burial, but rather by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 3.21.  
Thirdly, Then he said that John Dipped in Jordan; but I may as well say; he Sprinkled in Jordan; for he saith, I indeed baptise with water, Matth. 3.11. But the word with is not always in there; there was with the Angel a multitude, Luke. 1.13. I hope you will not say they were in the Angel; and if I were with you, I hope you would not say that I were in you: So then to baptise with water may be by sprinkling the baptised, and not by plunging them into the water; and to put in for with is as bad a mistake as that of the Prelates, who would bow at the Name of Jesus instead of In the Name of Jesus, from that place Phil. 2.10. So you will baptise with the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, instead of in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: Because to baptise with water, you will have it all one as to be baptised in the water, by plunging the baptised under, or into the water.  
Fourthly, Then he said, If Christ command to dip, then sprinkling is but a gross invention of man; but then he did not prove that Christ did only command to dip, and not to sprinkle, but to baptise, which signifies both: Then we may sprinkle the baptised with as good, if not better warrant, than they may plunge them into the water.  
Fifthly, Suppose they say Christ came out of the water, Matth. 3 16. And it is said Philip and the Eunuch went both into the water, Acts 8. 3● Hence they conclude, That the Baptised aught to be plunged into the water. I answer, If they waded into the water, than they were not plunged into it: Neither is it said that either Christ or the Eunuch were plunged into the water; neither doth their going into the water hinder but they may be sprinkled; for in those hot Countries they went barefoot, and it is likely they went in some distance from the side, that they might come at clear water, and then both John and Philip might sprinkle them In the Name of the Trinity: And I think the Anabaptists have nothing to say from Scripture or Reason against it.  
I shall: here conclude with one Quere, which is this, If our Ministers be lawfully sent and authorized from Christ, and the Presbytery, to Preach and Baptise, and they do administer this Ordinance of Baptism in the right Form In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and with the right Matter, being Water, and on the right Parties, being either men of years when they are converted to the Christian Religion, or to Infants born of Christians; and to the right end, which is to distinguish them from Turks and Infidels, and as an engagement to us all to go on in obedience of the true Christian Religion: And lastly, That Christ should ratify that outward Form of Baptism according as John the Baptist foretold, and baptised them with the Holy Ghost,  
I would know this of the Anabaptists, how they dare to renounce this outward Form of Baptism thus rightly administered in our Church, and ratified by the Holy Ghost, and all because it was done upon them when they were Infants; therefore the very Baptism of the Holy Ghost despised; or it may be because they were not plunged into the water, Therefore the outward Form and the inward Baptism of the Holy Ghost is despised of them; when as they may see the vanity of plunging by 〈◊〉 forementioned Arguments against it. But will they cast away 〈◊〉 outward and inward Seal and Token of the Covenant, when 〈◊〉 by persons lawfully called to do it, who do it in the right Form, on the right Parties, with the right Matter, and to the right end▪ and all 〈◊〉 confirmed by the Holy Ghost as by a faithful witness that cannot ●e? But will they despise the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, because it was do●● upon Infants, or because they were sprinkled and not plunged into the water? And so like Witches renounce the Covenant of Grace, and 〈◊〉 away both the outward and inward Seals of it, when they enter into Covenant with the Devil; so these people, it is to be feared, many of them do commit that unpardonable sin, when they turn Anabaptists, despising and trampling under feet the Spirit of God, whereby they should be S●●led to the day of Redemption; For commonly they go on in a final 〈◊〉, and not one of Ten thousand ever returns; yea, many of them in these days are ran so far from God, that they do not believe that there is either God or Devil, Heaven or Hell, Church of Grace or Glory; Thus they are now fallen to notorious Atheism, calling themselves Seckers of the forementioned things, which for the present they have lost.  
FINIS.