A LEARNED AND FULL ANSWER TO A TREATISE ENTITLED; THE VANITY OF CHILDISH BAPTISM. Wherein the several Arguments brought to overthrow the lawfulness of Infant's Baptism, together with the Answers to those Arguments maintaining its lawfulness, are duly examined. As also The question concerning the necessity of dipping in Baptism is fully discussed: By William Cook Minister of the Word of God at Wroxall in Warwickshire.  Printed and entered according to Order. Matth. 19.14. 
But Jesus said, Suffer little children and forbidden them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.  
LONDON, Printed by I. L. for Christopher Meredith, at the sign of the Crane in Paul's Churchyard. 1644.   

TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL AND MUCH honoured Sr. JOHN BURGOYNE Knight and Baronet.  
Sir,  
THe reason prevailing with my dear friend, this Author, to desire me in his absence, to direct this Treatise to your patronage, was partly to testify his gratitude; as for many other favours, so especially that you were the chief mean in opening a door to him for the exercise of his Ministry: partly because he could find in yourself and faimily a great instance of that truth in this book asserted; I mean a gracious covenant made, and made good in your family, from parents to children, to several generations. And could any dedication fall out more happily than this, when you are not more a Patron to, than a Pattern of the truth herein published? As concerning the book itself, I shall say no more to you of it then this; when your leisure shall respite you so as to read it, you will not repent that you holp the Author of it into the work of the Ministry. To others, who am I that I should take upon me to add any thing to its value? nay itself will be its own abundant commendation; I doubt not but it will find acceptance with all that love this truth, from some great Patrons whereof, it had, when a Manuscript, an ample and full testimony: and for others, however it do not find them such, yet if they will read it impartially, I doubt not, but by God's blessing, it will make them such. Sir, all I have to do in this business is in the absence of, and at the desire of my dear friend to offer these his first labours to your favour, and patronage, being not a little glad I have this opportunity to acknowledge the many great favours you have sometime heaped upon myself, as also because of them to testify I am  
Your faithful honourer and servant, FRA: WOOD COCK.   

TO THE READER.  
WE should not be ignorant of the wiles and methods of Satan, 
2 Cor. 2.11.  who being a liar and murderer from the beginning, 
Joh. 8.44.  hath made it his perpetual practice by lies to seek the destruction of souls. His lies are of two sorts; one sort whereby he endeavours to persuade men to embrace falsehood as truth, to call evil good, and swallow down deadly poison as wholesome food. The other, whereby he labours to persuade men to reject truth as falsehood, and call good evil, that so men's souls may be famished for want of necessary nourishment. This he doth in matters of estate, practice, faith, and worship; and the more error he can entangle us in, the stronger hold he hath of us. His principal endeavour therefore is to keep us in dislike and detestation of all good, and love and delight in all evil. If he cannot prevail so fare, he labours at least to entangle the soul in one or two dangerous errors, that will bring certain perdition. Many he detaineth in sottish ignorance, gross profaneness, and heathenish impiety; persuading them that their estate, practice, faith, and worship is good enough, so that they can say, God is merciful; Christ died for sinners; they profess the true religion, and plead that all forwardness in religion, which exceeds their lazy strain, is but curious preciseness, and needless now fangled singularity. Thus he prevailed with many, (to the grievous scandal of religion, and danger of their own souls) even in the Apostles times, as may appear by the lamentable profaneness, error, and ignorance in some Churches, 
See 1 Cor. Chap. 5. & 6.8. & 10. & 15. & 2 Ep. etc. ●.  especially that of the Corinthians. If he cannot thus prevail with some who leave their sinful courses, and desire in all things to please God, and to make their calling and election sure; and in matters of faith, worship, and practise, to be guided by the truth; he will raise in them scruples that they may ever be questioning God's love unto them, the truth of their grace, and the soundness of their religion: so fare as to hold them down with desperate discouragements, and deep perplexities, and cause them to deny Gods gracious work in them. How many doth Satan in our days abuse, by leading them to misjudge of their estates? One party sitting securely without questioning the condition of their souls in respect of God; as if all things were so well with them that they need nothing more. Another party on whom God hath showed much mercy, yet ever doubting and questioning. So for matters of faith, practice, and worship; a great part is held in such carelessness that any religion will content them, that suits with their carnal ends, and they take up their religion without examining the grounds thereof. Others as much be abused on the other hand, who because they see some things questioned and proved unsound that haus gone for currant: therefore will make bold not only to question, but also in their manner to declaim and dispute against many lawful, warrantable, well grounded, yea, and necessary truths, and practices, taught, enjoined, or approved in the Scripture. As for example, the morality of the Sabbath, yea the use of the whole Moral Law, subjection to the civil Magistrate; the lawfulness of an oath, presence and communion in God's worship, where all things are not performed punctually according to their humour; yea humane learning (and what not?) have been cried down as Antichristian. Amongst the rest the baptising of infants of Christian parents is condemned. Concerning which they do not make sober inquisition, as desirous to try all things, and hold fast that which is good; but earnestly dispute, use vehement asseverations, and carry on the matter with so great confidence and boldness, together with citation of many Scriptures, and pretence of sincere love and zeal to the truth; that possibly the hearts of simple and upright Christians may be troubled, if not ensnared; which hath been the ancient practice of Satan by his instruments, (whether they were ignorant of what they did, or knowing, I say not) Act. 15. See the magisterial peremptoriness of those false teachers. And how apt God's people are to be troubled with words, or writings of this kind appeareth. In the same place, Act. 15. vers. 2. & 2.4. & 2 Thess. 2.2. Our dark minds and corrupt wills being fare more prone to error and vice, then to truth and virtue. And how Satan will bestir himself by his instruments, and make use of the ignorance, pragmaticalness, pride and malice of some men this way, we may see, Gal. 3.1, 2, 3. Which things I having had some experience of, and meeting with a Pamphlet entitled, The vanity of Childish Baptism, etc. by A. R. and hearing that some are drawn away to admire and embrace the opinions therein maintained, and that others were unsatisfied concerning some things that are therein delivered: I was troubled to see that such stumbling blocks should be laid before God's people; but not seeing a speedy remedy procured, by that so much wished and prayed for way of a Synod of God's faithful Ministers, to consider of those things that trouble the Church according to that example, Act. 15. Neither having seen any thing purposely written upon this subject; (Though of many the unfittest, in regard of want of ability, helps, and time, wherewith others abound) I inclined my thoughts to answer the main Arguments that the Author brings against the baptism of infants, and to vindicate our Arguments against the Objections here made. Though I confess, considering the gross and manifest errors, the fantastical conceits, the taunts, scoffs, and raylings, and evident absurdities, wherewith the Book is stuffed, (which show with what a spirit the Author was led) it may seem unworthy an answer: yet because there are some truths scattered therein, many Scriptures alleged, (though impudently perverted) and much zeal and confidence pretended; many iniudicious people may conceive there is some matter of weight and moment in it. Therefore until God shall be pleased to stir up some fitter more fully to handle this subject (if this controversy be not rather to be buried in silence for the absurdness of the Adversaries opinions) I have undertaken by the assistance of God and rule of the Scripture to examine this Author. In which examination I will not follow him in his extravagancies, and impertinencies; neither shall I (I hope) imitate him in his bold and confident, yet groundless assertions; much less in bitter taunts and reproachful speeches which he useth towards our Ministers and Church: (If I sometime set forth the ridiculousness and weakness of his reasoning; or retort on him his own language, to show how much fitlier it agrees to himself then those on whom he bestows it; I conceive I have warrant in God's word, Prov. 26.5. 1 King. 18.27.) But in the fear and as in the presence of God, I will make trial of his principal reasons and grounds, so fare as God shall enable me by the light of his holy word; not intending to defend all the Arguments which he undertakes to answer; nor to reply to all his Answers of Objections, whereof some (whether invented of himself, or objected by others) I own not, seeing sometime the truth may be pleaded for upon unsound grounds. The truth I stand for; not the weak grounds. But I hope that whatsoever he objecteth with any show of reason or weight I shall sufficiently answer; and lay down grounds for the defending of the truth that may satisfy any intelligent Reader that seeks the truth: So I come to his Preface to the Reader.   


THE ANSWER TO SOME THINGS IN HIS Preface to the READR.  
YOu say, 
A. R.  that In your serious thoughts you minded divers places of Scripture, which evidently set out Baptism to be an undoubted pledge from God to all the right subjects to whom it is applied, of the free pardon of sins, Mark 1.4. & 16.16. Act. 2.38. and 22.16. 1 Pet. 3.31.  
Answer. Ans. If in your serious thoughts you had compared what is said of circumcision, which is answerable to baptism, you might have found that it was to the jews, God's Covenant, 
Gen. 17.10, 11.  (which comprehends all the blessings of the covenant) Gen. 17.10. A token of the covenant, vers. 11. A sign or seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4 10. 
Rom. 4.10.  And so doubtless a pledge of the free pardon and remission of sins, which is comprehended in God's covenant, and in the righteousness of faith. And yet circumcision was administered unto infants as the right subjects thereof.  
Secondly, 
A. R.  Baptism is designed to believers only upon their making profession of faith and willing submission thereunto: this you say, you find, Matt. 18.19. joh. 3.22. compared with 4.1. Act. 2.41. & 18.12.37.38. & 18.8.  
Answer. Ans. Neither you nor any one else hath found in those Scriptures, that only actual believers, and professors of their faith ought to be baptised and none else. Where is I pray you the particle only, or any thing equivalent thereto? None of those precepts or examples limit Baptism for all times only to such: Though such as believed and professed the faith be there spoken of; will it follow that none else have right to baptism? The Disciples are neither forbidden to baptise others but professors of the faith; nor limited to those only, for aught that can be gathered from those places. Abraham which first received the seal of circumcision, 
Gen. 15.6. with Gen. 17.1, 2, 3, etc.  and in his own person actually entered into Covenant with God, was endued with the righteousness of faith, having not as a mere patient, but as an agent accepted the Covenant. Will you thence infer that only such aught to be circumcised under the old Covenant, as had in their own persons as agents accepted of God's Covenant, and were endued with the righteousness of faith, 
Gen. 17.10, 11.  whereof they were to make profession? the Text will confute that inference. Yet your collection is no better from some examples of persons of ripe years which were out of the new Covenant before, and were now to be brought under it. Who because they must believe, and profess their faith before they were baptised; therefore their children though borne of parents within covenant, may not be baptised until they actually believe and profess their faith. For as upon Abraham's believing and receiving the Covenant, and seal of circumcision, his family was received into covenant, and all his males circumcised: so we have plain examples in the New Testament of Governors of families, who believing and being baptised, had their whole families baptised also; where yet there is no word of the faith and profession of any besides the Governors, as Act. 16.15. & 31.32, 33. 1 Cor. 1.16. as shall be showed more fully hereafter, God willing, in due place.  

A. R.  Thirdly, you say, that The right subjects of Baptism are not to be merely passive, 
Mat. 3.2.6. Mar. 1.5. Act. 22.16. Gal. 3.27. Col. 2.12. with 3.1.  but to perform such duties as are incompatible to infants, and persons destitute of understanding.  
Answer. Ans. This holds true of those that were to enter first into Covenant; as Abraham must not be circumcised before he could in his own person accept God's Covenant and actually believe; but this was not necessary to his posterity that were borne in Covenant. The like was showed of Baptism in the examples foregoing.  

A. R.  Whereas you say, Upon these considerations you could not without unfaithfulness to God and your own conscience, but suspect your own baptism, etc.  
Answer. I answer. It is not always an argument of faithfulness to God, to pretend to follow the dictates of conscience; such is the deceitfulness of the heart, and erroneousness of conscience; and so much self-conceitedness, and wilfulness is in men, for which they will hypocritically pretend conscience.  

A. R.  Whereas you say, You remain unsatisfied by our strongest Arguments, and are more confirmed thereby in your persuasion of the unwarrantableness of the baptising of infants.  
Answer. Ans. This doth no more make against a truth, that you are exasperated to oppose by so much more, by how much more it is confirmed with Arguments; then the rebellion of our corrupt hearts (by so much more resisting the Law of God, 
Rom. 7.8.  by how much more powerfully it is pressed upon us) proveth the Law to be evil.  
Whereas you talk so much of The invalidity and insufficiency of our Arguments, your faithfulness to God and your conscience: I hope it shall appear what fidelity and conscientiousness you show in abusing the Scriptures, and what sufficiency and validity there is in your arguments and objections in the following examination. As for your peremptory, rash and arrogant censuring the baptism of children to be a mere device of man, introduced and maintained for politic ends by man's subtlety: It is not much to be regarded, so long as we know that we must not stand to your sentence at the last Day.  
So much for the Preface. Now to the book itself.   

AN ANSWER TO A TREATISE entitled, The vanity of Childish BAPTISM.  
WE will come to your five considerations whereby you would prove that, That which is administered in the Church of England under the name of Baptism, is not the Baptism of the New Testament: and those are, First, the End. Secondly, the Manner. Thirdly, the Power. Fourthly, the Ground. Fifthly, the Subject.  

The first Consideration or Argument taken from the End of children's Baptism: Answered.  
FOr the End you lay down for granted: First, 
A. R.  that the end of children's baptism in our Church is regeneration. Secondly, that this appears by divers passages in the Liturgy, Thirdly, you add the Doctrine or judgement of divers Authors which justify the same, as you say. Fourthly, you reason from this and some other principles against us. This is the sum of your first Argument, which at large to set down were tedious and endless.  
Answer. Ans. Though I will not go about to defend every expression in the Liturgy, or the Authors brought by you: yet I may well deny, first, your proposition as you express it: secondly, I deny also that the reasons brought by you from the Liturgy, and Authors prove that in our Church the end of baptising is regeneration, so that the act of baptising should regenerate the child.  
But to come to your proposition. If your meaning be that the end of our baptising is properly to regenerate; as if our Church used baptism that they may (ex opero operato, as the Papists say) confer grace and regeneration, it is a slander to say it. If you mean that they use it for this end that it may be a pledge, sign, seal, or confirmation of regeneration; or to speak brieflier, that we use it sacramentally to regenerate, or mystically to wash away sin, we avouch it; and this we believe is the right end of baptism, as you grant, viz. A pledge of the pardon of sin, which implies regeneration, so Rom. 6.3, 4. Mar. 1.4. Act. 22. etc. And in this sense those expressions in the Liturgy, and Authors may be warranted (if they intended any more let them answer for themselves) as being agreeable unto the Scripture phrase in sacramental matters. 
Exod. 12.1.12.13. Gen. 17.11, 12. Matt. 26.26.28. 1 Pet. 3.21.  As the Paschall Lamb was called the Passeover, though but a sign, pledge, or memorial of the Angels passing over and sparing the Israelites. Circumcision is called the Covenant, though but the sign or token of the Covenant. Bread and Wine in the Supper, the Body and Blood of Christ, though but signs and seals thereof. Baptism saveth us, though it be but a pledge, sign, or seal of our salvation. And why may not the same be said to regenerate us, as well as to save us? Is not regeneration the beginning and also part of our salvation? Doth not the whole comprehend the part? And therefore we may and aught to pray for the regeneration of infants to be baptised, (that if begun, it may be continued, increased, sealed, and perfected: if not, that it may be wrought in God's due time; so that baptism may have its efficacy.) And give thanks that God hath given the seal of regeneration, and solemnly admitted them into that Covenant wherein he hath promised, the blessing itself.  
Let us see now what use you will make of this, that we hold infants baptised to be regenerated, viz. sacramentally, as we have interpreted our meaning: whence you gather  
That all infants baptised must be necessarily saved; 
A. R.  which is acknowledged an absurdity even by our Ministers which call upon baptised persons to repent, and preach regeneration unto them: Or else (say you) we shall be forced to leave our other principle, which we hold against the Pelagians, Papists, and Arminians. Namely, that True saving grace can never totally, or finally be lost: And that they which have been regenerate can never utterly fall away. This is the sum of your reasoning wherein you are very large, as having gotten us at an advantage, in your conceit.  
Answer. Ans. Will any man say, that all that were baptised by Peter, or to whom baptism was applied in his time (of which he saith, 
1 Pet. 3.21.  that it saveth) were certainly saved? Or that it was an absurd thing to preach regeneration or salvation after baptism? Or that this doctrine, that baptism saveth or burieth with Christ, etc. is inconsistent with that other doctrine concerning the perseverance of the Saints, seeing some of those that were baptised in the Apostles time fell away and perished? Or in your baptism (if you use any) which you profess is a pledge of the remission of sins; are all certainly pardoned? Or need you never to preach repentance and regeneration to them? If so, belike you are happier masters to your disciples, than Christ was to his.  
And seeing now you think you have got our learned Divines (as you scoffingly call them) at an advantage, and follow them so eagerly with your horned argument, as if your blow were unavoidable, comparing yourself to Christ, and them to the Scribes and Pharisees, Matth. 21.23. Let us try whether you would not by this Argument, baffle and nonplus the Prophets, Apostles, and Christ himself. For this your Argument holds as strongly against them as against us, who teach no other thing in saying that baptism regenerateth, and true grace can never be lost (though some baptised perish) than what we have received from Christ, the Prophets, and Apostles. Might you not as well have taken up Nathan for preaching unto David, 
2 Sam. 12.  to bring him unto repentance and conversion. Why, what needs this Nathan? David received circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith, and of circumcision of his heart in his infancy, 
Rom. 4.11.  and had the spiritual grace bestowed on him effectually; and must he now be regenerate and borne again? And why should David himself upon nathan's exhortation and reproof, 
Psal. 51.10.  pray that God would create in him a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within him? (which, what else is it but the renewing of the work of regeneration? 
Ezek. 18.21. Jer. 4.4. ) Why should the Prophets exhort the jews to make them new hearts, and circumcise their hearts, though they had received circumcision? What would Nathan, David, and the Prophets have answered this subtle disputant if he had examined them thus?  
Or if you had been living in Paul's time, when he called upon the Romans, 
Rom. 12.2. 2 Cor. 5.17. Ephes. 4.23. & 24. Gal. 4.19. Rom. 6.3. Gal. 3.27.  Corinthians, Ephesians and others, to repentance and renovation; to put off the old man, to put on the new man, to become new creatures, to be renewed in the spirit of their mind; professing that he traveled to form Christ in them again. Belike this learned Divine (to use your phrase) Paul would soon have been dashed, if you had but risen against him. Why, what's the matter Paul? Did not you teach that so many as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ, are buried with him in baptism? What? have they put off Christ? risen again to sin? 
Rom. 8.38, 39 Phil. 1 6. Rom. 11.29.  fallen away from grace, etc. This will not stand with your doctrine; that nothing shall separate from God's love; that God will perfect the good work which he hath begun; that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance. Therefore you were deceived in saying that Christ is put on in baptism; or in teaching that men cannot fall away from grace.  
Or if you had had Peter in hand when he called Simon Magus to repentance, Act. 8, 22. though he had been baptised; you would belike have lessoned Peter better. Why, what needs this Peter? Didst not thou teach that baptism saveth, and is he that was saved even now damned again? 
1 Pet. 3.21.  sure thou wast mistaken when thou saidst baptism saveth; or when thou saidst that the faithful are preserved by the power of God through faith unto salvation, 
1 Pet. 1.5.  sigh Simon that awhile ago believed and was baptised, hath need now to repent, as being in the gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity.  
Thus if you had disputed, learned Peter and Paul belike had been in great straits what to have answered. It was well for them that none of these acute Anabaptists (as they are called) were sprung up in those days. One more instance I will bring. Our blessed Saviour preacheth unto his Disciples necessity of conversion, and becoming as little children, 
Matth. 18.3.  as they would enter into the kingdom of heaven. Yet elsewhere he saith, 
Joh. 3.35.  Except a a man be borne again of water and the holy Ghost, he shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of God. Thereby (as you gather) assuring us that if a man be regenerate and borne again, he shall see the kingdom of God. But I conceive you will not deny but the Discipcles had already been borne again by water and the holy Ghost. Sure in this case had you been in his time you would have more troubled him with your Dilemma, than an hundred of the Scribes and Pharisees with all their Sophistry. What? To teach that being borne again by water and the holy Ghost, 
Joh. 10.28.  they shall certainly enter into the kingdom of God: And that none shall pluck them out of his hands being given him of the Father: And yet now threaten them with the loss of the kingdom of heaven, unless they shall be converted, become as little children? (which, what else is it but to be regenerate?)  
Do you think that this your arguing would have persuaded the world that Christ was a false witness of God? When your reasoning thus against the Prophets, Apostles, and Christ himself, shall be found unanswerable, we shall be forced to yield unto you; but until then we (who in this point have their doctrine for our warrant; That though Baptism save and regenerate, yet baptised persons have need to be called upon to repentance and regeneration) need not to regard your bold, and confident asseverations.  
I have the largelier set forth the manner of your reasoning, only changing the persons, (if it may be) to make you see your weakness; if not, to make others ashamed of their simplicity which admire such disputers. You would not have reasoned so, if you had considered: First, that notwithstanding some abuse baptism, yet that hinders not but in regard of God's institution, baptism may be said to regenerate or save. And so secondly, that they which have received baptism according to God's appointment, as fare as we can discern, may be said to be regenerated and saved, viz. sacramentally. Thirdly, that baptism is administered to the members of the Church; not only as a pledge of remission of sins past, upon supposition of repentance and faith; but also of sins to come; being both an obligation to us daily to renew our faith and repentance, and an assurance unto us, that upon the performance of that condition God will pardon; in so much that our regeneration, viz. sacramental in baptism is a main ground, why Ministers should call upon us being baptised to manifest our regeneration in our lives, seeing God hath given us the seal of regeneration to assure us of the grace itself, if the fault be not in ourselves; and to bind us to repentance that we may be partakers of the remission of sins; and hence the Apostle urgeth conversion or sanctification from baptism before received. 
Rom. 6.  So that if in Christ's and the Apostles time the baptised had need to be called to repentance or regeneration, though baptism saved and buried with Christ: what absurdity is it if our Ministers call to repentance, and regeneration, those that were regenerated in baptism in the forenamed sense? For even in the best times some that had professed, and been baptised, had done it unsoundly and hypocritically, and so had need to be called unto sincerity: whereunto when they were brought, their baptism though received in time of hypocrisy, should be a pledge of the remission of sins; 
Act. 8.  as in Simon Magus whom Peter bids to repent, but not to be baptised again. Secondly, others might have the truth of grace and regeneration, and yet not give so clear testimony thereof to themselves and others as was to be desired. Thirdly, those that had truly repent and believed, might have fallen and need to be restored. Fourthly, the best by such exhortations are kept watchful. None in this life are so fully regenerated or converted, but they need additions and increase. So that your consequences that you draw against us from our principles are frivolous.  

A. R.  Now let us come to your answer to our Objections as you pretend: You say, that To sophisticate by some distinction, lest all our gain by this trade should be taken from us; and as all the people gave care to Philip; so all the people should give care to us, and so our kingdom should be at an end: we use this distinction, that they are only holy in the judgement of charity, of the Church esteemed regenerate; neither are any required to believe them to be regenerate as an Article of faith, but in the judgement of charity: and then you ask, What is the ground of this our charity?  
Answer. First, I would desire to know, Whether the Baptism which you administer regenerates and saves, or no. (I mean sacramentally, for we say ours regenerates) If not, than it is not the Baptism that Christ & his Apostles used, 
1 Pet. 3.  for Peter saith, it saved; Paul saith, it buried with Christ. If yea, 
Rom. 6.  whether you believe that all that are baptised of you, are certainly regenerate and saved, or no; and then tell us, what is the ground of your belief.  
Secondly, Whereas you dislike this distinction, you should have demanded of Peter and other the Apostles and Evangelists (that baptised some hypocrites no doubt, witness Simon Magus, Ananias, Saphira, etc. and yet held that Baptism saveth and burieth with Christ) whether they held that these who received Baptism were saved and buried with Christ in the judgement of certainty or charity, and then you might have demanded a ground of that their judgement: And seeing you arrogate to yourself such skill in Scripture, tell us what was Peter's ground in saying Baptism saveth, when yet many that were baptised were damned; and what answer you shall make to this question, haply may serve to answer your own question to us.  
Thirdly, We answer directly. Our ground on which we build this charitable opinion, (viz. that Baptism regenerateth sacramentally; or that infants of Christian parents baptised are regenerate) is God's word. For doth not the Scripture tell us, that God is the God of the faithful and of their seed, that he hath taken them into Covenant? 
Gen. 17.7.10.  Thus God promised unto Abraham the father of the faithful, not as any privilege peculiar unto him; but as the common privilege of all in covenant, and therefore proselytes of what nation soever upon their entering into covenant had their children taken into covenant likewise. Again, 
Exod. 12.48. Act. 2.36. 1 Cor. 7.17.  the promise is made not only to the faithful, but also to their children. Hence it is, that the children of believing parents are holy. Which places of Scripture shall in due place (God willing) be vindicated from your groundless exceptions. Now whosoever is in covenant with God, hath God for his God, hath the promises belonging to him, and is holy, must needs be regenerate, as he is in covenant, hath God for his God, etc. And therefore seeing that children are in the same condition with their parents (or those that are in stead of their parents) in respect of outward covenant (which is all the ground we have for judging others;) So that if the parent be in covenant, the child remains so until by his own personal infidelity and apostasy he discovenant himself: if the parent be out of covenant, the child remains so, until by his own personal faith, he accept and enter into covenant. Hence it follows, if we have so much ground for our judgement of charity, to hold that the parents are regenerate, as the Apostles had for those whom they baptised, which was no more than their profession of faith and repentance; we have the same ground for our judgement concerning the regeneration of their children. viz profession of faith and repentance made by their parents; though we may oft be deceived in parents and children, and no marvel, even the Apostles themselves were deceived: for they doubtless baptised many hypocrites.  
As for your other objections, whether feigned by yourself and fathered on us, or found in any writings on our side; they are not worthy defending, nor your answer unto them worthy a reply. Who say, that The mere election of infants, whether all or some, is the ground of our baptising them, or believing them to be regenerate. If any say so, let him answer for himself. But our ground, as hath been showed, is the external being in covenant; whereby they have right to the seal of initiation; which is not without its efficacy unto all; though some (whether they receive it in infancy or ripeness) by their own fault may render it unprofitable to themselves. Therefore your frivolous inferences have no place here, as that, All men & women in the world are to be baptised: for all are not outwardly in covenant. And as for your confident assertion, that Faith manifested by the confession of the mouth, is the only ground of Baptism to the elect, (if you mean it of the profession of faith of the person to be baptised) it is not proved by those Scriptures you allege, 
Act. 8.37. Rom. 14.23.  (as hath been partly showed already, and God willing shall be showed more fully hereafter) unless you will make the Eunuch's Baptism with all its circumstances, a necessary rule to be followed by all to be baptised. So much may suffice to be answered to your first consideration.   

An answer to the second consideration or argument, taken from the manner of Baptising.  
LEt us come to your second consideration, taken from the manner of the administration of Baptism. 
A. R.  You say; The manner in which Baptism is administered in our Church is by sprinkling or casting a little water on the head or face. And your position that you oppose against us is this. Christ's institution requires that the whole man be dipped all over in the water. Hence your argument is this; The manner of the use of water must be either by infusion or dipping. But john the Baptist or Dipper, used the water by putting the party into the water, not by infusing or sprinkling water upon the party, as is proved, Matth. 3.7. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  I indeed baptise you in water, Mark 1.8. I indeed have baptised you in water, joh. 1.26. Act. 11.16.  
Answer. Answ. We will try how substantial this reason is. Whereas you say; The use of water must be either by infusion or dipping: In some sense this is true, namely, if it be taken by way of enumeration, not of opposition; for Baptism which signifies washing, is done by applying the water to the party baptised or washed; But water is ordinarily applied the one of these two ways. viz. either by dipping or sprinkling. In this sense we grant your proposition is true: viz. that Baptism must be either by dipping or infusion, and so that it be either way it is sufficient. But you take it not in this sense, as may appear by the manner of your reasoning; for by the affirmation of the one, you infer the denial of the other; and if you should take it in this sense, it would make against yourself, and overthrow your own argument. Therefore it appears you take it by way of opposition, and so we utterly deny it as false. Your reasoning is like this, We come to the knowledge of Christ by reading the Scriptures, or hearing the word preached. 
Joh. 5.39.  But Christ bids the jews to search the Scripture, viz. by reading, that they might come to the knowledge of him. Therefore not by hearing the word preached. Or like this, The Minister must preach either sitting or standing. But Christ preached sitting. 
Matth. 5.1. etc.  Therefore Ministers may not preach standing. Or this, We must pray either standing, or kneeling, or sitting, or lying, etc. But Christ saith, when you stand praying. 
Mark. 11.25.  Therefore it is not lawful to pray with any other gesture but standing. Who seethe not the weakness of this reasoning? yours is no better.  
But to come to your assumption. But john the Baptist or Dipper (as you say, according to the Dutch) did use the water: By putting the party into the water, not by insusing or sprinkling, Mat. 3.11. Mar. 1.8. joh. 1.26. Act. 11.16.  
Answer. Answ. First, None of these places prove that john put the party into the water, much less that the whole man was dipped all over in the water, which you undertook to prove; But here is not the least intimation of any such matter.  
Secondly, Whereas you gather from the Original: that john baptised in the water, and dipped the whole man all over in the water, and put the party into the water, you might as well say, that Christ baptised in the holy Ghost, and fire, and that he dipped the whole man all over in the holy Ghost and in the fire, 
Act. 11.6. Matth. 3.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  or put the party into the holy Ghost and fire; (which were a strange interpretation) for the particle is the same.  
Thirdly, Whereas you gather hence [A Baptism in water] not [a Baptism with water] I would have you tell me what were they baptised or washed with if not with water? as if there were an irreconcilable repugnancy between baptising in water, and baptising with water.  
But that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not necessarily signify [in,] you grant in our objection, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which you propound thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify [with] sometime as in Revel. 19.21. And the rest were slain with the sword. Whereunto I might add that not only in this place, but frequently in the New Testament, the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (by an Hebraisme) answering the prefix ב signifies as well with as in. Matth. 5.13. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  with (not in) what shall it be salted, Matth. 7.2. with (not in) what judgement. Act. 26.18. with (not in) the sanctified. You answer this objection thus.  
" 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never taken for [with] after baptizo.  
Reply. I reply. That is the thing in question. And I would demand whether you think that our Translatours, (and most or all others) who have Englished it [with] known not how to render the Original in its proper signification as well as yourself? Besides these forementioned places, 
Mat. 3.11. Act. 11.19.  speaking of Christ's baptising with the holy Ghost and with fire, cannot be otherwise Englished with any sense.  
Your peremptory denial of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify [with] after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you would confirm thus. Either the word Baptizo must signify to sprinkle, or the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not signify [with.] But the word baptizo doth signify to dip. Ergo, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signify [In] and not [with,] as is proved very clearly, and denied of none who are not ignorant of the language.  
Answ. As for this your Syllogism, it shows your Clarklinesse wherewith you scoffingly taunt our Ministers. It is notoriously fond, it wants form, hath four terms: In the assumption you put [to dip] in stead of [not to sprinkle,] as if one word might not signify to dip and sprinkle both. There is no necessity in the proposition. Your assumption wherein you say (But baptizo signifies to dip) if it be taken exclusively, as to debar all other significations (which it must, or else it is brought to no purpose) is false. Whereas in your conclusion, you say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signify [in] and not [with] which you say is denied by none, who are not ignorant of the language.  
Answer. Answ. What fond arrogancy this is, I shall make appear by and by. But let us hear this critical Linguist prove what he saith from the signification of the Greek word.  You say that Greek Authors account Bapto and Baptizo, to signify that for which the Latins use Mergo, Immergo & Tingere immergendo; that is to dip or plunge, to douse over head, or under water. 
Answer. Answ. Bapto indeed signifies Mergo or Tingo. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Baptizo is a derivative that cometh thence, which sometimes may signify the same with its primitive. But if we look into the use of it in the New Testament, we shall find it rendered, To wash; where the Original word to Baptise is not kept. as Mark. 7.4. And when they come from the market they eat not except they wash.— The washing of cups and of pots, and of brazen vessels, and of beds or tables. Again, vers. 8. The washing of pots and cups. Here you have the verb Baptizo to wash, and the noun Baptismos, washing. And that this is the proper signification of the word may appear (
a Bez Lotiones Arias Mon. lotiones. vul. Baptismata.  beside the consent of Translatours) in that it is used as signifying the same thing with the other words, that always signifies 
a Bez Lotiones Arias Mon. lotiones. vul. Baptismata.  washing, as vers. 2. 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  With unwashen hands, and vers. 3. 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Wash their hands. By which it appeareth, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify the same thing. So Hebr. 9.10. And divers washings, where the Apostle speaketh of the legal washings. So Luk. 11.38. The Pharisee marvelled that Christ had not washed before dinner. So that the word signifies properly to wash, whether by infusion or immersion it matters not.  
But should we grant Baptizo and Bapto, to be altogether of the same signification (though the contrary have been sufficiently proved,) what will you gain thereby? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, either mergo or tingo. Mergo signifies properly, to drown, overwhelm, swallow up, etc. If you will have your converts (according to this interpretation) so baptised as to drown them; you will make sure work to prevent their sinning any more. And so your Baptism will have a privilege above the Baptism of Christ, john or the Apostles; for their converts and baptised one's sinned after Baptism. But if you will have Baptism taken and used in this sense, I know none that will be your disciples, unless they be weary of their lives. The other word Tingo signifies to dip or 
c Dan. 4.12. &c Interpreters render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in sound hath great affinity with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some letters being transposed, by Intingitur. jun. & Trem. Ar. Mon. Buxtorf. our Translatours render it, to be wet. Where Intingo, cannot signify to douse over head, or to dip, but to besprinkle or bedew, for it follows— with the dew of heaven.  besprinkle, to imbrue, stain, wet, or wash, etc. Now what reason is there, why it should be restrained only to the first signification? Nay if we compare Scriptures, we shall find that what is rendered by sprinkling in the Old Testament is expressed by this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New. As if we confer these two places, Rev 19.13. and Esa. 63.3. In Rev. 10.13. And 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sparsus, aspersus, inspersus fuit. vel active, aspersit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conspersus, tinctus, madefactus. Bez. veste tincta sanguine. Ari. vestimention tinctum. Vulg. veste aspersa.  he was clothed with a vesture (dipped) in blood, So our Translatours, (or rather sprinkled, so we,) Esa. 63.3. Their blood shall be (sprinkled) on my garments; To which place of Esay it is certain that the holy Ghost in the Revelation alludes (that I say not that it may be a repetition of the same prophesis, pointing at the same time and thing) as it may appear by the same similitude of treading the winepress of God's wrath, largely prosecuted in both places. See Esa. 63.1 With died garments, vers. 2. Red in his apparel, etc. vers. 3. I have trod the wine press, and compare Rev. 19 v. 15. etc. So that it is evident, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth express the same that was meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Though our Translatours render it dipped, because the word in the Original signifies either dipped or sprinkled equally; Yea, Beza useth a word that equally signifies dipped or sprinkled. So Arias Montanus. But the vulgar translation hath a word that only signifies besprinkled, not dipped.  
But you say. That Baptizo signifies, to dip, plunge, douse over head, etc. is proved by Christ's own Baptism. And 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  he was baptised into the jordan. Mark 1.9. But it is not, the water was put upon him, as in sprinkling the water is put on the party.  
Answ. 1. Neither is it, he was dipped, plunged, doused over head, or under the water, etc.  
2. The force of your argument lies in this particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which you will needs have translated [Into] not [In.] But can you, who censure others for their ignorance of the language, be ignorant that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] signifieth very frequently In or by, not Into? as Matth. 2.23. 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  He dwelled in [not into] a city called Nazareth. Matth. 4.13. He dwelled in [not into] Capernaum. Matth. 5, 45. Neither by the earth, neither by jerusalem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are put in the same signification there. Matth. 10.9. Neither possess money in [not into] your purses. and 41. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  In [not into] the name of a Prophet. Matth. 13.33. She hide it in [not into] three measures of flower, etc. Thus you see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying in, so that it were absurd to render it into, and so you have proved nothing for your purpose from the particle.  
" You add the testimony of our Translatours themselves. For which I answer. Matth. 26.23. and Mar. 14.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, have the preposition set before them, which altars the signification and restrains it to signify Dipping, in which signification the simple Verb that we are about is not restrained unto. From Luk. 16.24. joh. 13.26. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  you prove nothing but what we willingly grant without this labour; namely, that bapto sometimes signifies to Dip. But thence it follows not that it signifies so always, or only. Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Revel. 19.13. and the difference between Bapto, and Baptizo, I have spoken before. And here you confirm what I said, and contradict yourself. For saying that in no Greek Author, nor Scripture written by the Apostles in that Language, can be found that they differ: 
Mark. 7.4.  Immediately you bring a place where Baptizo is taken in a sense different from Bapto, which you never shown, not have I read to signify, to Wash. So that you pull down with your own hands, what you have been building all this while. See before what hath been said to that place, where mention is made of such a washing, as is so fare from necessarily implying dowsing into the water only, that it will scarcely admit it as washing themselves when they come from the market, and the washing of Beds or Tables. What you add, That washing of cups, is putting cups into the water: is as true as washing hands or face is putting them into the water. May not cups be as well washed by infusion of water in and upon them; as by putting them into the water?  
Your conjecture from joh. 3.23. is as frivolous. As if there could be no reason why john should choose a place where were many waters, but this, that he might dip the whole man into the water, plunge and douse them over head, or under water, (as your expressions are) But not such reason is here expressed, nor so much as intimated. Rather the cause seems this. Because in those hot countries' waters were rare, 
Gen. 21.15.19. Gen. 26.18. Judg. 1.15.  and in some places could not be had in a great distance: therefore john chose places where were continual running waters and streams: especially, seeing there came such huge multitudes unto him to be baptised, 
Mat. 3.5, 6, 7.  and it is more than probable that not only john, but also his disciples baptised, as joh. 4.1, 2. Christ is said to baptise those whom his disciples baptised: So john may be said to baptise those whom he and his disciples baptised together, a long the river at several places of the river, that they might make more speedy dispatch, with so great multitudes. 
Act. 2.41. Act. 16.15.33.  Neither is it true that you say; A little font will suffice to besprinkle a whole world with handfuls. Moreover, we read of great multitudes baptised, even three thousand in jerusalem, without mention of going to the rivers; and of whole families, without mention of going out to the waters, or fetching great store of waters. It is like the waters they had within doors at midnight sufficed.  

Act. 8.38, 39  Your Collection from Philip's going down to the water with the Eunuch, that therefore they used dipping; is as vain. Must not they go to the water where it was, if they would use it? would the water have come up unto them in the chariot any sooner for sprinkling then for dipping? Of the same stamp is your inference, from Matth. 3.16. Mark. 1.10. from Christ's ascending from the water. For as Christ was pleased to be baptised with water: so he was pleased to go where the water was. viz. in the channel, to which there was a descent, and from which there was an ascent; so that he must go down to and come up from the water. But here is not the least hint that john doused Christ over head or under the water. Nay, rather that conceit of yours is here confuted; for if our Blessed Saviour had been plunged of john into the water, than it would rather have been said; That john cast or plunged Christ into the water, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and took him out of the water. But it is only employed, that Christ went down unto the water and came up again from it.  
From your other Scriptures, Col. 2.12. Rom. 6.4.5. 1 Cor. 15.29. what you go about to gather I know not, unless this, that as Christ was buried, abode in the grave three days, and then risen again: so the party baptised must be put under the water, abide there some considerable time, and then come up again (for if you press a similitude of Christ's burial in going down into the water, and of his resurrection in coming up out of the water; why not also of his abode in the grave three days, by abiding three days, or some answerable time under the water?) which will make bad work; neither can any such thing be gathered from those Scriptures. Now to use your own words: Let any man that is not quite fallen out with his reason judge, whether in all these Scriptures be any syllable that speaks more for dipping then for sprinkling or washing with water? Men may well be at agreement with their reason, and yet perceive no such thing as you infer hence. 
Col. 2.12. Rom. 6.4, 5. 1 Cor. 15.29.  But I would demand here two Questions: First, How can you gather from these places, a dipping of the whole man over head and under water? and that a similitude of Christ's death, burial, and rising again, to be represented by dipping into the water is signified here? These Scriptures show indeed that the end of our baptism is to seal our communion with Christ, in his death and resurrection, by which we are dead to sin, and raised again to holiness. But if you will press hence a necessity of resemblance of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection by our descending into, abiding in, and coming up out of the water; 
Pro. 30.6. Revel. 22.18.  take heed lest you be one of those which add to God's word, lest he reprove you as a liar: and add unto you the plagues written in his Book. For I know not any word of God wherein this representation is necessarily implied, much less expressed. Besides, if you urge death and resurrection to be resembled by descension into, and ascension out of the water: you must urge also burial (which is principally there expressed) by the biding of the whole man, head and all under for a time answerable to Christ's three day's burial, which cannot be without danger (yea certainty) of drowning.  
Secondly, If it should be granted that a representation and resemblance of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection is set before us in baptism; and so of our death to sin, and rising again to holiness: Yet I would demand, why may not this be represented as well by infusion of water, as by dipping? Can you give me an example of so many killed and buried by immersion or dipping into the water; as I can give of them that have been put to death and buried, by the infusion of water? I am sure a whole world of men and other earthly creatures (those few that were in the Ark excepted) were buried in the universal Deluge at once, by infusion, not by dipping. So that infusion or sprinkling, 
Gen. 6.27. & 7.11, 12.  may well as clearly signify death and burial, as dipping. And to the preservation of Noah and those that were with him, by the Ark, (on which waters were poured) from drowning: the Apostle compares baptism, as its antitype. Wherefore you might do well to be henceforth a little more modest, and not talk as if all men were fallen out with their reason which will not jump with you in your weak conceits.  
Now we come to your inference or conclusion, which being built on the crazy and rotten foundation of such vain and fond premises, falls to the ground of itself. And whereas you say, that, The Greek wanted not words to express any other act as well as dipping. I answer. Neither did the Greek want words to express only dipping of the whole man all over into the water; or dowsing and plunging over head and under the water (which you would have Baptizo to signify, but neither have nor can prove that it doth) if the holy Ghost had meant any such act. Neither doth the Spirit of God need your help to find out fit words. It seemed fit to that wise Spirit to use Baptizo, which signifies to wash, whether by dipping or sprinkling; washing only being intended to be significant, and not either dipping or sprinkling. Whereas you say, that It cannot be proved that baptism was administered any other way then by dipping, for at least a thousand years after Christ.  
Ans. I leave the proof and trials of that to Historians and Antiquaries, as being unfurnished with the Records of Antiquity: though I conceive your Assertion is as bold and groundless as your others are proved to be. Secondly, Why do you not prove that dowsing over head, and under water, was used for at least a thousand years after Christ? Thirdly, How can you tell it cannot be proved that sprinkling was used of all that time? Will you persuade people that you have read over all the writings of the Ancients; or that you are so honest, faithful, and unerring, that your word must be taken for an Oracle without proof?  
As for your clear resulting consequence, as I said, It is built on too weak grounds to stand, and therefore may be safely denied as a plain untruth. And whereas you apply the words of Peter and Ananias unto us, 
Act. 2.38. Act. 22.16. 1 Sam. 15.23.  as to unbaptized persons, persuading us to arise and be baptised: Intimating, that for us to refuse this your Charge, is rebellion and stubborness, as witchcraft, iniquity and idolatry. I would advise you take heed of, and repent for abusing Scripture, as in these and a great part of your quotations you do most grossly. God will not hold them guiltless that take his name in vain. When you come to us with the same spirit and authority, as Peter, Ananias, and Samuel had; we will hearken to you.  
Now though what hath been said in answer to this disputers Arguments against baptising by sprinkling, or infusion; and for only dipping or plunging might suffice; yet I will add something more to what hath been written, endeavouring to make it appear, that washing, whether it be by dipping, or sprinkling, is the external act required in this Sacrament, to be used; and that sprinkling, or infusion, is as (if not more) agreeable to the nature and institution of this Sacrament, as dipping, or immersion.  
Argument 1. As the word used signifieth washing, (as hath been showed) so the thing represented, signified, and sealed in this Sacrament, is set forth in the Scripture by the phrase of washing, or cleansing, as 1 Cor. 6.11. But ye are washed, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but ye are sanctified, but yea are justified, etc. Now who questions but our justification, and sanctification, or remission of sins, together with mortification, and vivification are sealed, and signified by baptism, etc. But these are here called washing. So 'tis 3.5. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghost. In the former of which expressions (washing) if here be not meant baptism itself, (which to deny I see no reason) yet certainly here is meant the thing signified by baptism, which is sufficient for our purpose which way so ever it is taken. Heb. 10.22. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Having our bodies washed with clean water. 1 joh. 1.7. And the blood of jesus Christ his Son shall cleanse us from all our sins. Heb. 9.14. The blood of Christ shall purge your conscience. Now we know washing, purging, or cleansing, may be, and commonly is, as well by infusion, or pouring on the thing to be washed, as by dipping. Common experience testifies so much, and Scripture is not silent herein. Luk. 7.44. She hath washed my feet with tears, viz. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  by pouring or distilling, as the word signifies. And though it were granted that in those hot Countries they commonly washed, by going down into the water, and being dipped therein; whether in ordinary, or ceremonial, or sacramental washing; that will no more enforce on us a necessity of observing the same in baptism now, than the example of Christ and his Apostles 
* Matth. 26.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mar. 14.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Luk. 22.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Matth. 14.19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  gesture in the Sacrament of the Supper ties us to the same, (which was leaning, and partly lying, which was their usual table gesture then.) Now the ordinary table gesture which is usual among us is most fit; so the usual manner of washing amongst us is most fit to be observed in baptism; and that is by pouring, as well as by dipping.  
But it may be objected, That sprinkling a little water, doth not so fitly represent the perfect washing away of all our sins, as dipping or plunging, sigh here the whole body is washed, there only the face or head only. Answ. First, the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body in baptism. Secondly, with as good reason one might plead thus. It is most convenient that at the Lords Supper every communicant should receive his belly full of bread and wine; and take as long as stomach and head will hold, to signify the full refreshment of the soul with the body and blood of Christ. But who would endure such reasoning? These outward elements of Water, Bread and Wine, are for spiritual use, and to signify spiritual things; so that if there be the truth of things, the quantity is not to be respected further than is sufficient for its end; namely, to represent the spiritual grace: and that it be neither so little, as not clearly to represent it; 
2. Pet. 3.21.  nor so much, as to take off the heart from the spiritual to the corporal thing. Not the washing away of the filth of the body in baptism; nor the glutting or satisfying of the natural appetite in the Lord Supper is to be looked after, but the washing and refreshing of the soul; which may well be represented by the sprinkling of a little water; eating, and drinking of a little bread and wine. In Circumcision a little skin was cut off.  
Arg. 2 The spiritual grace and invisible act of God upon the soul signified and represented by the outward act of baptism, is oft expressed in Scripture by the phrase of pouring, and besprinkling, and that in great probability (if not certainly and unquestionably) with allusion to the Sacrament of Baptism, either already administered, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fudit. Infudit, affudit, profudit, perfudit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  or to be administered. I mean the blood of Christ, and the Spirit of God, (which are the invisible grace of Baptism) are said to be poured or sprinkled on God's people. Esa. 44.3. For I will pour water on him that is thirsty, and floods on the dry ground: I will pour my Spirit on thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring. Here the Spirit is said to be poured, and this benefit is signified by the type of pouring water. joel 2.28. I will pour out my spirit on all flesh. Which promise Peter citing, calleth upon the people to repent, and receive baptism, as being the sign and seal which God had appointed to represent, and exhibit this promised blessing by. Ezek. 36.26. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  And I will sprinkle upon you clean water, and you shall be clean. This clean water questionless, is the blood and spirit of jesus Christ, represented by the water in baptism. Thus we see three several phrases signifying, to sprinkle, besprinkle, power. If we look into the New Testament we shall find the like phrases, Act. 2.17. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  I will pour forth my Spirit upon all flesh. Heb. 10.22. Having your hearts besprinkled from an evil conscience. 1 Pet. 1.2. By the sanctification of the spirit, and sprinkling of the blood of jesus Christ. See Heb. 9 13. and 14. verses compared together; and Heb. 12.24. Now let any one without prejudice consider these Scriptures, whether at least some of them speak not in allusion to baptism, and whether they all hold not forth the thing signified in baptism; and whether baptism be not a lively resemblance and representation of the things here spoken off. And then withal let him consider, whether the thing exhibited in this Sacrament be ever so fully set forth by dipping, and then I leave him to judge whether sprinkling be not as (that I say not more) agreeable to the nature of this Sacrament, as dipping.  
Arg. 3 Thirdly, this dousing over head, and under water that A. R. pleads for, as essential to baptism, seems directly against the sixth Commandment, and exposeth the person baptised to the danger of death. For first, suppose the party be fit for baptism (as they account) in the sharp Winter as now believing, professing, etc. He must immediately be taken to the river (as his tenet seems to hold) and there plunged in over head and ears, though he come forth covered with ice. But if he escape perishing with cold; how can he escape being choked, and stifled with the water: if he must be plunged over head to signify his death to sin: secondly, be kept under water, to signify his burial: and thirdly, be taken up, as this Disputer seems to reason? But whatsoever be the danger of freezing, or suffocation; it seems this he holds the only baptism, and therefore must not be swerved from.  
Arg. 4 Fourthly, will not this their manner of dipping be found also against the seventh Commandment in the Decalogue? For I would know with these new dippers, whether the parties to be dowsed and dipped, may be baptised in a garment or no? If they may, then happily the garment may keep the water from some part of the body, and then they are not rightly baptised; for the whole man, say they, must be dipped. Again, I would ask what warrant they have for dipping, or baptising garments, more than the Papists have for baptising Bells. Therefore belike the parties must be naked, and multitudes present as at john's baptism, and the parties men and women of ripe years, as being able to make confession of their faith and repentance: yet though they both sin against the sixth Commandment, endangering life, and against all common honesty and civility, and Christian modesty required in the seventh Commandment, they must have this way observed, because they fancy it the only baptism. Shall we think this was the baptism of john, Christ, and his Apostles? But enough of this second Consideration; we come to the third Consideration.   

The third Argument, or Consideration against our Baptism, taken from the Ministers (by whom administered) examined.  
YOur third Consideration against baptising of infants amongst us, is taken from the Calling, Office, Power, and Authority of the Ministers, by whom they are baptised. Which subject because it hath been largely handled by others, shall be lightly passed over. Yet we will try what you say to it with show of truth, or weight.  

A. R.  Whereas you say, That our Minister's power and authority was received from Bishops, who received their power from the Antichristian State of Rome, as they confess; so that the baptism is from Antichrist, not from Christ.  
Answer. 1 I answer. First, our Ministers have their authority, and office, from jesus Christ; as many as being fitted for that function, upon due trial, and approbation of Ministers, (though a Bishop, or Bishops have had an hand; yea, a chief stroke therein) and the choice or acceptation of God's people; have set upon the work of the Ministry.  
Answer. 2 Secondly, a thing is not therefore forthwith unwarrantable, or Antichristian, because it comes from a Bishop, or from the Pope; or authority derived from them. Is the doctrine of the unity of God's Essence, Trinity of Persons, Creation of the world, etc. therefore unlawful, or Antichristian, because holden by them? If the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament have been in the custody of the Papists, as the Old Testament in the custody of the jews; so that we have no Bibles now, but what came successively from the jews and Papists: Must we therefore reject the Scripture as Antichristian, or jewish, and look for immediate revelations? Or if the Bishops had a hand in the Translation of our Bibles; must they therefore be cast away as Antichristian: so that neither you nor your disciples may meddle with them, because they have passed through the hands of the Bishops? If any of you have heard any Sacred truths from Ministers (which have been ordained by Bishops) which you seemed to believe for a time: must you of necessity cast them away as falsehoods, and Antichristian Tenants, false doctrines or nullities? as you will make their baptism Antichristian baptism, the reason is the same. Take heed lest in so doing you cast away your souls.  
Answer. 3 Thirdly, many things that Antichrist, and they that are held under Antichrists tyranny, hold and profess, are not Antichristian, but truly Christian. As that the Canonical Scriptures are the word of God, that God is one in Essence, yet three in Persons; that Christ is the Son of God, etc. And many things taught by them, many acts done by them, are not Antichristian, but Christian. For Antichrist was foretold to sit in the Temple of God; 
2 Thess. 2.4.  which he would never have been suffered to do, had he not professed and practised some things that for their substance were of God. And as for the faithful over whom he did tyrannize, while he sat in the Temple of God: though they were abused and cheated by him, with many superstitions and errors, that he imposed upon them: yet there were some saving truths that they professed, and holy and acceptable worship, and practise which they did perform, which in Christ God was pleased to accept; so that it is fond to reason; Baptism, Ordination and the Scriptures were received from Antichrist, therefore Antichristian.  
Answer. 4 Fourthly, the power and authority of the Ministers doth not depend on the quality or station (especially in respect of the worst part) of the person or persons, choosing or ordaining them. Else men could never be assured of their own or others ministry, whether it be true or false: (for the quality of men is only known unto God, and in the station of the best there may be somewhat irregular and wanting exact perfection) but principally on Christ's inward call, discerned by the gifts, propensity, and sincerity of the parties undertaking that office; all which are requisite, if they will, to their own comfort, and with God's approbation exercise their ministry; although the want of some of these hinder not, but that he which by God's providence is called to the ministry, may have power and authority sufficient from God to be an instrument of God, for the good of others, though he were weak and unfound himself; 
Mat. 10.4. and 40.  as we may see in judas: (who was one of those to whom Christ saith, He that receiveth you, receiveth me, etc.) the Scribes and Pharisees, (concerning whom Christ gave a charge that they should be heard and obeyed in those things which they taught sitting in Moses chair: 
Matth. 23.2, 3. Phil. 1.15, 16.18. Act. 6.5. Rev. 2.6. vide Brightman, in locum.  though their lives were not exemplary) the envious, contentious, and unsincere Preachers of Christ (in whose preaching yet Paul rejoiced;) in Demas, and Nicolas the Deacon, who as Interpreters hold, proved afterward the ringleader of the Nicolaitanes.) This (I say) Christ's inward call either of approbation, as in the first; or of providence, as in the later, is the principal thing, whereon the power and the authority of the Minister doth depend. And then the less principal are the ordination and choice of them, by such as are the Ministers and people of God, by profession (though something Antichristian, or otherwise sinful may cleave unto them, in regard of their qualities or stations.) And lastly, the expression of the end for which they were ordained, viz. to administer the holy things of God. By which two latter, viz. the outward calling, and the manifestation of the end, the hearts of God's people may be assured of Christ's inward calling, so fare as that they may be confident, that whiles they discharge the duties of Ministers, it shall not be without efficacy for their good, if they be not wanting to themselves.  
Answer. 5 Fifthly, as Paul proveth his Apostleship (when it was questioned amongst the Corinthians by occasion of the whisper of the false apostles, who could not otherwise insinuate themselves into the favour of the Corinthians, but by traducing Paul and bringing him out of favour with them, as no Apostle of Christ, which hath been ever the guise of false Teachers (which practice is too rife now adays) As I say, Paul proves his Apostleship amongst other arguments from God's blessing upon his ministry (Are not you my work in the Lord? 
2 Cor. 9.1, 2.  If I be not an Apostle unto others; yet doubtless I am unto you: for the seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord;) Which must needs be a good argument, both because the Apostle used it, who would not bring a weak and non-concluding argument; and also because as God will not bless any Ordinances but his own, to work repentance, faith, and holiness; so neither will he bless any Ministry but his own Ministry: so through the mercy of God our Ministers have a sufficient answer for all that shall examine them concerning their ministry. The Conversion, Humiliation, Reformation, Faith, Consolation, heavenly joy, and Holiness, which God thereby hath wrought in thousands of souls (to his everlasting glory be it spoken) evince them to be the Ministers of Christ, whose work and seal so many faithful souls are, and prove that all those which go about to persuade the people that they are Antichristian ministers are slanderers: 
2 Cor. 9.13, 14, 15.  Like those false Apostles of which Paul speaks, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ; and no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an Angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed into the Ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works. Or like those deceivers which had so bewitched the Galatians, 
Gal. 4.14, 15, 16, 17, 18.  that whereas they had received the Apostle as an Angel of God, even as Christ jesus, etc. yet after a while accounted him their enemy, because he told them the truth, whom they zealously affected but not well, desiring to separate those Galatians from the Apostles, that they might have all their affection. But I will leave such deceivers and those which are deceived by them (if they do not truly repent) to the judgement of him on whose Ministers they rail; knowing that he who hath so fare honoured their faithful labours, will vindicate them in his due time, from all those contumelious aspersions, wherewith on all sides they are laden: if they continue faithfully and resolutely doing his work, notwithstanding all oppositions.  
Your reasoning that you falsely say, the Non-conformists have taught you, is idle. Did the Non-conformists ever call midwives Antichristian ministers? midwives' were never capable of ministerial functions, nor called to the ministry by the ordination of Ministers, nor choice or acceptation of the people; neither have they any ministerial power from Christ. But our Ministers have, although there have been some disorder or defect, in the external exhibition of this power, through the fault of men, which yet probably was nothing so great, as was the disorder among the jews in calling the Scribes and Pharisees, whose ministry notwithstanding our Saviour enjoins the people to use.  To an Objection which you bring in of our Ministers: That they received their office of Bishops as Elders: not as Lord Bishops. You answer: That if our Bishops be lawful Elders, they must be Elders chosen by a true Church, which is a Congregation constituted of believers and Saints by calling, Act. 2.41. 1 Cor. 1.2. Phil. 1.7. Rom. 1.7, 8. To which your Answer, I reply. 
First, If you speak of Bishops being lawful Elders, so as to be right Ministers in all circumstances, and particulars of their station and calling, so that there needs no reformation: we do not plead for them as lawful Elders in that sense; as knowing that some evil adhereth unto their Ministry, which being removed, they become lawful Ministers. But so fare we hold them lawful Elders, as that their calling of Ministers, Preaching, administering of Sacraments, (when done for the substance according to the rule of God's word) are not mere nullities, nor profanations of God's Ordinances to God's people or Ministers that make use of them; but may be, and oft are, effectual for their good; so that if these Bishops will cast away that which being Antichristian adhereth unto them; 
Act. 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.2.  and faithfully discharge the office of Elders and Ministers of jesus Christ, faithfully feeding the flock of God, they are to be embraced as Christ's Ministers, and that without any new Ordination; 
Rev. 2.3.  as may appear, Revel. 2. and 3. Chapters: where the Angels or Ministers which had left their first love, 
Rev. 2.13, 14.  had them which held the doctrine of Balaam, which taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, 
Rev. 2.20.  to eat things offered to idols, and to commit fornication, and had them which held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which Christ hated; yea which suffered the woman jezabel, which called herself a Prophetess, to teach and deceive Christ's servants, etc. 
Rev. 3.15.  Those which had a name to live, and yet were dead, whose works were not perfect, such as were neither hot, nor cold, but lukewarm. Such, I say, are still called Angels, bidden repent and do their first works; with a promise at last implied, that they shall keep their stations of Angels. And this is sufficient to warrant unto us, 
Matth. 23.1, 2, 3, etc. per totum.  the acts which they do as Ministers. The Scribes and Pharisees had many corruptions (in Christ's time, and so had the Priests both before, and in Christ's time) adhering to their function, and those very gross; yet was not their ministry vain to those which according to Christ's appointment made use of it.  
Now to your position; That, they must be Elders chosen by a true Church, which is a congregation of believers. That I may know your meaning: I would demand of you,  
First, Whether you mean that of necessity the whole Church and every particular member thereof, must be present at the choosing of a Minister, and give their voice expressly therein. If this be your meaning, it is neither proved in the Scriptures you bring, nor any other. Or whether by being chosen by a Church, you mean no more then to be chosen by some special persons in a Church, that represent the whole Church. If this be your meaning, I will concur with you in that particular, as knowing that women and children have no voice, though members. Nor is it necessary that every particular member of the rest should give his vote: sigh at such times oft some are occasioned to be absent, and if present, they yet may be so many, that they cannot well give particularly their voices, and though many refuse to give their votes, yet if the greater part vote for him it is sufficient.  
Secondly, Whereas you say. Constitute of Saints and believers by calling. I ask, whether you mean those that are so effectually called, that they are really and truly become Saints and believers, so that there is not a wicked man or hypocrite among them, and that the mixture of wicked men or hypocrites among them which call the Elders, causeth them not to be true Elders. If this be your meaning, look over that place which you brought for proof of your opinion, and you shall find it clearly confuted; 1 Cor. 1.2. if you compare that verse with Chap. 3. v. 3. and Chap. 5. and 6. throughout. Chap. 8. and 10. and 11. and 15. and 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. and almost throughout both Epistles. By comparing which places you shall see, that these believers and Saints by calling, did not so walk, either in regard of soundness of judgement, purity of worship, or holiness of life, as to give clear evidence of their effectual calling or sound sanctification. So compare, Phil. 1.7. with Chap. 3.18, 19 and Rom. 1.7, 8. with Chap. 16. v. 17, 18. and then speak your conscience, whether you can judge all these down right believers effectually called, really Saints. But if by believers, or Saints by calling, you mean such as are called to faith and holiness, and withal make a profession by externally giving their names up to Christ, and accepting outwardly the covenant, promising faith and obedience unto God's word; though there may be hypocrites and wicked livers: we concur with you, as knowing that they must be Christians by profession, and partakers of the heavenly calling (not jews, Pagans or other Infidels) that go to the making up of a visible Church; and such are our Churches, whereby the Elders of whom we speak have been chosen or accepted.  
Thirdly, whether your meaning be the Congregation or people only, without the precedency, concurrence, examination, direction, and Ordination of Ministers, must choose their Governors or Officers, or else they are not true Governors or Officers: If you mean so, look bacl on the Scripture cited by you Acts 14.23. with other places, Act. 6.3.6. 1 Tim. 4.14. and 5.22. where it appeareth, that Ministers had the chief hand in making Ministers.  
Now these things propounded: I answer to your position, that we can easily show, that our people in England, in regard of their general and unanimous consent to (and profession of faith in) the same truth, contained in the book of God, acceptation of the covenant, and giving up of their names unto Christ, are a Church or Congregation of faithful people or Saints by calling, though many do not walk answerably to their calling (the greater is their sin, and shame, and shall be their condemnation unless they repent.) And in regard of the many several companies of the faithful, by whom God's worship is performed apart one from another; there are many Churches or Congregations of Saints by calling in our Land. We can show also, that although our Elders of whom we speak, have not been chosen by the whole Congregations, in respect of every particular member; yet by some special persons (in behalf of the whole Congregation) to whom that charge was committed by them, (or (which was their sin) usurped from them) and that the people at least by accepting them so chosen, did make choice of them in their own persons. And that whatsoever disorders or defects have been in the choice, do not nullify their ministry. As for such as have acknowledged the unlawfulness of their ministry, or plead mere qualifications (of whom you speak) let them answer for themselves, how they can, we are not bound to stand to their principles, or maintain their opinions.  
As for the seven next Objections, into the Answer whereof you digress (most of them being belike feigned of yourself, that you may find somewhat to say) beside extravagant impertinencies, malicious and master-like censures, and some unquestioned truths, which are yielded by us, but do nothing profit your cause, nor hurt ours: I see nothing that it is worth while to answer, but what may be sufficiently answered unto, by what hath been said before. Neither do I intent to follow you in your idle roving. Only it is to be observed, that this A. R. cannot endure to hear of a Synod, though a special and main ordinance of God, to compose differences, and quiet the hearts of God's people, which have been disquieted by trouble-Churches. See Acts 15. the whole Chapter.  
Because (saith he) a Synod cannot make a Last to suit every one's foot, which in plain English is this, they will not suffer jesuits, Papists, Arminians, idle Ministers, Anabaptists, Antinomians, and Familists to have their own way in practice, worship, opinion, etc. Neither will they suffer every man to abuse the Scripture after his own fancy, and vent abroad his poisonous conceits among the simple, to draw disciples after them. As if it were better to let every man follow his own devises, and labour to draw others into his opinions (so that whosoever is most cunning, pragmatical and able to conform his doctrine to the humours of men, shall go away with most disciples, to the overthrow of thousands of souls,) than that there should be a consultation of godly, learned, & conscientious Ministers, about the establishment of religion. And here it is further to be noted, that the children of darkness, though in some particulars they be opposite one to another, as Papists, Arminians, ignorant, lazy and malignant Ministers and licentious Atheists on the one side, and Anabaptists with Antinomians and Familists on the other side, do differ from, yea directly oppose one another in some particulars; yet they agree together, as in opposing Gods faithful Ministers and people, so in hating the light, and refusing to be brought unto the trial of God's word, and to be tied unto the Rules thereof, as they shall be found out and applied by an Assembly of faithful Ministers.  
Again, it is to be observed, That these men take it in high indignation, that any should go about to restrain them from abusing the Scripture, and carrying about the simple people with every wind of doctrine, by whom they may be had in admiration, while they are suffered to go on in their bold presumption, and confident venting of their ignorant conceits, and malicious railing against authority; which may appear by this Authors abuse of Scripture, for a colour of accusation of those that would restrain them, and by his tale of a Minister in the West. But I come to the fourth Consideration.   

The fourth Argument Answered.  
YOur fourth Consideration than is taken from the ground of baptising children; which as you are short in urging, I will be short in answering. 
A. R.  Whereas therefore you say, The faith and repentance of the Sureties, is the ground of our baptising, as you would prove from the questions propounded at the baptising, and out of the Catechism. Whence you conclude, that it is not true Baptism; because in true Baptism, the faith and repentance of the party baptised is the ground.  
Answer. I Answer. Not the faith and repentance of the Sureties as you pretend, is the ground of our Baptism, (neither do we say so) but God's gracious Covenant which he hath made with the parents and their children; (of which hereafter) Which Covenant that parents may publicly profess themselves to have interest in, and with them their children, it is convenient that they (and other Sureties, if they see it good, to join such with themselves, to undertake what they promise in the behalf of their children, in case parents should be negligent, ignorant, or by speedy death, or otherwise disabled to bring up their children religiously) I say it is convenient, that they should make a profession of their faith and repentance, which yet doth not at all prove that their faith and repentance is the ground of the children's Baptism. But the tenor of God's gracious covenant, under which they profess themselves (and with them their children) to be, is the ground of this act. Now though there may be some unjustifiable or unfit passages, in the Catechism or manner of Baptism, whence you fetch your Argument, (seeing that it is apparent, that our ground of baptising Infants, is the Covenant of God made with the parents, or those which are in stead of parents, which Covenant that they are in, they testify by professing their faith and repentance, and considering that the answering of Sureties, and the Catechising of Children, doth nothing touch the essence of Baptism) those passages nothing prejudice the truth of children's Baptism. But concerning this matter, viz. the ground of children's Baptism more hereafter.   

The fifth Argument against the Baptism of Infants, taken from the subjects to whom it is administered, Answered.  
THe fifth Consideration, 
A. R.  which yields an Argument against our Baptism, is taken from the subjects, on whom Baptism is administered, and those are Infants, whereas (say you) the Scripture holds forth the Disciples, or believers only are to be baptised, which you prove thus. For the Commission of Christ was only to baptise disciples, as appeareth, Matth. 28.19. the words being these. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Going therefore disciple all nations, baptising them, etc. Now the question (say you) is to what this word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them) hath relation, whether to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nations, or no. But (say you) it is clear out of the words, that it hath not relation to nations, but to disciples: for the word which is put for them in that place, is autous not auta, which it should be, if it had relation to nations.  
Answ. 1. But I pray you, who (but yourself) ever saw in this Text, the word Disciples, to which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, them, may have relation? There is no such word, either in any usual translation, or in the Original. 2. What necessity or likelihood is there, that your supposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, disciples, should be antecedent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them? Because forsooth, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Know you not, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nations, though in voice it be Neuter, yet in signification it is Masculine: Signifying men in the Nations or Heathens (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Homines in Gentibus, or Gentium, or Gentiles. You sure would never have been so confident, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, disciples, if you had but consulted with Lilies Rules, who tells you of a figure called Synthesis, when a sentence is congruous in sense, 
Synthesis est ocatio congrua sensu, non voce. Gens armati. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  though not in voice; and brings an example like to this; The Armed nation: which figure is very frequent in the Greek language; to instance only in this same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 15.17. And all the nations upon whom my name is called upon them, where you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whom and them, answering to the antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gentes. And I believe where you find a Relative in Scripture, answering to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nations, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  most frequently (if not always) it is the Masculine gender, as Act. 28.28. to the Gentiles is sent this salvation and they shall hear. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Act 13.48. The Gentiles hearing glorified the word of the Lord, and they believed, so many as were ordained unto eternal life. Rom. 2.14, 15. When the Gentiles not having the law, do by nature the things of the law, these having not the law, are a law to themselves, which show the work, etc. Insomuch, that your Criticism hath greatly failed you here; and so your foundation which you have laid to prove, That all who are baptised according to Christ's Commission, proving but a mere conceit, or self-deceit, your building that you rear thereupon will vanish away.  
Object. If it be said, Christ commanded the Apostles to teach or make disciples, and then to baptise, so that none are capable of Baptism but those that have been taught or made disciples first.  
Answer. 1 To this I answer. First, This cannot be gathered by any necessary consequence from the connexion of the words; any more than it may be concluded from the same verse: that none may Teach or Baptise but Apostles, or such as have authority, and gifts of miracles and tongues, to go to all nations. For, as Baptising is joined with Teach, so Teach ye, is joined with Go ye (before) and All nations after. But if no wise man will deduce or yield to this conclusion (None must either Preach or Baptise, but those which have gifts and authority to go into all nations for that end) from the coherence of the words; you must excuse us, if we yield not to the deducing of your conclusion from the coherence. viz. That none are to be baptised, but those which have been first taught or made disciples.  
Answer. 2 Secondly, I answer. It is true the Apostles were to teach those among the Gentiles of ripe years, and make them disciples before they or their children were to be baptised, because they and their children were out of covenant, and so uncapable of the seals, and might not be received into covenant themselves or their children, until they gave up themselves and theirs unto Christ by faith and repentance: which they could not ordinarily have wrought in them, but by hearing the Gospel preached. Yet when parents had given up their names unto Christ, their children being also given up to Christ by them, were capable of Baptism. As by Abraham's giving up himself unto God in Covenant, not only he, but also his children, and those that were as his children, were received into Covenant, and had the seal thereof administered to them; by virtue of the unchangeable tenor of the Covenant of grace, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed: 
Gen. 17.7.  as hath been said, and God willing shall more fully be showed. Therefore the Commission which was given to the Disciples, makes nothing against baptising the children of the faithful: which are already in covenant with God, though they have not heard the word preached.  
Answer. 3 Thirdly, Yea I conceive it is no absurdity, but a sound truth, to say, that infants of believing parents are made disciples of God and Christ: so that the Apostles in making parents disciples that gave up themselves and their children unto God; in that act made their clildrens also disciples; in two respects. First, in that parents gave them up unto God, promising and purposing to bring them up in the knowledge of God, so soon as they should be capable of outward teaching. This Abraham was bound unto by virtue of the Covenant; that as God would be the God of his seed, so he should command and teach his children and household after him, that they should keep the way of the Lord, etc. Gen. 18.19. So all the Israelites, Exod. 12.26.26, 27. Deut. 6.6, 7. And the like obligation lies upon Christian parents, Ephes. 6.4. so that now they are the disciples of Christ, in respect of God's obligation, and the parents promise, purpose, and prayer.  
Secondly, they may be said to be Christ's disciples, in that they are now under the teaching of God and Christ, who hath promised to teach all that are in covenant, all the children of the Church, or faithful (at least some of all sorts) from the least to the greatest. Esa. 54.13. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edoctia jehova, or Edocti jevovae. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord, etc. All, is an universal note, implying all sorts, sexes, ages, and conditions of those which were children of the Church, or posterity of the faithful. jer. 31.34. And they shall teach no more every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord. For they shall all know me, from the least to the greatest of them. And so that those which are so little, that they are uncapable of the teaching of men, are capable, and under the promise of Gods teaching. To which promises our Saviour having, as it seems, respect, saith, joh. 6.44. It is written in the Prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and learneth, cometh unto me: So that as there may be outward teaching without inward: so there may be inward teaching without the outward. Christ saith, Whosoever hath heard of the Father, not whosoever hath heard of the Preacher; for many may hear of the Preacher, and yet not come to God; and some may be taught of God, that are uncapable of the Preachers instruction: though the inward and outward both be ordinary, to those who being of ripe years are effectually called. So that sigh God promiseth, that in the time of the Gospel, All even from the least unto the greatest shall become his disciples, why should the infants of believers be excluded, seeing they are capable of divine instruction, and the operation of the holy Ghost, even from their mother's womb? Luk. 1.15. I have stood the longer on the answering of this Scripture objected, Because these answers may serve for all the other reasons, and Scriptures you bring, to confirm your last Argument against baptising of children. Where having heaped up many Scriptures needlessly, you talk your pleasure, and triumph as if the cause were your own; as if your grounds were unmoveable, and your conclusion unquestionable. But though you plead against children's Baptism, you should remember that you dispute not with children. Neither have we need or will, By wit and sophistry to go about to elude any truth, and justify any error, though never so gross and absurd, as you say; Which imputation of yours, it may seem, is you last shift; to answer those that will not be carried about with every wind of your vain doctrine, and subscribe to your dictates.  
Now for what followeth, I will not proceed in maintaining those further objections; which either you devise of your own head, or raise out of others words, to whose principles we are not bound; your answers whereunto either do not concern us, or if any thing therein seem to bear show of truth and weight, it may be sufficiently answered from what hath been already laid down. Therefore I will not trouble myself with the repetition of the same things. So forbearing any further to meddle with your confident conclusions, Apology for your expressions, or other impertinent digressions, wherewith you fill up paper; I come to give our reasons for the lawfulness, and requisiteness of baptising the infants of Christian parents; intending to consider all along your answers you have made to them.  
Arg. 1 Our first Argument therefore shall be: To whom the spiritual and invisible grace represented, signified, and sealed in baptism belongeth by virtue of God's promise, to them baptism itself belongeth, Act. 2.38, 39  
But to the children or infants of parents believing, or within Covenant, belongeth by virtue of God's promise, the spiritual grace represented, sealed, and signified in baptism; to wit, the teaching of God, and the Spirit of God, which doth include all the spiritual blessings signified by baptism; as sanctification, or regeneration, wherein is comprehended virtual faith, and therein, being besprinkled with the blood of Christ, and pardon of sins, Esa. 54.13. jer. 31.34. joel 2.28. Es. 59.21. Act. 2.39.  
Therefore Baptism belongeth to infants of Christian parents.  
Both the premises me thinks should be undeniable with Christians, as being built on the word; and so the conclusion certain. But because I would clear this Argument, against the cavils of the captious, and doubts of the ignorant, or scrupulous; I will add some what by way of explanation, and confirmation.  
The proposition, for aught I know, it is not doubted of by any. It is taken as an unquestionable principle by A. R. and many of his arguments against baptising infants, are built upon this ground: because they have not regeneration, faith, remission of sins. And it may further appear by these Scriptures, Act. 8.38. Nothing now could hinder the Eunuch from being baptised, for now the spiritual blessing appertained to him, and therefore the external sign: Act. 10.47, 48. Can any forbid water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptised, etc. And Chap. 11.17. The Apostle implies, that it had been a withstanding of God, not to have baptised them on whom the gift of the holy Ghost had been poured. And so still upon the profession of faith, and repentance, when in the judgement of charity, the Preachers apprehended the parties to have interest, and right to the spiritual grace, they administered the outward sign, though questionless they were deceived in many: as Ananias, Sapphira, Simon Magus, etc. Yet it was a sufficient warrant to the Ministers to baptise them: because so fare as they could judge, they were under the promise. For if amongst Christ's few Disciples, there was one traitor, son of perdition, devil: doubtless amongst those many thousands that were baptised, upon their profession of faith and repentance at the preaching of john, and the Apostles, many were hypocrites; as may appear by the great evils that broke out in the Primitive Churches. This I add to show that there is no infallible certainty of the inward grace required of, or possible to the Minister.  
And that to whom the inward grace belongs, to them the outward sign belongs; appeareth in Peter's exhortation in that place quoted in the proposition, Act. 2.38, 39 And Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you, in the name of jesus Christ, to the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost: For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even so many as the Lord our God shall call. Wherein he shows them that if they will repent, they have right unto baptism, as having right unto the thing signified in baptism, viz. the remission of sins, by the blood of Christ poured on their souls; and the gift of the holy Ghost being the Spirit of Christ, poured on them; of which he had spoken before, ver. 17. both clearly represented and signified by the infusion, or pouring of water in baptism. And the rather to persuade them to repent, and be baptised, that they might receive remission of sins, and the gift of the holy Ghost: Peter tells them, that the promise is to them and their children, and so many as God should call, though afar off: even among the Gentiles. So that if by faith and repentance they and the Gentiles should accept the promise, they and their children should have interest in the remission of sins, and the gift of the holy Ghost; and so consequently in baptism; so that not only the parents repenting, but also their children had title to the promise of the holy Gohst; and so to the seal thereof.  

A. R.  First, against this you object: It is not said, your infants, but your children.  
Ans. Infants are not excluded I hope; for infants are children, though not only infants: neither do we hold that the promise was made to infants only. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Peter useth a general word that signifieth posterity, of what age soever, whether of ripe or tender years.  
Secondly, you object: It is not said promises, but promise; and that it is not promises, but promise; not infants, but children: You promise us satisfaction by looking back to what went before in the Chapter, after a long repetition whereof, you tell us what we may gather; to wit, that the gift of the holy Ghost, mentioned ver. 17. to be prophesied of by joel; and to be received of the Father, and shed forth by Christ, ver. 33. is repeated ver. 38.  
Answ. All this maketh nothing against us; but for us.  
Thirdly, you add: You may see who are meant by children, viz. the same that were mentioned, ver. 17. under the terms of sons and daughters that should prophesy.  
Answ. As if the Spirit mentioned here, were only a Spirit of prophecy. The Spirit hath divers operations; some ordinary, and some extraordinary, 1 Cor. 12.4.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Neither is it said, that all shall prophesy and dream dreams.  
Fourthly, you say: Therefore no infants are meant here who cannot prophesy, etc.  
Answ. Why may not infants be of the number of that all flesh, on which God would pour his Spirit, though none of those that prophecy, see visions, dream, etc. For these effects of the Spirit are not related as common to all, on whom God would pour his Spirit; but peculiar to some, which had extraordinary gifts. Secondly, What hinders but they may receive the Spirit in their infancy, by which they may prophesy in ripe years? as we see in john the Baptist, Luk. 1.15. & 41. Thirdly, I answer; That this promise is not only made concerning the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit which were bestowed in the times of the Apostle, by which men did prophesy, dream dreams, see visions, speak with tongues, etc. but also of the sanctifying Spirit which is common to all ages of the Church, even where such miraculous and extraordinary gifts are not bestowed: may appear, vers. 30. The promise, saith the Apostle, was to all afar off, whomsoever the Lord should call: that is, all the Gentiles whom God should call by the Gospel to faith. Now no man I hope will say, that all whom over God called, dreamt dreams, saw visions, prophesied, spoke with strange tongues, etc.  
Fifthly, you add: There is not so much as any colour, for baptising of infants from hence. For the Text is not, Be baptised. For the promise is to you, and your children; as many in Print do falsely allege. But repent and be baptised, etc. and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy ghost. For the promise is to you and your children.  
Answ. If we should take the words in your sense, viz. that those words For the promise is made, etc. are brought as a reason only of the words going immediately before; it makes nothing against me, for so the 38. vers. contains a pregnant proof of my proposition, and vers. 39 of mine assumption.  
Secondly, I answer. There is no necessity can appear, no nor probable reason (I believe) can be rendered, why the reason (For the promise, etc. vers. 39) should be referred only to the words immediately preceding (you shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost; and not unto the exhortation, Repent, and be baptised, etc.) which until you could have given some proof of, you might well have spared your immodest language, and heinous accusation of false alleging Scripture. For the context may either be analysed thus. First, Peter exhorts to repent, and be baptised; then he spurs them on by a reason taken from the effect, viz. remission and the gift of the Spirit: secondly, from the promise that God had made concerning the thing signified, viz. pouring his Spirit; which promise belonged to them and their children: therefore they should receive the sign which God had instituted to signify it, which may seem the most genuine resolution of the Text. Or secondly; This reason may be understood as brought both to the exhortation, (Repent, and be baptised) and the promise, (And you shall receive remission of sins, and the gift of the holy Ghost:) for considering that baptism, and the gift of the holy Ghost are correlatives, as the sign and thing signified, the reason well may (that I say not necessarily must) be referred to both. Or thirdly, if we grant that it is immediately referred to the foregoing promise, yet it must necessarily be taken as a reason of the exhortation at least mediately: for seeing the promise of remission of sins, and the holy Ghost, is brought as a reason to persuade them to be baptised; and these words, For the promise is to you, etc. is brought as a confirmation of the promise; 
Causa causae est causa causati.  and considering that the cause of the cause is the cause of the caused, and the reason of the reason, is the reason of the thing proved by that reason, this (For the promise, etc.) must needs be brought as a reason why they should be baptised; and so those who bring this as a reason that the Apostle gives, why they should be baptised, joining the thing argued, and the Argument together, and omitting that which was interposed, as not pertinent to the purpose; are quit from your slander of false alleging Scripture; and you convinced to be a false accuser of the brethren.  
The next Objection that you frame I own not. Assenting that it is true, that neither these jews, nor the Gentiles were in Covenant, until they had entered into the same by repentance and faith, seeing that the old Covenant was now abrogated, and the Gentiles had been hitherto foreiners: so that you will acknowledge that whensoever jews or Gentiles should receive the promise by faith and repentance, it did not only belong unto them, but also to their children. For though it be expressed to the jews, (That the promise was to them and their children) it is to be understood, to hold of the Gentiles also. For now the partition wall was removed, and the jews had no privilege for their children's having right unto the promise, any more than the children of believing Gentiles.  
Thus fare I have digressed in answer to some objections made against the Scripture which was brought for the proof of my proposition, though it might be handled as well in the assumption; yet because I have more to say on the assumption, I brought these objections under the proposition. The sum of the proposition must be remembered to be this. Where is right to the spiritual blessing promised in the word, and sealed in baptism, there is right to baptism: which stands firm against whatsoever hath been objected. I come to the assumption.  
The places of Scripture quoted to confirm the assumption have been spoken of before. Only we may consider now, First, what things are promised in those Scriptures expressly. Secondly, what is implied. Thirdly, to whom these promises are made.  
For the first, God promiseth to be their teacher, yea though they be uncapable of humane discipline (They shall not teach one another, but they shall all be taught of God) Esa. 54.13. jer. 31.34. Again, that he will give, yea pour his Spirit, and that his Spirit shall be upon them, joel 2.28. Es. 59.21.  
Secondly, under these two expressions, yea each of them severally, are comprehended all those things that are requisite for our being in Covenant with God; and all those spiritual graces that give us right to the seal of entrance: as first Regeneration, which is the proper and certain work of the spirit of sanctification, joh. 3.5. which spirit of regeneration to be signified by the water of baptism may appear by that Scripture, joh. 3.5. & Tit. 3.5. Again, this implies communion with Christ, which must needs be by faith, actual or virtual, joh. 6.45. Heb. 11.6. For whosoever is taught of God, and hath the Spirit of Christ, must needs have Christ, and so it follows that such have right unto remission of sins.  
Thirdly, these promises belong unto the children of the Church, the sons and daughters of the faithful, all of them from the least to the greatest; the seed of the faithful, and their seeds seed, as may appear in the Scriptures quoted; and here must be comprehended, infants as well as others, who have right unto the promise by virtue of their parents entering into Covenant with God, as Act. 2.39. The Apostle bids them repent and be baptised; (and so enter into Covenant) for the promise, saith he, is unto you and your children; so that there can no reason be given why infants should be excluded from these promises: unless any one shall say that infants are uncapable of these gifts, which this A. R. seems to hold, in many places of his book; which opinion is more worthy detestation than confutation. Are not infants capable of sin? Psal. 51.5 and therefore of sanctification: shall the first Adam's disobedience be available to bring guilt and defilement? and not Christ's obedience to procure remission, and sanctification? Or is there no remedy for the poor infants of believing parents; but if they die before they come to the use of reason they must necessarily perish, as being born the children of wrath, and being uncapable of remedy? Or doth this man hold, that they are brutes without soul in that he compares baptising of infants to circumcising of Camels or Asses? 
2 Part, pag. 21.  Are not these profane Atheistical conceits, contrary to the promises of God, clear testimony of Scripture, and example, as of john the Baptist, who was sanctified and moved by the Spirit even in his mother's womb?  
Quest. But what must we then believe: that all the children of Christians are already endued with the holy Ghost, taught of God, and sanctified, etc. so soon as borne, or in their infancy?  
Answ. It is enough to prove their right to baptism, that they are under the promise and interessed therein, by virtue of their parents being (at least externally) in Covenant: so that whether they have already received the Spirit, or have a promise thereof, it sufficeth to give them a right to the Sacrament. As these are bid repent, and so come under promise (themselves with their children) and then be baptised; and afterward they shall receive the holy Ghost.  
Quest. But must we think that all children of Christian parents that are baptised, either have or shall receive the Spirit, and so be saved?  
Answ. john the Baptist, and the Apostles, though they were not to believe that amongst those multitudes whom they baptised, there were none but truly had or should receive the Spirit, for it was after proved by the event, that many were hypocrites, yet they turned away none, because by their external confession of sin, and profession of faith and repentance, they shown themselves to be externally in Covenant, and so to have right to the outward seal, which they therefore administered to one as well as to another. So though we are not bound to think that all the children borne of parents in covenant are, or shall be sanctified: yet because they are outwardly in covenant and under the promise, (which promise God makes good as seemeth good in his eyes;) therefore the Minister, that is not to judge of the inward work of sanctification on the heart, whether present or future, but of the outward estate, (neither if he could discern the inward estate might he withhold the outward privilege from any (though wanting inward grace) that hath right thereunto by being under covenant outwardly) may and aught to administer baptism to the children of all Christian parents under his charge that requires it, so long as by wilful Apostasy from the faith, or just excommunication wherein they obstinately continue, they with their children are not discovenanted.  
Object. If any should object, That those promises of the Spirit, or Gods teaching, etc. made to the seed of the faithful, to all both small and great, &c, and the promise made to the faithful and their children belong only to the spiritual seed of the Church, viz. those that are borne again in the womb of the Church.  
Answer. I Answer. 1. These promises made to the Christian Church, are like to that promise made to the jewish Church, Deut. 30.6. And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God. Now this they were to understand, not only or principally of Proselytes that should be converted to the Church, nor only of their posterity, when they came to the use of reason; but even of Infants, as may appear in that God appointed them to circumcise their Infants. For circumcision of the flesh, was a sign of circumcision of the heart; which if infant's had not been capable of, God would not have commanded the outward sign to have been administered unto them. And so these promises made to the Christian Church, to their seed, to their seeds seed, to their children, from the least to the greatest, appertain to infants in the Christian Church as well as others. The universal note being understood, De generibus singulorum, not the singulis generum, as they say; of all sorts, sexes, ages, and condition some: though every individual of all sorts be not comprehended therein. And therefore Baptism sealing such promises, belongs to Infants in the Christian Church, as well as circumcision did in the jewish.  
Secondly, I answer. It is absurd to understand these promises only of the spiritual seed, as if they belonged only to the regenerate; For what is it to be taught of God and have the Spirit poured, but to be converted or regenerated, and drawn to Christ; so that by this interpretation, the meaning of these promises should be this much. I will pour my Spirit on whom I have or shall pour my Spirit, and they shall be taught of God, that are or shall be taught of God. It is true, God may here well promise a greater measure of the Spirit and illumination, where he hath given some measure. But withal it is certain, here is promised the Spirit and illumination also, to those that are quite destitute, and so to such as are not yet the spiritual seed of the Church.  
Thirdly, I answer. What matter of consolation can this be to believing parents, if not withstanding their prayer for, and religious education of their children, none of these or the like promises belong to them; but only to the spiritual seed of the Church, that is, such as are already converted, and declare their conversion by actual faith? What ground of prayer for, or hope of the salvation of their children have they, more than of the Heathens, if this be admitted?  
2. Argument. If Governors of families upon their believing and tendering up themselves, and theirs to God and Christ, were not only themselves baptised; but all the persons in their household, and which were under their government, of what age soever, were baptised also; so that where there is no mention of preaching to, or the belief of any but the Governors themselves; yet their whole households were dedicated unto God in Baptism: Then it is lawful (yea a duty) to Christian parents to tender their children (being part of their family) unto God in Baptism, and Ministers have good ground, yea, engagement for baptising such.  
But Governors of Families upon their believing and tendering up themselves and theirs unto God and Christ, were not only themselves baptised; but all the persons in their household, or which were under their government: so that where there is no mention of preaching to, or the belief of any but the Governors themselves; yet their whole households were dedicated unto God in Baptism. Act. 16.14, 15 and 31, 32, 33. 1 Cor. 1.6.  
Therefore it is lawful (yea the duty) for Christian parents or governor's of families, to tender their infants, which are part of their household, unto God in Baptism, and Ministers ought to baptise such being tendered of their parents.  
The Major needs no confirmation, it being granted by all, yea, by the Adversaries themselves (as I conceive) taken for an undeniable principle, that the Apostles example in baptising is a sufficient warrant for us, and that such are to be admitted to Baptism now, as were admitted by the Apostles: For most of their reasoning is grounded hereupon, and they hence condemn our baptising of Infants; because (say they) it is not agreeable to the practice of the Apostles; so that that Baptism which is agreeable to the Baptism of the Apostles, is warantable by their own grants: and so the sequel standeth firm and good. If in the Apostles times, whole families of believing governor's were baptised, they ought so now, and so consequently the infants of those families, which are parts thereof, if there be any such: For as Abraham and his Family, was a pattern unto all such as should enter into the Covenant of grace during the time of circumcision; that as he and his Family were circumcised, so should all, whether of his posterity, or proselytes, circumcise all their Males, even the babes: So those primitive Converts, that were the first fruits of the Gentiles, and when they believed were baptised with their whole families; are examples for the believers of all Ages to follow, in consecrating themselves and theirs to God in Baptism.  
As for the Minor; those places of Scripture cited prove it. Act. 16.31, 32, 33. To the jailor demanding, what he should do that he might be saved; Paul and Sylas answer, bidding him believe in the Lord jesus Christ, promising that he should be saved and his household. Teaching that the belief of a father, or governor of a family, is sufficient to bring a whole family that is at his disposing and to be ruled by him, into a state of salvation, so fare, as that now they are within the Covenant, and so consequently have right unto the seal of initiation. It is said indeed, that they spoke the word of the Lord unto him, and all that were in the house. viz. so many as were capable of instruction; But there is no word of the actual belief or repentance by expression, word, or action, of any in the family, except only of the jailor himself, whose repentance and faith (at least initial) is expressed by the effects thereof. viz. his humiliation, and desire of salvation, vers. 29. and 30. and more fully by the fruits of them, declared vers. 33. in taking them the same hour of the night, and washing their stripes, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and then it is said, that he and all his were baptised straightway. Which evidently showeth, that the governor's faith and repentance, or being within the Covenant, doth sufficiently interest their inferiors, that are at their dispose, to the Covenant of Grace, and so to the Seal of entrance, at least if they be not refractory, wilfully and stubbornly refusing to be given up to God by their superiors. The like may be said of Stephanus his family, 1 Cor. 1.16. But most clear, and express, is the example of Lydia, Act. 16.14, 15. When the Lord had opened her heart, to attend to those things that were spoken of Paul, she was baptised and her household; Not a word spoken of preaching to, or actual faith, and repentance of the rest. So that it is apparent, that as upon Abraham's faith and repentance, and interest in God, his whole Family, whether those that were born in the house, or those that were bought with money, yea, even his infants of eight days old, had so fare interest in God, that (upon his tendering them up unto God according to his gracious appointment) now they had right unto the Seal of Circumcision after God had once instituted it: so Christian governor's of families, or parents by their faith and repentance, are means of bringing salvation to their families, and interessing those that are under them to God and Christ, so fare as that they have right unto Baptism; at least except they stubbornly refuse the Seal, and reject the Covenant.  

A. R.  To this Argument, especially the Scriptures brought to confirm the assumption, you answer. There might be no Infants there (viz. in those families which were baptised:) and my negative (say you) is as good as your affirmative.  
Answer. This toucheth not the force of mine Argument, which hath showed that upon parents or governor's of families receiving the Gospel, their families were accepted unto Baptism, their superiors tendering them thereunto. Whether Infants or not, there is no exception of Infants or others.  
But you say your Negative is as good as our Affirmative, without proof, and that you bring Scripture for your negative, as Act. 18.8. which Scripture maketh nothing against us. For first, if Crispus believed in the Lord with all his Family, it doth not follow, that these families which we mentioned, had none but actual believers in them, before they were baptised. Secondly, Crispus may be said to believe he and his household, and so to be baptised, though they were not all endued with actual faith, as Abraham's Family was a Family of believers, even the whole Family, when the Seal of the righteousness by faith had been set upon all the Males therein, although they did not all actually believe.  
" You add the example of the jailor, Act. 16.31, 32, etc. Answer. We have already sufficiently considered, what is contained in vers. 31, 32, 33. viz. though Paul and Silas preached the word unto all in the family (viz, that were capable of instruction) yet the faith and repentance of none but of the jailor himself is manifested.  
But you say: He and all his household believed in God, as it is vers. 34.  
Answ. If you look into the Original, you shall find that that verse makes nothing for your purpose. It is word for word. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And he rejoiced (with all his house) having believed in God, or when he had believed in God. But because the English cannot so fully and clearly give the sense of the place, it may be noted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (having believed) being the Masculine gender, and singular number (as the Grammarians speak, cannot be referred to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone, or taken with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the keeper; So that the sense should be, the whole house believed, or the jailor, and the whole house believed. I say the words cannot bear this sense, as the skilful in the language may easily see, and therefore in the translation, believing (or rather having believed) in God, is to be read within a parenthesis, so that those words with his whole family, is to be referred only to the word rejoiced; Thus: And rejoiced (believing or having believed) in God) with all his house: So that though our Translatours did well render the words, yet the want of observing the parenthesis, causeth the words at the first sight, otherwise to sound then indeed they do, to those that look on the Original. 
Laetatus est cum omni domo credens Deo.  So Arias Montanus. But under correction, and with submission to better judgements if I might be so bold: I conceive it might be rendered, more agreeably to the signification of the words, the scope of the place, and for the avoiding of ambiguity. And having believed in God, he rejoiced (exulted or testified his joy openly by outward actions) in all his family, (or through his house, or all his house over). For (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) believing, and (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) rejoiced, are both the singular number, and so have reference to one alone. viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the jailor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (rendered, with all his house) is an adverbe, and so according to the ordinary use of that part of speech, is referred to the verb, to show how the thing was done, not by whom. Beside, the scope of the place, seems to favour this Interpretation; for it is said in the words before, that he brought them into the house, and set meat before them, or made them a feast, so that he expressed his rejoicing in his whole house, by making a solemn feast in all the family, as it were celebrating that night, as his spiritual birthdays solemnity.  
Now you come to compare that Scripture mentioned, which you apprehend to speak of whole families believing before they were baptised, with these that speak of baptising families, where yet none are said to believe, save the heads, and thence you gather, That it cannot be reasonably imagined, but that the Apostle did baptise these families according to commission, etc. and those other places which are more silent, must be expounded by this which is more plain, and not this by those.  
Answ. First, No question, the Apostle baptised according to commission: but that their commission bound them to baptise none, but those which were brought to actual faith, you have not proved, as may appear by the foregoing examination of what you produced.  
Secondly, Why should not we interpret their commission, by their practice, rather than draw their practice to that sense which your fancy is pleased to put on the commission? Their practice as a commentary on their commission, shows in what sense it was understood by them.  
Thirdly, Why may not those places, that speak of the believing of the family before they were baptised (if you can produce any such) be expounded by these that show the heads of that the families believing and being baptised, and giving up themselves and theirs unto God; the whole families were accounted believing families, and so baptised; especially, seeing it so agreeth with Gods proceeding with Abraham the father of the faithful?  
Fourthly, Or what necessity is there, that either those Scriptures should be expounded by these, or these by those; when they are both equally plain and clear? They may be both true according to the proper sense of the letter and history. In some families, all might well be of ripe years and actual believers, in others not, and yet both sorts might be baptised without absurdity.  
Arg. 3 Those which are Saints, or holy ones, are meet members of the Church, and so have right to that Sacrament that seals admission into the Church, Eph. 5.25, 26, 27. 1 Cor. 1.2.  
But the children of Christian parents are Saints or holy ones, Ephes. 5.25, 26, 27. 1 Cor. 7.14.  
Therefore they are meet members of the Church, and so have right to baptism, being the Sacrament that seals admission into the Christian Church.  
The Proposition, namely, that Saints or holy ones are members of the Church, and so to be admitted to the Sacrament of entrance thereinto; I know not to be questioned or denied by any; and (if it should) may be confirmed by those Scriptures, wherein the Churches have the title of Saints given to them, or Saints by calling; implying that a Saint, and a member of the Church, are terms convertible, considering that in some Epistles the faithful are all called by the name of Church, the name of Saints or holy ones, not being used: and contrariwise, so that sometime the Apostle calls them to whom he writes, Saints, not Church: sometime Church, not Saints: sometime both Church and Saints, 
Rom. 1.7. 1 Cor. 1.2. 2 Cor. 1.2. Ephes. 1.1. Phil. 1.1. Col. 1.2. Gal. 1.2. 1 Thes. 1.1. 2 Thes. 1.1.  as may appear in the places quoted in the margin: so that all the members of the Church are Saints, all Saints are members of the Church. Yet it is to be noted by the way, they were Saints by calling, or called to be Saints. Not so, that every member of these Churches were truly sanctified, but such as had been called to holiness; and made (at least) an external profession of obeying this heavenly call. For some among those sanctified ones, or Saints by calling, were notorious offenders, and such as were stained with gross errors; as 1 Cor. 3.3. & 5.1, 2. & 6.1.8.13. so Chap. 8.11. & 15. 2 Cor. 12.21. Gal. 3. Phil. 3.15. Yet it was sufficient to make them Saints by calling, and members of the visible Church, that they were partakers of the heavenly calling, Heb. 3.1. and so they had external right to the Sacrament, although if they did not walk worthy their calling, they brought upon themselves the greater condemnation.  
Secondly, it is confirmed hence. In that holiness comprehends all the conditions, or qualifications that are requisite to baptism. Holiness cannot be without communion with Christ, regeneration, and remission by the Spirit and Blood of Christ, 1 Cor. 6.11. 1 joh. 1.7. So that as much as a man is holy, so much he hath communion with Christ, regeneration and remission. If indeed and truth, he be holy, then is he inwardly and really united unto Christ, regenerated, and justified: If outwardly and in profession only he be holy, then hath he communion with Christ, regeneration, and remission only outwardly, and in profession, as Heb. 10.29. Those Apostates are said to account the blood of the Covenant wherewith they were sanctified profane, and to do despite to the Spirit of Grace. These were not truly and inwardly sanctified (for then should they have never fallen away) but only outwardly, faederally, and in respect of external profession. Yet this external holiness is as much as the Minister can discern, or require as necessary, for receiving into the outward covenant and admitting to the seal of entrance.  
Thirdly, this is confirmed by that Scripture cited in the Proposition, Ephes. 5.25, 26, 27. where it is showed that the Church is sanctified and purged by Christ in the washing of water in the word, that he might make it to himself, a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and unblameable. Wherein these two propositions (making for the confirmation of my Proposition) are plainly contained. First, that the Church is sanctified by Christ, and that it is an holy society; which holiness is such a proper adjunct or unseparable property of the Church, that whosoever is holy must needs be a member of the Church. Secondly, that this Church which Christ so loved, for which he gave himself, which he hath made holy, he hath cleansed with the washing of water in the word; which whether it be meant of the outward sign or thing signified in baptism, or rather both; doth apparently show that the whole Church and all the members thereof being holy, have right to the outward washing of water in baptism.  
To the Minor or Assumption; That the children of Christian parents are holy. First, it might be proved from the same place, Ephes. 5.25, 26, 27. For otherwise unless it be granted that all the children of Christian parents are so faederally holy, that at least some of them are sanctified in deed and truth, it will follow that they are not loved of Christ, none of those for whom Christ gave himself, nor part of the Church at least in their infancy, and consequently those children of Christian parents that die before the years of discretion, and actual faith, must unavoidably and remedilessly perish; and that the parents of such can have no hope at all of their escaping eternal damnation; not withstanding all the promises that God hath made to his people and their posterity: which opinion, what Christian heart doth not abhor?  
Secondly, but for the fuller proof of the point, that children of parents whereof the one at least is a believer, are holy, that place, 1 Cor. 7.14. is most direct and clear, where the Apostle saith, For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now they are holy; whence we may note,  
First, that the word holy, is the same that is used elsewhere, for Saints, as the proper title of the members of the Church, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Rom. 1.7. 1 Cor. 1.2, etc.  
Secondly, that the reason why these children are said to be holy, is the faith of the parents, or one parent at least, to whom the other parent is sanctified, by virtue of the believing parents faith, (according to those general rules, 1 Tim. 4.4, 5. Tit. 1.15.) Whence it was that the believing yoke-fellow had the lawful and sanctified use of the unbelieving yoke-fellow. For though it be unlawful for a believer to marry an infidel, 2 Cor. 6.14. Yet when of unbelievers, who were married together in the time of infidelity, one is called, the other is not; the calling of the one to grace doth not dissolve or annihilate their marriage (which is God's ordinance, and therefore good) if the unbeliever be content to live in marriage fellowship with the believing mate. So that God's Covenant with the believing parent, or parents, is the ground of the child's holiness; for (as hath been touched before) in regard of external covenant with God, the state of the parents, or better parent, and of the child is the same. If the parent be in Covenant, the child (though by nature the child of wrath, yet by God's grace) is borne in Covenant, and so he and his posterity continues until any of them cast themselves and their posterity out of Covenant by Apostasy. The child that is borne of parents out of Covenant, remains out of Covenant, unless either the parents, or some that are in stead of parents, being called of God, give up themselves and the child unto God, or the child coming to years of discretion be called into the Covenant in his own person.  
Thirdly, Hence it followeth that the holiness of the children of believing parents, is not necessarily internal and real holiness; so that it be external and faederal, it sufficeth to make them members of the visible Church. For as of those Corinthians and others that are called Saints, we cannot infallibly gather that all were internally sanctified, it was sufficient to make them external members, that they were both Saints by calling: so it is sufficient to make the children so fare holy as to be members of the Church and outwardly in Covenant, if their parents were outwardly in Covenant. What is inwardly wrought, it is not for man to judge.  
Now let us see what A. R. objecteth to this place of Scripture.  

A. R.  For answer, you lay down some grounds: as, First, There is but one Covenant now on foot, which is the Covenant of grace and salvation, Heb. 7.22. & 8.13. & 10.9.  
Answ. We grant you this, and more too. Namely, that never since Adam's fall was there any Covenant, properly so called, made with mankind by God, but the Covenant of grace and salvation: Where read you of any Covenant of works and damnation?  
Secondly, You say: That there is but one manner of entering and being in the Covenant, joh. 3.3.5.6. Heb. 10.19, 20, 21, 22.  
Answ. True, If you mean being in that Covenant inwardly, spiritually, and savingly, and the same ever was the manner of being and entering into Covenant since Adam's fall, viz. by jesus Christ, or regeneration.  
Thirdly, You say: There is but one holiness now acceptable unto God; which is inward, spiritual, and in truth, without which no outward obedience, or conformity to any worship is warrantable or acceptable, joh. 4.23, 24. Heb. 11.6.  
Answ. If you understand it of such warrantableness, as finds acceptation with God in the party performing it, as your latter seems to express the former: This is not questioned nor denied by any that I know. But why do you limit your propositions by the particle [Now,] as if though now outward obedience and conformity to any ordinance, be not acceptable without inward holiness; yet it sometimes had been? which is utterly untrue, as may appear, Gen. 4. Psal. 50. and 51. Esa. 1. jer. 6. and almost every where.  
Now you come directly to answer. Hence (say you) it follows, that if believers children be in Covenant, and have true holiness, than they are all saved old and young. But all believers children are not saved, no not of faithful Abraham himself, Esa. 10.21. with Rom. 9.27. Therefore the children of believers are not in the Covenant now on foot, nor aught to be baptised.  
Answ. You might as well reason thus. If Simon Magus, Ananias, and Sapphira, with many other hypocrites, in the Primitive Churches, whom yet the Apostles baptised, and called Saints, and faithful, were in the Covenant, and had this true holiness, or were truly Saints; then they must needs be all saved. But they were not all saved. Therefore they were no believers or Saints, nor in the Covenant now on foot; and therefore should not have been baptised. The Apostles belike, wanted you to direct and control them, and show whom they should have baptised, and whom not.  
Secondly, I answer directly. Though true holiness be necessary for spiritual and internal being in Covenant, and for eternal salvation; yet the outward holiness of the party consisting in external being in Covenant, is sufficient to warrant a Minister to baptise; otherwise he should never have warrant to baptise: for none knows the heart, (so as to judge of inward holiness infallibly) but God.  You add that we object notwithstanding all this that you have said, Why may not infants be in the Covenant outwardly, having faederal holiness, and in that sense be holy; and so to be admitted to the outward ordinance of baptism, as infants were unto circumcision in time of the Law; and in the State of the jews? To this you answer. That the State or the Church of the jews were under the old Covenant and Law, and stood not by faith or circumcision of the heart; as this of the Gospel doth; but stood merely upon nature, and the circumcision of the flesh, and accordingly had their outward and faederal holiness and outward cleansings; all which were abolished with their State, and no such holiness or distinction is now between any persons in the world. 
Answ. Secondly, though they were under the old Covenant legally dispensed, wherein grace was more obscurely and sparingly communicated to God's people than it is under the Gospel: yet the old Covenant was a Covenant of grace, which all must needs grant, unless they think that the Patriarches, Prophets, and that holy nation of the jews were a graceless people out of favour with God, either not at all saved, or saved by works. (For there is no way to be saved, but by grace or works; and no salvation by grace, but in a Covenant of grace) But I hope you will not be so blasphemous as to say this.  
Secondly, If the old Covenant stood not by faith (to use your phrase) and circumcision of the heart, how is it that God promiseth circumcision of the heart, Deut. 30.6. and living by faith, Hab. 2.4. and the Prophets call upon the people for circumcision of the heart, jer. 4.4. and for faith, Psal. 37. Esa. 7. 2 Chron. 20. and that the Apostle shows, Heb. 11. that under the old Covenant the godly were famous for their faith? Were those promises of God, exhortations of the Prophets, and practise of those Worthies spoken of concerning faith and circumcision of the hart, more than was comprehended in the Covenant under which Gods people at that time were?  
Thirdly, whereas you say the Church of the Gospel doth stand on faith and circumcision of the heart: Is your meaning that there is no Church of the Gospel, but all that are therein, and professed and acknowledged members thereof, are endued with faith and circumcision of heart? If so; experience of the Scripture, and all Christian Churches, will confute you; sigh still chaff is mingled with grain, tares with wheat; the children of the wicked one, with the children of the kingdom. Or is your meaning that faith and circumcised hearts, is required of all in the Church of the Gospel; and is truly in those that are internal and living members of the same? This is granted, and may be said as truly of the Church of the jews; and therefore this can make no difference being common to both.  
Fourthly, Can you tell what you mean when you say, That the old Covenant stood only by nature, and circumcision of the flesh? I cannot tell how you are to be interpreted but one of these three ways: Either, first, that this Covenant was grounded on nature. Or secondly, that it promised only natural or temporal blessings. Or thirdly, that it was made with all and only the natural seed of Abraham: all which are gross and notorious errors, openly crossing the Scriptures. For if you mean that this Covenant was grounded in nature, this is false: for God chose Abraham and Israel of free grace and love above all other people, Iosh. 4. Deut. 7.7, etc. neither did they differ in nature from others. Or secondly, if you mean that God only required of them outward circumcision and cutting off the natural foreskin, and promised only natural and temporal blessings; this opinion is fit to be abhorred, then confuted. Or thirdly, if you mean, that to be of the natural seed of Abraham, and to be circumcised in the flesh, was sufficient and necessary for being in that Covenant, so that their being in Covenant consisted in being the natural seed of Abraham; this is as false: for first, Were not many Proselytes joined with the Israelites in the same Covenant? so that to be of Abraham's seed was not necessary. Secondly, Did not they want circumcision in the wilderness forty years, and yet remain in Covenant. Thirdly, Did not Ishmael and Esau grow out of Covenant, though the seed of Abraham; and so ten Tribes ceased from being God's people long before the old Covenant was antiquated; and did not the Prophets show that Legal observations were nothing worth without sincerity?  
Fifthly, though the outward cleansings and ceremonies of the Law have ceased, and so that outward & faederal holiness be at an end: yet there is an outward and faederal holiness of the new Covenant, whereby Christians are distinguished from other people. They have their outward Baptism and the Lords Supper, prayer in the Name of Christ alone, the Word, and profession of the Gospel, by which they are distinguished from unbelievers. Act. 2.41.42. There are reckoned up: first, Baptism: secondly, the Apostles Doctrine: thirdly, Fellowship, or Communion with the faithful: fourthly, breaking Bread: and fifthly, Prayers: as distinctive marks of the Church, by which it then was, and to this day is distinguished from all other societies whatsoever. 1 Cor. 5.12. There is a distinction expressed of those that were within the Church, or Covenant, and members of the Courch, and those that were without; whereof these were not subject to the judgement or censure of the Church, those were. But how are these distinguished? (that the Church may neither go beyond, nor neglect her office within, her bounds) By inward holiness? that none sees but God, and each man's own conscience; and therefore cannot be a note of distinction unto men that cannot discern the heart. By outward holiness of life? Not so; for some of those that were within, were guilty of more gross profaneness than those that were without, as in the same Chap. 1 Cor. 5.1. and 11. Therefore there must be some note of distinction, or faederal holiness, by which those that were wicked in heart, and life, and yet Saints by calling, and members of the Church, and so under the Church's jurisdiction, might be discerned (from them that were without) and so subjected to the Church's censure, 1 Cor. 5.11, 12, 13.  
Yet you say further. There is now only the new Covenant, which is a covenant of grace and salvation, and brings certain salvation to all those that rightly enter into it; which is only by faith. Hence it is said, Act. 2.47. That the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved.  
Answ. It is as true that the old Covenant made with the jews, was a covenant of grace and salvation, which brought certain salvation to all those that rightly entered into it, and that it was only by faith. 
Heb. 11.  And as for the Scripture you cite, it is said indeed, That the Lord added to the Church such as should be saved. But it is not said, only such as should be saved were added to the Church; or that all those who were added to the Church were saved.  
You proceed: And that the holiness of children is not meant of any holiness in relation to any Church-covenant will appear further by these reasons. First, that which is an effect of regeneration is not brought to pass by generation (though the parents be holy.) But to be of the covenant or kingdom, is the proper effect of regeneration, joh. 3.3. without which none can see it, (much less be of it) or enter into it. Therefore it cannot be brought to pass by generation, though the parents be holy.  
Answ. We say not (neither can it follow from our grounds) that the children of Christian parents are in covenant with God by generation, but by virtue of God's gracious promise, and from the nature of the covenant of grace; wherein God is pleased to accept parents together with their children for his. Secondly, to be of, or in the covenant outwardly (of which being in covenant we speak, and which is sufficient to make an external member of the Church, and give right unto the outward seals) you can never prove to be the proper effect of regeneration, until you have proved that all those who were baptised by john the Baptist, and the Apostles, and so admitted into the covenant as members of the Church, were truly regenerate; which to hold, were to contradict the Scripture.  
Your second reason is this: Secondly, contradictions cannot be the effect of one and the same covenant, in one and the selfsame respect. But for one parent to be a believer, that is of the Church, when the other parent is not, to produce an holy seed that is in covenant, 1 Cor. 7.14. and for the other parents to be one a jew, the other a Babylonian; the one a member of the Church, the other not; to produce an unholy seed that is out of covenant, and to be put away both wise and all borne by her, as Ezr. 10.3. is a contradiction in one and the selfsame respect; and therefore cannot be the effect of one and the selfsame covenant.  
Answ. Not to examine the form of this Argument, nor to stand upon the strangeness of your expressions: I conceive I apprehend what you would say, and answer. It is no contradiction for the same covenant to require that the jews should cast away their Babylonish wives, and the children which they had by them as unholy, and out of covenant: and yet allow the Primitive Christians, their retaining of their yokefellowes; (though unbelievers; in hope that they might be brought within the covenant, and won unto Christ) and the retaining of their children, as being already in covenant and holy. I say here is no contradiction, for here is not the same respect, which is necessary in contradictions. First, the jews were forbidden to take wives of any, but of Abraham's, seed and their own Tribe. Christians are not tied to any Tribe for their yokefellowes; which hinders not but the covenant was the same with us and them, though some circumstances varied. Secondly, the jews took Babylonish women; (for I will not contend about the name Babylonian, but give you leave to call these strange wives Babylonians) after they themselves were in covenant with God; which made their marriage with them altogether unlawful, and their seed an unholy, offspring. But those Corinthians to whom Paul writeth, were married before their calling into covenant with God, as yourself write. 2. Part. pag. 10. And after marriage the one was called to the faith, the other remained unconverted, as may appear, vers. 20.21.24.27. so that their former marriage being lawful in itself, and not forbidden of God: (but rather approved, for marriage even among infidels, as well as eating and drinking is Gods ordinance, necessary for the due conservation of the world) and it not being the unbelieving yoke-fellows fault that his yoke-fellow is an unbeliever; the unbelievers sin shall not prejudice the believer, to hinder their posterity from the privilege of faederal holiness.  Thirdly, you gather from Exod. 12.48. that considering the jews Church-State from whence this successive holiness and being in Covenant, is concluded to come, doth not admit in any consideration of any lawful being of parents, the one a member of the Church, the other not, to produce a lawful seed within the old Covenant; that then such a thing in the new Covenant cannot be lawfully concluded from that rule. 
Answ. That scripture Exod. 14.48. doth not necessarily require, that both parents whose male children should be circumcised, should become Proselytes, and submit themselves to God's Covenant. It was sufficient that the man who had principal Authority and power to dispose of his children, should circumcise his male children, though his wife should refuse to become a Proselyte; (for aught that can be gathered from that or any other scripture) or the Proselyte wife (if either she should be forsaken of her husband, or become a widow, or be permitted of her husband to dispose of her children, though he were never converted) might have given up herself and her family to the God of Israel by circumcising her males, for it is said the stranger (not his yoke-fellow, or both the parents) shall circumcise his males. So that your reasons (being disproved) prove nothing.  
You bring us in objecting They are termed holy, and so to be esteemed: to which you answer, So were the unbelieving jews, when they were broken off, Rom. 11.16. and so is the unbelieving wife, and yet neither of them to be baptised, for their being termed holy: and therefore neither children for their being termed holy.  
Answ. Neither are the unbelieving jews called holy as unbeleiving, for the Apostles calls those jews an holy lump and holy branches (not that were rejected through unbelief, but) that had been, and were to be converted to the faith and saved, as is apparent by the coherence: for whom he calls holy here, Rom. 11.16. he speaks of their fullness (or full and general conversion) vers. 12. and v. 15. he speaks of their conversion which shallbe life from the dead, and saith that they shallbe saved, v 26. So that it is evident that he calls the jews holy, not in respect of the unbelievers which were broken off and discovenanted; but of their holy ancestors, and those whose fullness should be a glorious enriching of the Gentiles, whose receiving should be life from the dead, and who should be saved and obtain mercy. And so they are called holy, as a people considered for the future to be taken again into Covenant, and to have right to the seal of the Covenant.  
Secondly, Neither is the unbelieving wife called holy in this place, indeed she is said to be sanctified to the husband, so that he hath an holy and comfortable use of her as of other temporal blessings: But to be sanctified for such an use or to such a person, differeth fare from being holy.  You bring us in here demanding, what holiness then is meant to be in children; and answer, not that holiness which accompanies faith, and that only is available, to the admittance unto the state of the gospel, and to have right to baptism. 
Ans. Because you have a good faculty, in repeating the same things again and again, and denying without proof whatsoever makes against you; I will be content to cast away some more time in answering you, though the same for substance that hath been said; and reply: If you mean that holiness which accompany faith, virtual or actual, is only available to internal admittance into the state of the Gospel, so as to be made living and real members of the Church: we assent to this assertion. But the question is not now; who is a true and spiritual Member of the Church, and infalliblely admitted to the spiritual and saving benefits that Christ hath purchased for his Church? But who is an external Member and may be admitted to the outward seal? No question, john the Baptist and Christ's Disciples, admitted many to baptism, of whose saving faith yet they were not undoubtedly assured.  
Whereas you go about largely to show, That in the state of the jews, and old Covenant some were faederally and outwardly holy, and some unclean: But now that all such distinctions are taken away, and that the Apostle now meant not any such holiness, for believers children to have, neither is there now any such kind of holiness in the world; neither is there any other kind of holiness, save only that true holiness which accompanies the new creature available to baptism: this is the sum of your speech, whereunto I Answer. It hath sufficiently been showed before, that there is a federal holiness in the new Covenant or Christian Church, aswell as there was in the Church of the jews. Neither doth your long discourse or many abused scriptures prove any thing to the contrary. To repeat what was said before. Whence was the Church of the Corinthians holy, or a Congreation of saints, (sigh there were so many really profane and carnal amongst them) but from federal holiness, by which they were distinguished from them that were without; though some in the Church were more notorious for vice, than those that were without? whence were the Hebrews called holy brethren, but because they were partakers of the heavenly calling; though some were so fastened to the Ceremonies, 
Heb 3.2.  and inclined to backsliding, that the Apostle useth sharp and severe language towards them ch. 6.10. and 12? How is it said that they had been sanctified by the blood of the Covenant, that afterwards trampled on the Son of God by apostasy, accounting the blood of the Covenant profane, and doing despite to the spirit of grace: if men may not in the state of the Gospel, have a federal holiness, without inward holiness that accompanies the new creature and saving faith? So 1 Pet. 2.9.10. the Apostle calls the Christians to whom he wrote, a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, a people of God, that had obtained mercy. Must we think that all these (to whom Peter wrote) were undoubtedly endued with true faith, and holiness that accompanies the new creature; so that there was no hypocrite amongst them? that we have no ground for. How then are these glorious titles bestowed upon them all? By virtue (doubtless) of God's calling and their outward accepting of God's Covenant; though there was but a part only amongst those Churches, to whom these clogies properly belonged, for there were tares among the wheat.  You go on and say. If it be objected that in respect of justification it (viz, federal holiness) availeth nothing but to baptism it may; to which you answer. That which avails to justification and salvation, doth according to the rule only avail to baptism. For if thou believest with all thy heart, thou art justified, Rom. 10.10. shalt be saved, Acts 16.31. and mayest be baptised upon the same and no other grounds. Act, 8.37. 
Answ. If the same be the rule or ground for justification and salvation, and for baptism: then must Ministers have no rule for baptism, unless they can know the heart, as God who justifies and saves; and so consequently the baptizer must either be (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the knower of the heart, that is God alone; 
Act 1.24.  or baptise beside or without rule, that is unlawfully; for the true holiness that accompanies the new creature and saving faith, is known to none but God and the spirit of man which is in him. 
1. Cor. 2.11.   You proceed bringing us in objecting and saying, that all that were baptised by the Apostles themselves were not saved, therefore what you answered to our objection, viz. that [that avails to baptism, which avails to justification and salvation] is not so. To this you answer by distinguishing between the rule which is infallible, & the judgements of men which are fallible, and may be deceived in applying the rule; yet it follows not but that the rule being of God, is still as infallible as God himself. For all that believe shall be saved, which is true as God himself is true: but all who are judged by believers to be believers, do not believe; and therefore are not saved. This failing therefore is not in the rule, but in their judgements that are but men. 
Answ. To what purpose is it, to say, this is an infallible and eternal rule, Whosoever believes shall be saved: unless you prove the other, that is in question. viz. that saving faith is the only rule of Baptism, and that none might be baptised, but they that did actually believe, with the faith that accompanies the new creature, and that this rule is true as God is true? which yet I conceive you will not be so bold as to say (which unless you say, you say nothing to purpose.) For hence it would follow, that all whom john and the Disciples, etc. regularly baptised, had true faith, and consequently were saved, that they failed, yea were rash and presumptuous and sinned grievously (as going beyond commission) when they baptised any hypocrite; that such an one after he came to repentance, must necessarily be baptised again; for his former baptism was applied beside the rule, and so was a false baptism. Yea if faith be the rule both of baptism and justification alike, it will follow that as all and only believers were justified, and all and only the justified were believers: So all and only the faithful must be baptised, and all and only the baptised are faithful, and consequently whosoever is baptised is a believer and a justified person, and whosoever is not baptised is neither believer nor justified. But to leave these absurd consequences that necessarily follow upon your absurd opinion; It is evident that God never appointed saving faith to be the rule of baptism, by which his Ministers should be directed in administering baptism. For it is impossible for a Minister to know infallibly whether another savingly believeth, and so whether he may baptise him according to the rule (if faith be the rule.) That cannot be a rule to us to work by, which we must necessarily be ignorant of. God never ordained such an uncertain, yea incomprehensible rule for his servants to work by.  You proceed. But in baptising of Infants the case is fare otherwise, yea quite contrary, who will or can fail in judging an Infant to be an Infant. 
Answ. There is no more danger of failing in judging an Infant to be an Infant, then in judging a man to be a man. But there may be failing in judging an Infant to be truly and really holy and in Covenant, though all the children of Christian parents are called holy: aswell as there might be failing in judging this or that man in the Corinthian Church to be a saint indeed; though the whole Church were called saints. For as the Apostles did according to the rule of charity, judge men to be believers, and so baptised them, when they made a profession of faith, and did not manifestly discover the contrary; though afterwards many proved otherwise: So we are to judge Infants of Christian parents to be holy, and so within Covenant, and to be baptised, because God's word testifies that they are holy, (and neither your shifts and sophistical evasions, nor all the policy of Satan can disprove it) though afterwards some of them are proved to have been only outwardly, not inwardly in Covenant.  
Here you bring in some authors testifying, that baptism of children is but a tradition, a custom of the Church, invented by the Pope etc. Which testimonies I cannot for the present examine, as not being furnished with the books of the authors. Though if one should cast away so much time as to follow you, in examining these testimonies: in probability you would be found no honester in citing them, than you have been in citing many scriptures. For he that will be so bold as to pervert, and abuse God's word, will not spare man's. But because we are not bound to stand to the testimony of humane authors, neither will you as I conceive. I will answer no more at this time to your humane authorities, but these two things: First, that if you would stand to the verdict of authors; I make no question but more and more approved authors might easily be brought against you, than those you have brought for yourself. Secondly, what credit is to be given to your authors, who manifestly contradict one another? In a word to give a touch, Origen the prime and ancientest of those whom you cite, which lived about 200. years after Christ, overthrows what you bring out of him, or other authors for your purpose. For whereas you say he calls it a ceremony or tradition of the Church, (which yet it may be well called, and withal be of divine institution, as being delivered to, and used by the Church, in which sense Baptism in general, and the Lords Supper may be called Ceremonies and traditions of the Church which is the keeper and user of them, not the author or institutor of them) elsewhere he speaks of it, as an unquestionable practice of the Church in his time, thus, in his second tome and 14. homily on Luke, cited by 
* Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorem. Quorum peccatorum? aut quo tempore peccaverunt? aut quomodo potest ulla lavacri in parvulis ratio subsistere, nisi juxta illum sensum de quo paulo ante diximus? Nullus mundus a sorde, nec si unius dici quidem fuerit vita ejus super terram. Et quia per baptismi sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur, propterca baptizantur & parvuli, Orig. Tom. 2. Hom. 14. in Luc. citat. Polan. Synt. Tom. secundo lib. 6. cap. 55.  Polanus in his Syntagme, Little ones are Baptised for the remission of sins. Of what sins? Or at what times have they sinned? Or how can there be any reason of washing in little ones, but according to that sense of which we spoke a little before? There is none clean from filthiness, no though he hath lived but one day on earth. And because by the Sacrament of Baptism, the filthiness of birth is put away; therefore little ones are also Baptised. Wherein this Author seems (for I have not his Book) from the Baptising of Infants, as from an unquestionable practice of the Church in those Primitive times, to demonstrate as from a clear principle, that Infants even of one day old were polluted with sin: And yet you say Luther saith that for one thousand years since Christ and the Apostles it came to be in use in the Church, and was established by Pope Innocentius. Surely your Authors are honestly cited by you, or worthy credit with us, when you bring them speaking such flat and irreconciliable contradictions.  But you return now to the question. What is meant by holiness which children are said to have 1. Cor. 7.14. In answer to which question (you say) I shall only show you what I conceive it to be, and then leave it to the judgement of the wise. 
Answ. It is well yet that you give leave to wise men to use their own judgement, and do not tie them upon necessity of salvation to subscribe to your fancies.  
You go on, I say then it is such an holiness as is opposite to some kind of uncleanness, which holiness I take to be this; as if when they are said to be holy, it is no more than to say they are not unclean, (to wit) no bastards.  
Answ. Who ever before (but 
* Note reader that this is Bellarmine's interpretation of this place. Liberi tales dicuntur, non inmundi, i. e. infames & spurij, sed sancti, i. e. legitimi & liberi a civili ignominia. Whether A.R. borrowed this answer of Bellarmine, or invented it of himself (as it is the happiness of the good wits and holy affections of jesuitical and anabaptistical heads & hearts to jump in the same thing) let others judge.  Bellarmine or such jesuitical perverters of Scriptures) took it so, putting unclean for bastards, or holy for legitimate?  But you come to show your ground from opening of the text, and therein spend many lines. 
Answ. But let any man that is not given over to strong delusions to believe lies, judge whether there be any syllable favouring this interpretation, or proving that by holy must be meant only No-bastards, or whether you can with all your cunning, wrack the Apostles speeches to speak any thing for you, yet now we must take your word for it, because you say it clearly appears to be so.  
Further; This (you say) may likewise appear, Mal. 2.14, 15, etc. In which words it plainly appeareth, that the scope of the place is, that those children which are generated by one man and one woman lawfully married, are a godly or an holy feed, and those that are generated otherwise, are not so, but bastards. And the reason of this holiness, ariseth not here from any relation they had to the jewish State, not from any Church covenant; but merely from God's first institution of marriage in the creation, and his then providing one woman for one man; and which therefore is of universal concernment to all mankind, by the law of creation.  
Answ. No such thing plainly appeareth, as you would bear men in hand. For the scope of the Prophet in that of Malachi, seems to be this, which in the 16. vers. he concludes; viz. that God hates putting away, that is, divorcement; whereby the Israelites alienated their own wives that were Israelites, that they might marry strangers: and this he proves by divers reasons, to be odious before God. First, because by this means they profaned the holiness of the Lord, in breaking his covenant, by putting away their own wives, that were Israelites; and marrying the daughters of strange gods; viz. heathenish wives, which God in his covenant had forbidden: by which means they would soon grow out of covenant, and cease to be an holy people, vers. 11. Secondly, because by this means they caused the Altar of the Lord to be covered with tears so that no sacrifices were acceptable, (which should have been offered in joy) because the poor sorrowful wives that had been put away, could not but testify before the Altar the sorrow for the wrong that had been done unto them, vers. 13. Thirdly, because in so doing they dealt treacherously against the wife of their youth, which was the husband's companion, and the wife of his covenant, vers. 14. Fourthly, because God had made them one, vers. 15. In the first institution of marriage appointing that two only should be made one flesh by marriage, appointing also that they should be of one stock, viz. of the Tribe of Israel of one Religion, viz. worshippers of the true God of Abraham, inclining by his special providence these couples to make choice of one another. So that now for them to divorce their wives, is to cast away part of themselves. In all these respects it may be said that God made them one, viz. in regard of the first institution of marriage, in regard of lineage, Religion, their mutual choice one of another, whereby they became one; and in regard of the nature of marriage, which is to make one man, and one woman no more two, but one flesh. And though God had the rest of the spirit, that is, the disposition of all persons, and the inclination of their hearts, in his power; yet as to Adam he gave but one wife, so to these that are here reproved he gave to each of them but one wife, with whom their several husbands should become one; inclining their spirits at their first choice, to mutual and conjugal affection one to another: though it was in his power, to have given them other yoke-fellows, if it had seemed fit to him. Therefore they are bidden to take heed to their spirits, vers. 15. & 16. that is, look to their hearts that they should not wander after adulterous lusts. Fifthly, the fifth Reason or Argument, to show that this putting away was odious to God, which the Prophet brings is: Because God therefore made them one, as in other forenamed respects, so principally in Religion, (for that he speaks principally, if not only, of this, appears in that he complains of marrying the daughter of a strange god) to the end that he might seek a godly seed, or seed of God: that is, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  that there might successively proceed from them, a seed in covenant with God: whereas otherwise the holy seed would be stained, and God provoked, to discovenant them, and their posterity, so many as should marry idolatresses. This seems to be the meaning and sum of this Scripture, whereon I have stood the longer, because it is somewhat obscure. But howsoever A. R. will gather that the godly seed here, or holy seed, as he will metaphrase it, must needs signify a seed only legitimate, or borne in lawful matrimony; and so conclude that no more is meant by holy, 1 Cor. 7. His ground I can see to be none other, but because God is said to make one seeking an holy seed. But I answer: First, that this place is too fare fetched to gather clearly therefrom, that all children begotten in lawful matrimony are an holy seed; and that unholy seed is so called in respect of the first institution only of marriage, which is the ground of the marriage of Heathens and Infidels. Secondly, I have showed that in divers other respects, God may be as truly said to have made them one; as in respect of the first institution of marriage, which may as pertinently to this place, and agreeably to the scope of the H. G. & to the truth itself have place here. Thirdly, I shown that the scope of this Scripture imports that oneness in Religion must needs here be meant (whether with or without the other significations, I say not) which quite overthrows his ground; for if unity in the true Religion must needs concur in parents, (at least as the case stood with them) to make an holy seed, than they that are of a false religion cannot produce an holy seed, let their marriage be never so lawful. Fourthly, though I should grant (which yet you can never prove, nor will I yield) that this making one to seek a godly seed, were to be referred only to Gods first institution of marriage: yet will not your conclusion at all follow, Therefore all children borne in lawful matrimony of what Religion so even, are an holy seed. For if God at first intending to have a holy seed from Adam and Eve, and so successively, that should be in covenant with him, appointed that one man should have but one woman; and set down this as a law of nature to be observed by their posterity; to the end that they should not pollute themselves with promiscuous copulation, and should be discerned from other people; as by other pious conversation, so by their chastity in marriage, and avoiding of polygamy and wicked divorces: will it hence follow that what parents soever avoid polygamy and live chastely in marriage, generate a godly feed? in no wise: For that a people may be God's people, and their seed a godly seed, or seed of God, many things are required, as that they be worshippers of the true God, that they be no idolaters, no witches, blasphemers, murderers, etc. and divers things more both affirmative and negative, are required in the covenant. Whereof if a man perform one or two, he is not forthwith in covenant, nor his seed a godly seed. Besides, what an absurd collection is it which you make hence, that all legitimates or not bastards, are a holy or godly seed? for now you that pleaded against the holiness of Christians children, will have all children, though of Turks, Indians, and most gross Idolaters to be holy, so that they be borne in lawful matrimony, which you grant may be (and it is plain commonly is) among the heathen. You say, This that is here spoken of a godly seed is of universal concernment to all mankind by the law of creation. But I answer. It is plain that the Israelites only in regard of the covenant with God, were called the holy seed, Ezr. 9.2. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Semen sanctitatis, or semen sanctum, i. e. vocatum ad sanctitatem & Dei gratia ab aliis separatum. Trem. & Jun.  For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of the Lands; yea, the hand of the Princes and Rulers have been chief in this trespass. So Ezek. 16.20, 21. The little ones which the jews had offered to idols, and caused to pass through the fire, were borne unto God and were God's children; so that these places speaking of a godly seed, an holy seed, children born to God, God's children; to wit, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  those that were borne of a people in covenant, make directly against you, as setting forth the sin of the Israelites, who being a godly seed by covenant, would mingle themselves with the heathen that were out of covenant, and so profane and discovenant their seed, and offer those children to idols, which by virtue of the covenant were dedicated to God: which places show clearly how that in Malachi is to be understood.  
You add. In the same sense is that to be taken, Heb. 13.4. Marriage is honourable in all, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. And gather hence, if marriage be honourable, & the bed undefiled; then the issue of the bed must needs be undefiled, that is, clean and holy: on the other side, the issue of unlawful conjunctions are unclean, illegitimate, and bastards. Now this holiness or unholiness of children, proceeds not from the holiness or unholiness of parents: but from the lawful or unlawful conjunction of parents, in the begetting of children; for the Apostle in this place speaks of all men universally.  
Answ. Let any indifferent man judge, whether this be not an unclean, illegitimate, and spurious interpretation of, and drawing conclusions from the Scripture. For first; What comfort or resolution had this been in the scrupulous parent, to tell him that his children were holy, that is, legitimate and no bastards, but legitimates because they were begotten in lawful matrimony that had been contracted before conversion; whereas by your interpretation of these Scriptures, if they had continued still unconverted both of them, their children had been as holy, that is, legitimate and no bastards? Secondly, how can this place [Marriage is honourable in all, etc. and the bed undefiled] be understood of all men universally (as you say) viz. unbelievers as well as believers? 
Tit. 1.15.  When the Apostle saith: Unto the pure, all things are pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving, is nothing pure, but even their mind and conscience is defiled; how can the marriage bed then be undefiled to such? It is evident therefore, (that we make not the Spirit of God contradict itself) that the universal note (all men) is to be restrained to the subject matter, viz. all sorts of believers, (for to such he wrote) of what quality, condition or calling soever.  
Thirdly, But I pray you see (and if you will not, let others consider) how all this while in interpreting this Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.14. and wresting, wiredrawing, and pulling in (as it were, obtorto collo) other Scriptures which you would force to favour your interpretation, you have directly and manifestly contradicted the Apostle, and corrupted the Text. The Apostle tells the believing yoke-fellows, that their children are holy, though their yoke-fellows were unbelievers: because they are sanctified to them; (viz. by their faith) you say, therefore the children are holy, because their matrimony was lawful: If the Apostles meaning were that which you would have it, he should have said, You were lawfully married, therefore are your children holy. But he saith, The unbeliever is sanctified by (or to) the believer, else were your children unclean, let their marriage be never so lawful. Paul gathers the holiness of children from grounds peculiar to the faithful: viz. the faith and being in covenant at least of one of the parents, showing plainly that were it not for this, the children must needs be unclean. You would draw it from grounds common to Infidels, viz. lawful matrimony; affirming that whosoever is borne of parents (though infidels) lawfully married, is holy in the Apostles sense. Thus when men set themselves to maintain errors, they are not afraid nor ashamed plainly to contradict the Spirit of God.  You have somewhat further which you call an objection: It seems then that the holiness here of the children ariseth not from the holiness or faith of the parents; but merely from the lawful marriage and conjunction of the parents; and than you answer: It is even so, and go on to repeat what you have said, and add such like stuff not worth reading. 
Answ. It is even false (though you dictate it as è cathedra, or è tripod) and a manifest contradicting of plain Scripture, as hath been before demonstrated. Your two next objections do not concern us; and therefore I pass them by.  
Yet one more objection you bring us in making: Have the children of believers no more privilege than the children of Heathens, Turks, and Infidels? you answer. In respect of the Covenant of grace and salvation, none at all; and bring those Scriptures, joh. 3.7, 8. Act. 10.34, 35. to show that the Covenant of grace cometh not by any natural birth, but by a new birth. Only their privilege (you say) is in respect of the means of salvation; for believing parents may be a means to bring their children to the knowledge and faith of Christ.  
Answ. What Christian heart doth not abhor this assertion as being directly contrary to the tenor of God's Covenant, Gen. 17. (of which more hereafter) and repugnant to God's gracious promises frequently inculcated in Scripture, Exod. 20.5, 6. Act. 2.39. Esa. 59.21? Doth not this strike at a main pillar of a Christians comfort grounded on those precious promises? so that by this tenet, if the children of Christian parents die before they be capable of the outward means of salvation, or their parents be taken from them before they come to years of discretion; they must be parted with as the children of Turks or Infidels, as being out of the state of salvation, as being in a lost and hopeless condition, as having no right to the Covenant, notwithstanding all the gracious promises that God hath made to the faithful to be their God, and the God of their seed, to show mercy to their posterity, even to thousands, that the promises do belong unto them and their children, that his word and Spirit shall abide on their seed, and their seeds seed. Let men judge whether the father of lies can speak more contradictorily to Scripture, for the extenuating of God's rich grace, and dashing the comfort of God's people.  
Thus have I vindicated the ground of my third argument. Yet notwithstanding all shifts we see this truth remains firm, that the children of Christian parents are faederally holy, and members of the Church, and so have right to the seal of admission into the Church.  
4. Arg. 
4. Arg.  To those that are in Covenant with God, the Sacrament or seal which God hath instituted to represent and seal admission into Covenant, is to be administered, Gen. 17.10, 11. Exod. 12.48.  
But children of believing parents are in Covenant with God, Gen. 17.7. Exod. 12.48. Esa. 59.21. Therefore children of believing parents are to be admitted to the seal of entrance into the Covenant, which now is baptism in the time of the Gospel.  
For the confirmation, and explication of the former proposition, I conceive it is hardly questioned but that when God hath made a Covenant with his people, and appointed a seal to signify and represent admission into the same; then the seal or sign belongs to those which have entered into Covenant under what kind of administration soever the Covenant be dispensed. So Philip reasons, If thou believe with all thine heart, thou mayst be baptised. So Peter, Can any one forbidden water that these should not be baptised, etc. For actual faith, at least in profession, was necessary to those that at first entered into the new covenant, and received the sign or seal thereof; to wit, baptism: as well as it was necessary to Abraham who entered first into the old Covenant which was sealed by Circumcision, though actual faith was not required of his posterity as necessary to their being in Covenant. Neither for aught that I see doth the Adversary deny this proposition. Yet if it be questioned, it is fully proved in Abraham, Gen. 17.10, 11. with whom we read that God first made an express and formal Covenant, and instituted a sign or seal to signify entrance into that Covenant, and distinguish the Church from other Societies. And this was not required of Abraham alone and his family: but of all foreiners also, that so soon as they should enter into covenant, they should have this sign and seal of admittance,, Exod. 12.48. And still in the New-Testament as soon as men had given evidence of their entrance into the new Covenant, they were baptised.  
Now here is to be noted, that the Covenant of grace was ever one and the same for substance; though for the manner it have been variously dispensed, Heb. 11. through the whole Chapter, and Heb. 13.8. Ephes. 4.5. as shall be showed (God willing) more fully hereafter.  
Secondly, before Abraham's time we read not of any distinct and full manifestation of the Covenant of grace expressly in the terms of a Covenant, nor of any gathering of a Church out of the world, as a distinct body whereunto the faithful were to join themselves; nor of any visible seal or sacred sign of admission into Covenant with God; though God had a people in covenant from the beginning, yet the covenant was more sparingly, obscurely, and implicitly revealed, and no distinctive outward note of entrance into covenant (that we read of) appointed.  
Thirdly, since the Covenant was made with Abraham, and the sign of circumcision instituted, in the old and new Covenant, there hath still been a solemn sign or Sacrament of admission, to which all that were in Covenant had right; so that Abraham that was the first express Covenanter is called, the father of the faithful, or of those that were in covenant with God; and is to be imitated by the faithful in all those things that are essential to the covenant.  
For the Assumption. The words of the Text are clear. First, that God made the Covenant with Abraham and his seed, Gen. 17.7. Secondly, that we should not think that that external covenant belonged only to those that imitated his faith, it is made with his natural seed, all that should be begotten of him, Gen. 17.10. Even all that seed wherein God promised to make Abraham fruitful, should so fare be in Covenant, as to have right to the onward sign, until they should fall away from the outward covenant by wilful Apostasy, vers. 6, 7, 10. Thirdly, that you may see this was not peculiar to Abraham and his posterity alone that proceeded from his loins; the same is commanded concerning his servants borne in his house, or bought with his money, that the males who only were capable, should receive the seal of the Covenant, vers. 12, 13. Fourthly, that you may know that this did not belong only to Abraham's family, but was a thing common to all that should enter into covenant, viz. that their children should be acknowledged to be in Covenant also, by having the seal of entrance administered to them; see Exod. 12.48. Lastly, that we may understand that this was not proper to the old covenant in the Legal dispensation, but common to the Covenant of grace under whatsoever dispensation, as well Evangelicall as Legal; a promise of the same privilege is made to believing parents, even from the time of the Gospel, Esa. 50.20, 21. compared with Rom. 11.26, 27.  

A. R.  Now I come to your answers, which is: That neither Abraham nor his seed was circumcised, because the Covenant was made with him.  
Answ. Who denies this? or what is this to the purpose? we know that God might have made a Covenant without a seal, if it had pleased him. They were circumcised, because God did institute circumcision for a seal, and appointed it to those that were admitted into Covenant. The faithful we know were in covenant before Abraham's time; though there be no formal or full expression of the covenant, nor of any sign or Sacrament of entering thereinto.  You add a reason of your assertion. For the covenant was made with Abraham above twenty years before circumcision was instituted, as may appear by comparing Gen. 12.2. & 3. with Gen. 16.3. & 17.25. 
Answ. No such thing appeareth in the places cited. It appeareth indeed that God had made a promise to Abraham long before of making him a great Nation, and blessing him; but there is no word of the Covenant, or that God would be a God to him and his seed, in those places before, Gen. 17.2. (though we know that Abraham from his first call was in covenant with God; as were Abel, Enoch, Noah, and all the faithful before Abraham, as the covenant is generally taken. But here we speak of the Covenant in regard of its express manifestation and special administration, with Abraham, and afterward, since the institution of a seal thereunto.) And it appears that in Gen. 17. vers. 2. is the first expression of Gods making a covenant with Abraham, at which time also circumcision was instituted. And if God had made a covenant never so long before with Abraham, neither he not his seed must have used circumcision until God had instituted it. But after God had appointed it, all that were in covenant were to be circumcised, that were capable, even all males of eight days old and upward.  You say, The covenant was not made with Abraham for his being a faithful man; but for his being such a faithful man whom the Lord was pleased to choose and set out as a pattern to all believers, Rom. 4.23, 24. and to be a father of many Nations, Rom. 4.17, 18. and in whose seed all the Nations of the world should be blessed, Act. 5.25. & 13.23. to wit, in Christ, who was to come of his flesh. 
Answ. We know that the Covenant was not made with Abraham for his being a faithful man; neither yet for his being such a faithful man, etc. as you would have it. But Abraham was made by God a faithful man, and taken into covenant of God's free grace, that he might be a pattern to future believers, and a father of many Nations, etc. Abraham's faithfulness so qualified, was not the cause why God took him into covenant. But Abraham's faithfulness, acceptance into covenant, and being a pattern of believers, a father of many Nations; in whose seed all Nations are blessed, were effects of Gods good pleasure, and free grace. Secondly, neither do those places of Scripture produced by you yield the least show of proof, that Abraham was taken into covenant and his seed for being such a faithful man as God was pleased to choose and set out a pattern to all believers, etc. Thirdly, seeing Abraham was taken into covenant, that he might be, or at the most, as being (I dare not say (with you) for being) such a faithful man, whom the Lord was pleased to choose, and set out a pattern to all believers, and to be a father of many Nations; and in whose seed all the Nations of the world should be blessed: than it is the duty of all that are believers, children of Abraham, and will be blessed in Abraham's seed, that is, Christ, to imitate Abraham's example, in laying hold on the covenant for themselves and their children; and giving them up to God even in their infancy, by requiring the seal of the Covenant to be administered unto them, and not to lose any part of that inheritance that God entailed upon Abraham and his children: seeing as it hath been proved, it is no peculiar privilege of Abraham to have his seed in covenant; nor his peculiar duty to lay hold on the covenant for his children: but the common privilege and duty of all the faithful.  You proceed. Therefore though the promises were made to Abraham and his seed; yet the consequence will not follow, that the covenant is likewise made with all believers and their seed; for believers only are the seed, and the seed only; and none of them a father in the Gospel sense, nor any other; save only Abraham, to whom and his seed the covenant and promises were made. 
Answ. First, If the consequence will not follow, Because God is the God of Abraham and his seed; Therefore he is, to all the faithful, and their seed: how is Abraham a father of the faithful and pattern of believers? Or how will it follow that Abraham performed any duty, or received any privilege; Therefore all believers ought to do those duties, may receive those privileges? Secondly, your reason that you bring for your denial of our consequence, is a bold assertion manifestly repugnant to plain Scripture: as Exod. 20.5.6. Where God having laid down the sum of the covenant, vers. 2. binds his people to his true worship, and to avoid Idolatry, with a promise of mercy unto thousands of those that should love him, and keep his commandments. Now these thousands are meant of the godly man's posterity, as appeareth by the Antithesis of vers. 5. visiting the sins of the fathers on their children, unto the third and fourth generation, etc. Doth not this promise belong to all that are in covenant with God, and are bound to the obedience of the moral Law, and to the pure worship of God, and abstinence from idolatry? so Esa. 59 last verse. Act. 2.37. What is meant by Gods showing mercy to a thousand generations, making a covenant that his Spirit, and word shall be continued to their seed, and seeds seed, that the promise is made to them whom the Lord doth call and their children; but the same that God promiseth unto Abraham, that he will make a covenant with him and his seed; be a God to him and his seed? So that this answer to your boldly-affirmed, but never-proved assertion, (that to Abraham and his seed only the promise was made) may suffice to overthrow the inferences you bring thereupon, and your absurdities that you would father upon us mingled with divers untruths (as may appear to any intelligent Reader) not worth answering. Only that which you lay down in the beginning: For believers only are the seed; and in the conclusion, Abraham hath not two sorts of seeds in the sense and acceptation of the Gospel. Upon which as upon a groundwork of all, your reasoning is built; that the rottenness of the foundation being discovered, it may appear how easily the superstruction will come down of itself. I answer therefore:  
Answ. We read in the Gospel or new Testament, of three sorts of Abraham's seed: First, Christ is called his seed, Gal. 3.16. Secondly, the faithful of what Nation soever are called his seed, Gal. 3.29. Thirdly, those who naturally descended from his loins, john. 8.37. 2. Cor. 11.22. And in this last kind to be Abraham's seed, was sufficient to intresse men to the outward Covenant, and the seal thereof; and the promise was made to Abraham, Gen. 17. literally and properly in this last sense, not in the first or second, as is apparent by the text. For with that seed God made the Covenant in Abraham; and to that seed God became a God, which was to be circumcised at eight days old, in respect of the males, & (as you say) the females in the males. But the natural issue of Abraham was to be circumcised at 8 days old, in respect of the males, & in them the females: See Gen. 17.7.10.11.12. for proof of both propositions. Therefore the natural issue of Abraham, is the seed to which according to the literal and proper meaning of the Scripture, God promises to be a God in Covenant. And so it appears to be false which you say; that believers only were the seed of Abraham, sigh many naturally descending from Abraham, and circumcised, and so outwardly in Covenant, were unbelievers.  You add that we say, Infants were then members of the Church, and demand when they were cast out: to which you answer, that they were cast out when the jews Church-state, and old Covenant was abrogate by the coming of Christ, and preaching of the Gospel, and planting of other Churches fare different from that of the jews in many respects. 
Answ. But I hope God's people are not so simple as to believe your bare words, against God's express truth, (though you were an Angel from heaven or an Apostle, 
Gal. 1. ●.  much less being as you are discovered) and to think that in former times indeed Infants were in Covenant with God, but now are excluded, that now all Infants of christian parents dying without actual faith, and under years of discretion, must certainly perish as aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and out of Covenant with God; that grace is so fare straitened under the Gospel in comparison of what it was under the law, that whereas God was then a God to parents and to children even to many generations, yea to the children of Proselytes, Exod. 12.48. of what Nation soever; now the holiest Christian parents can apprehend no benefit from the Covenant for their children, at least till they come to years of discretion and actual faith; and till then must account them infidels and wholly under the power of the devil. Is this to advance God's Grace, to extol the Gospel and glorify jesus Christ? Or rather is it not a trick of the devil greatly to obscure, and endeavour the utter extinguishing of the glory of God's grace, the virtue of Christ's death, the lustre of the Gospel, and the comfort of a Christian all at once? They that will hearken to such deceits as these, let them make account at the last to be cheated of all grounds of comfort in God's word. 
Act. 2.39.  Doth not the Apostle say, the promise is to you and your children, and to them that are afar off, etc. when the jews Church-state and old Covenant were abrogated.  
But let us come to consider the many respects wherein you say that the Church of the Gospel differs from the jewish state or old Covenant, whence you would prove that Infants are now cast out of Covenant: wherein because you repeat for substance some toys and fancies of your own brain, that you have vented before, I will not think it burdensome to answer you, though in some things the same for substance that hath been said before.  That (you say) viz. the jewish Church-state and old Covenant, being constituted upon nature and the natural seed of Abraham. 
Answ. I pray you, can you tell what you mean when you say that the jews Church-state was constituted upon nature and the natural seed of Abraham? I am sure you speak not according to Scripture (that I say not, nor according to sense or reason.) As far as I can apprehend, when you say it was built upon nature (If you have any meaning in these words, and do not let them fall from you at random) it must be understood either, first, that nature was the ground & cause of this covenant; or secondly, that natural blessings were only bestowed in this covenant; or thirdly, that this covenant was made only with the natural children of Abraham: all which are manifestly false. For first, if your meaning be that this covenant was grounded on nature, so that nature was the cause of it; you must either mean the nature of God as contradistinguished to his will and good pleasure: or the nature of Abraham. The nature of God was not the cause of it, for what God doth by nature (his nature being the cause) he doth eternally, necessarily, unchangeably, so as he cannot but do it; as to know himself and all things knowable, to love himself. Or if you mean that the nature of Abraham was the ground of this covenant, it is as false; for there was nothing in Abraham by nature, that put difference between him and others, Deut. 7. Iosh. 24. Rom. 4. Or if you mean God only bestowed temporal blessings in this covenant, that is palpably and execrably false also. God was their God in the old covenant, circumcised their heart to love him, fear him, and obey him, and trust in him; he gave remission of sins and sanctification under that Covenant, which were not natural blessings. Or thirdly, if you mean that that Covenant was made with Abraham's natural posterity, there is no appearance of truth in it; for bondmen and those that were bought with money, and Proselytes of any nation or stock whatsoever, were admitted into this Covenant, Gen. 17. Exod. 12.  You add. This (to wit, the Christian Church-state) upon grace and the spiritual seed of Abraham. 
Answ. So was the old Covenant (to use your phrase) constituted on grace, God's free favour was the cause of it, and the graces of the Spirit bestowed as truly under it (though not so plentifully, and clearly as now) as these phrases express: 
Gen. 17. Deut. 30. Mal. 2.5.  I am God all-sufficient. I will be thy God. I will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God, etc. My Covenant was with him of life and peace. Secondly, if you mean by the spiritual seed of Abraham, jesus Christ the seed of the woman that was to break the Serpent's head, 
Gen. 3. Joh. 8. Rev. 13. 1 Tim. 2.  in whom the Covevant was made with our first parents fallen; at the seeing of whose day Abraham rejoiced, in whom God promises, that all the Nations of the earth should be blessed: the old Covenant was made with Abraham in him; who is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; who is the only Mediator between God and man, and by whom alone, Abraham and all the faithful have had communion with God.  You add. That therefore termed Israel according to the flesh, and of the circumcision of the flesh, this Israel according to the spirit and of the circumcision of the heart, Rom. 2.28, 29. & 4 6, 7, 8. Col. 2.11. 
Answ. No such thing appeareth in those Scriptures. Take heed how you falsify God's word, would you persuade men, that God gave not circumcision of heart under the old Covenant? that because all were not right Israelites that were Abraham's seed, therefore none were? that because he is not a jew that is one outwardly: therefore none under the old covenant were inwardly jews? because true Christians are circumcised with a circumcision without hands; therefore the jews were not circumcised but only with hands, not spiritually. Let any man examine those Scriptures, and see whether from them it can be gathered, that all under the old covenant had only circumcision of the flesh, and that all under the new covenant have circumcision of the spirit. It will appear to any judicious Reader, that here are two or three notorious falsehoods, with a gross perverting of Scripture in this short sentence. The first: That the jewish Church-state, or old covenant is called Israel, according to the flesh, or circumcision of the flesh; but the Gospel-state Israel, according to the spirit, or the circumcision of the heart, (wherein are enfolded more untruths than one.) Secondly, that therefore they are so called, because that was constituted on the natural seed of Abraham, etc. The abuse of Scripture appears, that these Scriptures neither prove the antecedent, nor sequel, nor consequent, neither make any thing for his purpose; as if it would not be overtedious to stand upon, and needless to any men of judgement, might be showed. But such uttering of falsehoods, and then propping them with Scriptures to abuse the simple, is ordinary almost in every page, and sometimes frequent in one page, as may appear by the answer, though I have not said so much in express words before; neither should have said so now, but that I consider such is the weakness of some Readers, that what they read, if Scripture be brought for proof thereof, though never so impertinently, abusively, and perversely, they think it must go for currant.  Thirdly, that (you say) a state of bondmen or servants, so as in that state; an heir or believer differed nothing from a servant, though he were lord of all, etc. Gal. 4.7. 
Answ. That under the Old Testament the Church of the jews was an heir, yea lord of all: (though in regard of its infancy and immaturitie, nothing differing from a servant, as being held under the tutourship of the Law) this I say, is sufficient to prove that the Church of the jews, and the Christian Church, is one and the same, for substance, and under the same Covenant in all essentials. For all know that a son and heir is the same for substance and in person, at three years old, and at thirty; though altered in some accidental privileges at riper years. And hence your fancy of the jewish Church being constituted on nature, is quite overthrown. For if the jewish Church was heir and lord of all, believers were then children, though in minority and under tutourship. How were they children? not by nature; for Christ only is the Son of God by nature; therefore by grace, and so they were under a Covenant of Grace. Thus powerful is the word of truth to overthrow those errors that ignorant men would abuse, and force it to maintain, and yet you are not afraid nor ashamed to father this error upon Christ himself, and would force his words to the jews to sound this way, joh. 8.31. And among other your toys, that you would fasten on him, (which are not worth the examining, unless a man had more time than he knew how well to bestow) you bring him in speaking thus in the conclusion of your paraphrase that you make on his words to the jews. You see then how that Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham and you his natural seed, was to be an everlasting Covenant in your flesh; to wit, in me that was to come of your flesh, Gen. 17.13.  
Answ. First, is not this notorious presumption to father such a fancy as this on Christ? to call the flesh of the jews foreskin, Christ himself? for that by the flesh in which Gods covenant was, is meant the foreskin, wherein God set the sign and seal of his covenant, is apparent by comparing the 10, 11, & 12. verses of Gen. 17. together. Secondly, If that were an everlasting Covenant which God made with Abraham, and the Israelites; and made with them in Christ (though Christ was not that flesh in which circumcision was made) both which you grant here, and the Scripture plentifully proveth; then certainly was the covenant made with the jews, and with us, all one for substance: seeing they and we have one Mediator, and seeing the old dispensation of the covenant is abrogated; how was that an everlasting covenant; but as the same covenant is perpetuated now in the Evangelicall dispensation of it?  But you will have Christ give this reason; that by the flesh (wherein the covenant of circumcision was to be) is meant Christ, because Christ was to come of their flesh. 
Answ. Was he so? Was Christ to come of the flesh of strangers, and Proselytes, or of all the posterity of Abraham, which had the covenant in the flesh? Did Christ come of the flesh of all that were circumcised? (which must needs follow on this conceit) What prodigious opinions doth this man's brain conceive and father on Christ?  After you come, as you say, to shut up all thus: That it is apparent that infants of Christian parents cannot warrantably be baptised, until they manifest and declare their faith by profession: as is apparent, first, from the doctrine, and practise of john, Matth. 3.6.8, 9 Mar. 1.4. Secondly, of Christ and his Apostles, joh. 3, 22. compared with 4.1, 2. Act. 2.38.41. and 8.12.36, 37. Thirdly, by the tenor of the commission, Mat. 28.29. Mar. 16.15, 16. 
Answ. No such thing is apparent from these Scriptures; as is, first, sufficiently showed by the foregoing reasons. Secondly, by the fore examination of those Scriptures and grounds you build upon. Thirdly, in none of those places do you find baptism so restrained to those that profess the faith, that it should be lawful for none else to have it. Fourthly, I add, if abusing the Scriptures and inventing and avouching new and monstrous errors, may make your opinion for which you plead to be apparent truth, then indeed you have made appparent what you say, otherwise not. Fiftly, though in mine answer to that Scripture, Matth. 28.29. I hope sufficient hath been said to answer all other Scriptures of that kind; yet because some put great confidence in that Mar. 16.15.16. for this opinion, though it be the same for substance with the other, 
Mar. 16.15, 16.  I will add a little in this place, though happily the same for substance that hath been said. The words of Christ are these: Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel unto every creature. He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned To make it appear that nothing can be gathered to confirm the adversaries opinion, note these four things.  
First, Here our Saviour doth not forbid his Disciples to baptise any that want actual faith, or confine baptism to believers; or expressly show who should be baptised, and who not; only he shows who should by saved, viz. those that believe and were baptised; and who should be damned, viz. those that believed not: so that it is strange that men should promise to themselves any patronage for Anabaptism from this place. Secondly, If any should say, that though here it be not expressed that believers only are to be baptised; yet it may be hence gathered, and is implied from the order and connexion of the words, (He that believeth and is baptised) so that men must believe before they be baptised. I add, secondly: That no such thing can be necessarily implied by the series of the words, which I prove by this very Text. First, it would by as good consequence follow, that none ought or can preach the Gospel, be means of working faith, baptise, or help toward salvation; but those who have received Apostolical authority, and gifts to go into all the world, and preach unto every creature, for the connexion and order is alike; but no man will yield this consequence. Secondly, by as good and better consequence you might gather, that none shall be saved but those that believe and are baptised, which is false; for whatsoever you hold, I conceive that none but those that are given over to strong delusions will hold that all the children of Christian parents that die before they come to actual faith, must remedilessly perish: and as for the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation, if with the Papists you hold it, will easily be confuted from this Scripture, showing that not want of baptism (where it cannot be had, and is not wilfully contemned) but unbelief condemneth. Yet there is as good reason for these inferences from this place as for that you would imply hence. Or thirdly, that nothing but unbelief can be the ground of damnation might as well be concluded hence, as that nothing but faith can be the ground of baptism; whereas not only unbelief, but every sin is damnable, and without repentance will bring damnation.  
Thirdly, I answer to this Scripture, that though it were granted that the Apostles, who were to gather a Church out the unbelieving world, and take them into Covenant that were out of Covenant, might not baptise any but those who by professing faith took hold of the covenant, from which before they were aliens, and their families, who were now received into covenant with them: yet it doth not follow, that the children of parents in covenant (and so in Covenant themselves) should be denied baptism; though they want actual faith: for there is not the same reason of a Church gathered, and to be gathered: as that latter part, He that believeth not shall be damned; if it be understood of actual faith, must be restrained to the present time and matter: for to those that were out of Covenant, actual faith was necessary to bring them and theirs within covenant. So that the Gentiles to whom the Apostles were to preach, must of necessity actually believe, else they could not be saved. But this must not be extended to all persons and times: for than it should follow that no child of Christian parents dying before years of discretion and actual faith, could be saved; which is directly contrary to those Scriptures that show, that God will be a God to the faithful and their seed; will show mercy to thousands of their posterity, to the children's children of those that keep covenant, Psal. 100LS. 1●, 18. that the promise is to the faithful and their children, that their children are holy, and such places before cited, which will not suffer any one that believes God's word to hold that the children of the faithful dying in their minority, must unavoidably be damned all of them.  
Fourthly, I add for answer to this Scripture, that infants of Christian parents, as they are within the covenant, and are holy, so they may be said to have a virtual faith, or that which is analogical thereto, that giveth them right to baptism, as much as the converted heathens profession; for being in covenant with God, and being holy, cannot be conceived to be without answerable faith, or somewhat equivalent.  
At last you having triumphantly concluded your dispute, come to show your disciples what they may see by what you have taught them. I will examine a few of your words.  Say you, By this we may partly see the gross mistake of all such great clarks of our times, which confound those two Covenants of Law and Gospel, and make them both as one in substance, and different only in circumstance, as in administration only or degrees, the one more dark, the other more light, whereas indeed they are no less different than old and new, works and faith, the administration of condemnation, and the administration of righteousness, or then the letter killing, and the spirit giving life, 2. Cor. 3.6.7.8.9. or then a state of bondage, and a state of sons, Gal. 4.21. 
Answ. Yes, we may see what you infer, as we may see false shapes by false glasses, or one falsehood by another. Secondly, may not ignorant phantastics possibly fall into gross errors assoon as great clarks? Thirdly, as for the differences that you put between the Covenant of the Law, and of the Gospel (as you call them) First, we grant that the Covenant which God made with the jewish, and that which he made with the Christian Church, differ as old and new. But this is too narrow a difference to make them divers in substance: as he that was of old a child is a new become a man, yet differs not in substance from what he was, but is the same person. God gave that old commandment to the jews: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, Leu. 19.18. Christ saith to his Disciples, A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another, joh. 13.34. Must these commandments needs differ in substance? or must they be accused of gross mistake that hold that these commandments agree in substance as being the same? The Apostle john, 1. joh. 2.7. saith he writes no new commandment, but the old, yet vers. 8. he saith he writes a new commandment. Will you say, That great clerk john was grossly mistaken in saying that he wrote no new commandment, but an old: and yet presently saying he wrote an old commandment? Because in your conceit old and new so fare differ, that the same thing cannot be said to be old and new, though in different respects, and in regard of some circumstances.  
Secondly, In your second and third difference you (how great a Clerk soever) are grossly mistaken in calling the old Covenant made with the jews a Covenant of works, and a Covenant of nature. Where find you the Scripture calling it so? Will you persuade men that Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, Moses, David, and the faithful before Christ, where without faith and grace? That either they were saved by works and nature (for you will allow them to be under no covenant, but works & nature you, exclude them from faith and grace) or else to have perished remedilessly? The one whereof must needs follow upon your tenet. But of this we have heard before, & this your opinion is so absurd and unchristian, that it deserves rather to be abhorred then confuted.  Thirdly, whereas you call the old Covenant the administration of condemnation, and a kill letter, wherein you would have it contrary to the Gospel as being the administration of righteousness, and spirit giving life, and bring that Scripture, 2. Cor. 3.6.7.8 9 
I Answer: First, there is no such thing proved by that Scripture, that the old covenant was the administration of condemnation, and a kill letter. Secondly, neither can any such thing be conceived; unless we shall say that all which were under the old Covenant were condemned, and killed, destitute of righteousness and life, and that God made a Covenant with his people to kill and condemn them (which will necessarily follow upon that tenet) which were blasphemy.  
Thirdly, the Apostle indeed calleth the law, which was an addition to the covenant of promise, a kill letter, & the administration of condemnation, not as it was given and intended by God primarily, who gave it primarily and properly, to humble that stubborn people, drive them to the promise, and exercise them in obedience, and to be taken along with, (not apart from) the promise, and to train them up for, draw them to, and direct them how to walk in, Christ, which is the end of the Law, not to drive them from Christ. But as it was in itself considered without the promise and without Christ, so it was a kill letter, and the ministry of condemnation; and as it was misunderstood and abused by false-teachers, hypocrites and justiciaries: who before the coming of Christ forsaking the promise, and since his coming, forsaking the Gospel; (both which held forth Christ, in whom alone righteousness is to be sought) or at least mingling the Law and Gospel together in point of justification, sought righteousness by the works of the Law either alone, or with the Gospel; to them it became a kill letter. And the addition of the Law to the promise, was a testimony, and an occasion of greater condemnation to such as they who abused it, sought righteousness in it, 
Rom. 7.12.14. Gal. 3.21 24.  and made their boast of it, but were not humbled, nor driven to Christ thereby, though in itself the Law was spiritual, holy, and good, not contrary but subordinate to the promise. As the Gospel is an occasion of greater condemnation even to those that are externally under the Covenant of the Gospel, who abuse it 2. Cor. 2.16. Heb. 10.29. jud. 1.4. Yet will it not hence follow that the Covenant of the Gospel or new Covenant is the ministry of condemnation, though it turn to the greater condemnation of some for their abuse of it.  Fourthly, As for your last difference; that a state of bondage, this a state of sons. 
Answ. 'tis true, the Law given on mount Sinai (for of that the Apostle speaks) as it was taken without the promise, and that Covenant which God made with Abraham, and as men sought justification by it, whether without the promise before Christ, or without the Gospel since Christ, or whether they sought justification by the Law together with the promise or the Gospel, which was not God's end in giving the Law to his people, but man's abuse of it: so it brought men into a state of bondage, and so the obstinate jews, that thus abuse the Law, are cast out as Ishmael, and Hagar. And as the faithful were under the discipline and padagogie of the Law, they were in a servile condition, in comparison of that great freedom (from those intolerable burdens of ceremonies, and great discomfort and fear accompanying the same) which the faithful have under the Gospel. But notwithstanding their bondage, they were sons and heirs and lords of all, Gal. 4.1. and so they were under a Covenant of grace, though legally administered.  As for your following discourse, wherein you talk your pleasure against Magistrates and Ministers, and cry out of the Baptism of Infants, as the greatest delusion, and a thing of as dangerous consequence, as ever the man of sin brought into the world, and that the greatest maintainers thereof are the greatest deluders; and that it is time for you to awake out of your drunken slumber, and seek by whom and by what means you are so miserablely intosticated (as you call it, whether by an error of the Printer, or because you are so intoxicated with your drunken slumber, that you cannot speak English,) with much other like raving talk; wherein you abuse the Scriptures, and show what manner of spirit you are of. 
Answ. I account this wild talk, being the evaporations of a giddy brain, intoxicated with a drunken slumber whereof you complain, worthy not other answer but this. Of every idle word you must give an account at the day of judgement, Matt. 12.36. much more of speaking evil of those things you know not, railing upon dignities, and authorities, despising dominions, 2, Pet. 2.9.10.11.12. jud. 4. & 8 9 etc. and of calling evil good, and good evil, putting darkness for light, and light for darkness, Es. 5.20. Which places of Scripture I would entreat you, when you shall awake out of your drunken slumber to consider, and seriously ponder.  
So much for the fourth argument, and clearing it from exceptions: Now I come to the fifth, which is of affinity with the former (and confounded with it by A. R. and therefore his answers to it, mingled with his answers to the former) but not the same, and therefore we will consider it apart, and set down his answers of any weight, and reply to them (God willing,) and this is taken from circumcision.  
5. Argument, If Infants of believing parents (or parents in Covenant) under the old Covenant, might and ought to be consecrated unto God, and initiated into Covenant by circumcision: then Infants of believing parents under the new Covenant, aught to be consecrated to God, and solemnly entered into Covenant by Baptism.  
But Infants of believing parents, under the old Covenant, might and ought to be consecrated to God, and initiated into Covenant by circumcision, Gen. 17.10.11. Exod. 12.48.  
Therefore Infants of believing parents under the new Covenant, aught to be consecrated unto God, and solemnly entered into Covenant by Baptism.  
For the clearing and confirming of the sequel of the proposition (for of the assumption, there is no question) I will lay down two or three considerations.  
First, that the old and new covenant were one and the same for substance; Abraham, Moses, David, and all the faithful before Christ were under the same Covenant, that all the faithful since Christ are under. For since Adam's fall, there hath been but one way of salvation, common to all that have been saved; which way is revealed, and exhibited only in the Covenant of grace, as hath been partly showed before, see Rev. 13.8. & 14.6. Heb. 11. through the Chapter, and 13.8. Hath been demonstrated by the godly learned: and must be needs acknowledged by all that will without prejudice consider that, 
Exod. 34.6.7.  first, God considered as a mercifu l Father, a gracious & long-suffering God, abundant in goodness and truth, 
Ezeh. 16.  is the Author of the old Covenant, as well as the new: secondly, 
Iosh. 24. Exod. 33.19.  That man considered as a miserable sinner, yet weary of sin, desiring mercy, professing and promising, repentance, faith, and obedience, 
Eph. 1.12.  upon his being received into this Covenant, is the other Covenantier or confederate in the old aswell as in the new. Thirdly, 
1. Cor. 10.4.  that Christ is the Mediator in both, being the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, 
Gen. 3.15. joh. 8. Ps. 110. Exod. 34.7.  the promised seed, who broke the serpent's head, whose day Abraham seeing rejoiced. A priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. Fourthly, that the principal good things promised in both, were pardon of sins, 
Ps. 32.1.2.  adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and eternal salvation. Fiftly, 
Gen. 15.6.  that the condition required is repentance, faith and obedience in the old Covenant, aswell as the new. Sixtly, that the end in both is the same, 
Act. 15.10.11.  to wit, the glory of God's rich mercy; in pouring spiritual, temporal, and eternal blessings upon his people. And seventhly, that the sum of the Covenant is the same, viz, 
Rom. 4. Exod. 19.5, 6. Deut. 4.29, 30. & 10.16.19 & 11.22.  I will be thy God, and thou shalt be my people. All which are undeniably the same in the old Covenant and new. So that considering they agree in Author, Object, Mediator, Good things promised, Duties required, End, Effects, in a word, in Matter, Form, and Definition, there can be no essential difference. Only they differ in some Accidents. As there the Covenant was made in Christ to come: Here in Christ already come. There with a few people, and after abraham's (or at least Moses his) time, only with the house of Israel, and those that should join therewith: Here with more, even with all nations. Then dispensed by darker prophecies, and more obscure sacraments, sacrifices, and ceremonies or types; now by clear revelation, and plain or open ordinances, without the veil of shadows, types, and dark ceremonies. Then grace was more dimly, scantly, and with mixture of legal slavery, ordinarily bestowed; now more plainly, plentifully, comfortably and freely; all which are but circumstantial, or gradual differences.  
Secondly, when the new Covenant succeeded the old, than Baptism succeeded in the place of circumcision; as the Lords Supper in stead of the Passeover. 
Exod. 12 48. Rom. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.13. Act. 22.16. Col. 2.11, 12.  I say Baptism succeeded in the room of circumcision, and is to us of the same use that circumcision was to the jews, to wit, a sign of entrance into the Church, a seal of the righteousness of faith, which comprehends remission of sins, Baptism of the spirit, and circumcision of the heart; which are the things signified in Baptism. Insomuch that the Apostle puts circumcision without hands, in putting off the body of sins etc. and burial with Christ in Baptism, etc. for one and the same thing, implying that though we now want outward circumcision with hands, yet we have inward circumcision without hands, signified and sealed in Baptism to so many as have Christ. And so though the believing jews before Christ, wanted the outward sacrament of Baptism; yet they were inwardly partakers of Baptism without hands, in remission of sins and mortification (sealed by circumcision) aswell as we. So than if by being buried with Christ in Baptism, we are partakers of circumcision without hands; It appears that Baptism is of the same use to us, that circumcision was to the jews, whereof one particular among the rest, was to be a sign of entering into the Church or Covenant, as may be seen in the general use of both the Sacraments, and which our Saviour (it may seem) would in special teach us by his example, in that at the eight day he was circumcised, as a professed Member of the jewish Church; but after when he would set up the new Covenant or Christian Church, he was initiated thereinto by Baptism. So that though in some things circumcision and baptism differ: as, first, in the ourward ceremonies. Secondly, in regard of the sexes to which applied, (for circumcision was applied only to males, the females being uncapale, and so being received into Covenant, in or with the males, whereas Baptism is applied to both sexes, being both alike capable of it.) Thirdly, in the exact determinate time, required in the one, viz, circumcision, tied to the eight day; but left free and undetermined in the other, so that it be done as speedily as conveniently may be, after the party is apprehended and acknowledged to be within the Covenant, and so to have right to the sacrament. And fourthly, in the adjuncts or effects. Circumcision with spilling of blood, Baptism without blood, because the true blood of the Covenant is shed, and therefore no more to be shadowed by bloody sacrifices or sacraments as aforetime. Yet they agree in the main end and use. Circumcision and Baptism being signs of entrance into the Church, as the Passeover and the Supper, signs of continuance; and so consequently circumcision and Baptism to be applied to those that were but newly in Covenant, as to Infants of believers, and infidels newly converted; the other to be used by them that had attained to some growth. Those to be applied but once to one person, as signifying our spiritual birth, which is but once; but these often to be used, as signifying spiritual nourishment and growth, which must be often and continual until we come to perfection, though we be not bound to the distinct times, in using Baptism and the Lords Supper, that were appointed for circumcision and the Passeover, viz. the eight day from the birth for the one, or the foureteenth day of the first month yearly for the other.  
Thirdly, consider that God's bounty and grace on the one side; or man's duty, and obligation on the other side, is nothing diminished or straitened in the time of the New Testament, in comparison of what was under the Old: but rather much increased and enlarged, in respect of manifestation, more abundantly to Christians then Iewes; as the whole course of the Scripture shows. So that if God was pleased graciously to accept into covenant, parents together with their children then; and to become the God of the little infants, as well as of the parents; and to set the seal of the covenant upon the infants, for the confirmation of faith, and comfort of the parents for the time present, and of the children for the future, when they should come to understanding: And if he were then pleased to bind parents to offer and dedicate their children unto him by the seal of entrance into covenant: much more he vouchsafeth the former, and requireth the latter, now under the Gospel.  To this you answer, 
A. R.  God commanded Abraham to circumcise all the males in his house; and every male child at eight days old, as well he that was borne in the house, as he that was bought with money of any stranger that was not of his seed. Now it was both right and equal that Abraham should do herein as God commanded him, and it had been sinful in him to have done otherwise more or less. And so likewise it is meet for us to do as God hath commanded us to do; and no otherwise. And afterwards (to omit repetitions of the same things, and some objections and answers which you make, that either concern us not, or have been sufficiently answered already) you say: we must baptise infants, when we are commanded to do it, and not before; notwithstanding their being capable of baptism with all its significations. 
Answer. Ans. It was showed before that the restraining of circumcision to males, and tying of it to the eighth day, were accidental, and peculiar to circumcision: as being the seal and sacrament of entrance into the old covenant, whereas some things are essential and common to the seals of entrance in both covenants. And therefore though the argument hold not from one Sacrament to another in those things that are accidental and proper to the one: yet it holds from one to another, in those things that are common and essential, as we justly maintain against our adversaries the Papists; that every Sacrament is a seal of the covenant of grace, or of the righteousness of faith: because circumcision was so, to which you seem to assent, calling Baptism a pledge of remission of sins; though the name of pledge or seal be not expressly given to other sacraments in scripture. Now we learn, by the Israelites frequent using of the Passeover, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is oft (not once only, as Baptism) to be received by Christians; (though otherwise we have not express clear command for the oft receiving of it) howbeit we be not restrained to one in the year only, nor to the time of Passeover, nor to the use of unleavened bread, and such things as were proper to the Passeover: so though we do not in baptism observe the same ceremony, nor precise time, nor sex that was peculiar to circumcision; yet we justly gather, that baptism belongs to such persons for age, viz. Infants (though there were no express command in Scripture for it) and that upon the grounds aforementioned.  
Secondly, God's command to Abraham as he was the father of the faithful, is sufficient warrant for our actions, though we have no special command for the same, set down in the New Testament, much less brought to us by any special revelation as to Abraham; even when in regard of some special acts, and many circumstances we may not do as Abraham did: yet by virtue of God's commandment to Abraham, we are bound to do that which is analogical thereunto. 
Gen. 17.1. Gen. 17.23. Gen. 22. Gen. 18.19.  For example, God commanded Abraham to walk before him and be perfect. This binds us as well as Abraham, though Abraham's circumcision of himself and his family, his purpose and endeavour to offer up his son Isaac; his commanding and teaching his children and household not only in moral duties, but also ceremonial, in respect of circumcision and sacrifices, were parts of his walking before God, and being upright: yet we may not imitate him in those very particulars. But in those duties required in the New Testament, which are analogical and proportionable to these; as giving up ourselves and ours unto God, in the use of those Ordinances which he for the present hath appointed, in denying ourselves in our dearest comforts, and bringing up our children in fear and information of the Lord. And so whereas God promiseth to Abraham to be his shield, and exceeding great reward, and his All-sufficient God: we may apply these promises to ourselves, though our condition be not the same in all things with abraham's, though we be not in danger of having the nations to rise up against us for rescuing Lot, etc. So God promiseth to be God to Abraham and his seed, and requires that he should lay hold on the promise by faith, not only for himself, but also for his children, and so give up his children unto God in circumcision; which is a ground sufficient for Christian parents to lay hold on the promise of God for themselves and their children, & give them up to God God in baptism, notwithstanding some circumstances, wherein the promise and command made to Abraham differ from them, as they are applied unto us So God gave a command and a promise unto joshua: I will be with thee, 
Josh. 1.5.6. to the 9  I will not fail thee nor forsake thee. Be strong and of a good courage, etc. This promise and command we may, and aught to apply to ourselves in any work that God calls us unto, as if it had been made unto us in particular, Heb. 13.5. Though we be never made Captains of hosts; to go against Canaanites, or take possession of a promised land; or be types of Christ, the true and real joshua, or jesus, all which were peculiar to that Worthy: yet the command and promise concern us as well as him, as the Apostle in that place showeth. Else if you will not grant, that we are bound to believe promises, and obey commands, made to Abraham or some other special persons; unless we observe all circumstances and particular actions, in obeying the command; and jump with their estate in every particular qualification, in receiving the promises: you will deny that we have any thing to do with any command or promise of God, and so go about to overturn all the consolation of the faithful, and discharge them of all their duty. But seeing none, I hope, is so foolish as to follow such absurdities, we may safely hold, (notwithstanding what you object) that Abraham's promise for his children, and command to circumcise them; is a good ground for Christian parents, to lay hold on the covenant for their children, and to present them to God in baptism.  Thirdly, whereas you say, As Abraham did what God commanded him, so must we do as he commandeth us; and again, we must baptise infants when we are commanded, and not before. 
Answ. I hope your meaning is not, that we must have immediate revelation from God, as Abraham had; for if until than we sit still, we shall never obey nor believe. Otherwise so many as are the children of Abraham acknowledge themselves bound by God's command to him, to give up himself and his children unto God, to do the like; though they have no new revelation from God, neither are bound to observe all circumstances that Abraham was.  You bring us in objecting: God gave to infant's circumcision, which was a sign or seal of the righteousness of faith, and regeneration, Gen. 17.11. Rom. 4.11. and we know God gave no lying sign, nor sealeth a covenant to any persons that are not therein: Therefore infants are in the covenant, have faith, and regeneration, and so ought to be baptised now, as well as circumcised then. To which you answer. It is true, God gives no lying sign, nor sealeth to any persons that they are in covenant when they are not; and therefore seeing that Ishmael was circumcised after that God had declared, and made it known, that he was not in covenant, Gen. 17.18, 19, 20, 21. it must follow that circumcision was not by God ordained, nor by Abraham understood, to be to the persons circumcised a seal of their being in covenant; and much less of their being in the faith and regeneration. Wherefore, Gen. 17.11. Rom. 14.11. which this objection is grounded upon, of necessity must be understood, as it is applied by the Apostle, to wit, that circumcision received both upon himself and his seed, was to him and to them a sign and seal, that righteousness should be by faith, Rom. 4. vers. 3.11, 12. to 24. 
Answ. God doth not declare there, Gen. 17.18, 19 and cited by you, nor any where else that Ishmael was not in covenant; for though the covenant was established with Isaac, so that he and his posterity should continue in covenant until the promised seed should come of his posterity: yet Ishmael was outwardly in covenant, Gen. 17.10, 11, 12, 13, 14.23.25. until he discovenanted himself.  
Secondly, whether is it fit that we should believe you, or God himself speaking, Gen. 17. and Paul (interpreting that place, Rom. 4.) who had the mind of Christ, and the Spirit of God? you say, that circumcision was not ordained by God, nor understood by Abraham to be to the person circumcised, a seal of their being in covenant, much less of their being in the faith, and regeneration, (though we say not that it was so:) God saith, Gen. 17.10, 11. 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 you shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh, and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you. And Paul saith, that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, etc. Let men judge whether of these two parties testimonies is more worthy credit.  
Thirdly, It is not to be questioned but those Scriptures, Gen. 17.7. Rom. 14.11. must be understood as the Apostle applieth them. But so fare is the Apostles application there, from excluding or denying our interpretation of those Scriptures, viz. that God ordained, and Abraham understood circumcision to be a seal of their being in Covenant, and so a seal of faith and regeneration to those that worthily used it; that the Apostles application presupposeth this, and therefore gathers, because circumcision was a sign of the Covenant, and a seal of the righteousness of faith, that righteousness comes by faith, not by works.  
Fourthly, If the same was not the use of circumcision to Abraham and his posterity for the substance, to wit, to be a sign of their being in covenant, and seal of the righteousness of faith, in your opinion; why do you not show the difference of Abraham's circumcision and theirs? If you say, it was to Abraham a seal of his faith, righteousness, and regeneration, that he had already, to them of that which they were to have: I answer, this is but a circumstantial difference, and gives what we desire, and maintain. If you say, that many who were circumcised were never justified by faith, or regenerated; this was man's abuse, and fault, who being received into such a Covenant, wherein God promised to be his God, and was ready to perform his promise, yet would not perform the conditions required in the covenant. For if some that received circumcision, were never internally in Covenant, nor endued with the righteousness of faith, that hinders not but that circumcision was a sign of their being outwardly received into that covenant wherein God was ready to bestow faith and regeneration, if through their own default they did not deprive themselves thereof. Besides, if there was not the same use of circumcision to Abraham, and his children circumcised by God's appointment: How do you say, in your Preface to the Reader, That baptism is an undoubted pledge from God of the free pardon and remission of sins to the right subjects thereof: sigh it may with as good reason be said, though it were so in our Saviour's time, yet it is not so now; as you seem to bear men in hand: Though circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, and a sign of the covenant between God and him to Abraham; yet it was not so to his posterity, though they were the right subjects thereof, whom God had appointed to be circumcised. But if you rightly gather that Baptism is an undoubted pledge of the pardon of sin to the right subjects thereof now because it was so to those which were first baptised; we may as well gather, that circumcision was a sign of the Covenant, and seal of the righteousness of faith, to those infants which by God's appointment received it, as it was to Abraham.  
Hitherto of those Arguments of ours, whereunto this Disputant answers. As for the other Arguments and Objections which he brings and answers, I shall leave them to defend them that own them. I will add briefly one or two Arguments more.  

4. Arg.  Arg. 6. If the baptising of Infants born of Christian parents (or parents within the new covenant) be not according to the rule of God's word, than there is no rule or warrant in the Scripture for baptising the posterity of believers, under the New covenant at all, and so consequently the children of believers must not be baptised at all, neither young nor old; for we must do nothing without Scripture warrant.  
But that the posterity of Christian parents ought not to be baptised at all; is most absurd and false, as I think will be acknowledged of all that bear the names of Christians. For how can it be supposed, that the faith and Christianity of the parents, should be so prejudicial to the children, as to deprive them of the pledge of the remission of sins, though they repent and believe; when yet the posterity of Infidels may be baptised, upon their faith and repentance? Therefore the Antecedent must needs be false, (viz. that the baptising of infants of Christian parents is not according to the rule of the word) and consequently the contradictory thereto true. viz. that the baptising of infants borne of parents in covenant is according to the rule. The Assumption I conceive needs no proof seeing Christ hath appointed, that the Sacraments of the New Testament should be perpetual to the end of the world, Matth. 28.19.20. 1 Cor. 11.26. to those that should be in Covenant.  
For the confirmation then of the proposition, and making clear its consequence: Consider, first, there is no command, example or other testimony in Scripture, can be given to show that the children of testimony in Scripture, can be given to show that the children of believing parents should be kept from baptism, until they could in their own persons actually repent, believe, and make confession of their faith. But still when parents were converted to the faith and baptised, their whole families were baptised with them. Neither is there any word concerning the posterity of Christian parents, (who were borne of them, being in covenant) to have been baptised in riper years.  
Secondly, those commands and examples of baptising them that repent, believed, and professed the faith, are all of such as had before been out of the New covenant, and were come of parents that had never been under the covenant of the Gospel; and therefore with less reason can be applied to the posterity of Christian parents, when they come to years of discretion, then when they were infants. For those examples and commands show that so soon as one is in covenant with God in the time of the Gospel, he hath right unto baptism. Neither can it without sin to God and injury to the person be denied to him, but aught to be administered so soon as it may conveniently be had. And therefore as they that had been out of covenant before, so soon as they had repent and believed, (at least professed so much, which was necessary to their being taken into covenant) ought to be baptised, as soon as might be conveniently, 
Act. 8.36, 37, 38. Act. 10.47. Act. 22.16.  and might not without injury be hindered by others, or sin in themselves neglect it: So the children of Christian parents being in covenant, as hath been proved, and cannot be denied with any show of truth, (that I say not, without blasphemy) cannot without injury be denied baptism so soon as it may expediently be administered to them.  
This Argument for more evidence and clearness may be propounded thus.  
The posterity of believers either must be baptised in their infancy, or when they are able to make a profession of faith, and do it really, or they must not be baptised at all.  
But to hold that they should not be baptised at all; but that all the children of believers should be debarred baptism though they prove never so godly, is absurd and wicked; that they should be baptised only when they come to years of discretion, and make profession of faith and repentance, there is no warrant in Scripture, neither by command, practice, or otherwise, as hath been showed.  
Therefore they are to be baptised in infancy.  
Arg. 7. If Christian women that are under the new covenant, have right to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and may and aught to be admitted thereunto (neither can without great injury be detained therefrom) notwithstanding their sex; though there be no clear, express, direct and immediate command or example in the Scripture for the same: then may and aught infants of Christian parents being in covenant, to be admitted to the Sacrament of Baptism; neither can without great injury be debarred there from, notwithstanding their age; though there were not any clear, express, direct & immediate command for the same.  
But Christian women have right to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and may and aught to be admitted thereunto; neither can without great injury be detained therefrom, notwithstanding their sex; though there be no clear, express, direct and immediate command in Scripture, for women's being received to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.  
Therefore may and aught infants of Christian parents being in covenant, to be admitted to the sacrament of baptism; neither can without great injury be debarred therefrom, notwithstanding their age: though there were not any clear, express, direct and immediate command or example in the scripture for the same.  
For confirmation of the sequel in the major or first proposition note: First, there is as much cause to question women's title to the Lords Supper, in regard of their female sex, as there is cause of questioning children's baptism, because of their infant age; especially, considering the female was deprived of one Sacrament in the old covenant; and there is no more (if so much) spoken in Scripture for women's being admitted to that, then for infants being admitted to this. Secondly, whatsoever can be said or gathered by good consequence from Scripture for Christian women receiving the Lord's Supper: the same, as much, or more, may as truly, and by as clear consequence be said for the baptising of infants of Christian parents. Are Christian women of some standing, and continuance in the covenant of grace, and so have title to the seal and Sacrament that signifies growth in grace, and continuance in Christ? No less are infants of Christian parents entered into the covenant of grace, by virtue of the covenant made with their parents, as hath been proved (and will not be denied I think by any that cares and knows what he saith) and so have title to the seal of admission, or entrance into covenant. Have they (at least in judgement of charity) right to the thing signified in the Lord's Supper, viz. Christ his body and blood, with all the benefits of his death and passion? No less have these (in the like judgement of charity) right to the thing signified in baptism, viz. the Blood and Spirit of Christ, pardon of sin and regeneration. Were they being the inferior sex comprehended under the superior sex of men in the command? Why might not these as well being inferiors in age, and wholly at their parents dispose, be comprehended under the command of baptising the parents? Were they never forbidden nor excepted, or exempted from the Lords Supper, though not expressly commanded to receive it? The same may be said concerning children's baptising. Have women need of the Eucharist to strengthen faith, and quicken them to obedience as well as men? so have infants need of baptism to confirm faith in Gods gracious covenant, and incite to obedience, their parents for the present, and themselves for the future. Is it more than probable that (although at the first institution of the Lords Supper, there were no women, because Christ had none present, but only his own family, and peculiar flock of his Disciples who were all men; yet) Act. 2.42. (if breaking bread unquestionably signify the use of the Sacrament there) and Act. 20.7. and 1 Cor. 11. when mention is made of the Lords Supper, there were women, though it is not expressed? No less probably may it be gathered, that in those families that were baptised, there were some children. In a word, were women admitted to eat of the sacrifices and sacrament of Passeover in the time of the old covenant among the jews? It is known that infants were received to the Sacrment of circumcision in the old Covenant likewise. So that I see no reason why the one should be questionable when the other is not called into question.  
For the Assumption or minor proposition, it hath two things in it to be confirmed: first, that there is no direct, express, immediate command, or example in the Scripture, for women receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, more than for children's being baptised. This is easily proved by turning over to all those places of Scripture that speak of the Lords Supper, which are not many, Mat. 26.26, 27, 28. Mar. 14.22, etc. Luk. 22.19, etc. Act. 2.22. & 20.7. 1 Cor. 10. & 11. neither do I remember any other places that speak expressly of this Sacrament, in all which places is no mention of women.  
The second part of the assumption is, that notwithstanding this is not expressed in so many words in Scripture, that believing women should receive the sacrament of the Lords Supper; yet that they may & aught to be admitted, neither can without injury be debarred: which is so universally (for aught I know) acknowledged, that I never heard it questioned: And he that should question it, might seem worthy of detestation or contempt, rather than answer, or disputation. It may be confirmed by such grounds, as were intimated in my confirmation of the proposition, And my reason why I say this is an unquestionable truth, Believing women have right to the Lords Supper aswell as men, & that by Scripture warrant, is the received maxim in Divinity, that what is contained in Scripture in express words, or may be gathered from the Scripture by just consequence, hath sufficient warrant from God's word, and is a matter of faith. Or, as it is expressed by some, thus. A scripture commandeth, promiseth or threatneth, whatsoever is contained in it, though not expressed; and that is contained in it, which may justly, and truly be gathered from it, though by never so many consequences or inferences. Now I hope none questions, but that it may by just and undeniable consequences be proved, that believing women aswell as men, aught to receive the Supper, and so it hath been proved, that children ought to be baptised; otherwise if we will not admit that we have sufficient scripture warrant, not only for that which is expressly set down in scripture; but also for whatsoever by just consequence is or may be deduced therefrom: we shall deprive ourselves of all or most Scripture-promises or privileges, and exempt ourselves of all or most commands. Seeing what is set down in the Scripture, is not spoken immediately and expressly to us in particular, but only by just consequence or inference is derivable and appliable unto us. And therefore let those that either out of ignorance and scruple, or wilfulness and profaneness, think that there is warrant or obligation for nothing to be done, as an act of faith and obedience, but what is set down or they are commanded expressly and clearly in the scripture, in so many words, take heed they do not at once, deny to God all obedience, and to their souls all comfort in the promises. This last argument may be summed up briefly thus.  
If it be not warrantable for children to be baptised, than it is not lawful for women to receive the Lords Supper; for as much may be said for that, as for this, and against this as that. But the consequent is absurd; therefore the antecedent is false. And this I would wish those women to consider, which by reason of the weakness of their judgement, are aptest to be deceived, by those that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. For if they should yield to this persuasion, their children must not be baptised in their infancy, because the Scripture doth not expressly command it; On the same ground, they must yield that they themselves have nothing to do with the Supper; and so by degrees they may be cheated of all God's Ordinances and their comforts, privileges, and obedience, on the same grounds. As also I would wish that the foregoing argument may be considered by them, who have refused to have their children baptised in infancy, and show what ground they have in Scripture for baptising them when they come to years of discretion. I cannot see but they have as great cause to question, whether ever their children may be baptised as whether they may baptise them in infancy. Let them give an example or command in scripture, express or by just consequence, of a believing Father which kept his child unbaptised, until he actually believed, and then brought him to baptism. And then let them bethink themselves whether the issue will not be, either their posterity must not be baptised at all, (though they believe and repent never so much) and so they cast themselves and their children out of Covenant; or they must be baptised without warrant, or command (for all those examples and commands that are in scripture of faith required in those that should be baptised, speak of them who themselves and their parents till that time had not been under the new Covenant.) Or lastly, if they will have those commands and examples for their warrant and appliable to them; they and their children must become infidels, and persons out of Covenant, and deny that ever they were in Covenant before, or had received any spiritual and Evangelicall favour, that so now at last entering newly into the Covenant of grace by faith and repentance, whereunto they profess that they have been hitherto strangers, they may receive the Sacrament or pledge of admission into Covenant. Which how injurious it would be to God's grace, and their own souls and posterity, if ever they tasted of God's mercy, or were but externally in Covenant, let all men judge.  
It is usual in controversies of this kind, after Scripture proofs and reasons deduced therefrom and grounded thereon, to produce the consent and testimony of the Godly and learned, whether Ancient or Modern; especially, the former, that were most near the Primitive purest times; And I doubt not if a man had helps and leisure for searching Antiquity, it might be easily showed, that the baptising of Infants was long in use before Antichrist got to his throne, (contrary to the opinion of this disputant) yea in the Primitive times (unless Authors be silent in this point, (because no controversy than risen above this matter) or corrupted:) But as I have said, neither having the books of the Ancients, that speak of this subject, nor time well to turn over those volumes, if I had them, I must forbear. Only let the Reader again take notice of these two first-mentioned and Prime Authors whom A. R. citys for his purpose. For as touching origen's giving testimony, that baptising children was a ceremony or tradition of the Church, (not to examine how truly these words are cited out of the Author, which I cannot for the reason aforementioned, but to take the words on his trust) This testimony shows that in his time, who lived but 200. years after Christ, it was a thing ordinarily practised, and (as I shown before in vindicating my third Argument) an unquestioned practice, from which as an undeniable principle, that holy man seems to prove that Infants of a day old are not free from sin. And let none be offended that it is called a ceremony, though that name, as it is used for humane traditions beside or contrary to God's word, is odious, yet the word may in its proper signification be used for any rite, either humane or divine, and both Baptism and the Lords Supper may fitly be called ceremonies now; as well as Passeover, Circumcision, and other Divine Ordinances, instituted by God among the jews. Neither let any be troubled at the word Tradition, for that is used not only to note things taken up by men, but also for the Doctrine of God, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and Institutions of the Apostles, 1 Cor. 11.2. 2 Thess. 2.15. And whereas it is said, a ceremony or tradition of the Church, there is no necessity that it should be understood that the Church was the Author thereof, but the subject (in which it was used, and by which it was delivered to posterity) may well be meant, by that phrase. So Augustine (who lived in the fourth Century after Christ) calls it a custom (as he saith) of the Church. Which yet he might well do, and yet it be a divine ordinance, for all God's ordinances are or should be in custom in the Church. But if it were a custom of the Church in Augustine's time, (and a ceremony or tradition of the Church in origen's) sure it is strange that it should be brought into use a thousand years after Christ, as one of his Authors saith, and be a devise of Antichrist, as he holds. For customs are things that have been of long use and ancient standing. And whereas some Authors speak of such as were Catechised and instructed by the Church, before they were baptised, and must give a reason of their faith before they were admitted to Baptism, and that they used to Baptise such at two times of the year only. I believe it will be apparent to those who look into these Authors, that they speak not of the children of believing parents: but that those Catechumeni, who were first Catechised and then baptised, were Pagans (who lived in those parts where the Church was) which were quite out of Covenant, and therefore, because God did not so miraculously and suddenly bring such to the faith, as in the times of the Apostles, some space was required to instruct them in the principles of Religion, before they could be judged fit for Baptism. But as I said, I may not meddle with the examination of his authorities, nor produce any humane authority for this; seeing it hath been sufficiently confirmed by Arguments drawn from Scripture grounds; though it were an easy thing, I suppose, to beat this Adversary with his own weapon. And it might be an useful work if some Antiquary would take the pains to turn over the ancient Writers, and show what they have left on record concerning this subject.  
I will come to make some practical use and improvement of this dispute, and so end. Seeing all those Arguments that have been brought against the baptising of Infants, have been answered, and our Arguments for it defended (through the help of God and in his fear, how sufficiently let others judge) so that the weakness of the Adversaries Arguments hath been detected, and the truth vindicated against cavils, and it hath been proved from Scripture grounds, that children of parents within Covenant have right to Baptism; this discourse may serve.  
First, To admonish such as the Author of this pamphlet answered that are so pragmatical in broaching their new conceits, that they would impartially, and without prejudice, weigh and examine their own tenants and grounds by the Scripture, before they proceed with such confidence, and heat, to commend them to, and urge them upon others, deride, rail upon and condemn, as Antichristian and Deceivers, all that will not receive their doctrines as infallible. I would wish them to consider whether this be the truth of God that they plead for, and maintain, with such gross perverting, abuse, and falsifying of Scripture, as hath been showed throughout the book; whether hath the cause of God need to be upholden with manifest errors, and those of very dangerous consequence, bordering on blasphemy, such as have been discovered in this Author; as calling the Covenant under which the faithful were before Christ, a Covenant of works, of Nature, and of condemnation: And casting out all infants of the holiest Christian parents from the Covenant of Grace, and making them equal with the Children of Turks, at least whiles infants, and many errors of like sort, and that against plain Scriptures. Doth God need men's lies to maintain his truth? It may be, these errors, abuses of Scriptures, and bold assertions of untruths, and those not one or two but many, proceeded from ignorance, and zeal without knowledge. (For such is our weakness of judgement, that we are apt to take up, embrace, and maintain error for truth.) If so, I hope such persons upon conviction may be humbled and give glory to God in confessing the power of his truth, in overcoming them. But if otherwise they proceed out of pride, vainglory, and they be thus active out of a desire to gather Disciples after them, that they may be followed and admired of the simple, creeping into houses and leading captive, 
Act. 20.30.  silly women laden with iniquity, ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth; 
● Tim 3.6, 7.  pretending to serve the Lord jesus, when indeed they serve their own bellies, and by good words, 
Rom. 16.17.  and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple; professing zealously to affect God's people, 
Gal. 4.17.  that they may exclude and withdraw them from Christ's Ministers: I would wish them to consider, that though Satan's Ministers may be suffered for a time to transform themselves into the Ministers of righteousness, 
2 Cor. 11.13. and 14.15.  yet their end shall be according to their works. And though there may be false Teachers amongst God's people, 
2 Pet. 2.1, 2, 3.  who may privily bring in damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them, they shall bring upon themselves swift destruction. Yea, though they so fare insinuate themselves into people, that many shall follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of, etc. yet their judgement lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. Neither will God suffer such abuse and perverting of his Scriptures, venting of errors, railing against authority, speaking evil of his Ministers, seeking to seduce his people, and empoisoning many unstable souls, with fond opinions, go unpunished; 
1 Cor. 11.19. 2 Thess. 2.11, 12.  Though for a time he may (for the correction and trial of his own people, the discovering of the sound, and punishing of the unsound, by giving them over to strong delusions to believe lies) suffer such persons to escape; yet surely men at last shall know what it is with a great show of Scripture, and under pretence of zeal, to oppose the truth and draw people from the ways of holiness. I know the best of God's servants may err in judgement, aswell as fail in practice; But such will bless God for discovering their error, and be thankful to the instrument which he useth for that end, and to such doubtless God is ready to show mercy in forgiving their errors. But as for them who for their credit sake (as they think) when their errors are discovered, and opposed, shall be more bold in asserting them, fly out in railing and bitterness against those that would have given an helping hand to the reducing of them to the truth, set their wits a work, to invent new Arguments to maintain falsehood against their own conscience, and so to uphold one error by another, (for no truth will patronise an error) and consequently run from one fond opinion into another; such we are commanded after once or twice admonition to reject, 
Tit. 3.10, 11.  as knowing that they are subverted and sin being condemned of themselves.  
Secondly, It may serve for a warning to those who have been too apt to listen to the persuasion of such busy pragmatical persons; that they should not be so simple, as to think the greatest confidence, and boldest peremptoriness, and fairest show of zeal, is an infallible sign of the best cause maintained, or best heart in the maintainer. Hypocrisy oft is attended with appearance of zeal, and ignorance is ordinarily accompanied with peremptoriness. For none usually are more pragmatical, busy, and bold, than they that are most ignorant; 
1 Tim. 1.13.  none more desirous to teach others, there they that understand not what they say, nor whereof they affirm; none so unruly and hard to have their mouths stopped, perverting whole houses, by teaching those things which they ought not, as those that are but vain talkers, and mere deceivers, when they come to be tried. Christian's should try the Spirits, whether they be of God or no, not believing a tenant forthwith, because men come with it to us, 
1 Joh. 4.1.  under a pretence of love, 
2 Cor. 11.13, 14, 15.  zeal, humility, etc. Seeing Satan can change himself into the likeness of an Angel of light, and his Ministers are taught his art. God hath given us his word as a touchstone, that we may try all things and hold fast that which is good. He hath appointed the Ministers & Ministry of his word to this end, that we may not be henceforth such children, 
Eph. 4.11, 12, 14.  as to be carried about with every wind of vain doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive; and seldom do we see any ensnared in these, and such like errors, till they leave the Ministry of the word; the special means which God hath appointed to prevent them. It is true all Christians ought to make trial of their tenets, practice and worship, and not take them up merely of custom, because they are generally received. But it is not safe for people to leave the Ministry of the word, and hearken to none but those that will humour them in their opinions & say as they say. It is an argument that people's opinions and practices are works of darkness, when they refuse to come to the light to have them tried. How miserably may Satan and his instruments abuse silly souls, if they can persuade them to come into no company, but such where they may be confirmed in their errors? I would entreat such to take heed lest being drawn to renounce their Baptism received in infancy (which is the drift of these men, by persuading them that it is no Baptism) and keeping their Children unbaptised, they cast themselves and their posterity out of Covenant, reject God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, to whom they were consecrated in Baptism by their parents, and so cast away their Christianity, their souls and salvation all at once; and not only their own, but their posterities too. It cannot but be very offensive to God, whereas he hath offered himself to be our God from our infancy, and taken us into his family, having made the promise and covenant to our parents and us their children, and sealed the same Covenant to us, and really bestowed on us (at least some of us, and is ready to bestow on us all if we be not wanting to ourselves) what was in Baptism sealed, namely remission of sins, regeneration, and the spirit of adoptions; if all this notwithstanding we shall hearken to the enemy of God's glorious grace and our soul's greatest comfort, persuading us that neither we were in Covenant with God, in our infancy, by virtue of the Covenant made with our parents; neither our children in any better condition than the children of Turks and Pagans, until the time of actual faith. If we set so little by Gods ancient mercies conveyed to our parents and us successively, for many generations, according to his merciful promise and covenant; let us take heed, lest we provoke him to cast us off, and give us over to strong delusions, because we have followed lying vanities, and forsaken our own mercies.  
Secondly, seeing the children of the faithful have right to the promises of those blessings which are sealed in Baptism, and not only the believing Governors of families themselves, but also the whole families were baptised, the children of the faithful are holy, within covenant and have right to Baptism, as well as infants in the jewish Church had right to Circumcision; upon which and the like grounds it hath been proved that they ought to be baptised: This should call upon Christian parents that have or shall dedicate their children to God in Baptism, and all the posterity of the faithful that have been consecrated to God in their infancy by Baptism, both highly to esteem this privilege and ancient faederal mercy of God; so that they do not suffer themselves to be cheated of it by impostors: And so thankfully, holily and fruitfully to use it, that it may be a means to strengthen their faith, and confirm them in the assurance of God's love, and a special spur to holiness, and curb to restrain from profaneness; and by all means take heed of so abusing it, that it should be an occasion of God's dishonour (by causing this holy ordinance to be blasphemed,) the offence & stumbling of others, and their own greater condemnation. And this they should the rather look unto:  
First, because so many Christians by profession bring their children to baptism merely of custom; neither regarding the grounds on which, nor the end for which, nor the manner how, they ought to do this; neither considering the mercies which God offers to them, and their children, in this sacred ordinance, nor yet the duties whereunto they and their children are herein obliged; as if God's ordinances whereunto he calls us, the privileges which he bestows on us, and the duties whereunto he binds us were but matters of fashion or sport. And in like manner, many when they come to years of discretion, no more regard their baptism then a trifle, hardly so much as enquiring, why they were baptised.  
Secondly, because as the Apostle said of circumcision, 
Rom. 2.25.  that it became no circumcision, if men kept not the Law: so may I say, Baptism becomes no baptism to those which walk not according to the Gospel. Let us not think that the mere work done makes us sufficient Christians. If men persuade themselves they may live ignorantly, profanely, and carnally; and yet hope to be saved, because they have been baptised; let them read 1 Cor. 10. vers. 1. to the 12. for confutation of their error, and discovery of the dangerousness and damnableness of that opinion.  
Thirdly, as the name of God was blasphemed by the Gentiles, through the vicious lives of the jews, 
Rom. 2.24.  who were by circumcision consecrated to God, and made his people by profession: so is God, and Christ blasphemed, and this holy Ordinance of Baptism spoken evil of, by occasion of the wickedness of many that have been baptised. For not to speak of the blasphemy of Turks, Pagans, and Papists, cast upon the Christian Religion, for the profaneness of Protestants; do not we hear that some hence make bold to speak evil of the Baptism of Children, as if it were the cause of all profaneness and impiety that is in the Church? which though it be a most false calumny, (and I know not how it can be excused from blasphemy;) For are not many of those that were baptised in infancy, pious, wise, and garcious christians? How can baptism then in infancy be the cause of profaneness; seeing where the cause is, it produceth the effect? Were not there among the jews as many profane, ignorant, and disordered persons, as among us? shall men say, that circumcising their children in infancy was the cause of it? that were plain blasphemy. Was there not notorious profaneness in the Primitive Church, as among the Corinthians, etc. Was baptism, whether of infants, (which yet I think they will not say) or of professors of faith and repentance, the cause of it? This imputation a Christian ear will abhor. Is not the word of God a savour of death and occasion of hardening to some? the Sacrament of the Lords Supper an occasion to some of temporal and spiritual judgements? Yet what Christian dare say, that these are the causes of sins in the Church? Yet I say, though this be a false and wicked imputation, that the baptising of infants, is the cause of evils in the Church: let them look to it that give occasion of such blasphemy.  
Fourthly, all Christians should be stirred up the rather to make a good improvement of this privilege of Christian parents, in having God not only for their God, but also for the God of their children; and so of the baptising of their children, because we see Satan so busy to rob them of this most comfortable doctrine, and precious privilege, concerning children's being in covenant, by virtue of the covenant made with their parents; and so to drive Christians to renounce their baptism received in infancy, and dissuade them from tendering their children to God in baptism, and so to overthrow a main ground of our comfort in Gods ancient love to us, and a special motive to obedience.  
Fifthly, in a word; If we do not prize, and profit by this ancient love of God to us, which he hath showed us from our birth, in taking us into external covenant, wherein he is ready to bestow the internal blessings: If we do not take God for our God, repent of sin, and believe in Christ, according to the obligation of the covenant of grace, that was sealed to us in baptism: If the baptised do not give up themselves to God actually in their own persons when they come to years of discretion: And if parents be not careful to bring up their children, whom they have presented to God in baptism; we must know that all these mercies of God offered unto us; all the professions of faith and obedience we have made, will rise up in judgement against us and increase our condemnation, above the condemnation of those that never were in outward covenant. Other men are not so fast tied unto God as we that are baptised, who are now, no more our own, but Gods tied unto him by covenant, which if we break, it will be to our greatest peril.  
If it be demanded wherein this duty of highly prising, and holily improving this privilege of baptism in infancy consists? I answer.  
First, we should labour to be well instructed and settled in the grounds of this action, viz. baptising infants, which are Gods gracious covenant and promise, etc. as hath been showed before; that we may give a reason of our being baptised in infancy. That seeing our privilege bestowed by God, we may not suffer ourselves to be sophisticated out of it by any; so as to be driven from our hold in the covenant of mercy, which God hath made to us and ours. To this end we should solidly study the doctrine of Grace and of Baptism, and those Arguments that have been before handled. The reason why we so easily be driven by temptations from faith, and obedience, duties, and privileges; is because we do not well meditate on, and throughly digest the grounds thereof. But when we are well and throughly persuaded on Scripture grounds, that this is a duty enjoined, and a privilege bestowed by God, we shall see there is cause to contend for the faith delivered to the Saints, jud. 3.  
Secondly, let parents look that they offer up their children to God in baptism, with faith, prayer, and unfeigned purpose of heart to consecrate them wholly unto God. And that they may make it appear that they do so indeed, let them look that they give up themselves unto God in holy obedience, repentance and faith, praying earnestly for their children; and when they be capable of instruction, let them give them good example, bring them up in the fear and instruction of the Lord, putting them in mind of the covenant whereinto God hath taken them, and use all holy means to bring them to actual faith, and holiness; and let them know that this is a necessary duty required at their hand, whereunto (at least implicitly) they obliged themselves, when they tendered their children to baptism, wherein they may not be negligent without grievous sin of disobedience to, and mocking of God, and most heinous injury, and dangerous hazard to their own and their children's souls, Deut. 6.7. Prov. 4.4. Ephes 6.4.  
Thirdly, all those that have been baptised, remembering that now they are not their own, but given up to God in the covenant of grace, and solemnly tendered to his Majesty in this sacred Ordinance of Baptism in the presence of the Angels, and the congregation of the faithful, (which act of their parents was not arbitrary, but necessary; and that whereunto they were absolutely bound by Covenant, viz. to take God for their God, and the God of their children; and give up themselves and their children to God) All Christians, I say, considering this that they were given up unto God in baptism, and that God graciously took them into covenant, and admitted them into his family, before they knew the right hand from the left, must (so soon as they are able to do a moral act) give up themselves unto God in their own persons, voluntarily, and gladly assenting unto, and ratifying that covenant which their parents entered into in their behalf; seeing it is not now in their own choice to be of what Religion or conversation they will. They are bound to be Christians and Saints, and that not only by virtue of the creation, preservation, and redemption which God hath wrought for men: but also, by solemn promise, vow, and covenant. Insomuch as those who having been baptised, live in wilful ignorance, superstition, unbelief, profaneness, covetousness, following the lusts of the flesh, continue all that while in most treacherous breach of covenant, and rebellion against God, whose servants they have bound themselves to be, and yet serve his sworn enemies; namely, the devil and their own lusts. So that they have not only forfeited their bonds, and deserved for ever to be deprived of all those glorious and incomprehensible benefits contained in the covenant of grace: but also have deserved to be dealt with as perfidious Apostates, and traitorous revolters from their Lord and King. Which breach of Covenant, though the Lord will not impute to those which seasonably, hearty, and sincerely repent, when they come to see what they have done (for they are in a covenant of grace which admitteth repentance:) yet when people come to consider how they have sinned against God in this kind, must be the more humbled by this consideration, that so many years after they were consecrated unto God, they dealt traitorously and rebelliously against him; and for the future be the more careful to redeem the time, and by so much more diligently and zealously to honour him for ever after, by how much careless and lose they have been before. But they that do not thus repent, and take care to keep touch with God, shall know to their woe, 
Gal. 6.7.  that God will not be mocked; and that it had been better many ways never to have been baptised, or heard of the covenant of grace, 
Eccles. 5.4, 5. 2 Pet. 2.21.  then to live wickedly and impenitently in a profession of Christianity. Let Christian parents whet these and such like considerations on their children; yea let all Christians from the youngest that are capable to the oldest, whet them on themselves, and one on another, that they may be stirred up to give up themselves wholly and really to God.  
Fourthly, whensoever Christians find themselves tempted to sin, or drawn from holiness, inclined to looseness, or backward to good duties: let them look backward unto their baptism, and their consecration unto God, and their abrenunciation of the world, and the devil, transacted therein: and remember that they were buried with Christ in baptism, and professed a death unto sin, and a resurrection to holiness, so that now it were a monstrous and absurd thing to live in sin, as for a dead man to rise, or a living man to lie in the grave. Remember you are not your own, but Christ's, who is your Lord and Master, and so resolve to continue still doing his work, and resisting his and your soul's enemies. Thus the Apostle teacheth us from baptism to fetch arguments of sanctification, both for the mortifying of our corruption, and for the quickening of us to holiness, Rom. 6.1, 2, 3, 4, etc.  
Fifthly, In times of doubt, desertion, temptation to distrust, etc. Christian's should have recourse to the consideration of their baptism, and remember the ancient love of God to them in their infancy, in taking them into his family, and undertaking to be their God in baptism, wherein the whole Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, became ours, giving us under seal assurance of pardon, and peace, direction and support, perseverance and salvation. So that let our temptations, miseries, and discomforts, be what they will; if we can but cast our eye back on baptism, and the covenant of grace sealed therein, we may gather strong consolation therefrom. And if we can in these and such like particulars testify our prising and improvement of our baptism, we shall not easily be cheated of it, or drawn to question whether we were ever truly baptised, seeing we daily find the comfortable fruits and effects thereof: not shall we give occasion to others to question whether our Infant baptism were true baptism, when we give a real demonstration to them that by virtue of the covenant of grace sealed therein unto us, we walk as Christians in all holy conversation.  
Sixthly, this may serve to stir up the Ministers of Christ, (among whom I profess myself the meanest and unworthiest of any) that seeing there are so many pragmatical deceivers abroad to seduce God's people, not afraid to call in question well-grounded truths, buzzing into the ears of the simple, such things as tend to the overthrow of Christian consolation and cheerful obedience; speaking perverse things, by which they overturn whole houses: This, I say, should stir us up if there be any conscience of our own weighty duty, and dreadful charge, any spark of compassion to men's souls, love to the truth, or zeal for God's glory, to endeavour to prevent the inundation of errors, rents, distractions, licentiousness and profaneness that will unavoidably follow, upon the plucking up of these floodgates, to the overflowing of the Church, if some speedy remedy be not applied, which belongs to the Ministers of Christ principally: should it not grieve us to hear this holy function of the Ministry, spoke of so disdainfully (as it is in this Pamphlet answered) as if our Ministers were but a company of ignorant, covetous, and ambitious men. And oh would, too great occasion of this imputation were not given, by too many of our Ministers! Woe to the world, (saith Christ) because of offences; 
Luk. 17.1, 2.  but woe to them by whom offences come. They that run into these errors of Anabaptism by occasion of the badness of some Ministers, shall not thereby be excused, nor escape the woe, unless they repent: But it had been better for those men, never to have meddled with the Ministry; yea to have been thrown into the bottom of the sea, with a millstone about their necks, when they undertook the charge of souls, who by their ignorance, laziness, covetousness, pride, and superstition, have given occasion unto some to rail on our Ministry, as Antichristian. And it is apparent that these errors are grown so rife and overspreading through the silencing of good Ministers and setting up and maintaining of such as have been careless and scandalous. Therefore it greatly concerns all good Ministers to seek a remedy to this evil, 
1 Tim. 4.15. 2 Tim. 2.15. 2 Tim. 4.2.  by giving attendance to reading, exhortation, and doctrine. To study to show themselves approved workmen of God, that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth; yea to preach the word in season, and out of season; rebuking and reproving, and exhorting with all long-suffering and doctrine, seeing the time is come when people will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts, heap to themselves Teachers having itching ears. If ever they had need, ('tis now) to hold fast the faithful word, that they may be able by sound doctrine, both to exhort, 
Tit. 1.9, 10, 11.  and convince the gainsayers. Because there are many unruly vaine-talkers, and deceivers, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not. There is great need that Ministers should take heed to themselves, 
Act. 20.28, 29, 30.  & to the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made them Overseers, to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood; seeing grievous wolves are entered among us, not sparing the flock; and from among ourselves are men risen which speak perverse things to draw disciples after them. These exhortations of the holy Ghost, and many more in Scripture to call us to our duty, were never more seasonable and necessary. In obedience to which charges of God, let us therefore by painful study, constant preaching, fervent prayer, and holy conversation, fit ourselves for, employ ourselves in, and procure authority to, the work of the Ministry, that we may be free from the blood of all men, and that the people may be no more as children carried about with every wind of doctrine; nor for want of plenty of pure streams, be forced to drink up the puddle waters of errors and delusions.  
Lastly, The consideration of the pragmaticalness of many in these days, to impoyson the minds, and trouble the hearts of God's people, with strange doctrines and dangerous errors; who do not only creep into houses to pervert the simple, but also are so bold as to divulge their opinions to the danger of many souls, as it appeareth by this Pamphlet answered, and the effects it hath wrought: The consideration, I say, of the boldness of such persons, and of the distractions and unsettledness of the hearts of God's people by occasion thereof, should stir us up every one in his place, to do what we can for applying a remedy to this miserable distraction and spreading sore. Let us receive the truth in the love thereof, 
2 Thess. 2.10, 11. 1 Joh. 4.1.  lest God be provoked to give us over to strong delusions to believe lies. Let us not be so fond as to believe every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God. Let us labour for soundness of judgement, that we may discern between things that differ. But especially, that we may procure a general remedy not only for ourselves, but for our whole kingdom also. Let us by our repentance, and prayers, and all pious endeavours, religious and civil, help our Religious, Honourable, (and with all praise and thankfulness to God ever to be mentioned) Parliament, into whose gracious hearts the Lord hath put a sincere desire, and stirred up to express an holy resolution of endeavouring to find out a remedy to this evil, that their holy endeavours may be blessed.  
First, earnestly craving of God, That as he hath been pleased so fare to honour the Honourable Assemblies endeavours, and his poor people's prayers, as to call together an Assembly of God's faithful Ministers, being men of approved piety, sincerity and ability: so he would vouchsafe to stir them up, direct and enable them, in the fear of God, without prejudice, by the Rule of the Scripture, to examine all sorts of tenants that are controverted in the Church, giving liberty to every one that hath any thing to say for the truth (though but in pretence) to speak their mind freely; that so God's truth being cleared, and established, and error unmasked and suppressed, God's people's hearts may be quieted. That this means is likely by the blessing of God to prove effectual, if our sins do not hinder and deprive us of it and its expected blessing, may appear by Christ's promises Matt. 18.18, 19, 20. and the Apostles practise together with the Primitive Church, Act. 15.1, 2, 3. to 32.  
Secondly, Let us penitently, humbly and hearty crave of God, his blessing on his servants endeavours, for the settling of an able, painful, and godly Ministry in this Land, and rooting out of the ignorant, idle, and scandalous Ministry, (seeing the abounding of this, and the want of that, hath been a principal cause of ignorance, error, Popery, Separation, and Anabaptism in the Land.) That every Congregation being furnished through God's mercy (if we may be accounted worthy such an happiness) with a faithful Ministry, and Gods pure Ordinances, might be faithfully instructed in the truth of God: So that all Superstition and Relics of Popery on the one side being rooted out, and all fantastical opinions on the other side, confuted and exploded, God's people may be guided in the even and clear way to heaven; so that they may neither turn to the right hand nor to the left.  
Thirdly, We ought by our prayers, Repentance and all holy endeavours to promote and help forward that Religious design of settling Church Government, 
1 Tim. 1.4. Rev. 2.2.  and the Discipline of jesus Christ amongst us. That an Authoritative charge may be laid on them that bring in strange doctrine, that they proceed not to disturb the Church. And those which say they are Apostles but are not, may be found liars. That by it all truth, piety, and sincerity, may be established, approved, and maintained, with all means furthering the same. And that all things that tend to the maintaining of superstition, profaneness, and ignorance, and occasioning of divisions, jars, and separations, may be removed. That these things have been, and still are intended and laboured for, by that Honourable and Gracious Council, and that Religious and Learned Assembly, we have had large testimonies. It remains, that we find out and remove (as much as lies in us) what hinders such a mercy, most humbly and earnestly entreating our gracious God, on whose blessings depends the success of all holy endeavours, and in whose hands are the hearts of all men: That he will still prosper the labours of his servants, and stir up the hearts of those whose concurrence in this most Christian design is of great concernment, to join with them, and further them therein: and remove out of the way whatsoever are the impediments thereof. 
1 Cor. 1.10.  That so occasions of divisions being removed, we may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgement, 
Eph. 4.3. and 12, 13, 14, 15.  in the truth. Endeavouring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. That so the body of Christ may be edified; till we come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. But speaking the truth in love, may grow up in him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: to whom with the Father, and the holy Ghost, three Persons, but one only wise God our Saviour, be all Glory, and Majesty, Dominion and Power, now and ever. AMEN.    
FINIS.