A Contention for TRUTH: In Two Several public DISPUTATIONS. Before thousands of People, at Clement Dane Church, without Temple bar: upon the 19 of Nevemb. last: and upon the 26 of the same month.  
Between Mr Gunning of the one part, and Mr Denne on the other.  
Concerning the baptism of INFANTS; Whether lawful, or unlawful.  
The Inspiration of the Almighty, giveth understanding. Great men are not always wise; neither do the aged understand Judgement.  Job. 32. 8, 9 
LONDON. Printed by J. Moxon, for Francis Smith, and are to be sold at his Shop, in Flying Horse Court in Fleetstreet, near Chancery Lane end. And by John Sweeting, at the sign of the Angel. in Pope's head Alley. 1658.   

To the Reader.  
IS there no end of writing Books? Have not our Ears been filled, and our Eyes wearied with Hearing and Reading, touching this subject, Both Pro and Contra? Are not the later writers in behalf of infant's baptism, very many, viz. Cardinal Bellarmine, and a great number of the sons of the Church of Rome: who have in this point, dealt as ingeniously, as pithily, as ever any that took up the defence of it could do? Have we not often heard of it from the pens of the reformers; in the infancy of their reformation? viz. Luther, Melancthon, Calvin: with a great number of late Doctors and Masters: viz. Featly, marshal, Goodwin, Fuller, Baxter, Audley, with others?  
Have we not had also many who have laboured not a little on the opposite party? And both by their pens and sufferings testified against the baptism of Infants: as Morton, with some others contemporary; the Ministers of Transylvania: and since of later years, Blackwell, tombs, Cornwall, Fisher, Lamb Senior, Lamb, Junior, Writer, Haggar, with many others, who will not be offended because they are not named? Have the Protestants of late said any thing more than the Papists before them? Or will this Book tell us one thing more than either Protestant or Papist, hath not formerly Declared?  
On the other hand, what can be said more effectually to prove the baptism of Infants to bear an human stamp, and superscription, and not Divine, than hath been said over, and again? What need then of this Book?  
Patience good Reader, and know it is neither any conceit of the impotency of those that have written before, or of the excellency of any thing herein contained, above what hath been before written; that hath occasioned me to show this to the world: but that the importunity of friends might be satisfied, and the mouths of lying adversaries might be stopped, that they may be shamed out of those slanderous reports, whereof they have been coiners. Thou hast here the relation of the discourses that passed between Mr. Gunning, and myself. I cannot warrant it in every tittle perfect, but as fully, impartially, as I am able to give thee: This I will affirm, that willingly I have omitted nothing, that might conduce to the making his arguments, or answers seem valid. Indeed I did wish, I could have showed thee this discourse in a more perfect form than it is; and I did wish it heartily: and for the same purpose I did write unto Mr. Gunning, declaring mine intentions to send my papers to the Press; and entreating his favour to come to my house (in regard I was not able to stir abroad) and to put to his file: if any thing were omitted, it should be inserted: if any thing were inserted, that was not spoken, it should be expunged: declaring also that I would wait for him four or five days. I did wait twelve days; and at last I received from him (not by writing, but by word) That he could not come; if I pleased, I might proceed: and if I did any injury to him, he would let the world know of it. Thus when I could not do as I would, I was forced to do what I was able to do. I have here propounded to thy consideration, the matter as well as I can. Read, and in the presence of the Lord, (setting prejudice aside) consider what Mr. Gunning hath produced that is of greater weight than those arguments Men have formerly written: I leave thee to the perusal of the Book; at the latter end whereof, thou hast an account of some arguments that I had intended for to have urged at that time. Consider them also with the rest, and let the Readers (that can) pray unto the God of peace, that he would cause the Sun of Righteousness to arise; That divisions may cease: and all that fear the Lord may be of one lip, and of one heart serving the Lord in Godly Simplicity, and Sincerity.  
AMEN.   

A Conference between A and B: Wherein is Contained an impartial Relation of a Disputation holden at Clement Danes, two several days. viz. on the 19th day of November, and on the 26th day of the same month: between Mr. Gunning, and Mr. Denne. Concerning the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Children baptism.  A 
MY dear friend, I rejoice very heartily to see you in health, and to enjoy your society this day: And so much the more, because I have heard that you were present at a dispute, two several days at Clement Danes, concerning the baptism of Infants; whether it be to be accounted Lawful, or Unlawful. Concerning which dispute I have heard Reports so different, that I find it a matter of difficulty to find a ground for Credence; I desire your gentleness not to deny my request, but to grant me so much favour as to make me partakers of your apprehensions of the whole matter. That by your impartial Relation of the transactions of both days, I may find some good assurance of confidence.  B 
It is no wonder that you should hear various and uncertain reports, both of this, or other disputes of like sort: Seeing that unto such like meetings as these are, The greatest part Come with prejudice upon their spirits, Judging before they have heard, and determining the whole matter before it begin. Some bringing with them hearts fraught with envy, anger, and malice: insomuch that if they Could, they Would not, and if they Would they Could not, sincerely discern the truth of matters propounded. If it may prove a thing acceptable in your eyes; I will not refuse to relate unto you the sum of the matter: so far as my memory can comprehend: I shall not willingly omit any thing material. As for words which might well have been spared on both sides, I shall take no notice of them at all.  A 
I pray begin, and I shall Lend an attentive ear.  B 
I will first declare unto you the Occasion of this dispute, which was this: A gentlewoman, who had (through mercy) set her heart seriously to seek the Lord and his face, with resolution to walk in his ways, was not a little troubled in spirit about the many differences in and about Worship, amongst those that profess the name of the Lord: she looked upon her former ways as evil, and to be forsaken; but what to embrace she knows not; Forasmuch as so soon as she had passed through the Doctrine Of Repentance from dead works, and faith towards God (in which the present differences of the Men of these times have created no small difficulties) she meets with a great controversy about the Doctrine of baptism, which drives her into a strait; and she remains divided in her thoughts; not being able to resolve herself, whether her Infant baptism were of God, or whether it were contrary to truth, being none other but tradition of Men, a will worship, and by consequence vain and unprofitable. While thus she remains uncertain, not knowing to which part to adhere whether to those who professing the faith of the Lord Jesus do maintain and uphold the baptism of Infants, or whether it were not her duty to repair to a Baptised Congregation, to require baptism at their hands. If she make her addresses to counsellors, one sayeth thus: Fear not your baptism is good and valid. Another tells her that her Infant, baptism is not of God: Both these use Arguments, and Demonstrations and Reasons, which captivate her understanding, that she discerns not in herself, what to embrace, or what to eschew: And finding at present no way to deliver herself from this condition, is very desirous a Conference may be had between Parties on both sides, about this matter; To the end that what she could not be throughly persuaded of in her mind when she heard them speaking asunder, might (through grace) be happily obtained by hearing them speak friendly Together. This was the occasion of the meeting: And Mr. Gunning (whether solicited by entreaty of others, or moved Voluntarily, I know not certainly) was pleased to take the business upon himself, on the one part, to defend the lawfulness of infant's baptism; And Mr. Denne on the other part, yielded himself to oppugn the baptism of Infants.  
Two days were appointed for this conference: The first day was on the 19th of November last, when they met at the place before appointed: And Mr. Denne whose part it was that day to be the Respondent, stood up in the Pulpit, and entreating the multitude to be silent, and to behave themselves civilly, and orderly, and craving attention he spoke.  Res. 
One there is who desireth to be informed whether the baptism of Infants be lawful, or unlawful: I declare that the baptism of Infants is unlawful.  B 
After him stood up Mr. Gunning, in an opposite gallery, and spoke.  Oppo. 
I will prove the baptism of Infants to be lawful; thus,  
That which the supreme Lawgiver of the Church hath given in command to his immediate Officers in the Church, by a perpetual sanction, and unalterable decree, to be by them practised, is lawful: But the baptism of Infantsis by the supreme Lawgiver of the Church given in Command to his immediate Officers, by a perpetual sanction, and unalterable decree, to be by them and their Successors practised: Therefore the baptism of Infants is lawful.  A 
This is a very long syllogism: I wonder a learned Man should use so many words, which must needs procure more disadvantage than advantage; for most times in multitude of words there is error.  B 
Indeed many of his syllogisms were long, and shared to be repeated: Therefore I cannot promise to rehearse them Verbatim, only I will not willingly leave out any word which is material, or may be for the Opponents advantage.  A 
I think the sum of this may be gathered into fewer words, thus: That which Christ hath commanded to be practised is lawful: But Christ hath commanded baptism of Infants to be practised, Therefore baptism of Infants is lawful: But let me hear the answer.  Res. 
I deny the minor, and do say, Christ never Commanded baptism of Infants to be practised, either by his immediate Officers, or any other of their Successors.  Opp. 
I will prove that it is the will and command of the supreme Lawgiver that Infants should be Baptised. If the supreme Lawgiver would have Infants to be saved, and they cannot be saved without baptism (or desire of baptism in Parents or friends,) then is it his will and command that they should be Baptised: But the supreme Lawgiver would have Infants to be saved, and they cannot be saved without baptism. Therefore it is his will that they should be Baptised: for he that willeth the end, willeth also the means conducing to that end.  Res. 
The minor I answer in the first place, freely granting that it is the will of Jesus Christ that Infants should be saved: But saying that Infants may be saved without baptism, or without desire of baptism in their Parents, or any other for them.  A 
Do you think that the Opponent speaketh his own thoughts? Or doth he speak it for disputation sake, when he saith Children cannot be saved without baptism?  B 
Questionless he speaketh his own thoughts, even as he is persuaded in heart, that no Infant can be saved without baptism, or desire (at least) of the Parents or Friends to have the Child Baptised. But hear his proof whereby he proves infant's cannot be saved without baptism, or desire of baptism.  Oppo. 
John. 3. 5th. Verily, Verily I say unto thee, Except any one be born again of Water and of the Spirit▪ he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. These are Christ words to Nicodemus a Ruler of the Jews, who came to Christ to inquire of the way of God: And they are confirmed with an oath doubled, Except any one: that is Man Woman or Child, none are excepted, be born again of Water, that is baptism: and of the Spirit, not Water alone without the Spirit, or Spirit alone without Water, but of Water and of the Spirit: the Spirit working by Water, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; that is he cannot be saved. None can possibly be saved except they be Baptised.  Res. 
The place of Scripture you have brought is Allegorical, and therefore not so proper to be a ground for Faith: not having one word in it to the matter in hand to be proved: which is that Infants cannot be saved without baptism: Now here is in this TEXT, neither the word Infant, nor baptism, nor Saved: (if your gloss be laid aside:) But I have three things in answer to this TEXT, and your gloss or exposition: The first is a general rule, which will serve to answer not only this, but other arguments, that peradventure may be brought. That Scriptures must be considered to whom, and of whom they speak; and not to be applied to any other, concerning whom it doth not speak. So you find in the quoted place, that Nicodemus a Ruler of the Jews, comes to Christ to learn the way of God, that so he might work the works of God: To this Man, Christ makes answer, except a Man be born again, &c. speaking neither of Children, nor to Children: The second answer is this: that by being born again of Water, is not meant baptism, but a mystical not a literal Water: as in many other places of Scripture spoken of. Thirdly, if it were granted that the TEXT, did include Children, and that by Water were meant baptism; yet will it not follow that Children can not be saved without baptism, because here is only mention made of entering into the kingdom of God: you know that the kingdom of God hath manifold exceptions in the Scripture: sometimes it is taken for Gospel Preaching, sometimes for a visible Church state; Mat. 13. Sometimes for that happiness which Men and Women (and not Infants) do enjoy through believing Rom. 14. 17. The Kingdom of God is not meat or drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. This Kingdom Infants do not enter into, although they should be Baptised; neither can they enter so long as they continue Infants. Now if Water here do mean baptism, it will infer no more but this; that except any one be Baptised he cannot enter into a Church state, or he cannot Enjoy righteousness and peace, and joy, in the Holy Ghost. These are three answers I have for this TEXT.  Oppo. 
I will prove your first answer to be insufficient.  Res. 
Take notice that if you can prove two of them insufficient, yet if the third stand good, it sufficiently answers your argument.  Oppo. 
I will prove in the first place, that Children are here meant and included. The TEXT saith {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} except any one; it comprehends all: none exempted.  Res. 
We find many propositions in Scripture, spoken as generally as this, where the Scripture speaks only to Men: and you yourself will confess that Children are not included: as Mat. 16. 24. If any one will come after me, let him take up his cross: &c. Mark 8. 34. and Mat. 10. 38. He that taketh not up his Cross, and followeth me; is not worthy of me. These and many more places you will confess are not spoken of Children: John 3, 36. He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life.  Oppo. 
Have you a Greek Testament? I pray look the place: as I remember the word in that place is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, he that rejecteth or rebelleth against the gospel of Jesus Christ, which Children do not.  Res. 
I do confess the word is so indeed, and I do acknowledge a difference between {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} A Child cannot be called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but a Child may be said to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not a believer: therefore I refer you to the 18 verse. of that Chap. He that believeth not, is condemned already; and unto 1. John 5. 10. He that believeth not, hath made him a liar: in both which places Children are not included.  Opp. 
It is true that Children are not included in these TEXTS: But here are many reasons in the context, whereby it may evidently be proved that they are not meant of Children, but of Men and Women of years of discretion: but you are not able to prove by the context in the third of John that Children are not included in the word any Man.  Res. 
It's not my duty to prove any thing at this time; it is my part to answer, and your part to prove, or disprove: when I am to be the Opponent I shall prove that Children cannot be here included: for the present it is sufficient for me to deny it.  Oppo. 
For your second answer, I will prove that by Water (in this place alleged) is meant literal Water: it is plain, the Scripture calls it Water, plain Water: besides in the 22th verse. is rehearsed, Christ tarrying with his Disciples, and Baptising; and in the 23 verse. John also was Baptising in Enon near to Salim; because there was much Water there: here by Water is meant Literal Water, and Plain Water: And where can you find in the Scripture, especially in the new Testament, that by Water is meant any other thing but Literal Water, unless the TEXT do declare it to be Allegorical? As out of his Belly shall flow rivers of Living Water: where presently the TEXT adds, This spoke he of the spirit? besides, the constant tradition of the Church, and the Unanimous consent of the Fathers, did interpret this place of Literal Water, and of baptism: even Tertullian himself, who is the man that is principally urged by you, doth interpret this TEXT in the same manner, except any one be Baptised with Water and the Spirit, he cannot be saved.  Res. 
I answer first of all, it is no reason that it should be meant literal Water here in the first verse because literal Water is spoken of in the 22 and 23 Verses: for those words are a report of what was done at another time, and in another place: and hath no reference to this matter at all. Secondly that the scripture is frequent in using the word Water Allegorically, is very plain, as Esay. 51. 1. Come to the Waters. John 4. 10. He would have given thee Living Water. And as I deny not but in the places alleged by you, Water is taken Literally: so may it be evidenced that it is very frequent in the scriptures to take Water mystically, and the sense in this place will be very good, with this interpretation. Thirdly, whereas you say that all ancient writers were of this mind, even Tertullian himself. I say that cannot be, that Tertullian should be of your mind, that Infants could not be saved without Water baptism: for he himself (who was the first that ever mentioned infant's baptism in writing) doth reprove it.  Oppo. 
Tertullian was not the first that mentioned Infants baptism, for Justin Martyr makes mention of it, in his apology: and you can never find in all Tertullian that he saith infant's baptism is unlawful.  Res. 
Justin Martyr never once mentioned Infants baptism: for Tertullian, I do not say he saith in so many words, that infant's baptism is unlawful: But in a Sermon of his, entitled Qui sunt Baptizandi, Who are to be Baptised: He endeavours to persuade Parents to keep their Children from baptism, until they were Capable of it: You will not saith he, Trust them with Earthly treasures, until they know how to use them; why then will you trust them with the Heavenly? (speaking of baptism:) and saith he Fiant Christiani cum Christum nosse potuerint: Let them be made Christians when they are able to know Christ: And one thing more I must tell you, that when I did first read this Sermon of Tertullian, I met with one passage which I did not understand; neither could I make any sense of it: wherefore I consulted one that had written notes upon Tertullian, and he plainly confesseth that those words were added by him to this end: Vt Authoris sententiam mitigarem, That might qualify the Opinion of the author, concerning baptism: where you see what fair dealing we have had with the writings of the Ancients: when an Index expurgatorius hath passed upon them, and expunged (by confession) many hundred sentences: and who knows how many they have inserted?  Oppo. 
I can make it plain out of Tertullian, that he alloweth the baptism of Infants, in case of necessity, and danger of death: Besides it is known Tertullian was an heretic and died an heretic. But I shall refer to the Auditors what hath been said unto this argument. You have said any one, doth not include all, and that water is not literal water: I will proceed to another argument, to prove the lawfulness of Infant baptism.  A 
There was yet nothing spoken to the third answer of the Respondent, which is of as great consequence as any of the other: and if the other were of no force, yet if that stand good, the argument is of no force: it was this, that supposing the TEXT alleged, did speak of Baptising; yet by entering into the kingdom of Heaven, is meant no other thing than a state of happiness, which believers do attain unto here in this life, through faith in Christ Jesus, viz. Righteousness, and Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost.  B 
I suppose the Opponent had forgotten to refel it: and the Answerer, had also forgotten to call for it. Let us hear the Opponent prosecuting a second argument.  Oppo. 
That which is no sin for Parents to require, and for Ministers to perform being required, is lawful. But it is no sin for Parents to require baptism for their Infants▪ neither for Ministers to perform it being required: Therefore the baptism of Infants is lawful.  Res. 
I deny the minor. It is a sin for Parents to require, and for Ministers to administer baptism to Infants.  Oppo. 
That which is confirmed by an everlasting law, and standing commission, not to be altered to the end of the World, is no sin for Parents to require, or for Ministers to perform.  
But the baptism of Infants is confirmed by an everlasting law, and standing commission, not to be altered to the end of the World: Therefore it cannot be sin in Parents to require, or in Ministers to perform, being required.  Res. 
I deny the minor, and say, There is No commission authorising Parents to require, or Ministers to administer baptism to Infants, being required.  Oppo. 
The Commission is Mat. 28. 18, 19, 20. All power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth▪ Go ye therefore, and make Disciples of all Nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the World. AMEN. Here the Apostles are Commanded to make Diciples of all Nations, Baptising them, and then teaching them. Here it is plain Baptising, after Teaching.  Res. 
I do not deny that Teaching should follow baptism, But I deny that baptism should go before all Teaching: moreover here is not one word of Parents requiring baptism for Infants; or one word of Infants being Baptised: And whereas you seem to imply that the Apostles should make Disciples, by Baptising of them. I demand of you before this assembly whether you believe that by virtue of this Commission, by you alleged, the Apostles or their successors either had, or have authority to take all Nations and Baptise them, whether they will or no? Whether they consent or not?  Opp. 
No, I do not imagine so: but that they were first to make those (that where of years of discretion) willing, by Preaching; and then to Baptise them: And those that were not of years to make them Disciples, by Baptising of them.  Res. 
Now you say something, first make them willing▪ and then Baptise them. But you have not expressed in the Commission any thing of Children who are not willing: How willing Children are, appears by their Crying and struggling at the Font.  Oppo. 
I will prove Children are not unwilling, for as Ignoti nulla Cupido, there can be no desire or will to a thing we do not know, so neither can there be any unwillingness to that which is unknown: now Children knowing nothing of baptism, it is not possible they should be unwilling, seeing they know not any thing of the matter.  Res. 
You might have spared this labour: for I did not say Children were Unwilling: But I said they were not Willing: your duty had been to prove they were Willing: there is a vast difference between Unwilling, and not Willing: you know how willing Constantinus Copronymus was to be Baptised, when he was an Infant; and how he came to have the name of Copronymus: I can tell you the story, But I will not in this auditory. I desire you to frame a syllogism out of the TEXT alleged, concluding that here is a commission▪ either to Baptise Infants, or to require their baptism.  Oppo. 
I will, The Apostles are here Commanded to make Disciples of all Nations: now Infants who are part of the Nations, cannot be made Disciples any other way then by baptism: therefore they are here commanded to make Disciples by baptism.  Res. 
First I say, you cannot prove that this Commission under the title of all Nations, extendeth any more to Infants then that in Mark 16. Go preach the Gospel to every Creature, extendeth to Infants: you will confess you have no warrant for to Preach to an Infant in the Cradle, from this place.  
Secondly, I deny that baptism maketh Disciples, it manifesteth one to be a Disciple, it doth not make him one▪ I pray prove if you can, that baptism maketh any one a Disciple: it is written John. 4. 1. Jesus made, and Baptised more Disciples than John. It is one thing to make, another thing to baptise a disciple.  Oppo. 
I had thought it had been a matter of conscience, your denial of the baptism of Infants: but now I perceive you go about to deny all baptism. I will prove it is no sin for Parents to require baptism for their Infants. Where there is no Law, there is no Transgression; for sin, is the Transgression of a Law: But there is no Law forbidding Parents to require baptism for their Infants, or forbidding Ministers to administer baptism to Infants: therefore it is no sin either to require, or administer baptism to Infants.  Res. 
There is a Law forbidding it, and that under a severe punishment.  Oppo. 
Show where that Law is to be found.  Res. 
I will, Deut. 18. 20. Here Moses Prophesieth of Christ in these Words. A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, &c. But the Prophet that shall presume to speak a word in my Name, which I have not Commanded him &c. Even that Prophet shall die. Mark this, One word▪ and Prover. 30. 6. Add not thou to his Words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. So that until you be able to prove a command, there must needs lie a prohibition in the way.  Oppo. 
I have proved a Command already, and I will further prove it. All Church members may Lawfully be. Baptised: Infants are Church members, Therefore Infants may Lawfully be Baptised.  Res. 
I deny the minor. Infants are no Church members.  Oppo. 
The minor is thus proved; If Infants belong to the body of Christ, as members of his body, then are they Church members. But Infants belong to the body of Christ, as members of his body, therefore Infants are Church members.  Res. 
I deny the consequence, though they be members of Christ body, yet are they not to be accounted Church members.  Opp. 
If all the body of Christ be Church members; then if they be of the body of Christ, then are they Church members: But all the body of Christ are Church members: therefore Infants are Church members.  Res. 
I deny the minor, All the body of Christ are not Church members.  Oppo. 
The minor is proved: Ephe. 1. 23. And hath given him to be head over all things, to the Church, which is his Body. The Father hath given Christ to be head over all things to the Church▪ or in the Church, which is his body.  Res. 
You do now dishonour me, in seeking to deceive my understanding: the thing you were to prove, was, that all that did belong to the body of Christ, are Church members: And you bring me a TEXT to prove that all the Church is the body of Christ.  Oppo. 
Where lies the difference, of these two propositions?  Res. 
The difference is very great between these two propositions. All the Church is his body, and All his body is the Church. As much as if I should say; All that are in this place are Freemen of London; and all Freemen of London are in this place. If you have a TEXT that saith, All that belong to his body are Church members, Let us hear that,  Oppo. 
I will prove that Infants are Church members. All that are called, are Church members: but Infants are called, therefore Infants are Church members.  Res. 
I deny the minor, Infants are not called.  Oppo. 
All that are Predestinated are called, But Infants are Predestinated; therefore Infants are called.  Res. 
I deny the Major: All that are Predestinated are not called.  Opp. 
The major is proved Rom. 8. 29, 30. Whom he did foreknow, them he did Predestinate to be conformed to the image, &c. that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did Predestinate, them also he called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Out of this TEXT it follows, that if Infants be Predestinate, than they are called: for whom he did Predestinate, them also he called.  Res. 
The Apostle speaks of such, and to such to whom he Wrote this Epistle. Here cannot be proved that all the Predestinate are Called: neither do you yourself believe it. He hath Called the Predestinate Romans, to whom he Wrote: But he hath not Called all the Predestinate.  Oppo. 
I will prove that Infants are God's servants, and that he owns them for his servants, and calls them his servants; and therefore they must necessarily be Baptised, in regard they can do him no service at all, but by being Baptised. The proof of this is Levit. 25. 42. They are my servants which I brought forth of the Land of Egypt. That is the Children, as well as Men, and Women: for here the Lord renders a reason of his command, viz. that in the Year of jubilee the Bondman should go free himself, and his Wife, and Children also. And this reason is rendered, for they are my Servants, whom I brought out of the Land of Egypt. He speaks of real service, such as Bondmen do perform towards their Masters: now if it be required in a servant to do his Master service, and Infants can do no other service; Then it will follow, that Infants must and aught to be Baptised.  Res. 
I pray you produce your syllogism, Concluding what you ought to conclude, and I shall give you answer.  Oppo. 
Thus I argue, All God's servants may Lawfully be Baptised: Children are God's servants: Therefore they may Lawfully be Baptised.  Res, 
I deny the major; all God's servants may not Lawfully be Baptised.  Oppo. 
If a servant be one who doth service, and they can do him no other service, then either they may be Baptised, or else they can do God no service at all: yet God calls them servants.  Res. 
I answer in two propositions: First, Infants do not perform any service to God, by being Baptised. Secondly, Infants are God's servants, though Unbaptised, or before they come to be Baptised.  Oppo. 
What service do Unbaptised Infants do to God? Give an instance.  Res. 
They are very faithful servants, performing all things that God requireth of them, to be performed by them.  Oppo. 
That is just nothing, they Eat and Drink and Sleep; this is all they perform, and all the service they can do.  Res. 
It is good service for a servant to be quiet and do nothing, when and where nothing is required: it is disservice to be busy and doing when the Master requires nothing: whereas you say they Eat and Drink &c. I say therein they are God's servants, and that is the service God requires of them.  Oppo. 
God speaks of real service, such as Bondmen require from servants: will any imagine a Bondman serves his Master, that Eats and Drinks and doth nothing else? This is strange service.  Kes. 
Surely Eating and Drinking by Infants is a real service; such as Masters do require, and all that they do require of their Infant-servants: and this proveth very advantageous for the Master's profit. Suppose I buy a servant an Infant for Ten shillings, this Infant Eats and Drinks, and thereby grows in stature, and I sell him for Ten pound: was not his Eating and Drinking real service? Doth not the Ox in the pasture do the Master as real service (though he do nothing but Eat and Drink) as the Ox that laboureth daily at the Plough? There will not be any thing gained by this Argument, until you can make it appear that the Eating and Drinking which is performed by Infants is no service of God.  Oppo. 
I will proceed to another argument: 2. Cor. 5. 14, 15. If one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live, should not henceforth live unto themselves, But unto him who died for them, and rose again. It is plain from hence that all Infants were dead, if Christ died for them: for thus the Apostle reasons: If Christ died for all, then were all dead: But he died for all, and therefore for Infants, as well as others; Therefore Infants were dead as others.  Res. 
I confess all were dead: But what this makes to the purpose to grant unto you that Infants were dead, I do not perceive as yet.  Oppo. 
If Infants were dead, and it be the will of Christ they should be made alive again, then may they lawfully be baptised: But Infants were dead, and it is the will of Christ they should be made alive again; therefore they may lawfully be baptised.  Res. 
I deny this consequence: Though they were dead, and it be the will of Christ they should be made alive again; yet may they not lawfully be baptised.  Oppo. 
He that willeth the end, must needs will the means to accomplish that end. Now of Christ would have Infants to be made alive again, and there be no other means whereby they can be made alive, but by baptism; then he willeth their baptism. But Christ would have them Live, and there is no other means for them to be made alive but by Baptising: Therefore Christ willeth their baptism.  Res. 
I deny the minor, there is other means for Children to be made alive, though not by baptism.  Opp. 
Assign that other means whereby Children may be made alive.  Res. 
Children are made alive without any Ministerial application at all. Being Sanctified by the blood of the Covenant, shed once for all. God applying the virtue of the Death, and of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ unto them.  Oppo. 
Then there needeth not any ministerial application, to make Children partakers of the blood of Christ, shed for them. You do undervalue baptism, as if it were of no use at all.  Res. 
I do believe the baptism of Infants to be of no use at all. I do acknowledge the baptism of believers to be of good use. Yet not to make dead men alive: baptism is for the living, not for the dead.  Oppo. 
Another argument: That the Father hath given Infants to Christ, cannot be denied. For. All that the Father giveth me, cometh unto me, John 6. 37. and If Infants be given by the Father to Christ, than they must needs Come to Christ: and if they come to Christ, it must be either by Faith, Repentance, or baptism: for there can be no other way assigned, whereby any should come unto Christ.  Res. 
Do you not remember that I gave you a general rule, in the answer to your first argument, very necessary for the right understanding of Scripture? Namely, that we must consider of whom, and to whom, the Scripture speaks? And you will find that in this place alleged, the Scripture speaks of those persons to whom (at that time our Saviour speak those words; and cannot be applied to any persons at any time. In the 36th verse. Jesus said unto them, ye have seen me, and believe not: All that the Father giveth me, will or shall come unto me. If you think this answer sufficeth not, frame a syllogism from the place.  Oppo. 
If Infants come unto Christ, than they ought to be Baptised: but Infants come unto Christ: Therefore Infants are to be Baptised.  Res. 
I deny the Consequence, though Infants do come unto Christ (in some sense) though not in the sense of that place alleged) yet need they not therefore to be Baptised.  Oppo. 
If there be no other way for them to come, but by baptism, then if they come they must needs be Baptised. But there is no other way for them to come to Christ but by baptism. Therefore if they come they must needs be Baptised.  Res. 
I deny the minor. There is another way for Infants to come to Christ, then by Baptising.  Oppo. 
If there be no other way to come unto Christ, but by Faith, Repentance, or baptism; and Infants cannot come unto Christ by Faith, or Repentance: therefore they must needs come by baptism, or not at all.  Res. 
I deny the minor▪ there is some other way to come unto Christ, then by Faith, Repentance, or baptism.  Oppo. 
Assign another way for Children to come unto Christ.  Res. 
Christ Jesus is the second Adam, the Heavenly Adam: As truly as all Infants where dead in the loins of the first and earthly Adam, so truly are all Infants Spiritually in the loins of the second and Heavenly Adam. In the first Adam they were by a natural union: In the second by a spiritual union: By virtue whereof they are Sanctified by the blood of the Covenant, and made partakers of grace and favour with God, without any ministerial application; And so made alive in the second Adam.  Oppo. 
You cannot prove what you say to be true.  Res. 
It sufficeth me at this time that you cannot prove it false: It is my duty now to answer: when it falls to my lot to prove, I shall prove what is or may be required of me.  Oppo. 
I will urge you with what is written in the 1 Corinth. 10. Chap. 1, 2, 3. vers. All our Fathers were under the cloud; and all passed thorough the Sea: And were all Baptised unto Moses in the cloud, and in the Sea: And did all eat the same spiritual meat: And did all drink the same spiritual drink: (for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.) But with many of them God was not well pleased; for they were overthrown in the Wilderness. Now these things were our Examples, or Types or Figures, and in the 11. vers. All these things happened unto them for Types. Here you see their baptism was a type of our baptism. In that baptism Men Women and Children were Baptised unto Moses: Therefore in our baptism Men Women and Children ought to be Baptised.  Res. 
First I say, the TEXT doth not say Men Women and Children, But all our Fathers. Secondly it may be made plain by the TEXT, that Infants were not Baptised unto Moses in the Sea: for it is said, they did all Eat and Drink the same Spiritual meat, &c. You cannot affirm that Infants did Eat and Drink Spiritually. The TEXT speaks not of Children. Thirdly, It is not the Apostles intent to declare that their baptism was a type of ours: But that their Punishments were Figures and Types, and written for our admonition.  Oppo. 
He saith in the 6th verse. These things happened unto them for Examples, and in the 11. vers. All these things happened unto them for Types.  Res. 
Yea all their Punishments, for look in the 6th verse. These things were our Examples (he saith not To the intent that we should Baptise Infants, as they Baptised them) but To the intent we should not lust. It is no mo●● in effect but this. No privileges how great soever can exempt Men (that are sinful, and depart from the Lord) from suffering of Punishment: Christ hath given you great and many privileges, as he did to the People of the Jews; yet do not you presume, for as they did not escape when they sinned; no more shall you.  Oppo. 
2 Thess. 2. 15. Brethren stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught; whether by word, or our Epistle. The Apostle gives command to the Church that they should hold the Traditions; nor that I do approve of vain Traditions, which are the commandments of Men; But such Traditions as are Apostolical; delivered by the Apostles themselves, are to be held by the Church: even as those things which were delivered in writing. As Apostolical Traditions are to be kept and hold; and so lawful. But the baptism of Infants is an Apostolical Tradition.  Res. 
I deny the minor, baptism of Infants is no Apostolical Tradition.  Oppo. 
Augustin saith that the Church always held it from the Apostles times: meaning the baptism of Infants: the same is generally acknowledged by the Ancients; whose several Testimonies I can produce here.  Res. 
This was Austin's opinion. And yet notwithstanding Erasmus who Laboured much in Austin: and Ludovicus Vives, who was very well skilled in his Doctrine; neither of these believed the thing to be true; neither were they convinced by his opinion: but both of them thought the contrary, Moreover you know what I have told you before out of Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen: I think it needless to repeat the same things again.  B 
After this there followed another argument, which was altogether the same with the first: and therefore I shall not repeat it unto you. Thus ended the Dispute of the first day of meeting: It was then concluded that they should meet again the next week, upon the same day.  B 
ON the second day being the 26th day of November, the Disputants met together again: at which time, Mr. Denne was the Opponent, and Mr. Gunning the Respondent: who having taken his place, Began to speak.  Res. 
One who desires to be informed touching the baptism of Infants, whether it be lawful or unlawful: I affirm the baptism of Infants to be lawful.  Oppo. 
I will prove the baptism of Infants to be unlawful. If the baptism of Infants be lawful; it is either for some reasons delivered by you, or some other: But not for any reason delivered by you, or any other: therefore the baptism of Infants is not lawful.  Res. 
The minor is denied: infant's baptism is lawful, for reasons by me delivered.  Oppo. 
If it be lawful for reasons by you delivered; Then it is either for the reasons delivered from Tradition, or from Scripture: but neither for the reasons from Tradition, nor from Scripture: Therefore it is not lawful for any reasons delivered by you.  Res. 
For both, namely, both from Tradition, and from Scripture.  Oppo. 
If one of these reasons overthrow the other, than it cannot be lawful for both: But one of these reasons overthrow the other: Therefore it cannot be lawful for Both.  Res. 
I deny the minor, one of them doth not overthrow the other.  Oppo. 
If Tradition overthrow your Scripture reasons, than one overthrows the other: But Tradition overthrows your Scripture reasons. Therefore one overthrows the other.  Res. 
Tradition doth not overthrow Scripture reasons.  Oppo. 
It is generally held by the Tradition of the Ancients that baptism of Infants cannot be proved by Scripture: and the most part of those that maintained the baptism of Infants, did acknowledge that it could not be proved by Scripture, but Tradition.  Res. 
I deny it, for Tertullian and Austin, do both prove it by Scripture: for Tertullian interpreting these words of St. John, Except a man be born again of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven: saith, that to be born again of Water and of the Spirit, is to be Baptised: except a man be Baptised, he cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven. And St. Austin saith the same, in divers places.  Oppo. 
As for Tertullian, he is not to be reckoned among the Men that maintained the baptism of Infants▪ for without doubt he opposed it: And you yourself did say when I alleged Tertullian's words, that He was an heretic: As for Austin, it was his authority that I intended to allege: who hath these words: Take away Tradition, and the baptism of Infants will fall to the ground. The like may be found in most authors of former ages. You know this to be true.  Res. 
They did not hereby deny the validity of the Scripture, to prove infant's baptism: but their meaning was, That without Tradition the sense and meaning of the Scripture could not appear: as, Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God: we could not have known, that to be born again of Water, had meant to be Baptised, unless Tradition had given this interpretation of that TEXT.  Oppo. 
Then you grant that without interpretation beyond the letter, infant's baptism is not to be found in Scripture. I will leave this, and come to your Scripture reasons. And first for your great pillar John 3. I argue thus. If Infants cannot be born again of Water and of the Spirit (while they remain Infants) than this reason of yours is void: but Infants, while they remain Infants, cannot be born again of Water and of the Spirit. Therefore this reason of yours is void.  Res. 
Infant's can be born again of Water and of the Spirit.  Opp. 
If Infants be born again of Water and of the Spirit; then are they Spirit, and born of God: but Infants are not Spirit, neither born of God: therefore are they not born again of Water, and of the Spirit.  Res. 
I deny the minor: Infants are Spirit, and born of God.  Oppo. 
First, I will prove Infants are not Spirit. In every one that is Spirit or born of the Spirit, there is some evident demonstration and alteration whereby they may be known to be born of the Spirit: But in Infants there is no alteration nor evident demonstration whereby they may be known to be born of the Spirit, or to be Spirit: Therefore they are neither Spirit, nor born of the Spirit.  Res. 
That Infants are born of the Spirit, is de fide, a matter of Faith; and that is far above all demonstration: it is not necessary that there should be a demonstration, whereby every one that is born of the Spirit should be manifested so to be.  Oppo. 
Then are they not like the Wind: which though we know not whence it comes, nor whether it goes; yet we hear the sound, and feel the effect: and the TEXT saith, So is every one that is born of the Spirit.  Res. 
We know not whence the wind cometh, nor whether it goeth: so we know not the manner how, but yet we have it de fide Faith without ground is but fancy, and no Faith:  Oppo. 
But I will prove in the next place, that Infants are not born of God, though I account them the happiest of Living Creatures. If Infants be born of God, than they overcome the World: But Infants do not overcome the World: therefore they are not born of God.  Res. 
It sufficeth that Infants are not overcome by the World: the World doth not combat with them: Name your TEXT.  Opp. 
If there be no combat; there can be no Conquest. But the TEXT saith 1. John 5. 4. Whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the World. &c.  Res. 
It appeareth by the Context, that this is not to be understood of Children, but of Men and Women; of such as Love God and keep his commandments, of such as believe in God, and by Faith have Victory over the World: Who is he that overcometh the World, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?  Oppo. 
These words are not to the purpose, I do not say they are meant of Children. But I say they are meant of every thing that is Born of God: every thing that is Born of God, overcometh the World▪ Children do not overcome the World. Therefore they are not born of God.  Res. 
Every thing in the TEXT must be extended no further than to such to whom the Apostle wrote.  Oppo. 
I say the same thing: this answers not the force of the argument at all. I will prove by another argument that Children cannot be born again, &c. If Infants be born of Water and of the Spirit, then are they Church members, and Sons and Daughters of the New Covenant: But Infants are not Church members, nor Sons and Daughters of the New Covenant. Therefore they are not born again of Water, &c.  Res. 
The minor is denied: Infants are Church members, and Sons of the New Covenant.  Opp. 
If Infants be Church members, and Sons of the New Covenant, than they so know the Lord as not to need any teacher: But Infants do not so know the Lord as not to need a teacher: therefore Infants are not Church members, nor Sons of the New Covenant.  Res. 
The consequence is denied.  Oppo. 
If all the Church members and Children of the New Covenant do so know the Lord, as not to have need to be taught to know the Lord: then the Consequence is true. But all Church members, and the Children of the New Covenant, do so know the Lord, as not to have need to be taught to know the Lord: Therefore the consequence is true.  Res. 
The minor is denied; all the Church members and Children of the new Covenant do not so know the Lord, as not to need to be taught to know the Lord.  Oppo. 
The minor is proved, Heb. 8▪ 8, 9▪ 10, 11. verses: Jer, 31. 33, 34. verses: This is the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel, after those days saith the Lord. I will put my Laws into their mind, and write them in their Hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a People: and they shall not teach every Man his Neighbour, and every Man his Brother; saying know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.  Res. 
They shall not teach every Man his Neighbour, and every one his Brother; that is, they shall not be all Teachers, James 3. My Brethren be not many Masters. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that is Teachers: every one should not be a Teacher, to run before he be sent, and intrude into the Office without a lawful call: for no Man taketh this Office upon him, but he that is called of God, Again we know that not only Children, but believers, Men, and Women need teaching.  Oppo. 
I am ashamed of your Interpretation of this TEXT, so far from the truth, (and I am persuaded) from your own Conscience. Would you not have Christians to teach, and exhort, and edify one another? What manner of Spirit is this? You say all need teaching: so say I also: But there are some things that the Children of the new Covenant need not be taught, Ye need not that any Man teach you: 1. John 2. 27. and that is to know the Lord, which is rendered a reason of the first words; they shall all know me, from the least to the greatest.  Res. 
This word All, doth not include Children Infants.  Oppo. 
I do not say it doth, but it includes all Church members, and Children of the new Covenant, from the least to the greatest: lest and greatest and middle; and all Church members.  Res. 
You insist much upon the word All, All. When the word All hath his restriction in many places of Scripture, 1. Cor. 15. 27. It is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.  Oppo. 
I do not marvil that you so much except against me for insisting upon the word All: and whereas you say the word All hath restriction in Scripture: I do not deny it: but to prevent a restriction in this place, there is added; from the Least to the Greatest. I leave this to consideration and proceed. If Children be born of Water, and of the Spirit, and be made Church members; then are they Disciples: But Children are not, nor cannot be Disciples: therefore they cannot be born again of Water, and of the Spirit, &c.  Res. 
The minor is denied▪ Infants may be Disciples, and are Disciples.  Oppo. 
If all Disciples must hate Father and Mother, and Life, for Christ, and take up their cross, and follow Christ: then Infants who are not able to do these things, cannot be Disciples But all Disciples must hate Father and Mother, and Life, for Christ; and must take up their cross, and follow Christ. Therefore Infants cannot be Disciples.  Res. 
The minor is denied, It is not required in every Disciple to hate Father and Mother, and Life; or to take up his cross and follow Christ: but of such Disciples as are of years.  Oppo. 
The minor is proved in every part of it, by plain TEXT of Scripture; Mat. 16. 24. Luke 14. 26, 27. If any Man come unto me (here is your {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} so often alleged) and hate not his Father, and Mother, and Wife and Children, and Brethren and Sisters; yea and his own Life also, he cannot be my Disciple: and whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me; cannot be my Disciple, Many TEXTS of the like kind there are.  Res. 
If any One and Whosoever, doth not include Children, But the multitudes that went with him, to whom he spoke, vers. 25th. and in the 28th. vers. Which of you, intending to build a Tower, &c. he speaks of all them that are Capable to hear him, and to understand him.  Oppo. 
Take notice that this is a weapon of your own, that I do oppose you with: and consider how strange a thing you presented it to the People, that I should restrain that place of the third of John, Except any one be born again. And you yourself are forced to restrain this, where the very same word is used. I demand whether the proposition laid down in the TEXT be true.  Res. 
You did restrain it, but you gave no reason of your restraining it: But I have good reason in the Context why it should be restrained. Do you show as good reason as I have done already.  Oppo. 
I have showed reasons equal with yours. You say Christ spoke to the multitudes which followed him: I say Christ spoke to Nicodemus, who come to him, to inquire of the ways of God for himself. Besides, be pleased to remember that the restraint of the word was not my sole answer: But I gave you answer taking it in the largest sense: I gave you three answers; you give only this.  
Another argument. If it be a sin in Parents to require baptism for, or in the behalf of their Infants; then the baptism of Infants is unlawful; But it is a sin in Parents to require baptism in the behalf of their Infants. Therefore the baptism of Infants is unlawful.  Res. 
It is not a sin in Parents to require baptism for their Infants. But a thing Commendable, and good.  Opp. 
If Parents have no Command nor Commission from God to require baptism for Infants; then it is a sin in them to require it for Infants: but Parents have neither Command nor Commission from God to require it for their Children: therefore it is a sin in Parents to require baptism for their Infants.  Res. 
Parents have a Commission from God, to require baptism for their Infants.  Oppo. 
Show us a Commission.  Res. 
Mat. 28. 19 Make Disciples of all Nations, Baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things that I have Commanded you; and lo I am with you always, even to the end of the World,  Oppo. 
Here is no Commission to Parents; but only to the Apostles.  Res. 
The Apostles are here commanded to teach them to observe all things which Christ Commanded them; They are sent into the World to teach those that are of years: and make them willing and then to Baptise them: and as for Children, to make them Disciples by Baptising of them, and to teach the Parents to require baptism for their Children, that thereby they may be made Disciples, though they be not Capable of teaching.  Oppo. 
You have often urged me with antiquity: and charged me with novelty, I do now justly charge you with a Novel interpretation of the Scripture: Not above twenty years old at the most, viz. that the meaning of the TEXT alleged should be this, Make them Disciples by Baptising them.  Res. 
This is ancient and the Fathers did understand this TEXT so. But as for your opinion it was not heard of, little above 500 years ago. Then there rose up on Henricus that denied the baptism of Infants; They that followed him were called Henricians, and he and his followers were condemned for heretics, and excommunicated for their heresy.  A 
Have patience I pray you, and bear with me a little. I desire to understand the whole matter of these heretics, and Heresies; and by whom they were condemned and excommunicated: for this will give me satisfaction in some things.  B 
I will declare the matter from the beginning of it. About the year 1047. there reigned in Germany Henry, the third King; who held two grand Heresies (as the Pope and his followers were pleased to style them) the one was detected, viz. That Church Lands, and churchmen were subject to his Jurisdiction.  A 
This was his detected heresy: What was the other suspected?  B 
De Baptismo parvultorum perperam sonsisse Creditur. He was suspected to have an evil opinion of the baptism of Infants, from this Henry the third, King; who was afterward Emperor the second of that name, Began the Henrician heresy. After him succeeded (not in the Empire, but) in opinion: Peter de Bruis. His opinions laid to his charge, were, 1. That Infants could not be saved by baptism: 2. That the faith of other men could not stand them in stead, that had no faith of their own. 3. That crosses were to be pluck down, and burned. 4. That the Body and blood of Christ was not really or corporally present in the Sacrament. 5. That the Sacrament was not a Sacrifice to be offered to God. 6. That Prayers and Alms made, and given by the living, did not profit the dead. 7. That Christians had no need of consecrated places to Worship God in, neither need they to build any. 8. Upon the Lord's day before Easter, He invited much People to a feast, and dressed his meat with a fire made of wooden crosses. After this man in the Year 1147. there arose one Henricus a Monk, (which is the man spoken of by the answerer) who was accused of Heresieby his adversaries: His heresies (as they termed them) were these. First, Infants are not to be Baptised. 2. The cross of Christ is not to be Worshipped. 3. The Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. 4. It is in vain to pray for the dead. 5. God is provoked to wrath, by Church music. This was the Henrician Heresy in the full: They who did condemn and excommunicate these Men, were the Pope, his Cardinals, andCouncell; and Bernard, the fairest flower among them.  A 
Surely, I believe the same persons would have condemned, this Answerer also: forasmuch as he also is guilty of some of their opinions, for which they were condemned.  B 
That is true enough: I therefore wonder why he did instance in these persons. But I will return to the Disputation.  Oppo. 
I will prove that this interpretation of the place alleged, cannot be true: viz. to make Disciples by Baptising: First By the grammatical Construction of the place. Secondly By the general Consent of Translators. Thirdly, By the ●cripture Compared with this place. And Fourthly by the practice of the Apostles; who were the persons executing this Commission: Make Disciples of all Nations, Baptising them: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} I demand what is the antecedent to the relative {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} if {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not understood in the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  Res. 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Nations is the antecedent.  Oppo. 
That cannot be: for then the Commission should be this: make the Nations Disciples, by Baptising them: and you have granted, that this Commission doth not extend to all in the Nations; but only to such as are willing. Secondly {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is the Newter gender, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Masculine; how do they agree?  Res. 
It is a figure called Synthesis, wherein one gender is put for another: which is frequent in the new Testament.  Oppo. 
I do not remember any place, neither do I believe any parallel place can be showed out of the new Testament.  Res. 
Although I do not carry a Concordance in my head, yet I can show you one place in John 14. 26. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and here the Relative {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} hath for his antecedent {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}  Oppo. 
It is nothing so, for the antecedent is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the beginning of the verse. and the words between {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} are a Parenthesis, and may be omitted without breaking the sense.  Res. 
Is the Parenthesis noted in your Book?  Opp. 
No, But your conscience tells you it ought to be.  Res. 
I will give you another place, Ephesi. 1. 13, 14. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Here {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} hath, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} for his antecedent, this is a plain Synthesis.  Oppo. 
It is so, because of the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} understood.  
What is the earnest of the inheritance?  Res. 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} The Spirit of God.  A 
Here the Respondent speaketh not punctually, according to the truth: for here the Relative {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} coming between two words of different genders, it may accord with either: So that according to rule, it may be either {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and in my judgement, this is as little to the purpose as the other: for here is no Synthesis in either of these two places.  Oppo. 
I will prove that the commission in the 28th. of Mat. cannot be a warrant for Parents to require baptism for their Children. If the TEXT do require teaching before Baptising, than it can be no warrant to Baptise Children who cannot be taught: but the TEXT requires teaching before Baptising. Therefore that can be no warrant to Baptise Children, or require baptism for them, before they can be taught.  Res. 
I deny the minor, the TEXT in the 28th. of Mat. Go Disciple all Nations, doth not require teaching before Baptising, in all persons: indeed in those that are of years of discretion, and capable of understanding, the Apostles were first to teach them, and to make them willing by teaching; and afterward to Baptise them But for Infants they were first of all to make them Disciples, by Baptising of them, and afterward to teach them, when they are capable of understanding.  Oppo. 
I have to oppose unto you: The translators and translations of all sorts, in all Languages, from the first to the last, (so far as I know) translated it Teach, without any doubt or scruple.  Res. 
Do you know what is the Aethiopic word?  Oppo. 
No I do not. Next compare Scripture with Scripture: there being no better interpreter: this TEXT being compared with Mark 16. 15. Go ye into all the World, preach the Gospel to every Creature. These Commissions are the same indifferent words, Matthew Saith, Go Disciple, or teach all Nations. Mark Saith, Go preach the Gospel to every Creature.  Res. 
I deny them to be the same, neither given at the same time, nor at the same place: for the one was given in Galilae, in a mountain where Jesus had papointed them: The other was given to them when Jesus appeared to them as they sat at meat.  Oppo. 
Time and place doth not alter the Commission, or prove them to be two: how doth it appear by your words that these words were spoken at several times, and in two places? was it possible they might sit at meat in the mountain of Galilae? The next thing I have to urge you with, is the practice of the Apostles, who best knew the meaning of the Commission. They in the execution of this Commission, did preach the Gospel, and when the People believed, they Baptised them, both Men and Women; but not a word of Children (Acts 9 12.) In the City of Samaria: were there no Children there?  Res. 
Philip Baptised both Men and Women, under which Children are comprehended; which is usual in Scripture: for Josua 8. 25. it is said that Josua destroyed all the Inhabitants of Ai. And so it was that all that fell that day both of Men and Women, were twelve thousand: even all the Men of Ai. Here Children are comprehended under Men and Women; for they also were destroyed: for he utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai: and Children were part, it may be, a great part of the inhabitants of Ai.  Oppo. 
This is not much to the purpose: the TEXT doth not say that there were no more inhabitants but twelve thousand; but the Men and Women were twelve thousand, and that they were all, the Men of Ai. It is possible, notwithstanding that TEXT, that the inhabitants of Ai might be twenty thousand, the Children being accounted. I leave your answer to consideration, and proceed to another argument. If baptism of Infants be lawful, than it is of God: but it is not of God: Therefore it is not lawful.  Res. 
Baptism of Infants is of God, and an ordinance of God:  Oppo. 
Whatsoever is of God is to some good use or purpose. But baptism of Infants is to no good use or purpose. Therefore baptism of Infants is not of God.  Res. 
Baptism of Infants is to very good purpose; namely to wash away their Original sin, that so they may be made the Children of God; without which they cannot be saved: Except any one be born of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.  Opp. 
I will prove that baptism cannot wash away the sin of Infants. If all the sin that Infants are or can be guilty of, be taken away before baptism; then baptism cannot wash it away: But all the sin that Infants are, or can be guilty of, is washed away before baptism: Therefore baptism cannot wash away sin of Infants.  Res. 
The sin of Infants is not washed away before baptism.  Oppo. 
If Infants have no other sin but the sin of the World: whereof they are guilty, than all their sin is taken or washed away before baptism. But Infants have no other sin but the sin of the World, therefore all their sin is washed away before baptism.  Res. 
I deny the consequence.  Oppo. 
If the sin of the World be taken away before baptism; then the consequence is true. But the sin of the World is taken away before baptism: therefore the consequence is true.  Res. 
I deny the minor, the sin of the World is not taken away before baptism: I know your Scriptures.  Oppo. 
If Christ took the sin of the World away by his death, when he died; then it is taken away before baptism. But Christ Jesus took away the sin of the World by his death: therefore it was taken away before baptism.  Res. 
Christ did not actually take away the sin of the World by his death.  Oppo. 
John 1. 29. Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the World. 1. Pet. 2. 24. Who himself bare our sins, in his own body, on the tree. Heb. 9 28. Christ was once offered, to bear the sins of many: with a multitude of places. Deut. 9 24. To finish sin, and make an end of transgression, &c.  Res. 
Christ did not actually take away the sin of the World, but only Potentially, in procuring a possibility of pardon upon conditions performed: namely of Faith, Repentance, and baptism, in those that are of years of discretion; and of baptism in Infants: and as they who are of years of discretion cannot have sin taken away without repentance Faith and baptism, no more can Infants without baptism.  Opp. 
I will prove that Christ did actually take away the sin of the world, by his death: That which was not imputed, was actually taken away: but the sin of the World was not imputed: Therefore it was actually taken away.  Res. 
The sin of the World was imputed before baptism.  Oppo. 
2. Cor. 5. 19 God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself; not imputing their Trespasses unto them. Coll. 1. 20. And having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself. Heb. 10. 14. By one offering, he hath perfected for ever, them that are sanctified Esa. 53. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. A multitude of witnesses might be produced.  Res. 
This is none other but what was said before: he did not impute them virtually, (not but that he did impute them actually) until the performance of the conditions afore named.  Oppo. 
I will leave these places to consideration, and prove that the sin of Infants was taken away wholly before baptism, by another argument: If the law whereby they were held guilty, was wholly taken away, than the sin was wholly taken away. But the law whereby they were held guilty was actually and wholly taken away.  Res. 
The law whereby they were held guilty was not actually taken away.  Oppo. 
If the Covenant that God made with Man before his fall, be wholly and actually taken away, than the law whereby they were held guilty, is taken away: But the Covenant that God made with Man before the fall, is actually taken away: therefore the law whereby they were held guilty, was taken away.  Res. 
The major is denied, the Law or Covenant made before the fall of Man, is not actually and wholly taken away.  Oppo. 
If that Christ have established a New Covenant, than the Old one is taken away: But Christ hath established a New Covenant. Therefore the old and former Covenant is taken away.  Res. 
I deny the consequence; both remain.  Oppo. 
If two Covenants cannot stand together, than the consequence is true; but two Covenants cannot stand together, but the second makes void the first: therefore the consequence is true.  Res. 
Two Covenants may stand together.  Oppo. 
Heb. 8. 13. Heb. 10. 9 He taketh away the first, that he might establish the second. Heb. 9 15.  Res. 
The Author speaks not of the Covenant made with Adam: But of that which God made with the Children of Israel.  Oppo. 
I urge the reason of the Apostle, which if it hold good in that it will also hold good in this: if the Covenant made with Israel must be disannulled; then also must the Covenant made with Adam, before his fall, be much more disannulled; in as much as it hath as great an opposition. I shall easily prove that Covenant to be taken away: If no Man in the World neither is nor shall be judged by that Covenant, than it is wholly taken away: But no Man either is or shall be Judged by that Covenant: Therefore it is taken away.  Res. 
Persons shall be Judged by that Covenant made with Adam.  Oppo. 
If Infants shall be judged by that Covenant made with Adam, than Infants dying Unbaptised shall be shut out of Heaven: but Infants dying Unbaptised shall not be shut out of Heaven. Therefore Infants shall not be judged by that Covenant.  Res. 
Infant's Unbaptised, (where there is no desire of their baptism in their Parents or Friends) shall be shut out of Heaven.  Oppo. 
If Unbaptised Infants be shut out of Heaven, than God punisheth some Creatures for that which they cannot help; but God punisheth no Creatures for that which they cannot help: Therefore Unbaptised Infants are not shut out of Heaven.  Res. 
I deny the consequence.  Oppo. 
Then Shutting out of Heaven is no punishment.  B 
Here the Auditors (some of them) broke order, some crying out Bear witness: he saith, It is no punishment to be shut out of Heaven: because of the denial of this consequence: some also affirm he plainly said so, in so many syllables, which they can witness.  Res. 
The minor also may be questioned, for God may do what he will with his own, having all power in his hand, as the Potter hath power over his clay, to use it at his pleasure.  Oppo. 
I do not say what God might or may do, but what he doth. Now we know that God cannot do contrary to his oath: but to punish Creatures, for that they cannot help, is contrary to his oath; therefore God cannot do it. Moreover thus I argue; if God punish Creatures for that they cannot help: then he doth not leave all the World without excuse. But he will leave all the World without excuse; Therefore he will not punish any Creature for that which they cannot help.  B 
This the Opponent repeated three or four times over, and received no answer at all: no notice was taken of it: The Respondent complaining of the injury done unto him by the disorder of the Auditors; which the Opponent confessed, and said it was his sorrow, and altogether without his approbation. And then he spoke as followeth, and departed.  Oppo. 
Although I have many things to propound, yet considering the time allotted and agreed upon is spent: and my own infirmities begin to press me. I shall at this time cease.  A 
I pray declare to me what success this disputation had.  B 
Surely, according to the different affections (rather than Judgements) of some Men and Women: Although Christ himself preached Church Gospel of the kingdom, yet some believed, and some believed not; Some spoke evil, and some well: Some cried Victory on the one side, and some on the other.  A 
The censure of the vulgar, that know nothing, is not worthy of the least account in the World; their approbation is very near to disgrace: and the censure of the Learned, who want conscience, is as little to be esteemed: it was wisely spoken by one of old, to a lewd person, who commended him highly: I am afraid (said he) I have done something amiss: Because thou speakest well of me. But I desire to hear how it was resented by those that were truly both Judicious, and conscientious: especially what resolution the Gentlewoman●ound, for whose satisfaction the dispute (as you said at first) was appointed.  B 
I am not able to render a particular account of every one; But as touching the Gentlewoman, the event was thus. The Dispute was ended the 26th. day of November, and she (as I have heard) was Baptised the first day of December.  A 
Her practice declares her satisfaction: But I remember that day was very cold, and sharp; it seems strange that a Gentlewoman should endure it at that season of the year, and in such weather to go into the water, and to be dipped all over.  B 
You know that fantastical Ladies have a proverb: that Pride feels no cold; and their naked necks and breasts, and arms, even in the coldest weather, declare the truth of it: know that Faith is stronger in Christian Women, who serve the Lord Jesus, than Pride is in vain ones, who serve the Prince of Darkness. Take therefore this for a maxim: That Faith, and Zeal, feel no cold: Peter will adventure to walk upon the water, if Jesus say Come. And tender Women will not be afraid to go under water, when Jesus bids Go: very hardly will that person follow Christ, into the fire, who scruples to follow him into the water.  
But is it not very prejudicial to the health of such persons who have not been accustomed to wet their feet in water? I remember Mr. Baxter writes, that it is very dangerous; And many thereby are likely to perish, if they should not miraculously be preserved.  B 
I acknowledge Mr. Baxter to be a Learned Man in many things; But herein he betrays his science: and I am afraid, his conscience likewise: As touching science, it is easy to prove that dipping of believers, is not so dangerous, as dipping of Infants: yet dipping of Infants was not only Commanded by the Church of England, but also generally practised in the Church of England, till the year 1600 yea in some places it was practised until the year 1641. until the fashion altered. Again, I can make it manifest that dipping either Infants or believers, is not so dangerous as Sprinkling of Infants: and yet they sprinkle them at all times, Night and Day, and Winter and Summer. And had M. Baxter known this to be true, he would have told where and when any believer was killed, and by whom; that so he might have brought an Odium upon the practice: But he gives us not one instance that I know. But on the contrary, I shall tell you my observation of many hundreds, that I have known Baptised; of both Sexes, of all sorts: Old, Young, feeble persons, Women great with child: I never knew any that had the least harm, or suffered any damage in respect of health. I have heard many confess they received much benefit in respect of their Bodies; But I never heard any complain, neither did I ever know any (I speak it to the praise of the providence of God) that died within one year after they were Baptised: excepting one maid in Essex, who died within a few weeks; and Mr. Baxter's brethren instigated, and spurred the Magistrate, until the person Baptising her, was sent to prison for murder, laid in Irons, Arrainged at the Bar, at the Assizes holden at Chelmford. And although witnesses came in (the one whereof was her mother) and testified that she was in better health, than she had been, for some years before, for divers days; and that she walked comfortably abroad; yet the Jury was informed that he was guilty of wilful Murder. And had not his appeal stood him in stead, he had been in danger of his Life. But when he had appealed, neither Priest, nor People durst prosecute him any more.  
If therefore Mr. Baxter and his Brethren could prove what they affirm to be true; how great the Cry would be, you may proportionably judge, by this one story: The whole matter whereof, with all the circumstances, are worthy to be committed to the Press: ad perpetuam rei memoriam: That after ages may take notice what manner of persons we live in the midst of; who Preach, Write, and Print; that the Anabaptists are bloody.  
I have a little more to speak to Mr. Baxter: that if there were such danger in the Dipping of believers as he pretends: It must needs be that the Administrator must be in greater peril than the Receiver: Forasmuch as the Baptised goeth into the water but once, the Baptist often: where many times he stays the time until divers persons are Baptised, if the danger be so great, it need not to be feared that the Sect should greatly increase: by reason that the Teachers, will soon destroy themselves. But I can show Mr. Baxter an old Man in London, who hath laboured in the Lord's pool many years; converted by his Ministry (as an Instrument in the hand of the Lord) more Men and Women than Mr. Baxter hath in his parish; yea, when he hath laboured a great part of the day in Preaching, and Reasoning, his refection hath been (not a sack-posset or a caudle) but to go into the water, and Baptise Converts: And he liveth, when younger and wary persons have gone to the grave before him. I wonder that Mr. Baxter should forget what he hath read in authors, which he deems authentic: who write, that Ethelbert King of Kent, with Ten thousand Men and Women, were Baptised in Canterbury; upon the 25th. day of December, in the year 597.  A 
The Providence of God appears to be very great in this case: as if the Lord did puropsely intend to stop the mouths of Clamorous adversaries: yet I believe he will not acknowledge it to be any miracle, for he will not willingly grant, that God works miracles among the Anabaptiss. But did not the Opponent declare that he had more arguments; which he intended to have urged? I would willingly hear them.  B 
You shall hear them: That Doctrine which leaveth power in the hands of Men to kill souls, without their own consent, cannot be of God: But the Doctrine, of infant's baptism (as the Respondent lays it down) Leaveth power in the hands of Men to kill souls without their consent: therefore the Doctrine of Infant baptism, laid down by the Respondent, is not of God.  A 
I think the major cannot be denied, in regard the Scripture saith, Men are not able to kill the soul Math. 10. 28. The minor therefore remains to be proved.  B 
If men have power by his Doctrine to deprive souls of salvation; then they have power to kill souls.  
But by this Doctrine, Men have power to deprive souls of salvation: therefore (by this Doctrine) Men have power to kill souls: The minor is proved, by the grounds which are laid down, viz. baptism is so absolutely necessary to salvation, that no Child can be saved without it. Now we see many Parents can and do withhold baptism from their Children, and thereby (according to his Doctrine) they kill the souls of their Children: For he that depriveth us of the means, doth deprive us of the end.  A 
I will not undertake the answer of this argument: Because I know not what to say to it; I leave it for them that can: I pray you proceed to another argument.  B 
That Doctrine which maketh the commands of Christ to be more obscure, than the commands delivered by Moses; is not of God: But the Doctrine of Infant baptism maketh the commands of Christ more obscure than the commands delivered by Moses. Therefore the Doctrine of Infant baptism is not of God.  
That Christ speaks more plain than Moses, these Scriptures testify, John 1. 16, 17. Heb. 2. 3. Chapters, 2. Cor. 3. from the 6th to the 15 verse.  
Now it evidently appears that Moses delivered ordinances plainly and evidently, even in the smallest things: he was very punctual according to all the form showed in the Mount. If then the baptism of Infants be a thing of so great weight, so absolutely necessary to salvation of them; How can it be imagined that it should have been wholly left out of the Scripture, and not a word of it to be found: as the defenders themselves confess? but only by consequence; and this age is ashamed of the consequences, that pleased former ages: and bring new and unheard of sequels, to confirm what they cannot find in plain terms delivered.  
A third argument is this: That Doctrine and practice which begets questions that cannot be answered; and is upheld by practices which are ridiculous, is not of God: But such is the Doctrine and practice of Infant baptism: therefore it is not of God. The questions and doubts are these chiefly. 

1. How long time may a Child be kept unbaptised without sin?  
2. Whether the Children of unbelievers may be Baptised?  
3. Whether the faith of the Grandfather may give a Child right to baptism.  
4. How far may we go back in a right or collateral line to derive the right of Children to baptism.  
5. Whether sureties can perform Faith and Repentance for the Child.  
6. Whether that Child be truly Baptised; whose sureties were unbelievers.    
The practices that are ridiculous are these.  
1. The Priest demandeth of the Child whether it do believe in God? Whether it do forsake the devil? &c. whether he or she desire to be Baptised? The Godfather answers, Yea: for this Child: when the Child hath not any desire. This is so Ridiculous, that our new Reformers are quite ashamed of it, and have sent the Antique fashion out of doors: and cashired the Godfathers and Godmothers. There were of old (even of the same antiquity with infant's baptism:) Men that did not spare to Baptise dead Men: so great a superstition did possess the minds of some in the second and third Centuries: The mode was thus; the dead man lieth upon the bed: A living man creeps under the bed: the Priest demands of the dead man, whether he repents? whether he desire to be Baptised? The living man answers from under the bed, for the dead man; Yea, I do repent, I do believe; I desire to be Baptised; after which they proceeded to Baptise the dead man: And Scripture they alleged for the Collouring of this absurdity, 1. Cor. 15. 29. Why are they then Baptised for the dead: and peradventure they might say, it was as plain as any could be brought for the baptism of Infants. This was about the year 180. so soon had men perverted the commands of Christ, and were become Strangers to his ways.  
I will leave all these things to your Judgement, to try by the Touchstone what price is to be set upon them. The Lord give the Reader and Hearers understanding hearts.  
FINIS.   

Errata.  
Page 7. Line ult. read {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Likewise P. 8. L2. P. 10, L. 4. supply I. P. 18. L. 5. Now instead of for, P. 24. L. 25. Faith without ground, is to begin the Opponents speech, P. 30. L. 5. R. Parvulorum. P. 31. L. 23. R. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. P. 32. L. 18. for Responent R. Opponent L. 19 for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} R. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} P. 33. L. 1▪ R▪ by P. 33. L. 26. R. was it not possible P. 35. L. 17 R. Dan. 9 P. 38. L. 28. for Church R. the