AN ANSWER To Mr. Tombs his sceptical Examination OF INFANTS-BAPTISME:  
Wherein Baptism is declared to engraft us into Christ, before any preparation: And the Covenant of the Gospel to Abraham and the Gentiles is proved to be the same, extended to the Gentiles children, as well as to Abraham's:  
Together with the Reason, why Baptise children, is not so plainly set down in the Gospel, as Circumcise children, in the Law, and yet the Gospel more plain than the Law.  
By William Hussey, Minister of Chislehurst in Kent.  HEBREWS 8.5, 6. 
Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the Tabernacle: For see (saith he) that thou make all things according to the pattern shown to thee in the mount.  
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.  
LONDON, Printed for john Saywell, and are to be sold at his shop at the Sign of the Star in Little Britain, 1646.   

TO THE READER.  
Courteous Reader,  
I Having read and seen the Labours of divers learned men that have undertaken the handling of this point; and seeing that this Doctrine of Anabaptists doth much spread, notwithstanding all the industry that hath been used by men of singular parts and piety; I did wonder that such a growing evil should spread and prevail with men that did pretend so much to pretty; and finding that they cried up the authority of the Scripture, as of men that did plead for baptism of children, had nothing to countenance their doctrine, but humane authority, and set up men's inventions contrary to the Scriptures; when I saw that these An●●●ptists did so earnestly plead for the authority of Scriptures, and declare themselves so devoted to the rule of God's Word, I had compassion on the affections of these men, willingly granting that that was indeed the rule we ought all to be guided by, I did as unpartially sift, how truly and faithfully they had dealt in the applying themselves to this sacred rule: I perceived, that they did rather steal away the heats of men with the show only of pretended respect unto the Scriptures, then that they did with d●sing aged spirits search into the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost, as men desirous to be lead by the authority of God. I heard men cry up Scripture, Scripture, nothing would prevail with them but Scripture. I resolved to concur with them in this, that the Scripture and only Scripture ought to be our ride, in these supernatural things of God's worship: and if I could have found that they had argued rightly out of Scripture, I should have most willingly joined with them; but examining the sincerity of their dealing herein, I saw them carried on with a spirit of pride, imagining, that because children had been baptised, and that those men which had maintained children's baptism, had maintained other errors; therefore in the disaffection that they bear unto former times, they were resolved to wrap up baptism of children among other things, and throw out it also, together with those things that were indeed spurious and humane, out of the worship of God: they could not endure man's inventions in God's worship, and therein their zeal was good, if their knowledge had been answerable: but here I saw much pride, vailed under the cloak of piety, men carrying on their opinions with opposition and clamour of multitudes, rather than with sobriety and diligent enquiry into the state of the question: But whilst I saw this humour, wandering in the lower region of the unlearned, I did not so much wonder, though I were much moved for their sakes, because their souls were as precious to me as other men's, yet when I heard that it soared aloft among the learned, I thought it then high time to bestir myself, to search into the ground and reason, why they also with others might be deceived in that point: wherein I took some pains to search into the cause, and have for the public good given some small account thereof: and here I will turn sceptic with Mr. Tombs, and examine whether our books have stated up the question of Anabaptists high enough, and have sufficiently cleared those Scriptures that are cited in the controversies. For my part, I conceive, that the main reason that hath so much prevailed with the multitude, is, because the ceremony of circumcision being put down, and that being required of the jews; so as that every circumstance of time, qualification of the person is express, he must be a male in the family of some believer: and no such plainness is used in the matter of the Sacrameut of baptism; for want whereof, ignorant persons have proclaimed the baptism of Infants, will-worship, because it is not said in plain terms, ye shall baptise children; this may be an excuse to men at first sight and consideration, but upon nearer enquiry; let it be considered, whether the different manner of the phrase between the Gospel and the Law, hath not put the difference. The service of the Law was in shadows and types; therefore the external rise was plain: they had not any ground at all from reason, no, not grounded upon the Word for the use of them: the authority of God did fall upon the rise itself immediately, without any other explication, but that it was the confirmation and seal of the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed, whereby they were made partakers of the blessing in Christ, the seed of Abraham: Now, the Gospel doth declare the promise to Abraham more plainly, and our engrafting into Christ by baptism more distinctly, according to the nature of the sacrament; and in a more rational way, entitling us to the promise, requiring the Ministers of the Gospel to baptise all nations, males and females: without any limitation of years or sex, whereby the proffer of grace is made to all nations: the seal of this proffer is baptism, whereby we are engrafted into Christ, the promised seed; the promise of the Gospel is plainly declared to be the promise made to Abraham, enlarged not in itself, but by virtue of more ample dispensation: the promise to Abraham was not only to Abraham and his seed, but to all nations of the earth, though by providence before Christ, kept within the nation of the Iewes. The ignorance, or not attendance on this different manner of administration have caused men sorigorously to require such express direction in point of administration of the sacrament of baptism; and by this means brought themselves into such difficulty, that if they should stand to their principles, they could not finde out any way to administer the sacrament of baptism at all, unto any person whatsoever, for want of more plain and particular direction: And thus, while they go about to insist upon the Letter, and require the regulation of the Ordinance of Christ, to their own fancy, they make the Gospel more obscure than the Law, contrary to the constant declaration of the Gospel which proclaimeth it more plain and full, more distinct and clear, than the cloudy, weak, and childish manifestations of the Law: The Law saith, circumcise a child at eight days old in the family of Abraham, or any other believer; baptise all nations, saith the Gospel: circumcise males, saith the Law; males and females saith the Gospel: circumcise, this is my Covenant, saith the Law most obscurely; baptise into Christ, by whom we have access by faith into grace, Rom. 5.2. most plainly saith the Gospel: The Law giveth the ceremony therein most obscurely, wrapping up the promise of Christ; the Gospel promiseth Christ most plainly, and most rationally drawing after it the sacrament of baptism; children are in Christ by election of grace, before they are born; this is plainly set down in the Gospel, but obscurely intimated in the Law. Now, sacramentally men are engrafted into Christ by baptism, but personally to judge men faithful, and thereby in Christ, before they were engrafted into him, were a contradiction in adjecto; therefore are men appointed to baptise and preach the Word as being able to administer externals only. The second delusion is, in that they interpret the histories of the Acts of the Apostles, wherein historically is related, that persons baptised did believe, not that confession, or profession of faith was made to the Apostles; and that the persons baptised had their faith approved by the Apostles; and that that was the ground upon which they baptised them, which is a plain addition to the Scripture: But my earnest request to Mr. Thumbs, and all other Anabaptists, is, to look on the doctrine of the Gospel, in a more spiritual way, then to subject it to such a gross and carnal apprehension, and find out some means in a more satisfactory way to state the promise of the Gospel according to the Word of God, then heretofore.  
Yours in the Lord, William Hussey.  

July 1. 1646.  
I Have perused this Answer to Mr. Tombs his Book against Pedobaptisme, or the baptising of children; and finding it to be, in my judgement, solid and judicious, I do allow it to be printed and published.  
john Downame.    

SATISFACTION TO Mr. Tombs his sceptical Exercitation Concerning Infants-Baptisme.  
THe Method that I shall take in the handling this Controversy shall be, first, to state the Doctrine of Baptism, as it was delivered by Christ, and understood by the Apostles, as may appear by their practice; then answer the sophisms and fallcies of Anabaptists, and in particular, of Mr. Tombs; and lastly, some arguments to prove the lawfulness of children's baptism: As for the baptism of John, it was of God; God sent him to baptise, but as the Ministry, so the Baptism of John was personal, began and ended in him; he was not a Minister of the Gospel, he was the greatest of the Prophets, but the least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than he; he was precurser, the forerunner of Christ, of whose baptism the Scripture is so silent, (if you consider the form and nature of it) that we may quickly affirm more of it then we can be able to prove: As for Christ making Disciples, and his Disciples baptising, the Scripture likewise speaketh little, only that Christ made Disciples, and his Disciples baptised them: during the time of Christ's abode upon earth, he did all things well, but some things he did which he was not pleased to reveal to us, what is written, is written for our learning; and so much is written, as by believing we may have eternal life.  
In things that are liable to no difficulty, a greater liberty of words is used: as, Go preach the Gospel to every creature; here men cannot easily mistake, because none are capaple of the Gospel but reasonable creatures: So in the Commission, Christ saith, Make Disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost. Here Christ giveth a Commission to make all nations his scholars, baptising them, and teaching them what he commands: Here our Saviour is plain in the manner and form of Baptisine that was new and unknown: concerning the doctrine they should teach, he telleth them, he will give special command what they should teach; and for the subject, that being before limited to Jews, is now extended to the Gentiles also: but what should be the qualification of persons to be baptised is not said, neither doth the Apostles any where declare, or give any thing in charge to Timothy or Titus, (to whom St. Paul wrote, as unto Ministers of the Gospel, to acquaint them with their duty) as matter of any difficulty wherein they might easily fail: and in 1 Cor. 1. he by occasion speaking of Baptism, speaketh of that, as of a thing consisting in form of words, and outward rite of washing, (so as it is ministerially to be performed) wherein no such difficulty was, or danger of mistake; and therefore he had little care thereof, men of meaner qualifications might do that; yet were the Corinthians baptised before he wrote to them, and a Church; In all the dogmatic parts of Scripture, not one word concerning any direction to the Minister whom he should baptise, whereby it is plain, that Christ did not charge his Disciples with any danger of mistake in baptising, they should teach what Christ had or should command, for matter of doctrine; and Christ doth refer the commission to future direction; but in all the Scripture no farther explanation concerning the persons that were to be baptised: The Churches were baptised no man knows by whom. To Churches and Saints, men received into the Church, is all the doctrine of the Apostles directed, whereby it appears, that they had care to teach all that Christ by his Spirit did command; but so little is spoken concerning the persons to be baptised, or the manner of administration, more than is in the commission; that it may plainly appear, no controversies were raised concerning that: it was a plain case wherein they walked, without dispute; or, it seemeth, suspicion of controversy, though light enough be given to the truth; so that Antipedobaptists, without offending against plain Scripture, can have no ground to oppose the baptism of Infants by those inartificial and groundless arguments which they urge against it; and certainly, it was long ere much was said, and the strength of that which is said, will appear. What is gathered out of the commission, Go, make Disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, teaching them, etc. we shall consider:  
Nations is the subject, that is so clear, that Mr. Tombs confesseth it, though with this limitation, nations that are made Disciples; which limitation can receive no colour without apparent alteration of the words. First, make them Disciples, and then baptise them, saith Mr. Tombs: three words are added, (first, and, then,) the words plainly import, make Disciples by baptising them and teaching. I have added nothing but the word by; and that is implied in the participial expression, as may appear to all English men that understand their own tongue: as in the like phrase; make, or build houses, laying the foundations on the tock, and raising the walls and roof of lasting and durable matter, do not these participles express the manner of doing? or, may a man gather from hence that the house must be built before the foundation must be laid? Again, the word nations, is a Noun of multitude, and the very commission seemeth to point at the nation of the Jews for the pattern, that they should call other nations into covenant with God even after the same manner as the Jews have been, by virtue of the same promise; and thus it is apparent, the Apostles all understood it. Paul, both to the Romans, Rom 4 11. and Gal. 3.17. doth argue, that the promise might stand the same to us, as was to Abraham, though circumcision be taken away, for as much as the promise was before circumcision, even to Abraham; and there might remain the circumcision of the heart, though the outward circumcision were taken away, and Baptism put in the place of it; and from this promise, Acts 2.39. S. Peter argueth to Baptism, the promise belongeth to you, therefore be baptised. If then Baptism may be tendered to nations, nations may receive baptism, that is, it may be, nay, it must be received by a national covenant, the nation of the Jews were only in covenant with God before Christ; but all nations after Christ hath broken down the partition wall. Now principally a national covenant doth consist in this, that the most principal of the nation do covenant for the rest, the more considerable part do receive for the rest, and require performance of others their inferiors. God laid circumcision upon the Jews under a penalty, which is a national way of receiving; God commandeth all to be circumcised by a Law, under a penalty, that person that was not circumcised, must be cut off, Gen. 17.14. that the whole nation might be circumcised. If any shall object, that the Jews were all to be circumcised under a penalty, but the penalty was appointed of God. I answer, that was an especial privilege of the Jews, that they had their civil Laws from God, but what lieth upon a nation as a duty, that it may require of all, and cut off them that refuse; and this is implied in the commission, when nations shall covenant to be Disciples, which may be done by a part for the whole, then are such as are in commission from Christ commanded to baptise and teach the whole nation, such as are in authority may covenant in a national way for the inferior sort, and justly require all external performances from them, such as Baptism, and submission to be taught are; as for faith, and internal performance, no creature can judge of that, or require it of another in a judicial way.  
If any object that the Apostles did not execute their commission, but upon such parties as did believe, and would be baptised.  
I answer, a commission cannot be executed in full extent, until opportunity be gotten; he that hath a commission to hang up all the thiefs in the kingdom, must execute it as he may; he must hang them as he can catch them: as soon as they could procure a national willingness, they were ready to baptise them, as by the many thousands baptised by them the same day of their conversion may appear, taking them in by families, which act by a national way, the master of the family covenanting for his servants and children: So Josh. 24.15. I and my house will serve the Lord; he may not believe for his servant, but he may covenant for external worship for his son, under a penalty, and for his servant according to his condition, under penalty, or dismission of service, that the whole family or nation might come in: And that the Gentiles should in such a manner flow into the Church, the Prophets do fully testify, Isai. 2.2. All nations shall flow, etc. See further what light the word Disciple doth give to this sense of the commission. Disciple is a relative, and is referred to master, to him that giveth precepts, which have sanctions of reward, and punishment annexed; and this is the covenant that is between the master and the scholar, that he will teach and punish the negligence of the scholar, the scholar must be under the covenant of submission, or otherwise he can be no scholar.  
Now, note that two ways this covenant of a scholar may be put upon any person: First, it may be put on with the consent of the scholar: or, secondly, without, in case of a slave, his Lord may impose what covenants he pleaseth, without his consent, if he will live and enjoy his being, the father may, and that justly, by his interest that he hath over his son by nature, put him to school, and make a scholar of him, even before he be willing to consent; he may justly carry him, and correct him, if he refuse to be put under the power of a Schoolmaster, giving his Schoolmaster power to correct him. Now, to send him to school to Christ, and teach him the precepts of Christ, and this imposed on the parent of Christ, by his Apostles, Ephes. 6.4. And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And what a parent can do over his child in matter of duty, that may the parents of the country, the Magistrates, require of the nations. God requireth it of them, they may put all the nation to school to Christ: Now, what if some of them be too young to learn, yet if they be under the discipline of the Master, they are scholars? as may appear in many little children that are set to school, to keep them safe, and from wantonness, before they be of capacity to learn, many have a hornbook given, more for a play-game, than a book, yet are they scholars, because under the discipline and correction of the Master; is it not therefore great reason, that a Christian should dedicate his child to Christ, to be partaker of the blessing and discipline of Christ? surely godliness hath the promise of this life, and that which is to come. What, is the Infant capable of no good from Christ? neither in soul nor body? hath Christ nothing to do with him? Christ did bless sucking Infants, and as he blesseth, cannot he likewise punish at pleasure? Why then, if he hath power over all nations, and de jure, they are all under his discipline, may not Christian parents put their children under the tuition of Christ, seeing, though they cannot learn, yet he can bless, and hath right, and will punish, which we by baptising our Infants do but acknowledge? nay, certainly he is an Infidel that doth not think that Christ can teach the Infant by his Spirit, though we cannot by means that we can use, or that he doth not qualify the souls of the elect Infants, with gifts of grace, not given to reprobates, if they die in infancy, which though he can, and will without baptism; yet this is sufficient encouragement for a Christian parent to put his son to school to Christ, if Christ can teach him, this were a vain thing to think for any ignorant parent to refuse to put his son to school, because he understandeth not Latin or Greek himself; it is sufficient that the Master understandeth and knoweth how to teach. And certainly, words could not have been invented that could have required the Ministers to baptise all the world, Infants and all, willing or unwilling; so that any would see they might be taught, and submit to the precepts and discipline of Christ, then to express it by the word Nation, and Disciple; and this was plain to them that understood what it was for a nation to be in covenant with God, whereof there was but one pattern at that time, and so it doth appear the Apostles did understand it as a plain thing: in that, though often they took occasion to speak of baptism, yet never did explain this point concerning children's baptism, as thinking it plain enough in the pattern: what might justly raise a scruple concerning the baptising of women, seeing they were not circumcised, that is, declared in plain terms, both men and women were baptised. Baptism is in room of circumcision, as in answering Mr. Tombs his arguments, I hope to make appear. For the further understanding of this word Disciple, I shall endeavour to set forth the full latitude of the word: the formal reason of a Disciple, is in relatione ad Preceptorem, the foundation of which relation is a covenant between the Master and the scholar, whereby the Master is engaged to deliver precepts, and the scholar is bound to hear and undergo the penalties of his errors and contempts.  
Now, this covenant is either imposed, as in case of a slave, when a Lord doth lay any covenants upon his slave; here the benefits of the covenant be mercies, the punishments, if less than the greatest, or under any conditions avoidable, are favours; so Naash, 1 Sam. 11.2. tendered a covenant to put out every one of the Israelites right eyes, which if he had been able to have destroyed, as he conceived he was, had been a favour; in this case one party maketh the covenant without mentioning the other but as patiented; therefore, Gen. 15.18. God is said to make a covenant with Abraham, and 17.9. God calleth the covenant, his covenant, God made the promise and conditions, not Abraham; but in Gen. 21.27. there, when Abraham and Abimeleck did covenant, the Text saith, they both made a covenant, Abraham his conditions, and Abimeleck his.  
If the word Disciple be taken in this sense, than it is no more, but tell all nations, that I am that Prophet that was promised by Moses, ' Deut. 18.18, 19 and thus Peter Acts 3. and Stephen Acts 7. did make disciples, repeating those words of Moses, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise to you like unto me, him shall you hear; and he that will not hear the voice of that Prophet shall die the death; and then these words make disciples, do signify no more than tell all Nations that I am sent of my Father to teach them, and they that will not hear shall die the death. Christ without any more ado doth give Precepts, and threaten death to all the world that refuse, and so make disciples is no more but tell them they are disciples, and under the Precepts of Christ; but if any acceptance be required of the disciple, the natural father or father of the Country, may covenant for their children as before.  
Secondly, a Disciple may be understood in reference to the end, and that either actively for a man that is active or diligent to get learning, he is said to be a Scholar; or passively a man is said to be a Disciple or Scholar that is learned; and this inchoatiuè vel ad certum aut designatum gradum vel perfectiuè: if this man that is to be baptised must be taught inchoatiuè, it will serve turn to have learned one lesson in reference to that one lesson he is learned, though he hath learned but an A the first letter of his Alphabet. In the second sense men are assigned a certain measure of learning as sufficient for one calling, another measure for another calling; what degree of knowledge men must attain to before they be baptised, no man yet hath declared: and in so great a silence of Scripture were an arrogancy inexcusable; for want whereof, all that is said concerning a Disciple to be made before baptised, is without any regularity and certainty; if it be understood perfectiuè, than a man must never be baptised, if not before he be made perfectly learned; whereby it appeareth that we cannot be said to be made learned in disposition to Baptism, but as before made Scholars in relation to Christ our Master by Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, being taught the precepts of Christ.  
Mr. Tombs 127. p. falleth upon this as urged by some obscure person, but saith it is so foolish, that no man will say so but he that is out of his wit, but he in the mean time answereth it no better then by saying if this were true, the Apostles needed to have done nothing else then to baptise them: I think if ever a man were out of his wit, it was here; Christ saith, make Disciples by baptising them and teaching them, if he mean so, need they only baptise them, and not teach them? or if they were made Scholars, must they not be taught when they are scholars? in what sense doth this man take scholar? surely in such a sense that he need be taught no more: if he must be a Disciple in such a sense before he be baptised, it were a bold adventure for any Minister to baptise any man, or if he did, the party baptised must be taught no more: if baptising would make Disciples, the Apostles need do no more, this were a good excuse for not preaching Priests. It is plain Christ commands to baptise and teach; what if a man do perform part of his duty, is he discharged of the other part? the command is in conjunctive terms both must be performed. But Mr. Tombs fell on that obiter, and I have vindicated it for the true sense of the words which he so scornfully rejected: but I further prove it.  
What do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being active participles, express the action of their verbs: and is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end, is not every action to an end? yes certainly, and to make Disciples is the end, inrolling them by Baptism, and after teaching them the means. I desire that men may not be outfaced from principles and rules. But I hasten to try the strength of Mr. Tombs his arguments.  
He confuteth this practice, that Infants borne of Believers are universally to be baptised; for my part I state not the question so, but Infants borne in a Nation that are the Disciples of Christ, or have received the Gospel, are to be baptised: of Believers much more, if presented by them; and they undertake to instruct them by themselves or others in the precepts of Christ.  
But let us see Mr. Tombs his sophisms, That which hath no testimonies of Scripture that is doubtful.  
Infant's baptism hath no testimony of Scripture, ergo doubtful.  
The minor Mr. Tombs laboureth to prove by an induction, but it wanteth form; he should have said, & sic de ceteris, none of all these places might prove this, and yet it might have testimony from some other place: but I will follow him in his exceptions, and see how just they are against the testimonies produced.  
The first testimony which he pretendeth accurately to examine, Gen. 17.7. etc. I pass by his jingle, he raiseth 14 arguments raised out of several places of Scripture as urged in defence of Paedobaptism, which he answereth, whose answers I shall endeavour to examine, and see how the arguments are as he urgeth them, or as they may be urged from this place of Genesis: to whom the Gospel's Covenant agrees, to them the sign of the Gospel's Covenant agrees; but to Infants of Believers the Gospel's Covenant agrees, therefore the sign of the Gospel's Covenant, and consequently Baptism. That Mr. Tombs might prepare for an answer, he showeth a great deal of his accurate skill, he examines four supposita, things granted on the part of Pedobaptists, and converteth them into questions, stateth them apart, and so endeavoureth to take away the strength of the argument.  
1. Whether the Covenant made with Abraham, and the Gospel's Covenant be the same? Mr. Tombs denieth with this difference, that the Covenant with Abraham was mixed, but (with respect to Mr. Tombs, his opinion of learning he hath gotten) he beginneth at the worng end to prove it: for a Gospel's Covenant between God and man, taketh in all the Covenants that now are, or ever were since the fall between God and man: God was never in covenant with any man or Nation, but in Christ: Christ is the adequate subject of the Gospel: this Gospel was preached from heaven by the Angels, Luke 2.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I preach the Gospel, which was in these words, Unto you is borne this day in the City of David a Saviour which is Christ the Lord: Certainly whatsoever the Saints enjoy upon earth, or shall enjoy in heaven, they enjoy it in and for Christ. Whereas Mr. Tombs distinguisheth the promises made to Abraham into Evangelicall, Domestical and Civil promises; what had Abraham some things in Christ and some things out of Christ? godliness hath the promises of this life and that which is to come. Now to deny the promises of this life to belong to Abraham under Evangelicall promise, or to distinguish individuals by specifical difference, is strange Divinity and stranger Logic, is reason of different nature in Peter and Paul, or is Paul's reason of another nature then Peter's, because he useth some particular arguments that Peter doth not? Abraham had the blessings of his house, and others have the blessings of their families: and Gal. 3.9. Paul telleth us, that they which believe are blessed with faithful Abraham, they are not blessed only as the seed of Abraham, but as Abraham they are fountains of blessing to their seed through faith in Christ; and that doth that inference clearly prove that Abraham was entitled to the blessing by his faith, tanquam medio, as by the means, and therefore is faithful repeated in the argument with Abraham, that those that believe are blessed not with Abraham, but faithful Abraham; and further saith, not that the faithful are blessed with the seed of Abraham, but with Abraham, they that believe have as full a right to the promise as Abraham himself: the same Covenant, the same blessing, remains to us with Abraham: as for those particular differences they are but numerical, and make no difference in the promise, no more than the difference of Peter and Paul do in mankind: Abraham had his family blessings, we have ours: Logica non tractat aut definit particularia: if any shall say that his being father of Christ after the flesh putteth a mixture of the Covenant, and maketh it of another nature: I deny that it doth any more vary the nature of the Covenant, than a badge of honour doth the nature of man, and this shall appear in that so much of the covenant as was sealed to Abraham by circumcision cometh down to us; and if Abraham had any blessing that came not to us, that was not sealed to him by circumcision, forasmuch as all the benefit that Abraham and his natural or faithful seed had of circumcision, that the Believer hath without circumcision. For though it be true that circumcision was given to all indefinitely, yet the benefit of circumcision came only to the faithful both before and after Christ came: and this is so plainly set down by Saint Paul, that nothing can be more plain, that circumcision was of force to Abraham by faith, Rom. 4.9.10. Faith was reckoned to Abraham when he was uncircumcised, and that he received circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith: and in verse 12. he saith, that Abraham was father of circumcision to them that were uncircumcised; where he implied that those that were uncircumcised were circumcised in a sense: and this is farther affirmed of them who are in Christ Jesus by faith, Col. 2.10. that they are circumcised with circumcision made without hands; and this circumcision with hands is specified, Eph. 2.11. Ye were uncircumcised with circumcision in the flesh made with hands, implied that they were circumcised in the heart: what other sense can be rendered of this circumcision of heart, but that that cleanness of heart which was signified to our fathers by circumcision, remaineth to us though the seal be altered? and this is that usual setting down of Evangelicall duties and benefits by ceremonial expressions: We under the Gospel are circumcised in heart without hands. Now how could that be, unless the internal part of circumcision did remain to us? And this Mr. Tombs p. 33. doth confess that the substance of the Covenant doth remain; but still helpeth himself with his mixed covenant, which I have formerly denied, and shall presently evince: the different manner of administration doth not alter the Covenant: God did set forth, his promises of Heaven by Canaan: was punctual in the ceremonies; but the ceremonies did lead those that believed to better than the bare ceremony, without which, circumcision and all their service was utterly without use or benefit; God did in special manner bless those outward duties to his elect, because they were his own Ordinances, causing them to see more in those types, than they in their own nature do seem to manifest. And thus Mr. Tombs confesseth, that the promises that were Evangelicall in the more inner sense of the Holy Ghost, do point at the privileges of Abraham's house in the outward face of the words: so that it may be doubted whether this Covenant made with Abraham may be called simply Evangelicall: and this doubt is made the more just, because Mr. Tombs, and some of his company do not call the Covenant on Mount Sinai simply Evangelicall: what have you distinguished between mixed and pure Gospel's Covenants, on purpose to make the Covenant with Abraham mixed, and is it now doubtful? and therefore doubtful, because Master Tombs and others do call the Covenant on Mount Sinai mixed: What if they miscall it? What ground then of the doubt? away with such groundless doubts: for we call that Covenant, and all the Covenants that God made with man since the fall, purely Evangelicall, without any mixture at all; and let Mr. Tombs, or any of his company prove the contrary: in the mean time, let me entreat Mr. Tombs, and all other that meddle with controversies, to make no more distinctions nor limitations, than laws of division and limitation will allow: For, though at first they may win applause for their novelty, yet after ages will see their vainity, if any of them be taken up in a tract, yet times will come that will find them out: But all this while, Mr. Tombs doth not tell us what part of the covenant was sealed by circumcision, or whether circumcision did respect principally the domestical part or civil, or Evangelicall part, or equally all; nor show any reason why the Gospel covenant will not admit any such mixture as he supposeth; but I do not love to insult over a weak argument, or strike an adversary when he is dead.  
Secondly, Mr. Tombs cometh to distinguish the seed of Abraham, I will not trouble myself to repeat or take notice of what Mr. Tombs saith well, but of such passages as he layeth down, upon which he purposeth to raise something against children's baptism: He indeavoureth to prove, that the seed of believing Gentiles, were not the seed of Abraham, the reason is, because Mr. Tombs doth not find them so called: a man may not hear himself or his neighbour called a man in many years; nay, suppose they were never so called, were they therefore no men? But it is most plain, that the seed of believing Gentiles were the seed of Abraham; for that is the knot of the question, and God himself doth decide it. All that were by God's appointment to be circumcised, were in some sense or other the seed of Abraham: or, otherwise there had been no need at all of calling the faithful the seed of Abraham: But because they are partakers of the benefit of the promise, made to the seed of Abraham: And this is made plain in the doctrine of S. Paul, he handleth this promise to Abraham and his seed, not as the words do import, but as they carry the blessing of Abraham, without reference to circumcision or uncircumcision, showing that circumcision was annexed to the promise but for a time, was but accidental to the promise, and might be taken away, the promise remaining: This the Apostle doth most artificially prove, according to rules of art: For, Rom. 4.10. his purpose was to prove, that now they were not to retain circumcision, Christ being come, and baptism being set in the place and room of it; and that notwithstanding the promise made to Abraham did remain; now that he might prove that, he showeth that circumcision was not a proper passion to Abraham and his seed flowing from the promise, as the cause, and therefore may be separated from the promise; circumcision belonging rather to the ceremonial administration than the essence of the promise; rather to the external part of the worship then the efficacy and virtue of the promise; and this he proveth: First, because the promise was of force to Abraham through faith, before circumcision, and therefore, prior tempore, before, in time to circumcision, which it could not have been, if it had flowed from the promise as the cause: For, though the immediate cause be before its effect in nature, yet not in time; man is not rationalis before risibilis, and therefore as the promise was before circumcision, so it may continue after.  
Object. But the promise was made to Abraham's seed, which we are not. To this I answer, the promise was made to one seed, not many, which is Christ, as Calvin and Beza explain it, not of the person of Christ, but believers in Christ; implying, that though there were a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, yet by faith in Christ they were all one, and the argument in Gal. 3.28. doth clearly show this; neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, all one in Christ Jesus. Abraham had but one blessed seed to whom the promise was made, which is Christ, saith the Text, vers. 16. But I have proved the promise was not made to Christ in person as the seed of Abraham; but the seed of Abraham is reckoned in Christ, and the word Christ is taken for the mystical body of Christ his Church of the elect, which in reference to the promise are but one seed, whether Jew or Gentile, so are the blessings and sufferings of the Church reckoned the sufferings of Christ. So that this seed of Abraham in reference to the promise, was never understood of Abraham's seed, according to the flesh, but by faith: And here note, that this is not an univocal division; as if the members did not coincidere, or, that some were the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and none of them his seed by faith, and others by faith his seed that were none of them his seed in the flesh; nay, but this distinction is in reference to the promise as distinct from circumcision; all those were not of the seed according to promise, that were the seed of Abraham according to the flesh; no, not of Isaac, but the believers, these are the seed of Abraham according to promise, Gal. 3.29. If ye be Christ's, them are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise, else not: And this is not to distinguish Jews from Gentiles, but believing Jews from infidels, and to draw the whole virtue of the promise on Believers: so the promise is belonging to Abraham through faith, and the seed of Abraham, as the word seed is understood in the promise, and in the estimation of God is the Believer only; so that the seed of Abraham by faith, and the seed unto whom the promise of God to Abraham did belong are the same, the seed of Abraham and the Believer, whether Jew or Gentile, whether before or after Christ, are all one, in the estimation of God: So that the seed of Abraham that were blessed were believers only, not all the seed of Abraham, nay, nor all the seed of Isaac, but in Isaac, that is, in Christ, that was the seed of Isaac, all that were in Isaac, that is in Christ, of whom Isaac was a type, that is, believers only, not all the seed of Isaac; for the promise did not belong to Esau that was the seed of Isaac; for that, though he were the seed of Isaac, yet he was not in Isaac, that is, he was not inserted into Isaac as a type of Christ by faith; and therefore the seed must be so understood that the promise might belong to all the seed, Rom. 4.16. not to that which is of the Law only, but that which is of the faith of Abraham; not to them only which were circumcised according to Law, but to believers, though not circumcised, (that is, after circumcision was taken away by appointment of God: For, though circumcision was not so natural and essential to the promise, that it was enough at any time to entitle any to the promise without faith; yet, virtute institutionis divina, was not to be omitted until God took it away;) for the promise was not to Abraham through the Law, therefore not through circumcision, which was a legal right, but 〈◊〉 the righteousness of faith, vers. 13. to let us know that it was not any 〈◊〉 rite or sacrament that can entitle to the promise, it doth but externally 〈◊〉 the virtue of Christ's blood, and by it the circumcision of the 〈…〉 the sight of God is the only circumcision, Rom. 2.29. He is a Jew 〈…〉 and circumcision is of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the 〈…〉 not of men, but of God. All this while the Scripture treateth 〈…〉 Abraham in the estimation of God: God accounteth none the seed 〈◊〉 Abraham but in Christ, none heirs of the promise but in Christ, none circum●●●●●● 〈◊〉 them that are in Christ, and therefore saith, Rom. 2.28. that is not cir 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 in the flesh, and this, ex regula de nullo. Again, ex 〈…〉, all that are in Christ Jesus, that is believers, are the seed of Abraham, heirs of the promise, circumcised in heart; but these have their estimation and praise not of m●n, but of God, and these are equally denied and affirmed to Abraham's s●●d, and Gentiles according as they are believers, or not believers, 〈◊〉 without any respect a● all to Abraham's seed according to the flesh; so that Abraham's 〈◊〉 had no right at all to any part of the promise in the estimation of 〈◊〉 they did not 〈◊〉; and therefore, Rom. 9.8. they that are the children of the 〈◊〉, that is, Abraham's fresh, are not the children of God, the children of the promise a● accounted for the seed; and therefore, in Gen. 12.3. the Lord did make the promise not to Abraham and his seed only, but from Abraham he derived the blessing upon all the families of the earth; all the families of the earth were blessed in Abraham: Or, as Gen. 22.18. all nations are blessed in the seed of Abraham; and therefore do Interpreters interpret that former by [thee] that is, in thy seed, and all that are in Christ, are plainly the heirs of the promise, and none but they. Abraham in honour and title, was called the fountain of the blessing, but in de●d and truth, not Abraham, but Christ; for Abraham himself was blessed in Christ, not in himself, as Christ was; Christ was only blessed and justified in and for his own holiness by the works of the Law inherent in himself; So that Mr. Tombs his division of Abraham's seed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ's spiritual seed believers, natural seed is most inartificial, many of his natural seed were spiritual also: Abraham's seed must be diuded into equivocal and univocal; equivocal seed Christ, for that he was not like Abraham he was of Abraham, but ex parte, according to the flesh, Rom. 1.3. He was Abraham's Lord, as well as his son; his Saviour, as well as his seed: he was the promised seed, not the seed unto ●●●●om the promise did belong, as the seed of Abraham, but that seed that was the fountain of blessing to Abraham and all other his seed: and therefore Christ was the blessing itself, the promise that was made to Abraham and his seed, was through the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.13. but the blessing came not on Christ through the righteousness of faith, seeing the righteousness of faith is derivative from Christ to Abraham: Christ's righteousness was primitive in himself, and that very righteousness that became abraham's by faith: and therefore is Christ the inheritance of Abraham and all the faithful seed, Esay 42.6. he is called the Covenant of the people, and a light to the Gentiles.  
Secondly, Abraham's univocal seed were like unto himself in relation to the promise; the word seed in the promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, is only the faithful, nothing belonging to the seed of Abraham's flesh, but so as they are faithful, nor excluding any Nation, or family, or person in the earth, so as faithful: as for Abraham's seed according to the flesh, if not faithful, non est nostri instituti; it is not belonging to the doctrine of the Promise to consider of them at all, Rom. 2.29. they were not to be reckoned among the circumcised by God. Now for the particular application of this promise to this Nation or that, in one age to the family of Abraham according to the flesh, in another age to the Gentiles; in one age under the seal of circumcision, in another of Baptism; sometimes to give a Nation the means of Grace, Word, and Sacraments, sometimes to lead them away into captivity; these things were ordered according to the particular determination and purpose of God, though God did in a more peculiar manner bless the seed of Abraham then other Nations, with the enjoyment of Word and Sacraments, and other blessings, yet they had them together with the land of Canaan, and the place of God's worship; only on conditions of faith and obedience, as in Deut. 28. and 29. chapters, and by the many threaten of removal of them by the Prophets, and their actual captivities may appear; so that these graces of faith and obedience come on this or that Nation or person according to the purpose of God's will, as likewise effectual operation of the Word, and the particular effect of the Sacrament under the means of Word and Sacraments, wholly depend on the mercy of God according to the election of grace. Men are to administer the outward rite and sacrament according to the ordination of God: God by his Spirit bestoweth his grace, and withholdeth it from whom he pleaseth: The Jews were tied to the eight day to sign the flesh with circumcision; but it was God that circumcised the heart, without which, the circumcision of the flesh was no circumcision in the estimation of God; as Rom. 2.28. which man cannot nor aught to take notice of, it is the way of God, no man knoweth it; it is God that giveth the new name that no man knoweth but he that hath it. Those that have this inward grace of circumcision, are called and accounted by God for the seed of Abraham, but whom must Abraham for his part in reference to this promise, account for his seed? the covenant on God's part is to be the God of Abraham and his seed, which God knows how to extend to Jew and Gentile, and limit to believers even among Abraham's family. But Abraham had laid on him that he should circumcise, but he cannot walk by God's rules in the estimation of his seed, Gen. 17.10. This is my covenant that ye keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee, every manchild among you shall be circumcised: the former part, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, might have served Abraham's turn, if he had known how to estimate his seed, as God did by the believer, but that was past Abraham's skill, therefore must Abraham have another rule set him to walk by; and lest Abraham insisting on the word seed should debar many from circumcision of the flesh, whom God did intent to circumcise in heart; he is charged with his duty in plain terms, 12.13. verse, Every manchild in your generations, he that is borne in the house or bought with money of any stranger that is not of thy seed. And Exod. 12.48. When a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passeover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep the Passeover, for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof, one law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you: so you see how Abraham was to count his seed, not only those that were indeed his seed, but those that were of his family, not so only, but the seed of believing Gentiles, were to be the accounted seed of the promise: one law must be to the stranger that sojourneth, and to the natural seed of Abraham: the believing Gentile that would keep the Passeover, must be subject to the same law with Abraham: he must circumcise not only himself, but all his males, and the reason is, because no uncircumcised person may eat thereof: the master of the family might not be accounted a circumcised person, unless all his males were circumcised, because that was the law of circumcision, that he that was circumcised himself, must circumcise all his males, because the blessing of Abraham was a family blessing, as Gen. 12.3. In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed; and that which is there rendered by families, is in 18.18. rendered by Nations, All the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him: seeing all families, and all nations be of the same extent. Thus ye see plainly demonstrated that Abraham and believing Gentiles were to understand the seed of Abraham in reference to the promise of the seed of believing Gentiles, which Mr. Tombs doth not find.  
You see the promise made to Abraham and all families, and all nations performed in some families, even under the law of circumcision, the families of strangers, the males that were borne in the house or bought with money, were reckoned as Abraham's males; but this stranger that would keep the Passeover, must circumcise his males not under the name of Abraham's males, not as borne in Abraham's house, nor bought with money, but under the name of the seed of such a stranger that would keep the Passeover; they could have no right to circumcision, but as the seed of believing Gentiles. Again, you see this promise is made to all Nations in Abraham, which must have a time of performance in that sense also: but this was never performed in any national capacity before Christ's time; yet God never maketh a promise, but he taketh a time in some sense or other to perform: but we see notwithstanding this promise, God had not any Nation blessed but the Jews, and therefore doth St. Paul plainly interpret that part of the promise concerning Nations in reference to Nations after Christ, Gal. 3.8. the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham saying, In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed: see God made his promise to Abraham, and all families, all nations; he began with Abraham and his, and some other few Gentiles families, and after referreth the performance of the promise as it concerneth all Nations to the times wherein he foresaw that the Nations would believe.  
3. Question, whether there be the same reason of Circumcision and Baptism in signing the gospel-covenant? To this Mr. Tombs saith, that the substance of the gospel-covenant was the same in all ages, yet this covenant hath had divers forms and sanctions, where after abundance of words to prove diversity of forms and sanctions, he endeavoureth to prove a diversity of the form and sanction of the covenant with Abraham, and form, sanction, and accomplishment of the new Testament covenant: and from thence he inferreth his conclusion in these words. Whence I gather that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptism in signing the Evangelicall covenant; nor may there be an argument drawn from the adminstration of one, to the like manner of administration of the other. I have heard very much of Mr. Tombs his learning, and now I see wherein it lieth, in drawing that out of premises that no man else can draw, and making syllogisms with two conclusions, toto coelo, divers, and yet make them arise from the same premises: this is the learning so much magnified.  
That which he principally gathereth is, that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptism in sealing the gospel-covenant. For my part I know but two ways of signations or sealings, one natural, the other ex instituto divino vel humane. Now I conceive both circumcision and baptism do sign or seal sacramentally, and by divine institution; and therefore there is the same reason of both their sealings. Now the different form of the covenant maketh no difference in the seal: If it be an obligation for money, or a lease under large or ample covenants, or a conveyance of inheritance, wherein one parcel of land of an acre, or one freehold, or more; one manor, or more, maketh no difference in the seal or signature, neither doth it vary the reason of the seal, which are ex humano instituto obligatori: neither doth the difference of the covenant with Abraham, and the Evangelicall covenant if differing, as Mr. Tombs would have, make any difference in the reason of the signing of the gospel-covenant by circumcision and baptism: for grant that circumcision did seal both Evangelicall and Political, and baptism only Evangelicall covenants, yet they did both seal Evangelicall promises, and for the same reason, because God had appointed them to be seals: neither doth the mixture of one promise with another altar the operation of the seal, seeing the seal doth work as strongly upon every part of the covenant, or every promise in the covenant, as if there were but one promise in all, or as if every covenant or promise had a single deed and single seal: but all this while what Mr. Tombs hath here assigned as differences in form and sanction, are differences in matter, not in form or sanction: promises, the things granted in the covenant belong to the matter of the covenant, not to either form or sanction: things promised, whether Evangelicall or Political, past, present, or to come, belong only to the matter of the covenant, and do not vary the reason of their sealing, which maketh the collection of Mr. Tombs seem to me very strange; and so much the more, because it hath the testimony among other things of a learned collection.  
But, lest I might be answered, that this was affirmed but barely, I shall desire that all learned men would consider what be formal differences of covenants, and what maketh the differences of sanctions.  
The formal differences of a covenant may be considered, either different i● formis verborum, that is, when the same thing is granted in different forms of words: as when Christ is promised under the seed of the woman and the seed of Abraham. Secondly, covenants are said to differ formally; if one covenant be absolute, the other conditional, one free, the other upon valuable consideration; the one upon a condition already performed, the other upon a remaining condition of service or rent; the one voluntary on both parties, the other voluntary on the one part only, and on the other imposed: These, or such like, are formal differences in the nature of a covenant; as for formality of words, difference in them will not make an absolute covenant conditional, or the like: And consider, I pray you, what formal differencee is there in the covenant with Abraham, and the Evangelicall covenant in Mr. Tombs his own sense? was not the covenant with Abraham and the Evangelicall promise upon the same condition in Christ through faith? were not both in Christ upon the same valuable consideration in ourselves equally free? Do not we all stand bound to faith and obedience under both covenants, as you distinguish them? Did not God equally impose on us all the means of our salvation? Where then is the formal difference in these covenants you talk of? unless you mean verbis formalibus, which make no difference in law or equity. Your difference you talk of, is but in matter, which I have formerly proved to be but imaginary; but grant there had been a formal difference in the covenant, what had that been to the difference of the seal that signeth only ex instituto, by the command of God, conditional, absolute, free, or imposed under covenant performed, or to be performed, all sealed with the same seal, unless the institution put a difference.  
But now let us consider what difference there is in the sanction: Sanctions are the ratifications and confirmations of a covenant, upon which the verity and bounds of the covenant are established: are ●n oath: secondly, a seal: thirdly, a reward: fourthly, punishment: fifthly, earnest, and perhaps, some other that my memory and skill will not reach to, but for all these they are the same to both covenants; for the oath that he swore to Abraham, Gen. 22.16. is performed in Christ, the substance of the Evangelicall promise in your sense: and Zacharias▪ Luke 1.72, 73. doth challenge that sanction as belonging to him, and tell●th us plainly, that if Christ had not come to deliver us from the hands of our enemies, God had not performed his oath to Abraham. Now, if you look back to that oath, ye shall see that God promised in Abraham, to bless all the nations of the earth, which was not performed, nay, not to my one nation besides the Jews, not so much as by way of prosser, until Christ came under the notion of a nation; but worship was restrained to Jerusalem, ordinances to the Jews, therefore Christ gave his first commission unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but after his commission was to all nations; and therefore Saint Paul, Rom. 2.10. entitles the Jews to honour, glory, and peace first, and also to the Gentiles: And in H●●. 6.18. raiseth comfort after Christ, from the oath made to Abraham, and from thence I can gather (however it will sound in Mr. Tombs his cares) that the covenant made with Abraham did remain after Christ, or else the consolation is but by way of analogy: For, what comfort can we have from the sanction, if the covenant be void, unless by way of analogy, with which kind of argument Mr. Tombs is much troubled, when he raiseth them against himself, though many of his own arguments be nothing but analogies? Besides, our Saviour doth use the same sanction to the Gospel-covenant in Mr. Tombs his sense, even the covenant which he made with the believers in the new Testament, he doth confirm by an oath, John 5.24. Verily, he that hearth my Word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life; as likewise, John 6.47. So that it is plain, this sanction of an oath was the same unto Abraham and under the Gospel.  
Secondly, the sanction of the seal is to both the same; for the difference of the seal doth not make the difference in the sanction, for the confirmation is the same, whether the seal be a Lion or a Lamb: If a Prince should change his se●● from his portraiture to his arms, which he may do, if the Law forbidden not, or by act of Parliament, if it do, yet the sanction would be the same: circumcision and baptism, though different seals, not different sanctions.  
Thirdly, for the rewards, they are the same, hell and heaven are the same; for that temporal blessing, and mixture of covenant, I have already spoken, to which I refer my Reader. But grant that there had been several sanctions in reference to reward and punishment, what had that been to the difference of the reason, why circumcision and baptism should seal the Evangelicall covenant, seeing they are both but one sanction, namely, seals? but the change of the seal doth not change that sanction. Thus you see, how weakly this conclusion will follow from the premises, and likewise, how false it is in itself; they are both seals, and the reasen of being such, is the same, namely, divine institution. But for the second conclusion he draweth out of the same premises, is, that baptism and circumcision are not to be administered after the same manner; did any man ever say that baptism and circumcision should be administered after the same manner, that were a strange and impossible thing to imagine?  
His third question, whether federate, and to be signed are convertible terms; and why many were circumcised, to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong: as Ishmael, the same may be said of Esau. And why are these the only instances, I will grant Mr. Tombs more than he desireth, that half they that were circumcised, were such, unto whom no part of the covenant do belong: was Abraham able to know that Ishmael was a reprobate, when he circumcised him? circumcision was administered by the appointment of God, and was not so intrinsecall to the covenant, that it must be, Proprium quart● mod●, proprium tertio mod●, omni s●li non semper, will serve: the time before Abraham, not liable to any seal, it had been sin to use a seal before God gave it: and as for Job, Lot, and such as lived in, and after Abraham's time, and were acquainted with this covenant with Abraham, they lost the benefit of the blessing if they refused to be circumcised, and what they did is not plain, the Scripture is silent.  
After God had given the seal of circumcision, all that were in Abraham's house, and all believing Gentiles and their seed ought to be circumcised: in Abraham's house, those that were not circumcised were to be cut off from among God's people, and those strangers were not to be accounted believers, nor suffered to eat the Passeover; if they, and all their males were not circumcised formerly proved out of Exod. 12. Then all that were in the covenant must be circumcised; as for the persons that were not eight days old, they were not to be circumcised actually, nor yet women, and yet were not uncircumcised; Privatio non dicitur de subjecto habili ante tempus statutum: as catulus non dicitur caecus ante nonum diem, vec infans edentulus; if he die before the eighth day, it is all one, as if he were circumcised, being in disposition to circumcision: and the female, she was likewise circumcised as a member of Abraham's house, in that she was the seed of Abraham, partaker of the blessing of Abraham admitted to the services, offering of sacrifices, eating the Passeover, though in her person she was not, yet in her parent, in her husband, in her male issue she was, which privileges not woman that was not the seed of Abraham, or the seed of a circumcised person might enjoy. Now, see I pray you, how this woman came in to help Mr. Tombs in his argument, that all that were in the covenant were not circumcised, the blessing to the family were to all the family, but some assigned persons were to be signed, but the whole blessed; if ye come nearer to all the persons of Abraham's family that were males must be circumcised; but what of that? not every member of the males, but their foreskins, yet every member of their bodies were partakers of the benefit, so were the females partakers of the blessing of the family, the first fruits sanctifieth the whole lump, the redemption of the firstborn, Exod. 13.13. did redeem the whole issue: why may not the circumcision of the male, serve for the female? that which cometh within our consideration is only this, whether any were refused because unbelievers, not because women, or such as God exempted.  
But Mr. Tombs for all his abandoning of arguments, from analogy bringeth an argument from the like, and perhaps a greater reason, children are baptised in their parents. But perhaps not so great a reason, perhaps no proportion, perhaps no reason at all, perhaps such a reason as Mr. Tombs upon second thoughts would not insist on; what, when God shall accept of the women to services, sacrifices, Passeover include her in the blessing, nor young, nor old, never require circumcision of her, appoint the males, ordain it in such a manner, as without further explanation could not be executed upon her: how can Mr. Tombs think of proportionable reason from hence? that maysuit with the baptising Infans in their parents which must afterwards be baptised in their persons that are capable of Baptism in their persons, by no colour of reason exempt: I pray Sir, let your next analogy have better proportion. Mr. Tombs proceedeth, But it is manifest, saith he, that the Jews comprehended in the Covenant made with Abraham, and circumoised, were nevertheless not admitted to baptism by John Baptist and Christ's disciples, till they prefessed repentance and faith. Hence I gather that right to Evangelicall promises was not the adequate reason of circumcision, but God's precept, gratis affirmat: he proveth nothing, only he saith, that John Baptist did not baptise circumcised persons before they professed repentance and faith in Christ; notwithstanding Mr. Tombs hath not proved, neither can he, nor any of his opinion, ever prove, that John did require that they should profess repentance and faith before they were baptised: it will not serve turn to prove that John required profession of repentance to prove he required repentance: repentance and profession of repentance, be two things; neither will an historical narration, that this or that person did believe, prove he professed his faith. But we shall scan this further, when we shall come to answer Mr. Tombs his other arguments. Hence that is from a thing not proved to a consequence that will not follow if granted: grant John Baptist would not baptise circumcised persons until they professed they did believe that God did take away circumcision in Christ, and appointed baptism in the stead; doth it therefore follow that circumcision while it stood in force, was not dependent on the right to the Covenant, as the adequate reason why this or that person might be circumcised, I shall put Mr. Tombs in mind of this collection upon such an occasion as he will not desire to hear.  
But let us see what associate cause he will assign, to show that right to Evangelicall promises was not the adequate cause; God's precept and man's right bee associate reasons, causes subordinate in secundis causes, be not associate, much less any cause or reason immediately flowing from the first cause is associate with any second cause, cause principalis eti●●● in secundis causas non associatur, for than it could not be principal, minus principalis ●●ntum associatur. Man's right is included in God's precept, or otherwise there can be no adequate reason taken from▪ topic place which is finite, nor any demonstrative medium to prove them not associates, seeing they are all joined with the operation of God, secunda cause 〈◊〉 moventur nisi ●otis primis; an adequate reason doth not exclude the subordinanon of causes, but only parity of society; man's right to the Covenant doth not exclude the Covenant itself, God commands that all that have right to the Covenant, and none but they shall be circumcised; is not here right to the Covenant in su● ge●ere, the adequate reason when they and none but they must be circumcised? the materials of God's commands are Covenants, and therefore in many places of Scripture are the commandments of God called Covenants. And Deut. 29.1. These are the covenants which the Lord commanded Moses. From these grounds such as they are, Mr. Tombs denieth the major if universally taken, his meaning ought to be, if the proposition be universal according to the limitation of the terms in the proposition, the sign of the gospel-covenant must agree to every person to whom the Covenant doth agree; not every sign of the gospel-covenant but some sign, it is sufficient that notion sign in its aniversall nature be attributed ●●●●i subjects' limitato, so ●s it is limited in the proposition. No man can deny this to be an universal proposition, though living creature must be in a limited sense, that every man is a living creature: though there be but some living creatures that be men; yet this is universally true, every man is a living creature: what should a man talk of convertibility, no such things found in directa serie, where are many universal propositions? If Mr. Tombs should deny it, he knew how easily it might be proved, and therefore is all this sinffe before which I have cleared what chaff it is prefixed, and you shall see what goodly limitations follow; but see first the proof of this, if denied.  
Those relatives that are conserved in the same subject, they are both or none in the same subject, but the Covenant and the seal of the Covenant are relatives conserved in the same subject, ergo the Covenant and the seal of the Covenant are both or none in the same subject: or thus, That subject which is capable of two such accidents as are always in the same subject, that subject is capable of both or none; but that subject which is capable of the Covenant and the seal of the Covenant, is capable of two such accidents as are always in the same subject, erg● that subject as is capable of the Covenant and the feal of the covenant, is capable of both or none. I have not concluded the major which Mr. Tombs hath denied if universally ralten, because it is not a proposition; the terms are not in re●t●, nor is est the 〈◊〉, by means whereof a syllogism cannot be made to make that the conclusion; but from these conclusions, or any one of them, an Entheneme will rise, whose consequence is not deniable. Thus the covenant and seal of the covenant are in the same subject; therefore, to whom the Gospel-covenant agreeth, to them the sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees also, which is the very same in terms which he calleth the Major. The argument is the Pedobaptists; but I conceive the form is Mr. Tousbes' his; but why should this be particularly true, and universally false, I cannot understand why one should be capable of the signe of the covenant, because he is capable of the covenant, and not another?  
Now, for the manifestation of the proof, that they are always in the same subject, the same instrument: if a covenant be written in one parchment, a seal appendent upon another parchment will not seal that covenant, neither is that a covenant formally ratified without a seal: Again, the truth of a sign doth depend on the connexion with the thing signified; so that if the bush hang at one house, and the wine sold at another, that is no sign, because false, ens ver●●● & 〈◊〉, be convertible: and if it be any man's duty to set up, or any ways give demonstrative signs they must be set where the thing signified is, as near as he can, or otherwise they be not signs; and this were a foolish thing in any man's apprehension, to say the land, and the deed for the land did belong to such a man, but the seal of that deed did not belong to him, that was appendent on some other deed, and belonged to another person.  
But let us see upon what limitation he will grant the major, as he calleth it; ●e telleth it is true of that sign of the covenant which agrees universally in respect of form and sinction to 〈◊〉 that receive the Gospel, but it is not true of such 〈◊〉 are of particular form and sanction. This is strange logic, what can a Proposition be universally crew in respect of some particular? Again, Mr. Tombs limiteth the wrong term, what over man did deny a Proposition to be universal by limitation of the predicate: the subject itself doth limit the predicate: as if I should deny this Proposition to●● universal, every man is a living creature, with this limitation, that it is true of such living creatures as are 〈◊〉, but of Lions and Bears it is not true, but see further into this limitation; he saith, it is not true of circumcision; it is not affirmed of circumcision, it is affirmed only of the general nature of a sign, and consequently baptism; circumcision is not a sign of the covenant, it was, and then it might be applied to them that were in the covenant, but now baptism. A man taketh down an old sign, and 〈◊〉 up a new, the old is no more a sign, it is carried into sound back place of the house, or perhaps 〈◊〉, it possesseth not the place no● office of a sign; as for those juggling terms of form and sanction, I refer my Readed to what hath been said of them. But the minor he denieth universally taken, and here is all the lendt of the question, what labour is spent about the major is lost; but that Mr. Tombs is not willing 〈◊〉 any thing true that is alled god by Pedobaptists, all the children of believing Gentiles are not such as to whom the right of the covenant doth belong only such as were his spiritual seed; the ground of this distinction is an opinion, that the covenant did belong to all that in any sense were the seed of Abraham, but the Gentiles cannot be accounted the seed of Abraham after the flesh, and therefore all the claim they have to the seed of Abraham is (as Mr. Tombs stateth the matter) according to the election of grace by faith; and therefore Abtaham might circumcise all his seed, because the promise did belong to his seed. Now the seed of Abraham is to be esteemed either by nature or by grace; they that have any way had right to be Abraham's seed, have right to the promise, but the seed of believing Gentiles have no right at all, the believers themselves have a spiritual right. I have formerly shown the falsehood of this distribution, and that the seed of believing Gentiles under the Law, were esteemed as Abraham's seed in right to circumcision: now he telleth us they have right by election, but, saith he, which is unknown to us but by profession or revelation; implying, that those that baptise must know the election of them they do baptise, and that they can do by profession, these fancies I leave to their just occasion to be confuted. In the mean time, I briefly say, if no children were under the covenant of grace, we might baptise none, for as much as some are, we may, we must baptise all, seeing the distinct knowledge of them that are, from them that are not, belongeth to God, and not to man: and this was the rule that Abraham walked by, and that we must all walk by, as shall, I hope, appear.  
But I come to the second argument. I have the longer insisted upon the defence of this first, because I conceive in answering what he hath said against that I have answered all.  
The second argument that Mr. Tombs urgeth, as from the Pedobaptists from testimony of Scripture, is from 2 Colos. 11.12. The argument he raiseth thus:  
To whom circumcision doth agree, to them baptism doth agree; but to Infant's circumcision doth agree, ergo, also baptism. The major proved.  
If baptism succeed in the room of circumcision, than baptism belongeth to them that circumcision belonged, but the antebed●●●s true, ergo, the consequent. The major of the Prosyllogisme is apparently false, for to them that circumcision did belong, to them sacramental baptism doth belong, the contradictory is true, but his meaning is, that men of such condition, in respect of Infants, and he denieth, and cutteth, and divideth the major of the conditional Syllogism into such parts, that he may find out something, that he may deny: that it doth succeed baptism he cannot deny, nor readily finde out a reason why a man of years under the Gospel should not be able to bear as much as an Infant under the Law. I speak this in reference to the dispensation (under the Law) of the promises, the condition of the Church is called infancy, the heir under age: now, how should● child of eight days old, when the whole Church is under age, be able to receive circumcision, and now the Church is at age, our Infants not able to receive baptism?  
He telleth us, that the argument supposeth baptism to succeed circumcision; it doth not suppose it, but proveth it out of Colos. 2.11.12. but he prepareth for a denial so to succeed; that those persons to be baptised, that by God's appointment were to be circumcised, it should be persons of such quality; but because he taketh no advantage of that difference, let him alone with his own expressions. In this sense it is false, saith he, females were not circumcised, nor believers out of Abraham's family, as for believers out of Abraham's family, if he understand it of such believers out of Abraham's family, as lived before Abraham's time, or before the Law of circumcision, such a plea, to prove all believers under the Law, were not circumcised, were vain: for to prove exemption from a positive Law by some persons that lived before the Law was made were exempt; but for persons that were out of Abraham's family; the promise was made to all families in Abraham, and they might be circumcised, though neither bought with money, nor born in Abraham's family, but desirous to eat the Passeover only, and so believers: they and all their males must be circumcised, but for the females, circumcision was given in terms, that did exempt females: baptism, to all nations, not males only, as circumcision was, but females also: Besides, the Scripture doth tell us, that the Apostles did understand all nations, male and female, and accordingly did baptise, Acts 8.12. Now, because God hath called in females, because they are capable of the sign of baptism, which in circumcision they were not, may you without warrant thrust out Infants? or, doth it any way follow, because some persons of some quality are added, therefore those that were before capable are now uncapable, if God had declared infants uncapable, as he hath women capable, we must have been satisfied? baptism may succeed circumcision, though with such difference as God is pleased to make; but because God maketh one difference in reference to the persons, man may not take liberty to make another: As for Job, Lot, and Melchisedeck, or whom soever else you can name, we know, if they lived after the Law of circumcision was made, they might come, and be circumcised, the extent of the promise made to Abraham did reach to them; and what those persons you name did, you cannot tell, if they had any particular exemption, that is nothing to the question, we know none had privilege to the ordinance but circumcised; and in plain terms, both in the old and new Testament, nouncircumcised person shall eat thereof, Exod. 12.48. and Rom. 3.1, 2. this is reckoned the profit of circumcision, that they had the Oracles of God, here is every circumcised person, for that it is properly assigned to circumcision, as the profit of circumcision, there it is no uncircumcised person; yet Mr Tombs will tell us, all persons in covenant were not circumcised, this is the reverence that is given to the Scripture, when it crosseth their opinion, though they would make the world believe that they were the only men that did respect the Scriptures; he should have made his personal difference by believers, and not believers: by Infants and men of years: and not by male and female, in or out of Abraham's house. Two sorts of succession (which he denieth) of baptism to circumcision, is of time; because baptism began before circumcision ended. What if circumcision did overlap a little, and baptism did begin a while before circumcision ended? the same Gospel Christ in his person, and by his Spirit in his Apostles, did put down one and set up another, that is all I say to that; and surely it is so frivolous, I needed not to have said so much.  
In respect of signification, here Mr. Tombs is put to his shifts, in some signifcations he confesseth, but not in others. First, I will consider the significations he alloweth, and observe, that wherein they agree, cannot hinder their succession, they both signify the righteousness of faith, saith Mr. Tombs; but he must mean it doth sacramentally confirm or seal, not demonstratively signify, but how soever, he doth agree that baptism and circumcision have the same respect to the righteousness of faith; and yet the hinge of all Mr. Tombs his work is on this, that Abraham's seed were circumcised, whether they believed or no, none must be baptised but actual believers, and yet circumcision and baptism have the same respect to faith. Me thinks the bare acknowledgement of this is enough to dash all that any Anabaptist can say, the controversy is at an end, if there be no difference in respect of faith, why should faith be required more to the baptised, than the circumcised? certainly, I would have found out some difference, or found some other reason why Infants should not be baptised, then want of faith, or I would never have opened my mouth in such a case. I would never have confessed them both seals of the righteousness of faith, and yet the whole weight of the busmesse depend on this; that one might be given in infancy to them that have not actual faith, the other may not be given in infancy; for no other reason, but because they want faith. What is the reason, why circumcision, the seal, may be given where there is no faith, but baptism the seal of faith may not; and that for no other reason, but because faith is wanting? What? may a man make a difference of a common accident? or make a generical form a specifical difference, or a specifical form a numerical difference? this is all one, as if a man should say, that a Bear were not a man, because he can see, or not a Lion, because he can hear; and yet after confess, that both men, and Bears, and Lions, can both hear and see: just so doth Mr. Tombs, baptism doth not succeed circumcision, because baptism must be given to believers only, yet confesseth, that both baptism and circumcision have a like respect to faith; it is true, he assigneth other differences, but none of them will more disable from baptism, then from circumcision: The first difference is, that circumcision doth signify Christ to come of Isaac, according to the flesh, but baptism doth signify incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ's: doth this make the difference? can children better understand that Christ shall come of Isaac after the flesh, then that Christ is incamate, dead, and ris●n again? Secondly, can Infants better understand that the Israelites were people, separated from all nations, than they can understand that all are one in Christ? can they better understand that the Law of Moses must be kept, then that it is void, or the promise of the Land of Canaan, then of eternal life? The difference that Mr. Tombs putteth between circumcision and baptism, cannot make Infants differ under the Law, and under the Gospel, and do they differ by that which doth agree to circumcision and baptism?  
As for the place out of which this argument is drawn, Colos. 2.11, 12. Mr. Tombs saith, that the Text doth not say we are circumcised, because we are baptised, but we are complete in him, because we are circumcised in him, and buried with him in baptism; I must needs suspect this man's learning, or his honesty, else he would never abuse his ignorant Reader thus: what, Mr. Tombs, doth the Text say, ye are complete, because circumcised? Let men that can examine the Text see, and they shall find, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our translators have dealt more faithfully with us then so, that have translated it, in whom also that is, we are not only complete in him, but we are also circumcised with the circumcision of the heart: we have that mercy sealed unto us, though circumcision be taken away, and we might seem to be without that confirmation or sign of the purity of heart, which our Fathers had. Why saith S. Paul? Christ was circumcised, and that gave an efficacy to the circumcision of our: Fathers circumcision ended in Christ, and is not descended to us, but the effect of circumcision is in the circumcision of Christ, part of the body was put off, in circumcision, but the body of sin was signified: now this Christ did in circumcision, not only so, but by burial he put off that body, that became sin for us, of both which ye are partakers, being buried with him in baptism; so that baptism doth entitle us to circumcision of the heart, by the circumcision and burial of Christ, as the circumcision of the Jews was made effectual by the circumcision of Christ; so we have the same grace expressed by cicumcision of the heart, in baptism: it could not be plainer expressed, if it had been said, that the benefit of circumcision by Christ is made yours by baptism; Circumcision was the seal of circumcision of the heart to the Jews: circumcision of the heart is sealed by baptism to you; For it saith plainly, in whom also ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands, in putting off the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, the means of all this conveyed unto you by baptism; no man can deny that circumcision in the flesh, did signify, and sacramentally seal the circumcision of the heart which the Apostle here affirmeth of Baptism. After all this incongruous stuff, Mr. Tombs denieth that baptism doth succeed circumcision, and therefore Infants are not as capable of baptism as of circumcision; he hath confessed that faith is as requisite for one as the other, in regard they stand both in the same relation to faith, and thereby confesseth what he doth deny, and yet no more than the Scripture doth affirm.  
Mr. Tombs falleth out with this argument, and in a metaphorical way talketh of an Egg, out of which, if not restrainedly taken, nothing can be gathered: but that baptism and circumcision in some things signify the same; and do so Noah's flood, and the red sea, yet do we not say that baptism succeeded into their place, much less do we infer any right to be instituted in their steed, respecting the same persons; I do profess I was troubled to parallel this nonsense with any thing that might equal it: if we could get these Anabaptists to speak sense, a man might the better deal with them. Can any man make any thing of this after Mr. Tombs hath allowed that they both signify the righteousness of faith? that both signify the sanctification of the heart; are they again turned into materiam primam, that Noah's flood might be parallelled with baptism, as well as circumcision. You bid us take heed of such argumentation; you might say baptism, and speaking, in some things, do agree (in prolatione verborum;) and washing pots in some thing, in washing, in action with whatsoever we can do. Your argument to Noah's Ark, is fallacia consequentiae à genere ad speciem affi●mativè, thus Noah's Ark agreeth with baptism in something, therefore in sacramental nature; as if a man should say, est animal, ergo equ●s, it is a living creature, ergo, an horse.  
The collection that nothing can be gathered in a restrained sense, but that baptism in some things signify the same; yes, more than that, they agree in some things, we may gather in what they agree; they agree in the nature of a sacrament; in divine institution; in the ●eal of faith: they must be administered to all to whom the tender of grace is made, not only to all that are partakers of grace. The first, in respect of providence limited to a narrow compass, and by the ordinance bounded within the nation of Jews, though not to the persons of the Jews: all nations might come in and be circumcised, and offer sacrifice, and eat the Pass●over, but they might sacrifice no where but at jerusalem; but now the ordinances are tendered to all nations, and baptism must be administered to all nations, no assignation of persons by the commission, surely the commission was not invented by man: Christ commandeth his Disciples to baptise all nations; here is not men, women, nor children, we must baptise some body; it must then be examined who they are that must be baptised? it is no will-worship to baptise, it is no will-worship to baptise all nations, to baptise whom we please, and refuse others without ground out of Scripture, that is will-worship. Now, these persons must be found à subjecto capaci from the capacity of the subject, or from the judgement of the persons in commission to baptise. Your part requireth, that you prove Infants are unfits subjects, and I will prove in due time, that Ministers are unfit judges: For, arguments drawn from analogies, I willingly grant to be invalid, if you mind analogies of proportion, to invent any part of God's worship by; as if we had invented baptism by rules of proportion, but being commanded to baptise all Nations, and told that it should stand us in the same stead that circumcision, in reference to such principles as concern us most, and did equally concern the jews in the same respects, and telling us now the particular privilege of the jews should cease, and the ordinances should freely be communicated to all Nations; never speaketh one word of the particular qualification of the person of them that are to be baptised, he leaveth that to be understood ex natura rei under the Gospel; God dealeth with the Church as fathers with their children; when they come of years tell them the ground and reason of things, leaving circumstances, which necessity will drive them upon unto their own discretion; whereas when they are children the father directeth them to the sensitive part not acquainting them with the reason, but supplieth the defect of the infant with the particular direction of the fact to be done, having a care that he take not more upon him then he is able to bear; but when he becometh a man if he should still continue in such simplicity as insist upon the same rule, and take no notice of any reasonable instruction; nor by comparing his strength with infancy judge nothing of his own power, but still look for the same direction as he had when he was a child, when the father chooseth rather to instruct him by reason, then by sense, he could not escape the just censure of a fool. God our Father telleth us that baptism doth circumcise the heart, sealeth faith as circumcision did, Go baptise all Nations; this is enough for a man when he is told the nature of baptism by comparison with circumcision; and shown the difference in case of women and appropriation to the Jews, to direct them by a rational proportion with what God did direct his Church in infancy: ye shall circumcise no more, but ye shall baptise; that shall have the same operation upon the heart, and you shall not restrain my worship to Jerusalem as of old, but go to all Nations: If any shall further object, But what say you to Infants? I say nothing, but that baptism in respect of my worship, and the operation it hath upon the heart, is the same with circumcision; and you know what direction I gave to my Church when she was in infancy concerning circumcision; you are capable of as much purity of heart as they were then▪ that is all I say; you are now of years, whilst you were children I taught your sense, now I teach your understanding; as for argument from analogy, though it doth come fare short of an argument from precept; yet it is equal with an argument from example; for indeed all that can be drawn from an example is by analogy, and among analogies those are more certain that are drawn from a precept, than those that are drawn barely from an example, without any shadow of a precept, when the analogy is made by God, and we are led to the thing signified by Gods-owne direction, and told that circumcision of the heart is the same under baptism, as under circumcision of the flesh: how dare we say that infancy maketh men uncapable of circumcision of the heart? when God sometime did declare, that that should be no obstacle to the administration of the sign, seeing we are trusted with administration of the sign not with the judgement of the heart; but as for that rabblement of analogies which he talketh of out of Durands Irrationale, they are things of no analogy with this. I further say, that it is not the proportion of the sign with the thing signified, that maketh a Sacrament but institution; I hope no man will affirm that baptism wanteth institution: and as for the person, if you will have him adultus, I make no question you shall run upon a greater necessity of will-worship, then by administering of it to Infants, as I hope upon further occasion to make appear.  
Your third argument is out of the verge of your own method, as not being drawn from any place of Scripture, and therefore I omit that, and come to your fourth Argument from the Acts 2.38, 39  
He frameth the Argument well, if the Proposition wanted not form, it should be they to whom the promise belongeth are to be baptised; but Infants of believers are they to whom the promise belongeth, therefore Infants of believers are to be baptised.  
Mr. Tombs before he can make any answer to the argument, he must fit his answer, that is, he must misquote and misapply two or three places of Scripture to the intent his Reader may conceive, that the promise that was there meant was not the promise made to Abraham, but the promise of sending Jesus Christ: others say sending the Holy Ghost, all is one, if Christ had not been sent, the Holy Ghost had not been sent; and the sending Christ was the promise made to Abraham, as I have proved before out of Luke 1.73. But Mr. Tombs quoteth some places of Scriptures, as if a man in them should find so plain a difference from the promise made to Abraham, and there spoken of by St. Peter, as must needs give full satisfaction to all that doubt of that: but let us view those places, Acts 3.25. Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed; that is plain enough of the promise to Abraham, Act. 13.32, 33. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise that was made unto the Fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us, Rom. 15.8, 9 Now I say that Jesus Christ was the Minister of circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers: read and judge, and judge what Mr. Tombs hath gotten by these places to prove any difference from this promise here spoken of, and the promise made to Abraham: But said Mr. Tombs, the promise was made to them he spoke to and their children, & to them that are afar off, whether they be Gentiles who are said to be afar off, Eph. 2.17. or jews in future ages, as Beza is doubtful: indeed Beza doth argue that Peter did not then know the call of the Gentiles, or if he had, it is not likely that he would have told the jews of it; it might be, Peter did not at that time know the Nationall calling of the Gentiles that was afterward made known to him; for than he could not properly have said of them that they were afar off in respect of the jews, but Peter was not ignorant that as many of the Gentiles as the Lord should call had right to the promise, and this was in no age offensive to the jews: they always knew that one law was to the home-born and the stranger that sojourneth among them, Exod. 12, 48, that is, when and after they were called; they were put into the same condition with the jews in reference to the promise; it is plain that the promise in reference to Baptism is the same that it was in reference to circumcision: now it is true he further teacheth the inner power and effect of the Covenant which was the turning men away from their iniquity: this is the doctrine both of circumcision and baptism, that neither circumcision which is outward in the flesh is circumcision, Rom. 2.28. neither is that baptism which is outward, but that is circumcision which is of the heart, whose praise is not of men, but of God. Thus baptism must be taught, it must be taught as from God, it must be administered as by men; therefore saith Mr. Tombs, the promise is not made but on conditions of calling, and faith which may be confirmed abundantly, Rom. 4.13, 14, 16. let the proof be examined, St. Paul doth handle the promise made to Abraham in reference to the fruit and effect of it, and so to entitle the Gentiles to the comfort and fruit of the promise, forasmuch as the promise did always bear that sense, that never any of Abraham's posterity had any benefit from the promise unless they were believers, and that benefit the Gentiles always had if proselytes, and now in a more free way; and this was ground to the Romans to seek for justification by faith, because that was always the sense and meaning of the Covenant made with Abraham; but this was the use that the faithful aught to make of the Covenant: Abraham was justified by faith as we are; Abraham was not justified by circumcision, nor we by baptism; circumcision was administered in fancy Ecclesiae, according to the appointment of God, men had nothing to do to examine faith, the praise of that was not of men, but of God: it is confessed that Abraham did circumcise without any judgement of faith, yet had as much need of faith for benefit by the Covenant as we, his justification and salvation the same with ours by faith in Christ, Gal. 3.9. They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham: ye see Abraham himself had his blessing by faith, God preached the Gospel to Abraham, the seed of Abraham had the benefit of the covenant by faith: whereby it plainly appears that circumcision was not given by the estimation of faith, though it had its effect by faith; but every male of Abraham must be circumcised, and that because of the promise, the conditions of faith and repentance were not new conditions put on us which Abraham and his posterity had not, though they are more plainly preached to us then to Abraham, God was the judge of faith in Abraham's time, and is so now, but the promise of the land of Canaan stood upon conditions of obedience the effect of faith, notwithstanding circumcision: but, saith Mr. Tombs, the promise was not belonging to them simply as Jews, but as called, the promise did belong to all men, quatenus called, but it belonged to Jews, though not quatenus ipsum, yet it doth belong to Jews to be foederati, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every Jew had an interest to the promise, though not quatenus, a Jew, because Gentiles also had this right, per accidens, as called, but it was accidental to the Gentiles, some were called, and some were not; all jews before Christ were called, but note, that called is to be distinguished into outward calling, and inward or effectual calling: by an outward calling, All the jews were called: by an effectual, only the elect were called; whether jew or Gentile, both these callings had their several respects unto the promise, and the seal of the promise: The outward call had a right to the Oracles, Rom. 3.1. the means of faith, and accordingly many had faith by that means, though some did not believe, that doth not make the faith of God of none effect; the promise of God signified by the word faith, in that place, is effectual, though some do not believe, though it be without effect to them that believe not, yet it is effectual to them that believe; and though he doth not believe, yet the Holy Ghost maketh circumcision an inseparable accident to a jew, showing, that the advantage of the jew, and the profit of circumcision were the same, and the chief privilege is, that unto them were committed the Oracles of God. Now, this outward call had the promise of God being their God, and the God of their seed, and accordingly had the seal given to them and their seed: this is plain in case of the jews, they had circumcision, and the Oracles, and the promise, but all these are ineffectual, without faith, Heb. 4.1, 2. Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any one of us come short of it: For, unto us was the Gospel preached, as well as unto them, but the Word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. You see, many have the promise left them that may come short of it, they may have the Word without profit, the promise of God, circumcision without effect, all for want of faith, all these external, have an external dependence one upon another: those that were born in a believing family, had an external promise left them, had cirumcision, had the word, though they might come short of the effect of all for want of faith; yet the external administration must go by this outward rule; the promise in this place is understood in this sense of outward promise that belongeth to you and your children, you are called already; and that is implied in the opposition to these words afar off, such as are afar off is opposed to them that are nigh. Now, they that are nigh need no calling, but they that are afar off, them we call; so that it is plain, calling is in reference to them that are afar off; and then the sense of the words is as plain the promise belongeth to you and your children, therefore be baptised: and the promise likewise belongeth to them that are afar off, not yet called, as many of them as the Lord shall call: and this appears, in that the Apostle speaks unto these jews, & exhorts them to amend their lives, and be baptised, for the promise belongeth to them, so that the Proposition is immediately true, they shall be baptised, because the promise did belong to them, calling of them that are afar off, is not at all immediately referred to baptism, but to the promise, and therefore cannot by any means be a limitation of such persons, unto whom the promise did belong, to make fit for baptism, as if there were some persons unto whom the promise did belong, that were not called, and some called; those that are called might be baptised, but unto whom the promise doth belong, and are not called, they may not be baptised: but this is to alter the form and sense of the Apostles words, though they might have a truth in them, yet they are not the words of the Text, nor signify what is there said: Amendment of life hath not relation to baptism, but to that sin they stood guilty of, and that they were convict that they had crucified the Lord of glory: the immediate argument that he useth to persuade them to baptism, is, that the promise belongeth to them, it is no argument at all why they should be baptised, because the promise belonged to their children, nor because the promise belonged to them that are afar off, but because it belonged to them, that only was ground, why the Apostle should persuade to be baptised: what is further added, is to note the amplitude of the promise, to raise up their faith, to lay hold on the promise of so bountiful a God, that extendeth his promises so largely, not to them only, but to their children, nor stayeth his bounty there, but reacheth it out also to them that are not called, to wit, such of them as he shall call; you and your children, sensu determinate, them them that are afar off, sensu indeterminate; but if all had been limited by as many as the Lord shall call, S. Peter had drawn an universal conclusion out of particular premises: For, if that part of the verse alleged, out of which the Apostle doth infer this conclusion, or inference be limited, than the proposition is particular, as thus: If the sense of the words be, the promise belongeth to as many of you as the Lord shall call, than it is no more but the promise belongeth to some of you, a few of you, therefore be baptised every one, had been a very irrational argument; nay, if you restrain promise to its strict sense, for promise with effect to the effectually called, than it can belong to a very few of them; therefore every one of you be baptised, were very strange: The promise therefore must be understood in such a sense, as it was when applied to Abraham's seed, according to the flesh; as the faith of God in his promise, is not of none effect, though some do not believe, the promise must be understood by us, as left for all, though all attain not to it, and this not in reference to universal grace, but universal dispensation of means by us men; and herein God did go before us by his own direction in the infancy of his Church, leaving us to walk by the same rule; when we have a more ample dispensation of the means of grace committed to us. God did command all Abraham's seed to be circumcised, and all circumcised to eat the Passeover, though they were taught always they should not possess the land of Canaan unless they obeyed the voice of the Lord, Deut. 28. and 29. Chapters: and all along, Moses and the Prophets preach the blessing to the believer, and though under the form of works, not the covenant of works; it was faith that God looked, as in Heb. 11. all the works of the Patriaches are ascribed to faith, and Abraham's obedience is commended by his faith; and he and they justified by faith, and not by works: faith grounded on the same truth of God, and the same Christ; God useth the same liberty of his will, Rom. 9.15. in the dispensation of his grace, 13. An instance out of the old Testament in Esau and Jacob will serve as well as in Peter and Judas; the grace of God did no more nor less depend on Sacraments then now. God did not account any man circumcised but a believer, no more doth he now baptised; Moses and the Prophets did teach faith and obedience, so do the Apostles, and that notwithstanding the promise; yet the unbeliever and murmurer shall not enter into the land of Canaan: thus went the doctrine, thus the estimation of God in all ages, the dispensation of Word and Sacraments to the jews, and them that were afar off as many as the Lord shall call under the Law; but now to all Nations all are now called, God doth command all men every where to repent; in the sense of these words all the world have an outward calling. St. Peter doth argue with the Jews to persuade them to Baptism, à notioribus, they knew right well the bounds and extent of the promise; it was no new thing to them that the Gentiles called, should be accounted among these to whom the promise did belong: nor that baptism did legally wash away sin, nor that sinners must repent, but that the promise should be sealed by baptism, that only was new: as for that Peter did teach repentance with baptism both together, as saith Mr. Tombs, that is not the question; repentance and faith ought to be taught at all times, as being such things as God doth only look on most seasonably at all times to all men, Luke 13.3. Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish: but out of this place it doth no way follow that repentance must go before, or is required as a preparation to baptism, verse 38. is an answer to this question, what shall we do? we, that have crucified the Lord of glory? if to this general question, what shall we do? Peter had failed to instruct them to repent, he had been wanting to his duty, but presently to argue from the promise to move them to baptism, and baptise them presently will scarce stand with any anabaptistical discipline; you would hardly have any great company of Catechumen's if you follow the example of the Apostle, which you so much stand upon, nay the keeping men of years, many years under the discipline of Catechumen's directly contrary to the Apostles example. But of preparation to baptism we shall have further occasion to consider in other arguments. Mr. Tombs telleth us, that the promise doth not belong to all Infants of believers, which is the minor universally taken: he hath formerly told us of women, and believers before Abraham. I have formerly given satisfaction to those exceptions, but the promise is to be understood three ways, as before may appear: Either first, in estimation of God, or, secondly, in dispensation of the inward grace of the Sacraments, and effectual operation of the means, or, thirdly, in the outward dispensation of the means of grace: The two former are distributed according to the election of grace to the believer only, but the last, under the Law, to Abraham and his seed, and in Abraham's seed, which is Christ, to all the families of the earth: But now in a more explicit and plain way to all the nations of the earth; and that not only in p●tentia, but by particular dispensation, and providence unto many nations in actu exercito, actually many nations have the Word and Sacraments, and God grant more may have: But it seemeth, he granteth the promise doth belong to some of the Infants of believers, but which they are, he cannot tell, and therefore will baptise none: The way of God was to Abraham, that because he could not distinguish, he should circumcise all: God commandeth baptism to be administered to all nations; it will not serve our turns in the day of the Lord, to say, we did not know who did believe, and who did not: it may, and will be answered again, who made thee a judge of faith? thou art a Minister of baptism, not a judge of faith, that is flatly denied thee: he that is a judge, is a Lord over them whom they judge, which thou art not: it were indeed great impiety, to administer baptism to any whom we knew God had destinated to everlasting damnation, but to take upon us to pass that sentence on any person, were most high presumption, much more on any Infant: we have commission to baptise all nations, but without consent we cannot baptise any nation, and this is a good excuse: he, saith the Text, speaketh not of Infants, but children indefinitely: but it speaketh of children in reference to the promise made to Abraham, which was extended not to Abraham's children only, but the Infants of believing Gentiles, as before: thus of the Argument from Acts 2.  
As for the first argument, taken from 1 Cor. 7.14. that the Infants of a believer are holy, I have already proved: that Infants of a believer, though not of the seed of Abraham, are federally holy, and that in the words of the promise made to Abraham doth appear: As for that the words in 1 Cor. 7.14. Else were your children unholy: I say, it may well be an allusion to that federal holiness, as I conceive, though the argument be not so clear, that among others more plain I shall insist upon; yet not so improbable, that much may not be said: for the present thing I affirm, that the children of believing Gentiles are federally holy, for the argument, I neither assert it, nor disclaim it, but refer my Reader to that that hath been spoken of that matter, by other men, whose learning and judgements I honour, and come to the sixth argument.  
The sixth argument is taken from Mat. 19.14. which is repeated in Mark and Luke: suffer little children to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of God. The argument is, that those of whom the kingdom of heaven is, are to be baptised, but Infants are such of whom the kingdom of heaven is; therefore Infants are to be baptised: For, that of coming to Christ, though the reason doth plainly convince that in this place, more is meant then a corporal coming, seeing many come to Christ corporally, of whom nothing is affirmed concerning the kingdom of God: as for his eight circumstances, he hath gathered nothing for, or against the argument: they serve for nothing but to make a noise of Mr. Tombs his learning, that he can observe eight circumstances, of which he rejected divers as not pertaining to the argument: the other he maketh nothing of, but that Christ did not baptise these children, which no man that I know, ever affirmed: but doth it follow, because they were not baptised, therefore children may not be baptised? after Christ had given direction to his Apostles and Ministers unto the end of the world to baptise all nations, and now telleth his Disciples that to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven: which kingdom of heaven in other places is understood of the state of the Church, after the publication of the Gospel, which began after that Christ risen from the dead, into which kingdom, john the Baptist never entered. Now, these little children, Luke 18.16. were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, recens nati, young ones: Secondly, they were such, unto whom the kingdom of God did belong: Thirdly, they were such in their visible condition they were in, and these things do all plainly appear, 1. that they were little ones, by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the derivation, doth signify, or show it: but Mr. Tombs saith, words are not be expounded by their derivation, but by their use: But how can he know how a word is used, but by its signification: Suppose a man should call a man that is grown a babe, for some childish condition that he perceiveth in him; doth it follow that a bab●e doth signify a man of twenty or thirty years old? I conceive Authors do use liberty of words, but where infirmity cannot be laid upon the Auhour, nor penury of words upon the language, much must be ascribed to the choice of words, with consideration of their derivation; but see what confutation, that they were not Infants, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Mr. Tombs, signifies no more but embrace, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth so much; the Proposition 〈◊〉, may add something more than to embrace: but why must it signify to embrace a grown person? because Mar. 9.36. he places them in the midst, as though a child that can stand alone, might not be taken up in arms: yea, but he warneth not to scandalise them, as though a child might not be taken up in arms, that may be taught to swear and lie, and by many evil examples, led out of the way of God, or cause to stumble, but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, signifieth a child capable of teaching: it is apparent that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth signify an Infant in his mother's belly, Luke 1.44. Now, how long it doth continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the question. Mr. Tombs saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a child capable of teaching: but see how he proveth it from the 2 Tim. 3.15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence he gathereth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify a child capable of teaching: Mr. Tombs will put no difference between from his childhood and in his childhood: from intimateth that whilst he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than he knew not, but when he ceased to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than he knew: that is saith he, ever since he was a boy, than not when he was a boy; but when doth a man ●ease to be an infant, and begin to become a boy? For my part I understand not by what rules he walketh seeing they were infants in Christ's arms, for aught Mr. Tombs hath or can say to the contrary: But saith he, they were capable of teaching, such they might be though in arms; but how doth or can he prove these children were such? he will say the proof lieth on our part, that they were not capable of instruction: true, it doth if we will have any benefit by the argument, a demonstration that they were not, I cannot give, but probably I can, and far before any you can give to the contrary: First those that brought them brought them not to that end that they should be instructed, but that he should touch them and biesse them; neither doth our Saviour at all teach them, or say any thing to the children: certainly if they had been capable of instruction, he would not have omitted to have given them some small directions, such as they were capable of, and not have blessed them, and taught them nothing; for that derivation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 madidus, that cannot be understood of the moisture of temperature, which in some sense is given to young persons till they cease to grow, till a natural drith falleth upon their bones that hindereth their further augmentation, but that moisture is such as is on children new borne: what Mr. Goodwin saith of it, I have not seen.  
But Mr. Tombs saith, that it is doubtful whether our Saviour saith of them is the Kingdom of heaven, because the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of such, not of them. It is plain our Saviour urgeth the relation they had to the Kingdom of heaven to move his disciples to suffer them to come to him: now it could not have been any reason why these should be admitted into the presence of Christ, because others had relation to the Kingdom of God, but the truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath a further emphasis; for the words are not urged to show a reason why the children should come to Christ, but why the disciples should suffer them, and therefore Christ doth represent these children to his disciples, not under such a character as they did appear to him by his omniscience, but such as they were able to judge of, and therefore he saith, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if he should say, well ye have forbidden children to come unto me, but it was out of ignorance; now I tell you if any such as these are shall come hereafter, forbidden them not, for of such is the Kingdom of heaven: The precept is given to the Disciples in terminis intelligibilibus, in words, and in a sense that may be understood by them: as if Christ should have said, To many of these little ones the Kingdom of heaven doth not belong, but you are excused for that, insomuch as the Kingdom of heaven doth belong to such, you are not able to discern the difference, and therefore it cannot 〈◊〉 said to your charge that you did suffer any wilfully to enter into the Kingdom of God, that the Kingdom of God did not belong unto. But the Apostles might have answered, nay Sir, but we can discern these unfit for the Kingdom of heaven, they have not actual faith and repentance, and therefore we may not admit them into the Kingdom of heaven: to this our Saviour's answer is plain; the Kingdom of heaven doth belong to such as these, therefore suffer them to come to me: Now for the further manifestation of the sense of these words, the Kingdom of God is understood, either of the Kingdom of grace, or the Kingdom of glory belonging to the elect only, or of the Kingdom of the visible Church where men walk under the means of grace. 2. The coming unto Christ may be understood of coming to Christ motu locali, or coming to him by faith as he sitteth in his Kingdom of grace and glory: or last of all coming to him as he sitteth in the Kingdom of the visible Church: Christ hath a residence in the Kingdom of glory and in the Kingdom of grace. Now no man can come to Christ as he sitteth in the state of grace or glory, but by faith agreed on by all parties; but Christ likewise sitteth in the Kingdom of his visible Church, and teacheth them as the Prophet promised by Moses, and there inviteth all nations to the use of the means, and commandeth his Ministers to baptise all nations, and suffer little children, not those only that Christ blessed and gave especial testimony unto; but those that were but like unto them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they must be permitted to come to Christ. Now the question is, whether this coming to Christ is understood only of corporal coming to Christ or any, or in which of those respects this coming to Christ is here understood; though I dare not deny a corporal coming to Christ is there intimated, yet this is not all that is meant in the direction, Suffer little children to come to me; for the bare coming to Christ's person could not have been inferred from this assertion, for to them belongeth the Kingdom of God. I sit in the kingdom of the visible Church to dispense ordinances to all the world which I do by my Ministers: A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you, like me, saith Moses, and him shall you hear: according to which promise, I sit always in the visible Church teaching the mind of God; as I thus sit ready to teach, Suffer little children to come to me, for to such belogeth the visible Church: if thus you understand the Kingdom of God, and the belonging of Infants thereto, to signify their interest to the visible Church, then, come to me, signifieth no more in the direction then suffer them to be received into the visible Church, which is no more than suffer them to be baptised, or hereafter when ye shall have commission to baptise all Nations, baptise them: Neither will Mr. Tombs his distinction serve turn, that those whose is the Kingdom of heaven may be baptised, when it appears that the kingdom of heaven belongeth to them, the text is not of these but such, that is of such as have no difference from these as far as you can judge in reference to the Kingdom of God, these are to be permitted to come to me. Now whereas Mr. Tombs saith such, that is such in meekness, that is a liberty not to be allowed in interpreting of Scripture to assign, or rather restrain the likeness to humility, whereas our Saviour applieth the likeness only in this, that they were little children, it was not similitudo qualitatum, but subjecti ob omnes qualitates, for a subject cannot be said to be like another, if any notable disparity can be found: it is true if a quality be assigned wherein they do agree, that one quality is enough to make them alike though they differ in all other things; but for a man barely to say such as he is fit for this or that employment, he that is fit must be such with respect to his skill, fidelity, and all other conditions requisite for that employment. Now if any thing were named wherein they were like, it was in that they were little children, now that which they were a like fit for was the Kingdom of God: and if any children can be fit for the Kingdom of God, what unfitness can be found in one more than another by any mortal man? therefore Christ saith, Suffer all children to come to me, for they are all alike fit for the Kingdom of God, the visible Church and the invisible too for aught you know: neither do I know that the unfitness of the Infidels child is in the child, but in the parent that will not bring it, nor covenant for it that it shall be a disciple of Christ, nor undertake to bring it up in the doctrine of the Gospel; nor is that man that is an Infidel himself fide dignus to be believed in that point, but if he will sell the interest of his child to a Christian, I do not know but that Christian might bring that child to be baptised as his upon that promise, that he will bring him up in the fear of God; I am certain, notwithstanding the promise was made to Abraham and his seed, yet he that was bought with money might be circumcised: all children therefore that are brought may be baptised, so as they be brought by persons that have interest in them, and in any charitable construction may be credited that they will bring them up Christians: it is sufficient for us if they be such as unto whom the Kingdom of heaven doth belong, though the Kingdom of God belong not to them, neither can that any way belong to this argument, that Christ doth teach men that are of year's humility from the emblem of a child, yet one child cannot be distinguished from another (as more or less fit to come to Christ) by their humility: for that Mr. Tombs saith Baptism doth not bring to Christ: I say, it doth as Christ sitteth in the visible Church, into which presence the Ministers of the Gospel have commission from Christ to admit all Nations, baptise all Nations; as for the kingdom of grace or glory, Ministers certainly have no power or authority to keep any out of them, or hinder any from coming to Christ by faith.  
The seventh argument is from Acts 15 32, 33. Acts 18.8. 1 Cor. 1.16.  
If the Apostles baptised whole households, than Infants, etc. but etc. ergo,  
This argument, saith Mr. Tombs, rests on a sleight conjecture, that there were Infants in those houses, and that these Infants were baptised: but saith he, the words plainly prove under the name of the whole house, are understood those only that heard the Word and believed. Hence he denieth the consequence, implying that many whole houses may be baptised, yet no Infants, because it is possible they may be without children: And he further affirmeth, either these were without children, or else the children were not comprehended under the whole house, which he laboureth to prove out of the several circumstances of the several Texts which I shall endeavour to examine along with Mr. Tombs, not only as he mentioneth them here in this pag. 20. of his Exercitation, but as in his Examen of Mr. Marshal's Sermon, from p. 137. to 142. Mr. Martial saith, that the Gospel took place, as the old administration by taking in those families together. This Mr. Tombs strongly endeavoureth to oppose, and endeavours to set up an assertion opposite to that for true: saith he, the administration is quite opposite to that of circumcision: the opposition which he fancieth, he feigneth to consist in several differences: First, that Abraham's family was singled out: the males only: whether in the covenant of grace, or not: children, or servants: elder or younger: at eight days old in the house, by the Master, or others in his stead.  
For, his first difference was, Abraham's family only singled out for circumcision, that is boldly affirmed, it is plain the promise in the seed of Abraham was to all the families of the earth: Gen. 12.3. which is rendered by nations, 18.18.22.18. there promise is made in the seed of Abraham, which in the 3. of Galat. is applied to Christ: so that Abraham's family is not singled out for the blessing, it is true, Abraham's family is singled out to be the line of Christ, according to the flesh; many families could not have that privilege, but the privilege of circumcision was not restrained to Abraham's family, but extended to all the nations of the earth, and was actually afforded to so many families as would dwell among them, or desired to eat the Passeover, as I have formerly proved it: it is plain as many as would be, or were partakers of the blessing, must be circumcised: but the blessing was promised in actu signato, to all the nations of the earth, though before Christ it was in actu exercito performed to no nation but the Jews, yet many other families besides Abraham were circumcised; therefore that difference is not between baptism and circumcision, that circumcision did belong to Abraham's family alone.  
For his second diffence, that males only were circumcised, I have already spoken to that: and the third, wherein all the knot of the question doth consist, what is here affirmed by Mr. Tombs, is but petitio principii: as circumcision was to be administered in all the families that would eat the Passeover, whether persons that were circumcised did belong to the covenant of grace, or not; so is baptism, there being no man on earth, that can judge of any but himself, whether he belong to the covenant of grace or no: As for the circumcision of children, servants, elder, younger, I know not baptism doth make any more difference than circumcision doth; for that in the house, and by the Master of the family, or some in his stead; I say, that in Abraham's time, all the public offices of King and Priest, were in Abraham's person; Levi was in the loins of Abraham, what hand the Priest or the Judge had in the act of circumcision, the Scripture is silent: but certainly, whether it were to be administered privately or publicly, there must be a public account given of it, for as much as the person that was not circumcised must be cut off, which could not be done, but by a public act; neither do I know a more public dispensation under the Gospel should enforce a more particular administration: but the agreement in the last circumstance, is that whereon the argument doth rest: that is, that whole families were brought to baptism under the Gospel: To which Mr. Tombs saith, that it was but contingent to families; that they were baptised, no precept, no prophecy for it: contingent it is, I confess, in respect of any causes, that any nation, family, or person in the world should be baptised, but that nations should be baptised, is not without either precept or prophecy: the Apostles are commanded to baptise all nations, the blessing is promised to all nations in Abraham, and all nations are prophesied to flow to the mountain of God's Church, Isai. 2. but we find not infants baptised, nor families baptised in conformity to circumcision: Mr. Tombs saith, that the conformity is not intimated: I say, that families were baptised, the conformity ariseth of itself; But Mr. Tombs desireth to elude this argument, by showing that actual faith was first required in every person before he were baptised; and therefore the Apostles did not baptise any, but such as actually did believe, and make profession of their faith; so that they did not baptise any family, unless upon particular cognizance of every particular man's faith; this you shall see how fairly he will prove: as for the examples from John, and before the commission, I know they walked by special light, but what, we cannot tell, after they had their commission, certainly they walked by it: The first instance after the resurrection, is Acts 2.41. they that gladly received the Word of God were baptised, and why should they not? did ever any deny, that such as received the Word of God should be baptised? and these are they, saith Mr. Tombs, to whom he said, vers. 39 the promise belongeth to you and to your children, added three thousand souls, yet never a child baptised; men may as well say, never a man, or never a woman: from the word souls, an Infant may be called a soul, as well as men or women; but, saith Mr. Tombs, the Text saith, those that received the Word were baptised; doth it say, their children were not? but Mr. Tombs confesseth they were the same persons that gladly received the Word of God, unto whom Peter had said, the promise did belong to them and their children, that was the Word they gladly received: And Saint Peter inferreth from this, that the promise did belong to them, that they should therefore be baptised, because the promise did belong to them.  
Now if this argument from the promise was good concerning them, why is it not as good for their children? and if they received the word of the promise gladly for themselves, it is likely if it had been denied them in respect of their children, they would some of them have had the boldness to have asked it for their children; and said, Peter, you told us of the promise, that it belonged to our children to as well as us; and you told us that that was a good reason why we should be baptised, and accordingly we are baptised: why should not that be a ground for our children to be baptised also? we know no reason why that should be a reason for us to be baptised and not for them: You tell us the promise doth belong to them as well as to us; as for the limitation of as many as the Lord shall call, that is to be referred to them that are afar off, not to us: afar off, is opposed to them that are near, Ephesians 2, 13. You that were fare off are made nigh by the blood of Christ: fare off, signifieth them that are not yet called, nigh, them that are called; to look on the words in their original sense, we do not use to call them that are nigh already, but them that are afar off, that they may come nigh: and this appeareth plainly to be the sense; by that here are several subjects of the promise, you are the subject of the promise, and your children and they that are fare off: You are not your children, your children are not you, you nor your children are not afar off, they that are afar off must be called, that they may be nigh, that so the promise may belong to you all, that so ye may all be baptised. What Mr. goodwin's fancy is, Mr. T. doth not tell us, nor have I seen or heard, but cannot be denied that the word souls do comprehend men, women and children; for though there be some difference in their bodies, yet they agree all in this that they be souls taken for persons; though for my part, I will not argue from hence, that children were baptised; yet I say from hence is clearly evinced, that children have a right and interest to baptism, because to the promise, and that as clearly as any thing can be: for that which is a cause producing an effect in one subject, will produce the same effect in another, posita causa ponitur effectus rationale est risible, is as true in children, as in men; he to whom the promise doth belong, may be baptised, is as true in children as in men, if the promise doth belong to them both, as the text plainly saith it doth; and the pointing of the Greek text doth plainly declare this to be the meaning of the words: for there is no point between you and your children, but between children and them that are afar off, to show the promise belonged to them and their children in their present condition to them that are afar off after their call: where note that the promise is to be understood in the external or internal consideration: according to the external Sacraments have their administration amongst men; which terms ye have applied to Jews and circumcision, Rom. 2.29. He is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart in Spirit, and not the Letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God; the Letter saith, God will be the God of Abraham and his seed, but the spirit saith, that he will be so to the elect and faithful: The Letter saith, every male shall be circumcised; the Spirit saith, that circumcision is no circumcision which is outward, but that which is of the heart: the Letter looketh on the family of Abraham, either by generation or by communion; the Spirit on a remnant only, according to the election of grace● the Letter requireth circumcision or cutteth off, some say [goodwin's antiq. Ainsworth in locum;] the parent, some say, the child for the neglect; thus external performance hath its praise or dispraise of men, but that of the Spirit hath its praise not of men, but of God: To this latter, only faith and repentance is required, or rather both; circumcision of the heart, and baptism of the heart, are nothing else but faith and repentance which God can judge, and praise not man; and thus the promise, according to the Letter, did belong to those Jews, to whom Peter spoke, even before their effectual call; and this Peter urgeth to them as a motive to move them to be baptised: as if he should have said, upon this ground ye were circumcised, and now upon the same ground ye may be baptised; it is true, we are not only Ministers of the Letter, but of the Spirit, and therefore we preach faith and repentance as requisite to your baptism of the Spirit; but you must give account of that to God, and not to us, we can take no account of it, we are not Lords and Judges of your faith, we preach all the duties that belong to the inward man, but administer sacraments and guide our charity towards our brethren by outward rules, it must satisfy us: if you will come and claim your interest to the promise, both for yourselves and your children, we must baptise you and your children; we will teach what account ye must make to God of your faith and repentance, how you must bring up your children in the fear of God, but we can take account of none of these things. The next place of Scripture which he taketh in to this confutation, is Acts 8.12. by which he proveth that the Apostles did not take in whole families at once, because the whole City of Samaria: we prove a personal account of all to be baptised, was not required, because they were taken in by whole families in the Apostles time, and Mr. Tombs confuseth this, by saying, they were taken in by whole cities; I like such confutations. Next, out of Acts 8.38. and 9.18. he proveth that the Eunuch and Paul; single persons were baptised; brave arguments, therefore families were not baptised, the Apostles had a commission to baptise all nations, and accordingly they performed their commission with all expedition, taking in families, cities, nations, single persons, refusing none that would enter themselves in the School of Christ: Christ is not like a Grammar-school-master, that will receive no scholars, unless they be entered before; he teacheth from the teat to the grave, from the ABC, to perfection; the next is of Cornelius, his household was baptised, as may be gathered out of Acts 11.14. saith Mr. Tombs, though I conceive he mistaketh the place: the baptism of Cornelius family is 10.48. But this household was not an ordinary household, but a garrison of Soldiers, what matter is there in that; what did Peter cause them to be baptised, for fear, because they were Soldiers, God told Cornelius before Peter came, that he should tell them words by which he and all his household shall be saved? Mr. Tombs inferreth that all Cornelius household were saved: good Charity, but bad Logic; that because there was virtue in the word to save him and all his household, therefore all his household were saved: in the 1 Cor. 1.16. Paul baptised the household of Stephanus, but saith Mr. Tombs in 16.15. the household of Stephanus is addicted to the Ministry of the Saints; what is this to the purpose? did ever any man say that those that were baptised should never after be good for any thing? he saith, some things of Crispus and others, that the household is understood for them that believe in the house; but coming to Lydia, he hath nothing to say from any circumstance of that text, to prove that any of Lydias house did believe but herself, but saith it must be interpreted by other places where they express baptising whole households, they express believing and receiving the word by the whole household: strange that one history shall be expounded by another, because one household received the word and believed, therefore another household that was baptised, did likewise believe: an history can but infer that some that did believe were baptised: but saith Mr. Tombs, the frequent use of the word household for grown men in the house, Mat. 10.13. if the house be worthy, certainly what portion may be aimed at, as for whose sake the house is said to be worthy of the Apostles abode in it is uncertain; the house there is understood of all, little and great, your peace is no more, but your prayers: now first the worthiness may be found in the Master of the family alone, and the Apostles may pray for the whole family little and great.  
But now Mr. Tombs will fall upon some argument, to prove that the Apostles did not take in families, for than saith he, if it be true that the precedent be an household, I demand whether we must baptise wife and servants because they profess the faith, or because they be of the household? if because of the household whether professing faith or not, than an unbelieving wife or servant should be baptised because they are of the household; unless it be supposed that the husband or master being a believer, the wife or servant cannot be an unbeliever; the contrary saith he appeareth: and thus Mr. Tombs hath done his do, and then cryeth absurd: but where lieth the force of his inferences, and the absurdity I cannot tell; Mr. Martial and Mr. Blake say, whole households were taken in; but it follows all households must come in; all or none, all that is inferred out of that, is, that the Gospel may be received by a family: and master of the family may tender all his family to baptism, & the commissioner to baptise all the world, need inquire no further into the profession of the family, but may take the testimony of the Master for the whole family; for you change a term, and say, if a wife or a servant, make not profession of faith (you mind to the Minister) than an unbeliever may be baptised, and so he may, though they should make profession of faith: but you throughout your whole Discourse, make faith, and profession of faith all one, more Anabaptistico, for lay that mistake aside which you must do, and all Anabaptists mouths are stopped; for it is one thing to believe, and another to make profession of faith: you much talk of this household, and that household believing; but show me any but the Eunuch that made any profession of faith before baptism, in which case Philip did not teach him to confess his faith, but to believe only: it cannot be denied, that the doctrine of faith ought to be taught to men of years, and that not as a preparation to baptism only, but for that the doctrine of faith is necessary to all actions; whatsoever is not of faith is sin: that which we argue from receiving of families, and from the Apostles commission to baptise Nations, is that Nations may make Laws for their whole Nations to be baptised; and if the major part of a Nation do according to their duty receive baptism, and undertake for the whole Nation to submit themselves to become scholars of Christ, they may justly compel by any penalty to join with them in the external worship of God, Deum esse & colendum, is the Law of Nature: all Nations have ever agreed to serve some God, without which no humane society can be preserved: all societies are united by a Covenant confirmed by an oath in the name of some God, and do agree upon some public worship of their God: but may not a Christian Nation agree upon the service of God in Christ? may they not unroll themselves the Disciples of Christ, and submit to the public worship of God, of which baptism is the first? this therefore is it which is drawn from the commission directed to the Disciples for the baptising of Nations, that Nations may act as Nations, and families as families; that is, that the more organical parts must act for the residue, the Magistrates for the Nation, the Master of the family for the family; otherwise it cannot be said to be the act of the Nation, or of the family, though a post factum may be historically related to overspread a Nation that is done without any Nationall consent to show the universality of a spreading evil: yet where a duty is charged upon a Nation, it cannot be orderly received without a Nationall consent: and that of the Gaolers household doth appear to be acted by his consent, as the text is plain, Act. 16.32. Paul preached to all in the house, but in 33. it is said the the Gaoler was baptised and all his: as if the text should have said, there were divers in the house that heard the word that the Gaoler had nothing to do with, but those that were his he would present to Paul to be baptised. Now whereas in 34. verse it is urged by Mr. Tombs that he rejoiced believing in God with all his house: I confess Passor and others render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so; yet it is an adverbe of place, and can reasonably signify no more but the place where he rejoiced; besides if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify with all in the house, it must signify more than were baptised, because none were baptised but his, and if under the name of his, than he had an interest in presenting them. Now man can have no more interest in any then in his children, they are his in a more especial manner; so that if he had any children, it is apparent they were baptised, or else they were none of his, all his were baptised: And whereas Mr. Tombs saith, all the household believed, or all that were baptised believed; it is plain that the Master of the house only is said to believe, for the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is referred to the nominative case, the adverbe that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it should be translated with all his house, is to be referred to the verb, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rejoiced, they rejoiced to see their master or father so merry: if believing had been referred to all the house, it must have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 domo credente with his house believing; whereas it is now to be rendered, he believing rejoiced with all his household, none is said to beleeye but himself as in Lydias case, is likewise plain: from whence it will appear that a believing master may present his servant and children to baptism, though it doth not follow that a believing master may or will present those of his servants or children, that are adult or of years without their consent, yet he may be his authority require them to it as an external duty; he cannot compel them to any duty, or restrain them from any vice without their consent, yet he may correct them, and incline their will to any outward duty by his authority, and having wrought upon them ●o consent and submit, the commissioner may baptise them that come so presented: the master of a family is a King, a Prophet, and a Priest, if by any of these offices he can prevail with his household, he may bring them to the performance of their duties: Now baptising as a duty and precept lieth on the Minister antecedenter to the faith of the baptised; and is at least annexed to doctrine, and not to faith, they must teach and baptise all Nations: now it is plain they must teach as well them that believe not, as them that believe; again baptising is modus decandi, a manner of teaching; as I have said, and shall further be made appear upon occasion. Now whereas Mr. Tombs further saith, that then it will follow that the whole household must necessarily believe if the Master doth, and proveth that some time it falleth out otherwise: I say, that though it be the master or husband's duty to move his family, yet he cannot always prevail; and special direction concerning the wife is given to suffer her in regard of the bond of Matrimony and that under some limited and restrained terms in hope of her conversion; yet nothing is said concerning servants but that he may either force them or be rid of them if they continue Infidels in that sense, that is refuse to list themselves among Disciples; the public worship of some God being the bound of all humane society, 101. Ps. 6. He that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me: he that keepeth any servant that will not be baptised, is not a good Christian; it is true, all men of discretion ought to consent to every duty; but baptism is a duty without consent, as all other precepts are, it is pactum impositum, as before; and so I come to follow his arguments, lapping up two or three of them, because he maketh sleight of the arguments, we shall take occasion to show the weakness of some of his answers, and where the arguments be weak, the weakness is his, to bring them in.  
The first argument of this sort, is taken from the general promises to the godly and their seed, this hath already been handled how they conclude for baptism he citeth, Exod. 20.6. Psal. 112.2. he saith they are for the most part concerning temporal things, then spiritual also, as confessed, general and indefinite; if general and indefinite it must be so by reason of the necessity of the matter, otherwise indefinite would be particular; election doth not stop children, they are elect when children, or never; these promises are with condition of faith and repentance, therefore not belonging to this place, saith Mr. Tombs. Well, than he was too blame to bring it.  
2. Isai. 49.22. it is foretold, that Gentiles should bring their children in their arms, therefore the Prophets foresaw the baptism of Infants: It is the happiness of the best arguments to have the weakest answers; they might be brought to other ends, which he proveth from Mat. 19.15. but were those in that place brought to the Church according to the prophecy? then Christ must needs be understood as sitting in the Church, and suffer them to come to me, must be; admit them into the Church, as I have said: it is true, that men which come to the Church, come for other ends then to be baptised, but if baptism be the door of the Church, as it is the sacramental door of the visible Church, nemine contradi●ente, besides Independents, than whatsoever be their business, they did come in by the door of baptism: And whereas Mr. Tombs saith, that was an analogy and was performed by the persuasions in which the Gentiles did persuade their children to embrace Christ: he formerly affirmeth little ones in arms are not to be baptised, because not capable of instructions, and must bringing of little ones in arms, be interpreted by instructions? it is true that Junius doth say, cum vexill● Evangelii quod est potentia Dei ad salutem, haec omnia alleg●ric● dicuntur de amplitudine regni Christi spiritualis; but he doth not say, that bringing of children in arms should be understood of grown children, capable of instruction, when it may be literally understood.  
Lastly, I shall only mention that argument, taken out of Ephes. 5.26. where it is said, Christ cleansed his Church with washing of water through the Word: from whence it is argued, that the Church is washed with water of baptism, or not partaker of the washing by the blood of Christ. To which Mr. Tombs maketh this answer: that if this argument be of force, the thief repenting on the cross, Infants, catechumeni, martyrs, and others, dying without baptism, are excluded out of the Church, and the benefit of Christ; he should have said, if none of these were capable of baptism, than were they excluded from the benefit of Christ's death, where God doth prevent any by death, the party so taken away by God, is not deprived of the benefit of Christ's death; God is not tied to sacraments so, as that he cannot save without them, though contempt of sacraments be sinful and damnable.  
Mr. Tombs his second argument is, That which agreeth not with the Lords institution of baptism, is deservedly doubtful, but the right of Infant's baptism agreeth not with the Lords institution of baptism, Ergo.  
I deny the minor, Mr. Tombs proveth, because Infants cannot be Disciples of Christ; I say they may. Mr. Tombs confesseth Infants may be sanctified, but it cannot be made known to us, that is not Mr. Tombs his argument, that it must be known to us that they are sanctified, neither from the institution doth it appear that they must be Disciples before they are baptised, much less that it must appear: The commission to the Apostles, and from them to all the Ministers of the Word to the end of the world, is to make Disciples of all nations, baptising and teaching them what Christ shall command. The parties to be baptised, are all nations, without any restriction at all; their commission is, to baptise all nations, and this in reference to that national covenant that then was among the Jews, only the public worship was limited to the Temple then, now to no place, make Disciples, is no limitation of persons: Their commission was to make all nations Disciples, which they were to execute, pro viribus, to the uttermost of their power; the conjunction of baptism, and teaching, with making Disciples, was not with respect to any personal restriction, but it is conjunctio mediorum ad finem, make all nations Disciples; the meaning is, by baptism and teaching: Now, the setting down of these words, making Disciples; first is, because that was the end of their commission first, in intention, and must first be proposed: as in all operations is necessary, as if a man will have an house built, a city conquered, an enemy taken; the first thing that he proposeth, is the thing that he will have done, and after directeth, or consulteth about the means, though they must use the means before they get the end, I have already spoken to this, and shall more fully in my arguments that I intent for children's baptisine: For, that which Master Tombs saith, than the children of Infidels might be baptised, I have already spoken of, that it is not incapacity of the child that disableth him from baptism, it is the fault of the parent that will not bring his child, nor will undertake to bring up his child in Christian doctrine; (nor is he that is an Infidel, herein to be believed) but in Christ, Jews and Gentiles are all one, and a child as capable of Christian Religion, (according to his education) though his father be an Heathen, as if a Christian; the reason why the seed of Abraham had a privilege, was, the Ordinances were only in his house, as many as came to have benefit of the Ordinances, were circumcised, though not of Abraham's seed; they that were bought with money, or sojourned in Abraham's house, nay, though they were reckoned as a family distinct from Abraham's, and the males reckoned not as Abraham's males, but their own males; yet, if they desired to eat the Passeover, their males must be circumcised, Exod. 12.48. Those that join themselves to the Ordinances, and claim their interest in baptisime, and relation in Christ, to be his Disciples, they must be baptised, and their families, and as many as they can undertake for, to bring to the outward means, if they can undertake for whole nations, the commissioners may not refuse them: they must be suffered to come, if any will undertake to bring them, though children. Now, that fathers by undertaking to bring their children to hearing and to learning, what is the way of God, do no more than their duty, and what they can readily perform, and do bring their children to Church, and take order for their catechising, which (were the parents as careful as they ought) were a great means to promote Religion and Piety among men, and is often required in the Scripture from the father. That is, by this anabaptistical tenet laid only upon the Minister, which turneth into a great encumbrance, and neglect of the instruction of the people, whereby many have been enforced to fall into that inexcusable error that all men have the office of a Minister, if baptised themselves, and have gifts, such as the people shall approve of: But, grant that the nations must be made Disciples, before they must be baptised, and that all nations must believe before Disciples? doth it follow, that every party must believe that is baptised, quod convenit parti, quapars convenit toti gratia istius partis, that which agreeth to any part, agreeth to the whole, by reason of the part; but not to every part? the whole man seethe with his eye (I speak de actu videndi) but not with any other member, but having gotten the knowledge by the eye, the soul implieth other members more imperato, to do their office: So the Magistrates that are not only the sense, but the understanding of the nations believing may be baptised, and by the duty of their place, require others to be baptised also: Non quicquid totius etiam partis est, in totis integrantibus, a man must see before he go into the river to be washed, he seethe with his eye, not with his foot; but when he is washed, his foot may be washed also: the nation believeth by the Magistrate by whose authority the whole nation is put to school to Christ, and is baptised, which is an external duty, and may be required by the Magistrate: as for faith, we have no Lords of faith, here every man must give an account of his faith to the Lord of faith, Jesus Christ, upon his day. In the mean time, it is a most insolent arrogancy, and contrary to Scripture, for any man to judge of another's faith. Saint Paul saith, not as having dominion over your faith, but as helpers of your joy: 2 Cor. 1.24. and Saint Peter, not as Lords over the flock: if therefore they are not Lords, how come they to be Judges? what do Lordship consist in a name, or in judicature? names be but weak and childish apprehensions of things, natures only yield distinct knowledge: Moses could no sooner take upon him to judge of wrong done among brethren, but presently they ask, Who made him a Prince, a Lord, a Judge, intimating that judgement belongeth to a Lord: We do much declaim against Lordship and dominion over other men's consciences and faith, yet not only Ministers, but every man will take upon him to judge without scruple, this man hath faith, and that man hath none: it is true, charity doth permit men privately to approve, but not condemn the faith of another: Baptism is an external duty, such as man can take notice of whether done or not: and if a man be called to an account whether he hath baptised such a person or not, or whether he went or carried an Infant to be baptised, who baptised him? he may be able to prove these things by humane testimony, and therefore they are of humane cognizance: but who hath faith, and who not, no man breathing can give any testimony thereto, and therefore man cannot judge: But some man will say, the foot doth not see, because not capable for want of organs; but every man is capable of faith, that is not the question, whether all are capable of faith, I mean men of all conditions; but whether faith be of humane cognizance, neither is that argument of any force that faith is necessary to make Baptism of any efficacy, therefore until the Ministers are acquainted that the persons to be baptised have faith, they may not baptise them by the same rule, because no humane action can be well done without faith, no humane action can be required of any man by the Civil Magistrate, & so at one blow all humane society is destroyed; but man must require all duties of men that they can judge of leaving the inner part of it to the judgement of God, who only can judge the heart: for as the neglect of a duty is sinful, so no sin so great as to enter upon the Prerogatives of God, who only can judge the heart, so that whatsoever is pretended from any speech of believing before Baptism: yet no one place where the profession of faith is required of the person to be baptised.  
The third argument is taken from the practice of the Apostles and John the Baptist, which saith he, are the best Expositors of the Institution, but I deny it, the exposition cannot go before the text, John the Baptist that never lived to see the institution could not expound the words he never heard of: but he affirmeth that baptism cannot be administered to Infants after the same manner as the Apostles and John the Baptist did administer it; for confirmation whereof he affirmeth that the Jews did confess their sins before Baptism, and the Apostles before Baptism, did require shows of faith and repentance.  
First, that they did confess sins before Baptism, he proveth out of Mat. 3.6. they were baptised of John in Jordan confessing their sins: but doth this prove that every particular person did confess his sins to John the Baptist, and that this confession was before Baptism, or that it was an oral confession? none of all these things are necessarily drawn out of the words; the words are, Jerusalem and all Judea, and the region round about Jordan were baptised confessing their sins. Now I have formerly shown that a Nation, or Country, or City may be said to do a thing, though the organical part principal men only do it. Again, the text saith, that they were baptised confessing their sins, implying that the act of Baptism was a confession of sin, as a man that washeth doth by washing confess (though he say nothing) that he was defiled, but if an oral confession which the words do not yield, yet whether they made their confession before or after baptism, is not said, nor can be proved out of the Text; neither can a precept be drawn from an historical narration, that these men did confess their sins, it is as much as it can prove, that it is lawful for those that can confess their sins so to do; but all that may be baptised must confess their sins, will no way follow: For the second place, Luke 3.10. that is, some mistaken place.  
He further affirmeth, that the Apostles did require before baptism, shows of faith, and repentance, and citeth many places out of the Acts; whereas not one place that he citeth, proveth any such thing, that the Apostles did require any man to make any show of his faith, or repentance before baptism; it is true, they teach men to believe and repent, but not take any account, or require them, or any person to give any account to any Minister before they were baptised, let that be proved, and the business is ended, to use his phrase; but, to give a full answer to all that can be alleged of that kind from Scripture, I say, that the Apostles did indeed preach faith, repentance, and baptism altogether, but whatsoever was said of faith and repentance, in reference to baptism, was either doctrinal, or historical; what was doctrinal, was without any implication of account of it: what is historically related of faith, and repentance, cannot imply any confession or manifestation, otherwise then in the very act of baptism itself, seeing it was impossible for the Apostles to baptise nations, and countries, and cities, if no credence had been given to the doctrine of baptism; so that their declaration that they believed and were baptised, might well be related by the Historian, though nothing were intended but that, that they were baptised: For, when Historians relate any fact done, they take liberty to observe the necessary motives and circumstances of the fact, without any other implication, then that the fact was done; nay, had not the Holy Ghost mentioned any believing at all, but only said that they were baptised, we might have inferred from the fact, without rashness, that if Peter, or Paul, or any of the Apostles did baptise, them that Judea, Jerusalem, that is, the prevailing party did believe, that there was some kind of credit given to their doctrine, that they did believe there was some kind of good or benefit that was like to come of baptism, or otherwise they would not have endured one or two men to have baptised them, but that a pro●●ssion of faith in a catechetical way, whereof the Apostles did, and of duty ought to take account, that is not said; I hope, to make appear on just occasion was not done.  
The fourth argument is taken from the next age immediately succeeding the Apostles; what is said concerning that point, is not argumentative, it dependeth only upon humane testimony, and men that give testimony thereto, are partially related where their testimony is agreed upon, that they did say so, as they are reported, yet their credit is questioned by him that disliketh their saying; sometimes that part of the work, out of which any thing is alleged, is proclaimed spurious, and that very author that we are content to allege, with honour, when he speaketh for us, him we bespatter and vilify, when against us; so that what can be said of this kind, savoreth rather of affection, ostentation of reading, then of argument, and yields matter of concertation, rather than satisfaction; and therefore I leave the Reader that desireth to know more of this matter, to Dr. Holmes, and others, that may wrestle with Mr. Tombs in this point, my resolution being only to deal with him in such things as may carry shows of argument out of Scripture, and so I come to the next argument.  
The first argument is of the same nature with this, that the ages that did use baptism, took it upon wrong principles, as a tradition and imitation of Jewish circumcision, without universal practice, mixed with other errors. Among Apostolical traditions, many were vainly reported and taken up to countenance several errors, as delivered from the Apostles; if some have disclaimed the proof of Scripture for children's baptism, and held it notwithstanding lawful from weaker grounds, that doth not any way weaken the authority of Scripture, and strength of reason taken from thence. If any one hath proved baptism lawful from Apostolical tradition, that doth not hinder me, or any other from proving it lawful by Scripture, neither doth the mixing it with errors in the same person, make the baptism of Infants erroneous, if so, all truths would quickly be turned into errors, seeing few men have been without their slips, which yet have not only held, but defended and propagated with admiration many precious truths: Mr. Tombs would be loath, if his Anabaptism be convicted erroneous, that all that he hath, or shall hereafter speak, should be therefore reputed erroneous: by the same reason, all the truths that were taught among Papists, are eo nomine erroneous, because they taught them: and so not only the doctrine of the Trinity, but the incarnation of Christ, th●● 〈◊〉 of the dead, were therefore erroneous, because those that held 〈…〉, held likewise many other heresies, and so his tenth argument 〈…〉 ●●●wered.  
His 6, 7, 8, and 9 〈…〉 near alike, and all to little purpose, that I had thought wholly to 〈…〉 them, but that men would have given some other construction then 〈…〉 were weak, and therefore omitted, I shall therefore say something of 〈◊〉, le●t men willing to be deceived, should place strength, where indeed there is none.  
He telleth us in his sixth argument, that Infant's baptism hath caused many inventions to support it, and hath occasioned defect in Church policy, but proveth none of that which he saith: he only affirmeth, that Infants-baptisime was supported by sureties and Episcopal confirmation: and that it brought in Church-covenant as a preparation to the Lords Supper, for abuses that may creep in with any duty, they do not take away the goodness or lawfulness of the duty itself.  
His seventh argument accuseth baptism of Infants, with four errors: First, that baptism conferreth grace by the work done: The second is regeneration: The third, Infants dying are saved by the faith done: The fourth, regenerate persons may fall from grace.  
To these two arguments, I plainly say, that none of all these things are occasioned by Infant's baptism, or if so, men may not doubt of the goodness of all such things as wicked men may, or will take occasion to be offended at: for then Christ and the Gospel should be principally questioned, the great stumbling stone and rock of offence; so that occasion of offence is an argument, rather of goodness then of fault, Satan being most ready to entice us to corrupt our best actions.  
What, doth baptising Infants imply the conferring of grace by the work done? nay, we say of Baptism, as Saint Paul of circumcision, that is, not baptism that is outward in the ceremony, but that which is of the heart; but the praise of that is not of man, but of God: we cannot praise men for baptism of the heart, God baptizeth, seethe, judgeth the heart, we baptise the body, but leave the residue to God only; in steed of Christ, we teach those children that by their parents are brought to be enroled the disciples of Christ, the things that Christ hath commanded us, and tell the baptised, when they come to be catechised, that they must have the effect of their baptism by faith in Christ, and not by the work done. What Mr. Tombs, are all Pedobaptists Papists? these are strange calumnies, and why must Infant's baptism necessarily imply, that the regenerate may fall away from grace? can none of your baptised persons that are baptised being of full years fall away from the effect and benefit of their baptism? if that be not an heresy, that such men as are judged believers by your Ministers, and so adjudged fit for baptism, and baptised, cannot ever after fall away from grace, I know not what is. I hope Religion and knowledge of God, is not brought to that outward formality that all should consist in your humane judicature▪ it seems, Mr. Tombs, when he baptizeth any he will promise the parties he baptizeth, that they shall never fall from grace. I have heard many ignorant people use this argument, but that Mr. Tombs, a man cried up for learning, should use such an argument, is admirable and strange to me; and certainly, by this Mr. Tombs doth plainly confute himself guilty of that opinion, that baptism doth confer grace by the work done: For he inferreth, that if children may be baptised in Infancy, than men may fall away from grace, because many, not withstanding their baptism, become wicked afterward, doth not this imply, that if they were baptised, they were gracious? if baptism do not confer grace by the work done, how can it be inferred, that such men, as after baptism turn wicked, do fall away from grace? Saint Paul, speaking of false teachers, 1 Joh. 2.19. saith of them, they went from us, because they were not of us: not that they fell away from grace, but they deserted the profession, because they were not gracious: but, saith Mr. Tombs, if baptism be administered to Infants, and they walk not according to their profession, they fall from grace, no such matter unless Mr. Tombs will say, baptism cannot be administered but to the gracious, they fall from baptism, and so will many that Mr. Tombs, or any the most discerning of them all, notwithstanding all the caution that can be taken, or else it were a most happy case to come under their hands which cannot be imagined, unless it flow from the operation of the work done, some of them that pass their examination will undoubtedly be unfaithull, or at least may be such, for aught they can do to prevent it; so that if they do deceive them and obtain baptism, than baptism must confer the grace, or they may remain ungracious still; and so notwithstanding their baptism, they cannot be said to fall away from grace which they never had, though they should renounce their baptism, muchless by not walking answerable to the profession into which they are baptised, or not behaving themselves as Disciples ought to do.  
The eighth Argument is taken from this, That baptism of Infants hath caused many faults and abuses in discipline, worship, and conversation; this is likewise only said, nothing proved in it, he reckoneth ten of these: First, private baptism: Secondly, baptism by women: Thirdly, of unborn Infants: Fourthly, Baptising Infants of uncertain progeny: Fifthly, they that are baptised in the the name of the Lord, know not the Lord: Sixthly, it hath brought in the admission of ignorant and profane persons into the Church, and unto the Lord's Supper; for who can deny rightly the right of the Church to the baptised? Seventhly, it perverteth the order of discipline; that first a man be baptised, and after among the catechised: Eighthly, the sacrament of baptism is turned into a profane meeting to feast together. Ninthly, men forget baptism; so that it hath the force of a carnal right, and not a spiritual institution: Tenthly, it taketh away, or at least diminisheth the zeal and industry of knowing the Gospel: But, be all these faults? and are all of these flowing from Infant's baptism?  
First, I shall show, that many of these have no affinity at all with Infant's baptism. First, private baptism hath nothing to do with Infant's baptism; for that Infants may be baptised publicly; nay, Laws may be made, requiring their public baptism, though Infants; nay, the Directory is at this time so penned, and in all times public baptism was principally aimed at and desired; and for the most part so performed; what he meaneth by private baptism, I do not know; baptism in an house among so many as make a congregation, I cannot discern how that can well be accounted any such fault: I am sure he hath not proved it.  
2. He telleth us that baptising of Infants hath brought in the baptising by women, as though Ministers may not baptise children as well as women.  
3. The baptising of Infants hath brought in the baptising of children not brought to light: for my part, I can say nothing, but wonder at such an inference.  
4. As for baptising of children of uncertain progeny; I know nothing of it, but that if any man that is a Christian himself will undertake to bring him up a Disciple of Christ's, such a child may be baptised.  
5. They are baptised in the name of the Lord that know not the Lord: what inconvenience from that? It is true, St. Paul saith, No man can call upon him of whom he hath not heard: It would indeed put on the form of some probablity (if it were referred unto the person that did call on the name of the Lord) that it were something absurd: but doth it follow, because no man can call on him of whom he hath not heard; therefore he cannot call on the name of God in the behalf of any but such as have heard of God? none can pray but those that have faith: but may not a faithful man pray for an Infidel? may not a Christian parent pray for his child, because the child doth not know the Lord? this were very strange: as for the child's consent, I say so fare as concerns the Covenant between God and man which is sealed in Baptism, consent is not required on our part to the obligation: we are bound to obedience, and are under the sanction of condemnation if we consent not: and this is the very reason why circumcision which had as great a respect to the circumcision of the heart as baptism, was as vain, and nothing without faith as baptism was, yet stamped on the infants of the Jews, wherein the Scripture is not silent; therefore this argument is not of any force that baptism is not to be administered to Infants, because they do not consent, unless the consent of the party to be baptised were required to the obligation: if the child were free from those duties unto which he is tied by his baptism until he had consented thereunto, it were a great wrong to baptise him and thereby lay a yoke upon him without his consent, from which he were otherwise free; but whether he consent or not, the obligation of obedience and faith lieth on him, and the sanction of wrath and condemnation attendeth on the Infidel and disobedient whether they consent or not, whether they are baptised or not, so that consent both to obedience, and faith, and baptism; whether baptism be represented to them as already done, or to be done, is required of him that is adultus or of years, as a duty, not as liberty; 〈◊〉 ●●fusing to consent is a sin and punishable both by God and man, though these consist much in internals, of which only God can judge and punish: faith and obedience of the heart; but as for the externals of God's worship, such as are the external rite of baptism that is to be performed in the sight of men, and men may require him that is of years to consent to his baptism, laying the neglect on him as a sin, and punishing him for it as for adultery, fornication, or any other public offence, leaving the matter of faith which is private, to the judgement of God: so likewise may the Nations receive baptism for the whole, as all other externals, requiring parents to bring their children as before: I have thought good to speak something to this point, because it seemeth to carry some show of reason with it, that no man should be tied to a Covenant unto which he never gave any consent, which in free covenants is true, though in public covenants we are tied by the covenants of our Ancestors, and are bound by those laws we are borne under, made by the consent of our parents; but in the case between God and us, he made us, and giveth laws to us, under which we must live or die (I take Laws here in a general sense to signify direction for faith and repentance, as well as any other rules of life) not by virtue of our own consent, but God's absolute right and authority.  
6. Mr. Tombs telleth us, that baptising of Infants hath brought the admission of ignorant and profane persons unto the communion of the Church, and to the Lords Supper; for who can deny rightly the rite of the Church to the baptised? so he.  
To this I answer, that the engagement of the parent, to instruct his child (which is but his duty) will certainly be a great means to set men upon the performance of their duty therein, when men shall solemnly in the presence of God before a congregation be charged with the bringing up of their children in the fear of God, that they must look to their own conversation that it be exemplary to their children; if this be not performed by the parents, yet the charging it upon them out of God's word, cannot but be a means rather to keep out ignorance and profaneness then to bring them in; can any means be used by man more available then to instruct children in their tender years in the knowledge of God? Certainly God hath informed us, that this is the most lasting knowledge that we learned in tender years, and our experience doth abundantly confirm this. Now what greater care can be had by the Church then in such a solemn and sacramental manner for a man to be charged with the education of his child as a Scholar of Christ, as soon as he is able to learn any thing? if this be a way to introduce profaneness and ignorance, I know not what can keep it out; but he implieth as a great sin, that ignorant persons should be admitted into communion of the Church, and the Lords Supper; for this admittance into the communion of the Church, if any thing may be argued from thence touching the unlawfulness of Infant's baptism, a just and due tract ought to be instituted, wherein the whole question must be stated; what is meant by communion of the Church, whether he understand the visible or invisible Church, whose office it is to admit, and whose to shut out of the Church's communion? what be the rites of a visible and what of an invisible Church? how can the Infant come and demand the Lords Supper, which he distinguisheth from the communion of the Church (but how I cannot tell) until they be instructed to know the Lords body to remember the death of Christ, and examine themselves, which they are commanded to do, and then eat? but where is the Minister commanded to give the Sacrament to all that are in the Church, or else to turn them out of the Church? these things must be proved plainly, or else otherwise the argument drawn from hence against children's baptism is abignotioribus: Christ giveth you a charge to baptise all Nations: you say nay: we shall then let in ignorant and profane persons into the Church; you will not baptise any until they be fit to receive the Sacrament: you were as good say, you will make commissions yourselves: Christ bids baptise and teach: you say there is more in the matter then so: you will baptise when you please, and whom you please, they that will be baptised must pass your censure, and stay your leisure.  
Christ hids you teach, and so much examination as is needful for teaching may be deduced from thence: but did God give you in charge to admit and refuse, and give you any rules by which ye might walk in the discharge of this duty? if so, ye might then justly plead this right, and make that an argument to remove all that standeth in its way. But I wonder extremely at the in temperate zeal of those that plead the duty of admitting and refusing of men ex officio from and to Baptism, and the Lords Supper; and herein the Lords Supper is the most cried up privilege which you here fall upon (whether out of your own opinion as it seems by some is suspected, or to confute your adversaries) and make this as a medium to prove that Infants may not be baptised, because none may be admitted to the Lords Supper that are wicked; though for my part I do not understand the consequence how baptising infants and charging their parents to bring them up in the fear of God would be a means to cherish and foster up ignorance and sin. But here men cry out against liberty to come to the Lords Supper, as if that would pollute the Sacrament, and countenance sin; as though men might not have liberty to come to the Lords Supper upon their own examination, and yet might justly be punished for their sins when they can be proved against them: may not men make choice of their own habitations and drink when they please, and yet be justly punished for adultery and drunkenness? I do not know but the Magistrate may suppress and punish sin, though men may be allowed their liberty to receive Sacraments: For my part, I wish some stricter course were taken with sin.  
The seventh fault laid to the charge of Infant's baptism, is that, it perverts the order of discipline, that first a man be baptised, and after among the catechised; but who I pray you, Mr. Tombs did lay down this for an order of Discipline? it seems Sacraments are subservient principally to Discipline: I had thought the use of Sacraments had been for confirmation of doctrine.  
But let us once hear where this discipline is, what footsteps in the doctrine or practice of Christ and his Apostles: As for the practice of the Apostles, there is nothing found but conversion, and baptising, without any interposition of time: that of Matth. 3.5, 6. there Jerusalem, Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, came to John the Baptist, and were baptised of him; as like Acts 2. not catechising either of these persons: if ever they meant to know Christ, must be catechised after their baptism, or not at all; I understand not any such duty of catechising, if not comprehended in the duty of teaching; and doth this seem a thing so strange to you, that men should be taught after they are baptised? What? may not men be taught after they have bargained to be disciples? This is all one, as if a man should bargain with a Schoolmaster, that his son should be his scholar, and from that day forward, the Schoolmaster should never teach him; but this rather dependeth upon the use of the Ancients, than authority of the Word.  
The three last confute themselves; as for recrimination, I see the Anabaptists so sound paid with abuses and faults, that have been laid to their charges by others, that I shall not meddle with them in this point, usus per se, abusus per accidens.  
The ninth Reason, that which causeth unnecessary disputes, that cannot be determined by any certain rule, that is deservedly doubtful: but the tenet of Infant's baptism is such. All these disputes are determined by a certain rule; when the commission plainly chargeth the Ministers to baptise all the world, so as they can make them disciples, if any will undertake to bring them up in the fear of God, and instruction of the Gospel: or they of years do undertake for themselves submission to the Gospel, they may be baptised, this is the rule of the Word: Abraham had not only right to circumcise his own children, but he might buy a child and circumcise it; nay, if he bought it, he must circumcise it.  
But grant that they must be taught first, tell me how will Mr. Tombs satisfy the doubts that may arise from hence? how much they must learn first, how long they must be catechumeni? secondly, who must judge of their sufficiency? thirdly, what if any should baptise them before they were fit? whether that must be accounted a void act, and the party put again among the catechumeni? fourthly, whether, if this accounted valid, whether the party that was baptised before he were sufficiently catechised, must for ever after remain ignorant? together with many other of the like nature, which I shall put among my reasons for children's baptism.  
The tenth Reason is the same with the first, only there he handleth accidens sine subjecto, here in subjecto; there he saith, it was mixed with other errors: here, that those that held Infant's baptism, held other errors; therefore I conceive that already answered.  
The eleventh, Pedobaptists agree not among themselves, when Anabaptists do this, may be an Argument, not till then; and yet answerable, that men may sooner agree in evil then good, as arising from a more common principle.  
And now I am at last come to his last Reason, and that a weighty one, saith Mr. Tombs: But it is taken only from a seeming effect of Infant's baptism; if there be any weight in an Argument, from an effect, that is, ab effectu, proximo, & per se; but this doth but seem to take away one end, and, perhaps, the primary end of baptism; that it should be a sign the baptised showeth himself a disciple, and confesseth the faith. Mr. Tombs telleth us, that many things argue, that it should be such a sign, but keepeth his arguments to himself; for my part, I know none, I know nothing charged upon the party to be baptised, as a preparation to his baptism: as for profession of faith, that is no where required; its true, Philip did teach the Eunuch baptism, and faith, but profession of faith he taught him not: It is likewise true that St. Luke doth historically relate, that the Eunuch did confess his faith, but of this before.  
But Mr. Tombs doth prove that men must confess their faith before baptism, because baptism is a sign that the baptised showeth himself a disciple, and confesseth himself a disciple. To this, I first say, that baptism may be a sign of profession, but not a sacramental sign: A sacramental sign is to signify what Christ hath set it to signify, namely, food and nourishment; this is the end of a sacrament, to lead our infirmities to the apprehension of the great things of God; to comprehend the virtue and efficacy of the body and blood of Christ, the participation of the fullness of Christ, to lead our faith by the authority of God, to the apprehension of the things of God. It is true, our duty is annexed to receiving of sacraments, whereunto we are bound by virtue of the command of Christ; but the signification of the sacrament is not in our duty, but in God's mercy; were not our duty conversant about an incomprehensible object, we should have had no need of sacraments: But, for Mr. Tombs to deny sacraments to be visible signs of grace, without giving any reason for it, when St. Luke doth plainly tell us, that baptism doth wash away sin, Acts 22, 16. arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sin: and St. Paul doth tell us plainly, that the bread which we break, is the communion of the body of Christ, showing that it is a distribution of the body of Christ; communication is properly, superiorum ad inferiorae; I remember I have read in Arist. Topic. lib. 4. cap. 1. Partic. 6. Keck. lib. 1.72. that participare est suscipere ejus quod communicatur definitionem; and Keckerman in the quoted place saith, effective individua, multa communicant: ut ignis cal●r●● aquae; where you see, that communication is still rendered by giving the whole nature and definitions as in universali, or in exciting qualitatem similarem, a like quality in another body; whereby it must appear, that Christ in the sacrament, doth communicate or distribute some grace among us: as for our duties, that 〈◊〉 virtue of the command are annexed to the receiving of the sacrament, those are external to the nature of the sacrament, though necessary to the efficacy thereof unto us: This must needs be a declining cause, that enforceth the strongest patron of it in its defence, to deny the nature of a sacrament.  
But see further: Mr. Tombs saith, that baptism is a sign of profession. Profession is taken popularly and materially for the Art or Trade that is professed, and then men may be said to wear some badge or sign of his profession; otherwise, in a proper and strict sense, Profession is nothing else, but a sign of something in the heart or mind of him that doth profess; so that profession of our faith is but a sign of our faith, and a sign of that profession is but a sign of a sign; nay, profession itself is more manifest than any sacrament can be, and therefore needeth no sign; but grant it were the sign of our profession, what were that to prove that profession must be before baptism? sure, signum & signatum be simul natura, the sign and thing signified, are of the same continuance, one cannot be before another: Here is in this argument another circumstance; that baptism is frequently put for doctrine: therefore doctrine must go before baptism, nay rather, then baptism doth teach: for that which is any where translated metaphorically, must have resemblance with the primitive signification: as if a man shall call his son the staff of his age, the son must sustain his father in his feeble condition: though I do not know how any of these places do prove any such thing, that baptism is taken for doctrine, otherwise then materially, as in Acts 10.37. John is said to preach baptism: so is he said to preach repentance. As for Mr. Tombs Argument from witchcraft, which he confuteth, I leave every judicious Reader to think what he pleaseth, as not being worthy the consideration of a Divine; and thus I conceive Mr. Tombs Argument answered. I come now at last, to mine own Arguments for Infant's baptism.  
Those that in man's judgement ought to be esteemed fit for the kingdom of God, are by man to be admitted to the privileges of the kingdom, viz. baptism; but all Infants in man's judgement are to be esteemed fit for the kingdom of God, therefore all Infants must be admitted to the privileges of the kingdom, Matth. 19.13.  
I have already discussed this point, Christ findeth fault with his Disciples, for not suffering little children to come, and saith not, I know these are of the kingdom of God; but telleth his Disciples, not only they, that were brought, but such as they, and that not only such as they in his estimation, but their view, otherwise there had been no ground of a rebuke, but commendation; rebukes be instructions for the time to come, at least, it is not well done; do so no more; when you see any such as these are, suffer them, and forbidden them not. You see the precept for the future is general, men do not use to reprove but to the purpose, that the thing reproved be no more done; therefore the Disciples were to estimate not them only, but such as they were (and that in an assigned likeness, namely, in that they were little children) as fit for the kingdom of God, and upon that ground suffer them to come to Christ. If these and the like had only been fit for the kingdom of God in the estimation of Christ by his omniscience, here had not been matter of reproof, but commendation: Christ would then have said rather, ye did well to forbid the little children to come to me, for you did not know whether the kingdom of God did belong to them; neither can I give you any direction concerning other children for the time to come, because you cannot tell to whom the kingdom of heaven doth belong; however, let these come; for I know the kingdom of heaven doth belong to them, and such elect children as these are; but ye see Christ doth rebuke them, and thereby giveth them directions for the time to come, which he could not have done, if the likeness had been in secret, and things only known to God.  
But here Mr. Tombs and Mr. Blackwell, and others, will tell me, by this rule, Turk's children, and Infidels may be brought to baptism. If any will bring them, and assume the instruction of them in the doctrine of the Gospel, I know not but they may: and if Turks would part with their children to Christians, I think it were a very charitable thing so to do: For, the promise was never so tied to Abraham's loins, neither for aught I know, to any believers, but to education in the family of Abraham, or any other believing family.  
But they will further say then, by the same reason are they to be admitted to other benefits, namely, to hearing of the Word, and the other sacrament: Answ. I say, they are admitted to the residue of the Oracles of God, as soon as nature or grace do make them fit for them, they may have right before they can use them: they are first admitted to come to Christ for a blessing, before they are capable of instruction: and preparation for the sacrament of the Lords Supper, is charged as a duty, which is not where charged on the parties to be baptised.  
2. That Sacrament, that requireth no preparation in the subject, is to be administered to every subject; but baptism is a sacrament to be administered without any preparation in the subject, therefore baptism is to be administered to every subject, every person, all nations.  
That Sacrament that in the sign and signification, is preparative to all other grace that is to be administered without any preparation of the subject: but baptism in the sign and signification is preparative to all other grace, therefore it is to be administered without any preparation: the major is true, or otherwise there would a process in infinitum; if that which were preparative to all other graces should have preparations to that, and that must have other preparations; and so in infinitum. The minor I shall prove out of Scripture, and plain reason drawn from then: Gal. 3.27. as many as are baptised into Christ, have put on Christ: This doth probably prove, that men that are baptised, are baptised into Christ, which could not be affirmed, if they were in Christ before baptism; they could not be said to be baptised into Chest, if they had been in Christ before, which, if faith and repentance must be manifest before baptism must be affirmed, he that believeth and is penitent is in Christ without doubt.  
Object. But some men will say, may not man believe before baptism?  
Reply. I answer no, he cannot, until Christ baptise him with the Holy Ghost. Now, Christ baptizeth when he pleaseth, either before, in, or after ministerial baptism.  
Object. But, if Christ hath baptised him before, what need the Minister baptise him?  
Reply. Christ's baptism is not known to the Minister, whatsoever confession of faith is made, he must therefore baptise, in obedience to the command of Christ, and leave the baptism of Christ to him.  
How would the Anabaptists insult in the clearness of such a text? And here I cannot but note a notable subtlety of the Anabaptists, I will not say how common with other heretics, when they have cited a Text, and put a gloss upon it without any respect to the argument of the place, they presently cry the Scripture is all ours, crying down all the labours of the learned that is spent, though never so truly and piously. For the clearing of the Text, that is, Tongues, that is Art: gives us Scripture; we have the Scripture, and then we can carry away the people, take heed that no man spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit, and this shall serve their turn, to answer all they understand not. If a man tell them that Philosophy is conversant about nature, and such things of reason as are too low for the things of faith, and therefore have principles contrary to doctrine of faith, as out of nothing, nothing is made; and therefore make the first matter eternal, contrary to the doctrine of the creation, from a privation to an habit, no return, that which is dead cannot live again, contrary to the resurrection: but Logic is without any matter of its own, but teacheth men only how to find out the truth of any discourse, written or spoken. Oh, then Logic is nothing but fallacies, and herein many scholars concur with them to hid their own ignorance, whereas indeed, fallacies be no part of Logic, unless you will say, no reason is reason: it is true, Logicians do mention fallacies, as a man may teach a young workman what faults he may commit, whence some ignorant man may affirm, that the skill of such a trade was only in faults, as these do, who only count Logic fallacies; and here they have such fooleries, to make the world believe, that reason was an Ass to their fancy, that men may wonder at them, they can show how foolish a thing Logic is, they can prove a sheep have eight legs, two before, and two behind; two on the right side, and two on the left. My Logic can do more than his, and yet we shall be both fools if we want Logic, to know this is no Logic: First, I can prove a sheep hath sixteen legs, by setting him between four men, one before the sheep, the other behind him, and on each side one; this sheep will have four legs before one man, and four behind, etc. which make sixteen, for relatives have no absolute nature: before and behind, may be the same thing in different respects, the same foot is before, and on the right or left side: this Logic can discover well enough, without the help of a fool to flout at that he knoweth not. I impute not this to Mr. Tombs, but to the ignorant, that cry, all is their own by such a wile as this, as though none did regard Scripture but they, and all the Scriptures were clearly theirs, what was spoken against them, was against Scripture, set by humane authority and tradition.  
First, in the sign it is preparative to all purity, it is washing so much faith as must cause men of years to submit to baptism is necessary, without which the Apostles could not have baptised; but faith and repentance whereby the heart should be purged, that those must be had before the party may be baptised, is an evacuation of the sign, and frustrateth the signification: it cannot be denied that faith and repentance are required to the efficacy of baptism, but subsequent to the Sacrament, the water doth sacramentally wash away sins: so Ananias Act. 22.16. saith to Paul, Why tarriest thou, arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins? Now washing doth suppose nothing in the subject but foulness, the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin, 1 John 1.7. all the virtue of the purgation is in the blood of Christ. Now can any man say that the blood of Christ cannot purge unless the party be purged before? if faith and repentance were required before baptism, than baptism could not offer the blood of Christ to purge sin, because the party were cleansed before baptism, than Ananias could not have said, Be baptised and wash away thy sin; but wash thy sin first, and then be baptised. Act. 15.9. St. Peter showeth that faith doth purify the heart. Now it is true, faith doth receive the Word and Sacraments, and maketh one and the other effectual; but both Word and Sacrament do propose Christ, the Word to the ear, Sacrament to other senses: Baptism doth represent the blood of Christ washing, and sense doth look on the washing of water, and faith on the promise annexed. Now as the word is proposed to the ear, so water is tendered, and the body washed with water; whence faith doth collect the purgation of the soul from the testimony of God; water is no more the immediate object of faith then the word; it is the authority of God in the word that is the object of faith, as likewise the blood of Christ in baptism; they that believe, and they that believe not, hear the word, and it is no profanation of the word to preach it to an Infidel, neither is it any profanation of baptism to baptise an Infidel; yet it is hard to make him hear patiently that in no measure doth believe unless miracles, or in defect of them some assistance of the Civil Magistrate do concur; so that baptism is but an offering of the purgation by the blood of Christ to the eye and the body, as the word doth to the ear, and may be tendered as the word to all Nations, the power of the one and the other is by faith in Christ conveyed unto us in the sacrament of baptism or the word: baptism cannot work as baptism till after administration, whatsoever is said of it before is but the operation of the word; the washing of water doth sacramentally strengthen our faith: no duty of preparation charged on any, no man ever reprehended for receiving baptism unworthily; though the Minister hath baptism charged on him as part of his duty, yet never any caution given to Ministers in general, or to Titus or Timothy to take heed that they baptise no unworthy persons; nor any sin or punishment charged on any Minister for baptising any rashly or without due examination; no precept concerning any difference, but baptise and teach all Nations to the end that they may become the Disciples of Christ. Now where no Law is, there is no transgression; where God doth not charge sin, how dare any mortal man say this or that is sinful? if any preparation be required let the Scripture be showed where that was taught, where baptism was deferred till any competent preparation were manifest? what Scripture is directed to the catechumeni; nay what one sentence of Scripture is applicable to them, that is not applicable to Christians at all times, as well after as before baptism? Baptism is a religious rite which men are easily persuaded out of principles of nature to embrace, as may be seen in all Idolatrous worships; they have their religious rites which they are persuaded come from the appointment of their gods, upon which ground they receive them. Now that God did appoint baptism is no abuse, and so we must tender it to Nations by the appointment of Christ, which though they receive but as an Infidel doth the word; yet when faith cometh they make use of it. Therefore the Apostles argue to move newness of life from baptism already received. So Romans 6.3.4, 5. St. Paul argueth what use we should make of our baptism; namely, that we should rise with Christ; but though the most noble way of arguing be from causes, and therefore in the Sacrament of the Lords supper, where the worthy receiving of that doth depend on an antecedent cause; there faith is said to obtain the whole virtue of the work. Joh. 6.35. I am the bread, he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst, v. 47. He that believeth hath everlasting life, 51. He that eateth of this bread shall live for ever: Whereby he plainly saith, That he that believeth eateth my flesh, this bread which is my flesh sacramentally, and made such to me by faith. Never any such doctrine as this, he that believeth is baptised, because no doctrine is extant precedent to baptism in reference to the Gentiles. See all the Epistles to the Rom. Corinthians, and the residue, all are written to Churches already baptised. Paul declared the whole counsel of God, and yet not one word what should be the carriage of the Catechumeni, or the Ministers towards them, as if he should suppose none under the right of the Gospel that will not first be baptised, and received by the commandment of Christ: so he that will teach any thing in St. Paul's Epistles, they must teach them to the baptised to whom they are directed; as for the Catechumeni, nothing is written or directed either to them or concerning them. As for those histories of the Acts, the greater part were Jews in Covenant with God already; unto whom Peter did indeed preach repentance in reference to that blood that they were guilty of in killing the Lord of glory; not as preparation to baptism, but repentance and baptism are both exhorted unto as precedent to the gift of the Holy Ghost; whereas if such preparation had been needful to baptism, Peter should have stayed for the gift of the Holy Ghost to manifest their fitness, or at least given them some directions by which they might manifest their fitness, or show their repentance and faith, which he never did. St. Luke doth indeed say, They that gladly received the word were baptised; but that they manifested it any way but by receiving baptism gladly doth not appear; and this was ground enough for an Historian to say they gladly received the word, wherein they were exhorted to be baptised when they were gladly baptised.  
As for that story of Cornelius that was indeed a pure Gentile. Though Peter had commission enough to have gone to him by the command of Christ, Mat. 28.19. and to have baptised him and taught him the commands of Christ, yet it is plain Peter did not understand the Commission, therefore God for Peter's own satisfaction, and the satisfaction of them of the circumcision, was pleased in all that story to go before Peter in a miraculous way; Peter was so fare from baptising of Cornelius, that he was hardly persuaded to go to him or preach to him, but as God did go before him by miracles, which when they of the circumcision saw, the text saith, they were astonished: And of this very story St. Peter, Act. 15. and other places maketh use of to satisfy the Jews touching the calling of the Gentiles: but this was the mercy of God during the infancy of the Church to use such extraordinary means for the drawing off the Jews from that ceremonial distinction that God himself had put between Jews and Gentiles, but in the orderly administration God sent the Holy Ghost, though by extraordinary manifestations, yet in a seasonable time when first he had tendered the means of grace: As for the falling of the Holy Chost upon the Apostles in cloven tongues, Act. 2. that came seasonably upon them when they had occasion to use them, and after had been baptised; but the Holy Ghost promised in v. 28. is promised after Peter had preached repentance and baptism; nay on many after they were baptised, Repent and be baptised, and ye shall receive the holy Ghost: showing that preaching and baptising are but the tenders of grace, neither the one nor the other of any force unless the Holy Ghost come. Now though the manner of the giving the Holy Ghost be different, yet the season is according to the way of God's dispensation, God will have outward means first tendered, and after he will bless it where he pleaseth, among which outward means these are chief, if not all can or aught to be used by way of tender baptism, and teaching, which is all that is tendered in the commission, whatsoever is is babbled to the contrary: baptising is set before teaching the commands of Christ, as I have formerly manifested; and indeed, it were a strange thing for the sacrament of baptism to be tendered to men that were already clean, and approved, declared and manifested to be clean; it is true, it may be tendered to men that profess their faith, because man cannot judge them faithful, notwithstanding any profession, and therefore baptise them; but if they could know and judge them faithful, they might give them the Lords supper, in which all Christ is communicated, and baptism should not be needful; baptism is the seal of the tender of Christ, and of the purging power of his blood, not of our communion or partaking of Christ, that is sealed in the other sacrament.  
Now to come to the signification, it is preparative to all other graces, it signifieth regeneration; and therefore it is called regeneration, John 3.5. Except ye be regenerate by water and the Spirit, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, certainly the Holy Ghost would not set forth the grace of baptism by regeneration, or newbirth, if any grace had been preparative to it, it is not possible that any life or motion should be imagined before regeneration: It is true, in John 3.5. Except ye be born by water and the Spirit, unless ye be by water and the Spirit; that which we translate born, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be, and Tit. 3.5. Baptism is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the laver of regeneration. Lest men may vulgarly imagine, that men are spiritually begotten by the Word, and were to remain some time in their mother's belly, the church, before they were brought forth by baptism: during which time, they were to be catechumen, and made fit to be received into the Church: that word which is translated born, John 3. in 1 Cor. 4.15. is translated begotten, I have begotten you through the Gospel: For, there it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and indeed, there can be no imagination of life before there is a being, before begetting; it is true, adultus must have faith, such as it is, natural, humane: before he can be baptised, he must be willing by some inclination or other: it were barbarous to baptise a grown man against his will, which could not be gotten but by some kind of credence, though it might be just with man to punish him with death that should refuse, as it is with God to punish with eternal death, such as despise baptism; yet that Ministers should refuse to baptise any man that shall desire baptism, until he hath saving faith, is to require actions of life, and reason from a man before he were begotten, or cleanness and purity before he were washed. Again, that sacrament that was administered unto all the churches of the Gentiles in the Scripture mentioned, without any mention in the Scripture, of any preparative grace that must itself be the symbol of the first grace, and preparative of all other graces: But baptism is such, therefore baptism is preparative to all other graces. Let all the Epistles of the Apostles be searched, and ye shall find they were all written to baptised persons, that they are full of exhortations to faith, and sometimes arguments drawn from baptism past, to move them to repentance and newness of life, Rom. 6.4. St. Paul doth indeed tell them that they were buried by baptism with Christ, but what doth he collect out of that? therefore repent and believe, but doth he at any time, speaking of faith, and repentance, argue from thence to baptism, and tell any of them, if they would believe and repent, they should be baptised? which the right method of handling the doctrine of the Gospel would have required, if faith and repentance had been preparatives; but I am confident, if any man shall take on him to teach faith, and repentance, as preparatives to baptism, he must either make his Text, or draw that out of it that will not come: he that will teach any doctrine other then so much as may make them willing to be baptised, and repute them disciples, and teach them as disciples of Christ unbaptised, must follow no Apostolical Precept or Example. That which is drawn out of the commission, is without ground, that teaching must go before baptising, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is set first: For, first the phrase of the words is changed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas had there been a methodical enumeration of things that ought to have been performed in order one before another, the stile ought not to have been altered; it should have been, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Go, teach and baptise; and therefore those that would gather any thing out of the order of the words, must be enforced to read them so, which the Text will not permit. Again, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a●●●rist. in the Imperative mood, which standeth for a Future, whereas the words, baptising and teaching what I command, are both Present. Again, this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ye shall make disciples, is the end, and aught to be the first set down, and declared to those that shall be employed about the means, as I have formerly proved, and so the stile doth clearly manifest, ye shall make all the world disciples, baptising them, and teaching them whatsoever I command, which is as much as by so doing, ye shall make them disciples: as if a man should say sowing in season, and making good choice of your seed and land, ye shall have a good crop; here is plainly intended, that these participial expressions, this sowing and making good choice shall be taken up for the mean, and the crop is to be expected after, as the success and event of them: as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to learn, and therefore some collect, that it doth imply a learning with profit, that is nothing to the preparation; if there be any thing in that, it is in the success, and it hath the virtue of a promise, and is estimated by God, limited and extended according to the good pleasure of God, Isai. 48.17. I am the Lord thy God, that teacheth thee to profit: Paul plants, Apollo watereth, it is God that giveth the success; and if it should stand in that sense as a preparation to baptism in the commission, it must contain a manifest falsehood, or prove undeniably universal grace, if they shall teach with profit all nations, and baptise them; or at least, an universal national acceptation of the Gospel, teaching with profit can admit of no milder sense than that; and if every person must be taught with profit before he be baptised, than none ought to be baptised but the elect of God; and it were a sin for any Minister to baptise any other but such as received profit by the word, the word worketh to the hurt of the reprobate whatsoever show of profit it may seem to have.  
3. Reason, That doctrine that taketh away the distinction of the two Sacraments, that is a false doctrine; but Anabaptism doth take away the distinction of the two Sacraments, ergo, the doctrine of the Anabaptists is a false doctrine. That doctrine that requireth preparation to both Sacraments, taketh away the difference of the Sacraments; but Anabaptists require preparation to both Sacraments, therefore Anabaptists take away the difference of the Sacraments.  
The difference doth consist in this, that the Sacrament of baptism is preparative to the Lords Supper, sacramentally giving that to us which we stand in need of, to make us fit for the Lords Supper: I say, sacramentally, not that God cannot or doth not take his own time of calling sometime before we are partaker of either Sacrament, sometimes after we have both Sacraments; yea and after we have sinfully profaned the Lords Supper: but Sacraments have their proper use and signification, and are as all other duties liable to abuse. We must behave ourselves as men under the means: we have our duties charged upon us of God, whereof some are official, some personal belonging to every man's person, about the performance of all which, we may sinne either by omission or misuse; but all the good that we receive by word or sacraments is of God: what we do by way of office that lieth charged on us by the rule that we receive from God, which is to baptise all Nations and teach them; the success is of God, and the account of faith must be given to God; we can take some account of some works, to wit, those that are external; but of faith and of such works as are imminent the thoughts of the heart, we can say nothing to them. Now the communion that is between Christ and us, is set down in Scripture by Christ's being or dwelling in us, and we in him; we must first be in Christ before he can be in us: we were in Christ by election before the foundation of the world, and therefore may be received into Christ before we can have faith; nay we are said to be baptised into Christ, Rom. 6.3. so many of you are baptised into Christ Jesus, and the grace of baptism is said to be wrought by the Spirit, by the Spirit ye are baptised into one body, 1 Cor. 12.13. and Gal. 3.27. As many as are baptised into Christ have put on Christ: Christ is never said to be conveyed into us by baptism, but by faith. Ephes. 3.17. That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith: what is instrumentally ours by faith, is sacramentally ours by the Lord's supper: he therefore that eateh Christ in the Lord's supper, Christ is in him. john. 6.56. He that eateth my flesh dwelleth in me, and I in him: but Christ is never laid to be in us by baptism, but we are baptised into Christ; he is not baptised into us, but he is communicated into us in the Lord's supper, for which faith is required as a preparation, and the habitation of Christ in us is ascribed to faith as a means as before, that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; but our birth in Christ, or regeneraion is not at all ascribed to faith, but to the Spirit and water, John 3.5. Except a man be born by water and the Spirit: and to the Word, 1 Cor. 4.15. I have begotten you through the Word, but never are we said, either to be born or begotten by faith: the acts of faith, are growth, life, and fruits of sanctification, Joh. 6.35. Those that believe and come to Christ, are said to eat and drink Christ: For, he that cometh unto Christ, is promised he shall never hunger; and he that believeth in him, shall never thirst. And this virtue is ascribed to the body and blood of Christ, from whence Divines do justly gather, that he that believeth, doth eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, but no intimation in Scripture from whence any man can collect, that he that believeth is baptised, unless it be à posteriori: For, he that doth believe, must first be baptised by the Spirit, before he can believe; and thus are the graces offered in the sacraments, kept distinct, which otherwise would be the same: that the grace of baptism is initial, that of the Lords supper is perfective, which may further be manisted thus: our calling hath two parts, the proffer of grace, and the acceptance of grace proffered: The first is by the Word, the Spirit, and Baptism; the other is by the Word, Spirit, Faith, and the Lords supper. I have here added faith, because the Scripture doth so, making faith an instrument by which we receive Christ: but Christ must be proffered to us by his Spirit and Word, before we can receive him, which is expressed in the word calling, as distinct from justification, and goeth before justification, in which we have the first act of faith, Rom. 8.30. Whom he predestinateth, them he also called, whom he called, them he also justified; we are not called by faith, but we are justified by faith, Rom. 2.28. and 5.1. Baptism is the seal and sacrament of God's work in us, which had need to be most clearly manifested, and confirmed unto us, as having most of God, and least of us, that we might submit to it, whereunto we are most averse; therefore what hath most of us in it, that pleaseth us best: as works better than faith, and faith, as we look on it in ourselves, as a qualification is more delightful to us then as it is in its own nature, working humiliation, teaching us to deny ourselves, and rest on God: men do use to magnify faith, but too many under a false apprehension, even of secrecy and liberty before 〈◊〉 faith is not a boasting quality, nor to be pleaded before men, but God; and this 〈◊〉, cap. 2. doth handle at large, showing, that men are very inclinable to 〈◊〉 ●●o●st of faith before men, and rely on works before God; and herein the deceitfulness of our hearts is very great, when we conceive we deal with an 〈◊〉- power, than we find the things of faith apprehended most weakly of any thing, we can please ourselves better in the opinion of our works then of faith, but when we come to deal with man, we are sure we treat of colours before blind men: there we can boldly talk, we may speak as freely as travellers, we cannot be disproved, whereby it cometh to pass, often times, that heart that is least upright, is most bold; faith is indeed, in time of need, very heroic in her exploits, in that she acteth by the power of God, but ascribeth little of her best actions to herself; she is always conversant with God, and therefore cannot but be conscious of much weakness and infirmity; faith is so always loaden with difficulties, that she hath very little to say of herself; there must be great preparation on God's part, before there can be any sense or feeling in man of the things of faith; there must be the mighty operation of the Word and Spirit, and God is pleased to add baptism too, for faith to work upon: these things are of mighty operation, and so they had need, considering the sloth of heart that is in us to believe: it is well, if after the Word and sacrament of baptism, faith do come. God layeth it as a ground and foundation for faith to work upon, and accordingly all the arguments of Scripture are to raise us to walk worthy of amendment of life, and to rise with Christ, Rom. 6. as if it should be said, God hath offered you grace in baptism, therefore accept of it; ye are born anew in baptism, let it appear in your conversation.  
Argum. 4. That which maketh the admission into the Church merely arbitrary, that is a false doctrine; but the doctrine of Anabaptists maketh admission into the Church merely arbitrary, Ergo, the major is plain; for, that nothing is more directly contrary to the service of God than will-worship, but denying any that are tendered according to the mind of Christ in the Word, and requiring such disposition in the party to be baptised, as the Minister pleaseth, without any rule from God's Word, is to make the public service of God, or at least a great part of it, wholly arbytrary; and this doth appear to flow from their doctrine: not yet any man durst affirm what was the measure of faith to be required how much he must believe that must be baptised, by means whereof the whole matter dependeth on the will of the Baptizer, a thing most contrary to the nature of Religion; it cannot be imagined that the Holy Ghost would have been so silent in giving rules for the Ministers to walk by in the trial of the faith of the person to be baptised, if any such charge had lain upon his office. He must baptise believers only, saith Mr. Tombs, and the Anabaptists, but no Scripture directeth what, or how much he must believe; must it be as much as the Minister shall think fit, than some Ministers will baptise with very small trial, others will be very hardly satisfied: some will baptise as soon as the child can be taught to say he believeth in Christ, others not till ten or twelve, others twenty years of age; wherein no man can either satisfy his own conscience, or any reasonable man; for that he walketh without rules, neither doth this difficulty from this doctrine come from accidental misconstructions or fancies, but inevitable necessity from the doctrine itself, that the Minister must baptise none but believers; yet cannot tell how much, or what he must believe before he be fit for baptism, unless he walk by rules of man's making, without any intimation from Scripture.  
5. That doctrine that giveth man that power which is divine, that doctrine is blasphemous and false; but the doctrine of the Anabaptists giveth man that power which is divine, therefore the doctrine of Anabaptists is blasphemous and false.  
That doctrine that giveth man power to judge of faith in another, that doctrine giveth man that power that is divine; but the Anabaptist giveth men power to judge of faith in another; therefore the Anabaptist, that power that is divine.  
Faith is in the heart: with the heart man believeth to righteousness, and with the mouth he confesseth to salvation, Rom. 10.10. He therefore that judgeth of faith, must judge the heart which is proper to God. I the Lord try the heart, Jer. 17.10. Neither will it serve his turn to say, that he judgeth by rules of charity if this charge lay upon his office; to judge charitably it is one thing, another to judge ex officio; for the judgement of charity can never pronounce the person so judged to be such as he is judged by charity to be: judgements of charity are not always true, if it be possible we have warrant enough to judge it so by charity: if children may possibly be such as the Kingdom of heaven do belong too, we may in charity judge them such: but if we are tied by our office to baptise none but believers, it will not serve turn to say we judge them such by charity, to prove that we must baptise none but such as are believers, seeing we may by charity judge many believers which yet are not believers: again judgement of faith is denied to belong to the Apostles themselves, not that we have dominion of your faith, 2 Cor. 1.24. If God had appointed Ministers to have judged of men's faith before they had baptised them, he would have given them some rules by which they should have been able to walk, which he hath not done; he hath annexed baptism to the Ministers calling to let men know that the grace of baptism cometh immediately from Christ; therefore he sent the seal of it by that calling that came immediately from him, but hath promised those officers of his no special qualifications whereby they shall have abilities to discern the faith of men more than other men have; the judgement of charity, is not a Ministerial qualification that belongeth to every man, and is no Ministerial qualification.  
6. That doctrine that denieth the interpretation of the promise made to Abraham which S. Paul maketh that is a false doctrine; but the doctrine of Anabaptists denieth the interpretation of the promise made to Abraham which St. Paul maketh: therefore the doctrine of the Anabaptists is false. Those that deny the blessing of Abraham, and in him of all the Nations of the earth to be the Gospel preached to Abraham in reference to the Gentiles after their call, deny the interpretation that S. Paul maketh of the promise made to Abraham: but the Anabaptists deny the blessing of Abraham, and in him of all the Nations of the earth, to be the Gospel preached to Abraham in reference to the Gentiles after their call; therefore the Anabaptists deny the interpretation made to Abraham which S. Paul maketh; the words of S. Paul are plain, Gal. 3.8. the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all Nations be blessed; where ye see plainly S. Paul affirmeth the promise to Abraham to be the Gospel, and the Nations to be converted Gentiles, and that in the promise made to Abraham, there was a Prophecy of the conversion of the Gentiles; and the Gentiles under the Gospel had Abraham's blessing, that is a blessing to them and their seed, as Abraham had to him and his seed: so that it is apparent that those which deny the blessing to the seed of the Gentiles, the blessing of the promise, deny Abraham's blessing to the Gentiles; which is directly to deny the interpretation of St. Paul concerning Abraham's blessing, and to deny that the blessing to Abraham was the Gospel, or that the promise was a Prophecy of the conversion of the Gentiles under the Gospel; all which things are plainly affirmed by St. Paul.  
7. That doctrine that denieth the benefit or grace of circumcision to be offered in baptism, that doctrine is false: but the doctrine of Anabaptists is a doctrine that denieth the benefit and grace of circumcision to be offered in baptism; therefore the doctrine of the Anabaptists is false. That doctrine which denieth what St. Paul affirmeth, is a false doctrine: but that doctrine that denieth the benefit or grace of circumcision to be offered in baptism, that doctrine denieth what St. Paul affirmeth; therefore that doctrine denieth the benefit and grace of circumcision to be offered in baptism, is a false doctrine.  
The place wherein St. Paul doth affirm that we have the benefit of circumcision by baptism, is coloss. 2.11, 12. Let the argument be weighed, I have spoken to it in my answer to Mr. Tombs. In the which verse St. Paul affirmeth they were circumcised, that was not literally true; therefore he affirmeth in a figurative or metonymical sense, signi pro signato, the thing signified by circumcision: and he further showeth, how the benefit they were partakers of had resemblance with circumcision; circumcision did cut off the body by a synecdoche, part for the whole, but they put off the whole body, but it was the body of sin. Now this is done by the circumcision of Christ; it was this circumcision of Christ that made the circumcision of our fathers of any virtue: this had been as true of the patriarchs, that they were circumcised in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; whereof their legal circumcision was but a type, and Christ's circumcision did put an end to that circumcision; yet the Collossians were circumcised in Christ: how could that be? the text plainly saith, they put off the body of the sins of the flesh, and that was their circumcision in the circumcision of Christ; it was the benefit of circumcision to the Jews, which they had though they wanted the ceremony? Now all this benefit cometh unto you by being in Christ, get but into Christ and all is done; to put off the body is to die; Christ died, if ye be in him, all that he did you did; he was circumcised, ye are circumcised; he died, ye die; if in him; thus were your fathers in Christ by circumcision: so are ye in Christ by baptism, buried with him in baptism: nothing can be plainer than the grace and benefit of circumcision was offered to the Colossians in baptism.  
That doctrine that refuseth to hear and obey the rational and manly phrase of the doctrine of the Gospel, and reduce all to the sensitive and childish delivery of the Law, that is an unfaithful and disobedient doctrine; but the doctrine of Anabaptists refuseth to hear and obey the rational and manly phrase of the doctrine of the Gospel, and reduce all to the sensitive and childish delivery of the Law, therefore the doctrine of the Anabaptists is an unfaithful and disobedient doctrine; God was pleased to deliver the service, which consisted in ceremonies and outward performances in such manner, that every external was directed to them the length, height of their Temple, and of every thing that was contained therein, to show that God would be the author of all things in his worship: The colour, length of the curtains, of their altars, and every carved thing, were directed immediately by God; the place where the Temple should stand: If we should rigorously look for particular rules in this kind, as those Anabaptists do in point of baptism look for the like direction for administration of baptism, as of circumcision; and for want thereof, to neglect what the Holy Ghost hath said concerning the nature of baptism, and giving direction to have it administered to all nations, thereby leaving the precept or duty of baptism without any lawful use, for want of such sensitive and particular direction as they had under the Law, we might be condemned for will-worship, for building Churches without a pattern and direction from God, how high, or how long they should be, together with many things of the like nature; refuse to pray publicly or meet to serve God because he had appointed no place: the truth is, what they say against baptising of Infants doth conclude against any baptising at all: For, if the particular assignation of the persons to be baptised must be dinstiguished by any qualification, for want of any such direction, we shall be enforced to leave all unbaptized: Baptise all nations, saith Christ, and Acts 2.41. three thousand souls were added: Act. 8.12. men and women; these may comprehend all, male and female, without necessary inference, that they were grown men and women.  
Now, if we leave this sensitive and childish way, and walk by the reasonable sense of Scripture, how clearly doth the Scripture give satisfaction in this point, I pray you observe? First, Christ doth command to baptise all nations: Secondly, he telleth, that the promise belonging to any, doth entitle him to baptism, Acts 2.39. Thirdly, that the promise is the same to Abraham, and the Gospel preached to the Gentiles, Gal. 3.8. that the promise was to Abraham and his seed; that baptism doth circumcise us by engrafting us into Christ, Col. 2.11, 12. By what rational excuses can we excuse ourselves for disobediences to the commands of Christ, commanding us to baptise all nations, if we refuse any, that by a national covenant are brought unto us?  
8. That doctrine, which under pretence of walking by Scripture, support all their doctrine by fallacies, and false arguments, that doctrine is erroneous and false; but the doctrine of Anabaptists is such, I do challenge all the Anabaptists, and in particular Mr. Tombs, to produce any argument against Infant's baptism from Scripture, or sound reason, that shall reasonably conclude from the words without any addition or substraction, or may agree with the sense and argument of the words produced, than I shall account Mr. Tombs his sceptics more tolerable; in the mean time, I wish he might receive satisfaction, and spend his time in confirmation of his weaker brothers.  
FINIS.