A DEFENCE OF INFANT-BAPTISM: IN Answer to two Treatises, and an Appendix to them concerning it; Lately published by Mr. Jo. Tombs. Wherein that Controversy is fully discussed, the ancient and generally received use of it from the Apostles days, until the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany, manifested. The Arguments for it from the holy Scriptures maintained, and the objections against it answered.  
By Steven Martial B. D. Minister of the Gospel, at Finchingfield in Essex.  
The promise is made to you and to your Children,  Acts 2. 39 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  Greg. Naztanzenus. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  Basilius Magnus. 
Hoc (viz. infantium baptisma) Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit; hoc à majorum fide accepit, hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit,  August. 
Printed at London by Ric. Cotes, for Steven Bowtell, and are to be sold at his Shop, at the Bible in Popes-head Alley, 1646.   

TO THE Reverend Assembly of Divines and Commissioners of the Church of Scotland now sitting at Westminster.  
Reverend Sirs,  
WHereas all of you in general are concerned, and some of you particularly named in the Book I deal with, the world might happily have expected a joint endeavour, where there was a common interest: That I therefore (whilst you are otherwise fully employed) should undertake this task, I desire may not be imputed by you or any to an over weening conceit of mine own abilities: for had it fallen to some of your lots, I should have hoped the Church of Christ might have reaped more fruit, than it is like to do by my poor and weak endeavours. But my personal engagement to assert that truth of God which I had held forth in a Printed Sermon, which my Learned Antagonist (passing by other books written by other men on the same argument) was pleased to single out to combat with, and to lay out his strength upon, hath called me forth to stand up in this controversy, not as your Champion, but as an affectionate friend to the truth, which we are all called upon earnestly to contend for; in which 
Judas 3.  conflict as I cannot but fear that you will easily discover my weakness; so I cannot but hope that you will not find me either so foiled by mine adversary, or deserted by God, whose cause I plead, as not to have sufficiently answered that book, which hath obtained to be called in Print, The strongest Shield and 
Mr. John goodwin's answer to Mr. Edward's Ga●gr. p. 20. Psal. 76. 3.  Buckler wherewith that cause was ever protected; but in Salem God of old brake both Sword and Shield, and if he hath done the like now, the weak hand which he hath made use of, serveth only to point at that mighty arm of his, which hath gotten himself the victory. Truth, triumph and the Church's peace I have had in mine eye, and have desired to carry meekness and love even to him, whose opinion I fight with, all along in my heart and pen: what ever measure my former writing met with from him, I have endeavoured to look upon his with a neither bloodshot nor lofty eye; passion blinds the one, and pride makes the other ofttimes overlook that truth which a lowly eye seeth clearly at a nearer distance: sure I am, the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God, whilst 
James 1. 20.  the meek he will guide in judgement, and teach his way. What herein God hath enabled 
Psal. 25. 9  me to do, I willingly submit to the Church's censure, and humbly present to you, not as any way worthy of you, but only as a public testimony of my reverence and gratitude for all the refresh of spirit, and that abundance of spiritual grace I have found from the hand of God, whilst I have had the happiness to sit among you; for a yet more plentiful effusion whereof upon you, to the happy settling at length of these distracted Churches in truth and peace, is the prayer of  
Your unworthy brother, and servant in the Lord's work Steven Martial. April 2. 1646.   

A Table of Scriptures vindicated and explained.  

Gen. 17. 9 10, 14, p. 92.  
Deut. 30. 6. p. 128. Deut. ●3. 2. vindicated, p. 149  
Esay 19 24. explained, 210.  
Esay 44. 2. p. 128 Esay 59 21. p. 128.  
Malac. 2. 15. vindicated, p. 156  
Mat. 18. explained and answered, p. 209, 226, etc.  
Mar. 10. vindicated, p. 221 John 15. 2. p. 138.  
Acts 2. 38, 39 vindicated, p. 124. Proves Infant-baptisme by consequence, p. 218.  
Acts 15. 10. explained and vindicated, p. 217.  
Acts 19 5. 6. vindicated, p. 69.  
Rom. 11. 6. vindicated, p. 134.  
1 Cor 7. 14. vindicated, p. 145, 153, 154, 157, etc. maintained against, p. 148. Verse 17, p. 161. ver. 34. vindicated, p. 151.  
1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. explained, p. 199. 2 Cor. 3. 10. vindicated, 188.  
Gal. 3. 27, 28. opened, p. 189.  
Ephes. 6. 1, 2. explained, p. 200.  
Coloss. 2. 8, 9, 10. vindicated, p. 169, 174. Heb. 8. vindicated, 188.  
1 Tim. 4. 5. vindicated, p. 152.    

INFANT BAPTISM NO LATE INNOVATION. But cleared to be as Ancient as is pretended.  

SIR,  
I Received your Book about the time mentioned by yourself: which when I had read over, and thereby perceived how mean an esteem you had not only of my Sermon, but of all other things extant, in defence of Infant-Baptisme; and indeed of all Men whose judgement differs from your own; and how highly you value your own performance in this piece: I concluded you would have no rest in your spirit until it saw the light; and the rather, because you so earnestly press me To call in to my assistance all the rest who are engaged in this Cause, that so you might have an adversary fit to deal with, that as a mighty man you might encounter with an Host. But when after some friendly conference with you, you declared to me, that if you might enjoy liberty to exercise your Ministry, in some place where you should not be put upon the practice of baptising of Infants, you could (yea, and intimated to me that you would) keep this Opinion private to yourself, provided only, that if any should preach in your Pulpit for the Baptising of them, you should take yourself bound in the same place to preach against it; otherwise men's preaching or printing abroad, should be no provocation to you. (In hope whereof, myself endeavoured to help you in to the place where now you are, desiring the Church might not lose the benefit of those good gifts which God hath bestowed upon you.) And thereupon I took no further thought of any present Examination of your large Treatise, having my hands full of other employments, because I verily thought you would have sat quietly down, preached Christ, kept your Opinion to yourself, and not have any further appeared (especially at this time) to increase the flame of our Divisions and confusions.  
But since you think it necessary to deprive the Infants of Believers, of that which we conceive to be their glorious privilege; yea, and look upon all other endeavours of Reformation, as things which will come to nothing, till this opinion of yours prevail (so dear are you in love with your own Babe) and come out into the field so bravingly, and gaint-like, to tread down all who stand against your way: I have (with the Lords assistance) undertaken your pompous Treatise; and as far as my impaired health, and other services would permit, endeavoured to bring your Examen to the trial, with as much brevity and clearness as I could possibly; and I hope also, with so much evidence of truth, that there shall be no need of a College to make any further answer unto you. Wherein I shall not (as you have done) carp at every phrase or expression, nor digress into impertinent Discourses, thereby to swell up a volume; nor amuse the Reader with multitudes of Quotations of Latin and Greek Authors, and then turn them into English; nor frame as many senses of an expression as is possible, and then confute them, and so fight with men of straw of mine own fitting up; nor spend a whole sheet of Paper together, in confuting what was never intended by my Adversary, as the Reader shall clearly perceive you have deal● with me: but plainly grapple with you, and insist only upon what properly belongs to the cause in hand.  
But first give me leave to observe your destructive Artifice. It is the Socinians way to elude all Texts of Scripture which are urged against them, if they have been differently expounded by Learned and Godly men, ancient or modern: to question all conclusions inferred by consequence from Scripture: to deride the testimonies of any of the Ancients, by discovering the nakedness, error, and oversight of those Reverend men: and by making themselves merry by turning the Orations, Epistles, or allusions of the Fathers into Syllogisms: and by inserting of Ergo, now and then, to make all their Rhetorical passages seem ridiculous. I appeal to the judicious Reader, whether this plot be not carried through your Examen & Exercitation. Especially I observe your main faculty to lie in framing specious answers to Arguments brought to prove any thing. Your great Argument in your Exercitation is; if I can answer all Arguments for baptising Infants, than etc. And then you form the Argument into several shapes, and seek to elude them; and herein I confess you are dextrous. The rest of the Arguments wherein you do assert, or go directly to prove; alas how inconsequent are they, as will appear when they come to be examined. The like course you take in your Examen, laying out abundance of strength in the anosc●uasticall part, waving and eluding the dint of an argument, by distinctions and several senses, and finding some men of note to construe a Text otherways, and the like. So that the Reader may see what you do not like, but he may stay long enough before you bring satisfying arguments to settle him in that which you would have, when you have startled him, in what you would not have. But this kind of disputing never edifies the Church: what one book was ever written by any of our Divines, even in the great point of Justification, or Faith; which some learned and subtle Papist hath not been able to cloud and slur in such a way of answering? Well, however I proceed to your Examen.  
And I begin with your Prologue, wherein you declare 
Reply to the Preface.  the occasion and end of this your writing; the sum whereof you make to be this. First, you sent (as you say) Nine Arguments drawn up in Latin to a Committee appointed (as you were informed) to give satisfaction about points of Paedobaptism; afterward Three Arguments more, with a supplement of some other things in writing, which were delivered to Mr. Tuckney, and by him joined to the other Papers; your intent being either to give or receive satisfaction in this great point; but to this day (much contrary to your expectactation) you have had no return from the Committee. Secondly, you are more provoked by some passages in a Sermon of Mr. Vines. Thirdly, and by a comparison in my Sermon, between Hazaels' cruelty to the Infants of the Israelites, and the principles of the Anabaptists. Fourthly, you find me too vehement in maintaining of this point, of which you and others see no ground. Fifthly, yea Mr. Dan. Rogers confesses himself unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it. Sixthly, that Mr. Ball cuts the sinews of the Argument drawn from Circumcision. Seventhly, that Musculus at length found 1 Cor. 7. 14. impertinent to prove this point. Eighthly, to conclude, upon your best search, you are confirmed that it is an Innovation maintained by dangerous principles, a thing not to be acquitted from Will-worship; that it hath occasioned many errors in Doctrine, corruptions in Discipline and manners, unnecessary and vain disputes, and almost quite changed the Ordinance of Baptism, etc.  
This is the sum of your Introduction; to which, because it is but a pompous dumb show, I shall return a very brief answer.  
First, for your Latin business sent to the Committee, I thought you had not been ignorant, that the work of Committees, is but to prepare matter for the Assembly; but neither Committees nor Assembly have power to answer any thing, sent from any (except from the honourable Houses) without leave from the Parliament. And if you please now to take notice of it, you will no longer wonder why the Committee hath made no return to your private Paper; this I think is sufficient to remove your first stumbling block: only I am further to tell you from Mr. Tuckney, that he desires you to get better evidence for what you relate concerning him; for the truth is, he neither mediately nor immediately received any Papers from you, nor joined your 3 last Arguments to your 9 first.  
Secondly, your offence at a passage in Mr. Vines his Sermon, shall be considered in the place where you again repeat it, and aggravate it to the utmost, Part 2. Sect. 6.  
Thirdly, as to your exaggerating my allusion to Hazaels' practice. I answer, I compared not their intentions with his, but the fruit of their principles; casting all believers Children as much out of the Covenant of Grace, as they do the Children of Turks and Pagans and therein you yourself join with them. Now whether such a comparison might not be used without any further Apology, I leave the unprejudiced Reader to judge.  
Fourthly, whether my proofs for this Doctrine are weak, uncertain, farfetched, shall God willing appear to them, who will impartially read and compare your book and mine together.  
Fifthly, as for what you suggest from my Reverend and Learned Friend, Mr. Dan. Rogers, although enough might be taken out of his words in that book, to declare his own meaning; I rather choose to set it down in the very words which he wrote to me in a Letter, bearing date the 29 of January last past, in way of answer to a Letter which I wrote to him; wherein I requested of him to know, what in his name I should answer to this passage of your book: his words are these; If I were to answer that Anabaptist, I should answer him silentio & contemptu: for why should I not? since in that very place of my Sacraments, part 1. p. 78, 79. where I confute those Schismatics, he snatches my words from their own defence. My words are, I confess myself unconvinced by any demonstration of Scripture for Paedobaptism, meaning, by any positive Text; what is that to help him? Except I thought there were no other arguments to evince it: Now what I think of that, my next words show, pag. 77. lin. 4, 5, 6, 7. I need not transcribe them. In a mord, this I say, though I know 〈◊〉, yet that is no argument for the non-Baptizing of Infants; since so many Scriptures are sufficiently convincing for it. Therefore this want of a positive Text must no more exclude Infants, etc. then the like reason should disannul a Christian Sabbath, or Womenkind not to be partakers of the Supper: The quoting of mine own Text were enough.  
6. If Mr. Ball cut the sinews of the Argument from Circumcision to Baptism, himself was very much mistaken in his own meaning and intentions, who in the very same place alleged by you, uses the same Argument, & makes the parallel to lie in the same things which my Sermon doth: you might have done well to have informed the Reader so much, when you used his authority to overthrow that Argument: his words are these, Circumcision and Baptism are both Sacraments of Divine institution, and so they argree in the substance of the things signified, the Persons to whom they are to be administered, and the order of administration, if the right proportion be observed: as Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant, the righteousness of Faith, and Circumcision of the heart; so doth Baptism much more clearly; as, Abraham and his Household, and the Infants of believing Jews, were to be Circumcised; so the faithful, their families, and their seed are to be baptised. Circumcision was to be but once applied by God's appointment; and the same holds in Baptism, according to the will and good pleasure of God.  
Seventhly, I perceive you glory much that Musculus hath deserted 1 Cor. 7. 14. as an impertinent proof for baptising of Infants, and you repeat it at least three or four times in your book: and I observe through out your whole Treatise, that when any Author joins with you in any particular, you improve his authority to the utmost; which makes me conceive, that it would be a great glory to you, to be able to prove a consent of Learned men to concur with you in your way. And therefore I cannot but wonder that you should so much slight and undervalue the Judgements of Fathers and Counsels, Harmonies and Confessions of whole Churches, when they differ from you. As for Musculus, whether he changed his Judgement upon 1 Cor. 7. on good grounds, shall be examined in due place: In the mean time I inform the Reader that in the same place Musculus acknowledges that there are Arguments enough, and sufficiently strong to prove baptising of Infants, though this 1 Cor. 7. be left out. And if Musculus Opinion sway in the one, I hope it's not to be rejected in the other.  
Eightly, whether Dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatn; whether your roast be answerable to your great boast; Whether your Arguments and Answers will make good this high charge that Paedobaptism is an Innovation, maintained upon dangerous principles, etc. we proceed now to examine.  
And first we shall inquire concerning the Historical 
Sect. 2. Reply to the Historical part, vindicating the Antiquity of Infant Baptism.  part, Whether Paedobaptism as it is now taught, be but a late Innovation: whether it be not as anoient as is pretended.  
Because many of the Anabaptists shame not to say, That the Ancients, especially the Greek Church, rejected Infant-Baptisme for many hundred years: I said in the beginning of my Sermon, that the Christian Church hath been in the possession of it for the space of 1500 years and upward, and named a few testimonies out of the Greek and Latin Fathers, in little more than one page, to make this good; no ways intending to make the weight of the Question to hang in any degree upon humane testimonies or consent of authority, but only upon the evidence of the Word; upon this you have bestowed two or three sheets of your book, and as if all Antiquity run on your fi●e you confidently affirm:  
1. As much may be said for Episcopacy, keeping of Faster, the religious use of the Cross.  
2. That my highest Testimonies reach not so high.  
3. That being rightly weighed, they make rather against the present Doctrine and practice, then for it.  
4. That there are many evidences, which do as strongly prove, that from the beginning it was not so; and therefore is but an Innovation. The first of these you suppose so clear to Scholars, that it is needless for you to bring any proof; the other three you undertake to make good in your subsequent discourse.  
Truly Sir, your undertaking is very high and confident, and I shall diligently weigh with what strength you perform it; and shall therefore more fully inquire into the practice of Antiquity in this point, than else I should have judged convenient to do. As for that which you took for granted, That there are plain testimonies for Episcopacy, the Religious use of the Cross, etc. before any testimonies can be produced for the baptising of Infants, pardon me that I forbear to believe you till you have made it good. I have already alleged some, and shall now (God willing) allege more testimonies to prove that in the Judgement of the Ancients, the baptising of Infants was received in all ages, and from the very Apostles, as a divine Institution. I read no such thing for Episcopacy, as a distinct order from Presbytery; yourself may read in Dr. Reynolds his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls, that in the Judgement of Ambrose, chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Primasius, Sedulius, Gregorius, and many other, that Bishops and Presbyters were all one by divine Institution, and that Ecclesiastical constitution made the difference between them. Much less do I read among them, that the Religious use of the Cross was received in all ages, and that as a divine Institution. If you can make it out that these things were so, you will do a very acceptable service to the Papists, Anabaptists, & Prelatical Party, who no doubt will return you hearty thanks, if your evidence be correspondent to your confidence. If you cannot, you should do well to revoke this bold assertion. In the mean time I shall examine your Examen, of the Antiquity produced to make good the practice of the Ancient Church in Paedobaptism. The first whereof was taken from Justine Martyr.  
Your first exception put in against this testimony is concerning 
Justine Martyr, or the Treatise under his name vindicated.  the year in which he lived: I said 150; thereupon you charge me with overlashing, because I affirmed, the Church had been in possession of the privilege of baptising Infants 1500 years and upwards. Yet my overlashing herein, is not so much as you would have the world believe; though my testimonies had pleaded for no higher time than 150 after Christ: Neither have I overlashed so far in this (as God willing hereafter shall appear) as you have done more than once. I said the Church was so long in possession of it; and if you be pleased to subtract 150 from 1645. I hope the remaining number will show the mistake was not great, as appears in the margin. If the Church was not all the while in possession of it, it had been your part to have informed your Reader 
 of the time, wherein the Churches quiet possession was disturbed, and by whom. It is true, I named Baltazzar Pacommitanus with his associates, who to their own ruin started up to disturb this possession: but the claim of an unjust intruder to justle out the true owner, will not carry the Title in any Court where equity takes place. In pleading the Church's possession of this truth for so long time, I said not so much as others have affirmed before me; Learned Augustine (though his judgement be slighted by you) affirmed as much in his time, and yet I read not of any then that excepted against him for it: The Church (saith he) ever had it, ever held it, they received this from the faith of their Ancestors, 
Hoc Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit, hoc a majorum fide accepit, hoc usque in finem per severanter custodit. Aug. Serm. 15. de verbis Apost.  and this will it with perseverance keep unto the end. If he might say that the Church before his time ever had, & maintained it, and if after his time it was more clearly h●ld out; then I hope I did not overlash in saying the Church had been 1500 years possessed of it. And it were an easy task to produce abundance of testimonies, giving evidence (not only for their own age, but) that it was the received custom in all ages even from the Apostles time, & that this evidence was true, we may hence know, (saith Learned Vossius) because the Pelagians never durst deny it, when the Orthodox Divines used to press it, who certainly wanted neither Learning nor will to have gainsayed them, if they could have found them abusing Antiquity: nay, they not only not denied this, but concurred in it, so saith Augustine, lib. 2. contra Caelist. & Pelag. Caelistus (saith he) in a book which he set forth at Rome, grants, That Infants were baptised for the remission os sins, according to the rule of the universal Church, and according to the sentence of the Gospel.  
In the next place you tell me I know that book from whence this testimony was taken, was questioned whether it was Justine Martyrs or no. Truly I was not ignorant thereof; therefore I said, in a Treatise that goes under his name; I did not confidently aver that he was the Author of it; yet you plainly call it a bastard Treatise, and never prove it▪ but whosesoever it was, it is well known to be ancient; and both Protestants and Papists asserting Paedobaptism, cite it.  
Thirdly, I take notice that you answer nothing against the truth of the testimony itself: only you say, that by it I may see that the reason of baptising Infants was, not the Covenant of grace made to believers and their seed, which you make the ground of baptising Infants at this day. You cannot be ignorant that this testimony was not alleged by me to prove the ground why it was administered: I only made use of it to bear witness to the matter of fact, that Infants were baptised in that age in which that book was written, which is plainly held out in the answer to the question; you may also remember what 
Iust. Mart. qu. 56  I said of all the testimonies quoted by me, that I did not relate them to prove the truth of the thing, but only the practice of it; and so much it doth notwithstanding the answer which yet you have brought unto it: what ground the Covenant of Grace made to believers and their seed, gives to Baptism, shall be manifested hereafter, and whether the Ancients used not (at least) some of the Arguments which we do.  
Come we now to consider what you answer to Irenaeus his testimony; here you speak, 1. Of his Country. 2. Of 
P. 5. Irenaeus testimony vindicated.  the age he lived in. 3. You question his translation. 4. And in the last place you speak a little against the testimony itself.  
Before you fall upon the examination of the testimony, you say, He was a Greek, and wrote in Greek; but we have his Works in Latin, except some fragments: this you conceive to be a reason why we cannot be so certain of his meaning, as we should be, if we had his own words in the language in which he wrote: and may not this Objection lie against any Translation whatsoever? and upon that ground you may slight it. I cannot guess why you add this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he was a Greek, etc. unless it were to intimate to your Reader that I could not discern whether he were to be numbered in the Catalogue of Greek or Latin Fathers: yet you know that I mentioned him in the first rank of those Renowned Lights of the Church, which wrote in the Greek tongue, to which afterwards I added two other: and when I came to speak of any of the Latin Fathers; Cyprian was the first in whom this question did occur. But whether his words in the testimony alleged be truly translated into Latin, shall by and by be considered.  
As for his age, you acknowledge with me, that he lived in the same Century with Just. Martyr: the year in which he flourished is variously related by the Authors named by yourself; one says 180, the other 183, I may add i● third who varies from them both, and says 175, and may 
Trithem.  not others point at other times also? For aught I know, you needlessly trouble yourself, and your Reader, in naming particular year● in which these famous Lights of the Church lived, which I think can hardly with exactness be done: it is safe to say, about such a time, or in such a Century, such and such lived, which cannot be prejudicial to the Reader, when we know a Century includes many years: neither can any man warrantably restrain it to any one year alone wherein such a man flourished, as if he had flourished one year and no more.  
But I proceed to what you say of the testimony itself, it is extant, Iren. 2. 39 Christus venit salvare 〈◊〉, etc. Your exceptions against it are many.  
First, you question whether re●asuatur there signifies baptism or no, as Fevardemiur his gloss take● it. Secondly, You say, that neither Christ nor his Apostles call Baptism a new birth. Thirdly, possibly this was not the word used by Irenaeus in his own Writing. Fourthly, that the Latin altars Irenaeus his mind, as learned Rivet says. Lastly, that Irenaeus meant not Baptism in this place, you go about to prove by his scope therein. These are your exceptions which now we come to examine.  
To begin with the first of them, when, Irenaeus saith, Christus venit salvare omnes qui per eum renasountur, infants & parvulos & pueros, etc. First you question the meaning of the word renasountur, whether Baptism is meant thereby; and you ask me, whether this was any other then Fevardentius 
P. 6.  his gloss, and add Rivets censure of him.  
I take not upon me the defence of Fevardentius, let him go for such a one as Learned Rivet relates him to be, A corrupter 
Answ.  of Irenaeus in many things: yet that judicious Man says not that he corrupted Irenaeus his sense in this place. And that he did not, it's manifest to me; because Baptism usually is styled by the Greek Fathers a new birth. Learned Vossini saith upon that very place, that to call baptism renascentia, was ●●sitat● veteribus loquendi forma; which a few instances will make good. Justine Martyr speaking of the manner of administration of Baptism, says of the baptised party, He is brought to the place where the water is, 
Just. Mart. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  and i● regenerated in the same manner wherein we were regenerated: and to put it out of all controversy, he is there speaking of Baptism under the name of Regeneration; he adds, They are then washed in water in the name of our Lord God Creator of all things, and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and the holy Ghost. Here he tells us what he meant by Regeneration mentioned before: viz. When the Party was in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost washed with water, that is, baptised. Dionysini Areopag●ta (but you will say he is questioned, yet no man can question whether he expressed Baptism by regeneration) speaking of Baptism says, Divine signs of the divine generation, and what is that (I pray you) but a new birth? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dionys. Areop. Hierarch. ca 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  yea in the same Chapter he adds further of it. The Saorament of our divine generation as in a sign. And in the beginning of that part, he calls the Font, or place in which Baptism was administered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the mother of our adoption. Athanasine 
De Sab, & Circumcis.  says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we are borne again by washing: and doth not Basil call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the regeneration 
Basil. exhortatione ad baptismum.  of the soul? Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. amongst many other titles he puts on Baptism, this is one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now I demand of you, do not all these Authors call Baptism a new Birth, which you would fasten only on Fevardentius? yea doth not Ambrose call the Fon: Baptisterium regeneration is lavacrum, the lavacre of Regeneration? 
Lib. de initiandis ca 2.  Whatsoever you say of me, I hope by this time you will not think that both Latin and Greek Fathers learned of Fevardentius his gloss to call Baptism a new birth.  
Secondly, you say, no where doth our Lord or the Apostles, 
P. 6.  call Baptism a new birth. I desire to know of you the meaning of that place, Tit. 3. 5. I thought the Apostle there had called Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the washing of the new birth, or Regeneration: and what that is but Baptism, yet I know not. To me the Apostle seems plainly to parallel the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the holy Ghost, as type and countertype. And the Analogy between washing in Baptism, and Regeneration, lies in that custom of washing Infants from the pollutions of the womb when they are first born. A learned Critic of 
Mr. Mede.  our own in his Diatriba upon that place, thinks none will deny that in these words the washing of Regeneration, the Apostle is speaking of Baptism: sure I am, most of the Interpreters which I have seen upon that place agree that he either argues directly from Baptism, or at least alludes to it.  
Thirdly, you grant, though the word renascuntur is used for Baptism by the Ancients (which before you seemed to pin on Fevardentius his sleeve) yet possibly it was not the word used by Irenaeus in his own writing. It seems, now you dare not stand upon the strength of the word renascuntur, because you confess it was used by the Ancients for Baptism; therefore your conjecture here is, That possibly it was not the word used by Irenaeus for Baptism in his own writing. I shall go further than you (and yet not wrong the truth) and say, undoubtedly, renascuntur was not the word used by Irenaeus in his own writing, for he wrote in Greek, and therefore it may well be conceived he said not renascuntur, though he might say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: But to that which you answer, I add, you know 'tis commonly said in the Schools, fortè ita, solvitur per fortè non: you say, possibly it was not Irenaeus his word. I answer, possible it is that Irenaeus might use the Greek word, which is well translated renascuntur: for why might not he being a Grecian, speak of Baptism in the phrase and stile as other Grecians did? yea, that he did speak so, is most probable, because that other Greek Fathers use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a new birth, in the sense in which I alleged it.  
As for the altering of Irenaeus his mind by the Latin Translation, not having his works in his own language, I dare not say so much: when you bring forth Irenaeus his words in Greek, I shall the better be enabled to judge of it; in the mean time I accept of the Translation, having made it good by parallel phrases in other Greek Fathers.  
In the last place you labour to prove, That it is not meant of Baptism from Irenaeus his scope in that place. To this I answer, 
P. 6.  albeit that be granted which you say was his scope there, yet his words prove the question in debate before us. I hope you will not deny, but that the scope of a speech may tend to prove one thing; and yet the expressions used may give light to otherthings: was not the Prophet Ezekiel his scope by the parable of dry bones rising again, to prove the restauration of the Jews (who then seemed to be dead) 
Ezek. 37.  to their former state? that no doubt was the drift, yet he lays it forth by that parable: and Tertullian by the 
De resur, ca 31.  same proves the Resurrection at the last day, if he had not believed that dead bones were to rise again (saith the father) how could he by that Simile taken from them prove the Resurrection of the Jews? So may I say here, let it be supposed that Irenaeus his drift is, as you say, to prove that Christ was an Infant to sanctify Infants, yet he says they were renewed when they were baptised. As for Irenaeus his judgement of Christ's living upon the earth about 50. years, it was not alleged by me, therefore I leave it to you to help Irenaeus therein, because you allege it. Now I desire the Reader to cast his eye back upon all that you have said about this testimony, and see whether you have brought forth any thing to obscure the light that it gives to our question: all the strength of what you said lay in the word renascuntur, whether that signified Baptism or no: which by the usual language of the Grecians I have made good against your exception, and so I pass from your examen of this Author and follow you to the next.  
In the third place you come to sift origen's testimony: Where, first, you question the authority of the book; secondly, 
origen's Test. vindicated.  you say, if it be origen's, yet he calls Paedobaptism but an Apostolical tradition, and from thence you draw forth some conclusions. In all which I hope to manifest your mistake, and so to discover the weakness of your premises, that they shall not in any indifferent man his judgement be able to draw these conclusions after them.  
First, you question the authority of these passages cited out of Origen whether they are his or no: and you call the Author of them supposed Origen: It had been your part before you had so branded them, first to have made it manifest by some undeniable evidence or other, that they were not origen's, you question but prove not, and I am not the first that hath produced these testimonies to prove Infant-Baptisme, many learned men handling this question have done the same before me.  
You seek also to weaken the authority of these testimonies by the Censures of two judicious men, Erasmus and Perkins: the former of them (who was vir emunctae naris in giving judgement of the writings of the Ancients) saith, that when a man reads his Homilies on Leviticus, and on the Epistle to Romans, translated by Ruffinus, he cannot be certain whether he reads Ruffinus or Origen. Yet Erasmus saith not that these Homilies set forth under his name were Ruffinus his Homilies, and not origen's. If Ruffinus had wronged Origen in that point now in question, why should not that have been laid in his dish by some of the Ancients discoursing on this question, who no doubt would have been forward enough to have taken notice of it to Ruffinus his prejudice, as well as other things which they object against him?  
To this you add Reverend Perkins his testimony, who puts his commentary on the Romans amongst his counterfeit works, as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus. It may be Origen might suffer by his Translators, for Translations are various: some affect in their Translations to follow their Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to trace the very footsteps of the words they translate: other Translations are metaphrasticall, or by way of paraphrase, they expound as they translate; thus several men have their several fancies, though they adhere to the Author which they translate, even when they keep not in all things to his words: Hierom gives instance in the Septuagint 
Hierom ad Pammachium.  Translators, whose testimony I need not name to you. Ruffinus acknowledges, in translating origen's Homilies on Leviticus, that he added some things to what Origen said, and what they were he expresses: ea quae ab Origene in auditorio Ecclesiae ex tempore non tam explanationis quam 
Ruffini peroratio in Ep. ad Rom.  aedificationis intentione perorata sunt; the things which were spoken by Origen to his auditory, he translated them by way of explanation, or did more fully lay them forth in a popular way and therein Ruffinus dealt candidly, telling us what were the things he added; in this Erasmus acknowledges his fair dealing. But as for his Commentary on the Romans, Ruffinus confesseth se hoc opus totum 
He contracted it half in half. Ruffi. praefat. a● Rom.  ad dimidium traxisse, there was no addition of Ruffinus; Erasmus here blames him for cutting off what Origen delivered more at large, but neither doth Ruffinus confess, nor Erasmus challenge him here for any addition to what Origen said: I shall only desire the Reader to take notice that none of the testimonies by me cited out of Origen, are denied by Erasmus to be origen's: neither can they be conceived to be any of the additions mentioned before by Ruffinus: therefore your exception is not proved by Erasmus nor Perkins testimony.  
You add, in the passages which I cite, there are plain expressions in them against Pelagians, which makes you think they were put in after the Pelagian heresy was confuted by Hierome and Augustine; though they make against the Pelagians, yet who can necessarily infer, that all these Homilies in which these passages occur were written after the Pelagian Heresy was broached? Iust. Martyr maintains the Divinity of Jesus Christ, yet we know he lived long before Arius the ringleader of that cursed Sect which denied it: can any man conclude that Iust. Martyr did not bear witness to the divine Nature of Christ, because he lived before Arius started up?  
Then you tell us Origen calls Infant-baptizing an Apostolical tradition, according to the observance of the Church. This cavil I prevented when I quoted the testimony, which seems to have some weight in it, for you grant what I said about Traditions, which is warrant enough to me to add no more to justify it, otherwise (besides the testimony of Scripture which I named in 2 Thess. 2. 15.) many other out of Antiquity may be added, where Tradition is taken in that sense. Epiphanius calls Baptism and other mysteries observed 
Epiph. in s●ne operis.  in the Church, which are brought forth out of the Gospel and settled by Apostolic authority, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: where by the way you may see that he grounds the Baptism, then in use in the Church, (and even then Infants were Baptised) on the Scriptures and authority of the Apostles, as well as other mysteries of the Christian; Religion. But I follow you, Because, say you, in neither of these places taken notice of by me Origen citys any Scripture for baptising Infants, therefore it must be understood of an unwritten Traedition: had it appeared as a new notion not heard of in the Church before, then had it been fit he should have confirmed what he said: but it being a position, which (as he says the Church observed) he needed not to prove it. Ignatius presses upon Hiero to attend to reading and exhortation, and calls those things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, traditions, yet adds 
Ign. ep. ad. Hier.  no Scripture to confirm what he says, because they were things well known to the Church to be consonant to the Scripture. So Origen tells us Infant-Baptisme was generally observed by the Church; and had any appeared to plead against the lawfulness of it, he would no doubt by Scripture have maintained it, as well as affirmed it, to come from the Apostles, which he did.  
These are your premises which now being answered, your conclusions inferred from thence, of themselves must fall to the ground: for if Infant-baptisme came from the Apostles, and was generally observed in the Church in origen's time, than you have no reason to challenge it as a thing not known before his time, nor delivered over to the Church in his time: albeit he expressed it under the name of an Apostolical Tradition.  
The last Greek Author alleged by me was Gregory Nazianzen, 
Greg. orat. 40. in Bapt. Nazian. vindicated.  who calls Baptism signaculum vitae cursum ineuntibus: against which testimony you have nothing to object: only whereas I added, he seemed afterwards to restrain baptising Infants to the case of necessity: You ask of me, Doth he seem only to restrain it to the case of necessity? He gives (say you) his 
P. 8.  reason why they should be baptised, but withal declares his opinion that others should stay longer: but what of all this, what follows hence more than this, that in his day's Infants were baptised, though his advice was, that they should defer it, unless there were danger of death?  
These are the Greek Authors alleged by me, none of which are denied by you to testify the practice of the Church in this point in their several ages, only your exceptions have been all on the by, not against the testimonies themselves, which yet (notwithstanding what you have answered) I doubt not will by any judicious Reader be allowed, for clear proofs of the practice of Paedobaptism in the Greek Church.  
After your examination of the former Testimonies, you 
P. 9  add 3 Arguments to show that Infant-Baptisme was not known in the Greek Church.  
First, if it had been known among them; you wonder why I find nothing for it in Eusebius, Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanasius, and Epiphanius? To this I say, they spoke to the clearing of such questions as were afoot in their times: had any question been started when they wrote about Paedobaptism, no doubt they would have cleared it, as Cyprian did, and as it was done in the Council of Neocaesarea. It is enough to me that none of the Authors named by you speak against it; can we say that the Father's living before the Pelagians troubled the Church, denied the traduction of original sin, because they spoke not clearly of it, before it was denied by those cursed Heretics. Nor is it any glory to you that your Error was not ancient enough to be confuted by Eusebius, Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanasius, and Epiphanius: yet whether any of these named by you spoke for Infant-Baptisme, shall now be considered. I find even in some of them which you have named; expressions which doth induce me to believe that they were far from rejecting of Paedobaptism.  
I will not search into them all, for if any thing were brought out of Ignatius, you would tell me that you did not know Ignatius when you see him, (as you have done with others named before) and I have no time to wrangle. You desire to know what Clemens Alexandrinus saith? why, 
Vide Clem. Alex. paedagog.  sure he had none but great Infants to his Scholars; if you (who pretend to be acquainted familiarly with the secrets of antiquity) be acquainted with him, you'll know what I mean: He desired (as it is likely more Greek Fathers who were converted from Paganism did) to set forth Religion in such a way as might move other Pagans to come and make confession of the Christian faith, that so they might be added to the Church by Baptism in such a way as was proper to the baptising of grown men. The next (whose testimony you miss) is Athanasius: you desire me to quote any thing out of him to prove the Greek Church did admit Infants to Baptism; if that will make you cease wondering, I'll do it: what say you to that passage in Athanasius? where he is showing how we are buried with Christ in Baptism, and rise again; he says, the dipping of the Infant quite under water thrice, and raising 
Athan. dicta & interpretatio Script. qu. 94. Athanasiu● gives testimony to Infant Baptism. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  of it up again, doth signify the death of Christ, and his resurrection upon the third day: is not that testimony plain? In his Questions add Antioch. in the second question of that book, it is desired to be known, how shall we know that he was truly baptised, and received the holy Ghost, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in holy Baptism when he was a Child? (it seems than it was a custom for Infants to receive Baptism:) He sets down an answer to it, that is to be known (saith he) by the motions of the Spirit in his heart afterwards, as a Woman knows she hath conceived, when she feels the child to stir in her womb; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not because his Parents say so. If that place doth not plainly, and in an Orthodoxal way bear witness to Paedobaptism, I know not what can do it.  
I could out of the same Book add another testimony, but you will perhaps tell me, the words next following 
qu. ad Antioch. 114.  those that I shall cite are questioned. But I shall then reply, 1. The words that follow may be erroneous, and yet written by Athanasius. 2. The words which I shall cite may be the words of Athanasius, and the words which follow, none of his, but added by some other. 3. How do you prove that Tertullian, or Greg. Nazianzen wrote those words which you cite out of them. 4. You can (more than once) make this a plea for yourself (that your allegations may gain a favourable construction) That your proofs taken out of Antiquity do ●s strongly prove the point 
P. 4.  in hand, as proofs are usually taken in such matters. I doubt not but all impartial Readers will vouchsafe me the same favourable grains of allowance, and then this testimony also of Athanasius may pass for currant.  
These words than which are safe & sound, grounded upon the same Scripture which I have much insisted on, are read in the works of Athanasius: where the question is about Infants dying, requiring a resolution that might clearly set forth, whether they go to be punished, or to the Kingdom? 
Athan. ad Antioch. qu. 114.  The answer is, Seeing the Lord said, Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. And the Apostle says; Now your children are holy; (observe that Gospel ground, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the same that I build upon) it is manifest that the Infants of believers which are baptised, do as unspotted and faithful enter into the Kingdom. This assertion is owned by all the Reformed Churches.  
Epiphanius you say, says nothing of it in a place, which you cite: and are you sure he says nothing any where else? admit he doth not, form a Syllogism, and see how your argument will run, etc. but I desire you at your leisure to cast your eye upon that expression of Epiphanius, which doth induce me to believe that he did not reject Paedobaptism: where he tells us, That Circumcision had its time, until the great Circumcision came, that is, the washing of the new birth, as 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ephiphan. contr. Cerinthianos.  is manifest to every one. What's the washing of Regeneration but Baptism? which he would scarcely have called Circumcision, if he had rejected Infant-Baptisme, 
Epiphanius owned the argument from Circumcision to Baptism.  and denied that the children of believers (who are hopefully capable of Circumcision made without hands, may lawfully partake of this great Circumcision: and adds, That this was notoriously known to all; surely than none denied it in his time.  
Secondly, you reason from the continuance of the Questions, 
The questions put to the Baptises, disprove not Insant-Baptisme.  put to persons when they were to be baptised, and answered by them: which I think because we must conceive children were not able to return an answer to them, thereby you would infer they were not baptised: But I answer, when the Gospel went first abroad into the world, such as being of age were first taught, were then baptised, Act. 2. 41. & Act. 8. 13. 37. After that time such as were taught are said to be catechised: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the 
Paedag.  Catechism leads men to faith, saith Clem. Alexandrinus. When such were prepared and made fit to be baptised, certain questions were propounded to them concerning their faith in Christ, their resolution to forsake the Devil, etc. which are related by many of the Ancients: when those of age afterwards brought their children to Baptism, these questions were likewise put to them (though of themselves they were not able to make answer to them) but how warrantably I will not go about to prove; yet that they were used at Infant's Baptism, as well as at the baptism of such as were of age, it appears by Balsamon in Can. 6. Conc. Neocaesar. Aug. Ep. ad Januarium, etc. To all which questions at children's Baptism, such as undertook their education made answer on their behalf. Therefore you cannot by these questions infer that Children were not baptised, seeing these Authors certify that questions were put to them, and also tell us who answered for them.  
Thirdly, you conceive because many children borne of Christian parents were not baptised when they were young; Therefore it was not their custom to baptise Infants. For the making good hereof you bring forth instances of Constantine the Great, Greg. Nazianz. and chrysostom.  
Before I speak of these instances, it will not be impertinent 
Of old some deferred their own Baptism, as well as their Infants.  to speak somewhat of the practice of some among the Ancients in deferring Baptism; and here I find that some Ancient Christians deferred their own Baptism many times, (as well as their Infants) but upon no good ground, as may appear by many sharp invectives against them for it, which are extant in the Greek Fathers: see Basil. exhortat. ad Baptismum, Greg Nazienz. orat. 40. in Lanct. Bapt. Chrysost. Hom. 2. in Act. Apo.  
From these several Authors and others, may be gathered the grounds upon which they deferred Baptism. Sometimes they would do it in imitation of Christ, who was not baptised till he was about thirty years of age; they would 
Vbi prius.  put off their baptism until they came to the like age. Greg. Naxianz. disputes against these. Constantine the Great put 
Euseb. de vit. Const. lib 4.  off his Baptism until he should come to the River Jordan in which Christ was baptised, though he never attained to that desired place, for he died at Nicomedia. Some again 
Vbi prius.  deferred Baptism, until they should have opportunity to be baptised by some special Bishop of some eminent place; these Greg. Nazian. reproves at large. Some also put off their Baptism upon another ground, they conceived it did wash away all sin; so thought Orig. Hom. 15. in Ihesh. Hom. 
Aug. Confess. 1. 11.  5. in Ex. Cypr. lib. 3. ad Quirinum. & lib. 4. ep. 7. Whereupupon it was a common speech, when they saw one to follow his sinful courses, sine illum, faciat quod vult, nondum baptizatus est: to the same purpose Greg. Nyssenus in his exhortation to Baptism, brings in the very same speeches of them, who put off their Baptism upon this ground; saying, Sine, carne abutar, & turpi libidine fruar, in caeno voluptatum volutabor, manus sanguine polluam, aliena auseram, dolose ambulabo, pejerabo, mentiar: baptismum tum demum suscipiam, cum a vitiis & iniquitatibus desistam. He speaks much more to that purpose in that place, to which I refer the Reader: all which testifies what they thought of Baptism, that it washed away all their sins, therefore they deferred it; for they would have none abridged of their sinful delights until they were baptised. Epiphanius tells us that Martion gave order to have Baptism thrice administered; first when a man had committed any great sin, after that in his judgement, he might be baptised for the doing of it away: Again, if after that Baptism he had renewed his sin, he was the second time to be baptised; and so the third time, if after the second he had renewed his sin again. This opinion of the efficacy of Baptism to do away sin, might induce them to defer it until they were ready to leave the world, that by baptism then administered to them, in their opinion, all their sins might be done away. But Naz. confutes such, telling them all times were fit for Baptism; seeing no time was free from death; So did Greg. Nyssenus also. They were also led into this error by another, some thought that baptised persons might live and not sin, for if they did sin after Baptism (in their conceit) there remained no repentance for them, misunderstanding that place of Heb. 6. 4. which place also was abused by the Novatians, denying remission of sins to Christians, ●inning after baptism.  
It is clear upon these and the like grounds (but how justly, I leave it to you to judge) many put off their own baptism. Neither do I see why that others also may not be thought (even upon no better grounds) to have deferred the baptism of their Infants; which yet doth no ways prejudice the commonly received, and constantly practised ordinance of Infants-Baptisme, no more than the abovenamed practice may be brought to prove that it was not the received practice of the Church to baptise such as were converted from Paganism to Christianity, at their first conversion.  
Yet here I cannot but add further, that sometimes it might fall out that Christians might not have the opportunity of bringing their Children to Baptism, because they dwelled among Infidels, or Paynims, where they could not enjoy the benefit of the Word and Sacraments for themselves or their children: therefore in such a case they were necessitated to put off the baptising of their Children. Greg. Naz. says expressly, that some may be hindered from Baptism by some violence, or some unexpected accident, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 
Orat. 40.  that though they would, they could not enjoy the Grace (of baptism whereof he is speaking;) if by such accidents they themselves might be hindered from Baptism, why might not the like accidents hinder them also from receiving Baptism for their children?  
Again, sometimes their lot might fall out to live among Heretics, which corrupted the Faith, and therefore would not have their Children baptised by them: might they not do herein as that pious man Moses, who refused to receive imposition of hands from bloody Lucius 
Sozom. 4. 38. Theod. 4. 14.  that Arian Bishop. Neither would Antiochus be ordained by Jovinian, who adhered sometimes to the Arians: assuredly, such as scrupled to be ordained officers in the Church by such, may upon the like grounds be thought rather to choose to defer the baptising of their children, then to have them baptised by such. Many questions were moved in the Church about Baptism administered by such as were not sound in the Faith: which were agitated so far by Cyprian, and other Asrieans, that they held their Baptism to be null; and therefore condemning their dipping, or washing, ordered that such should be baptised.  
Some other causes might be found out, why men might defer both their own, and their children's Baptism, which yet I will not justify: they might herein do, as holy Moses, Exod. 4. deferred the Circumcising of his son, yet Moses well knew it was an Ordinance in Israel, that 
Gen. 17.  every son of eight days old should be circumcised. Holy men in this might aliquid humanum pati; I will neither excuse nor aggravate their fault: only I thought good to speak somewhat in general of the custom of some in deferring Baptism.  
I come to the instances here given by you: the first is Constantine the Great, (though the son of Helena, who is 
Constantine's Bap. no Argument that Infants were not then baptised.  reported to have been a zealous Christian) not baptised till he was aged. You should have done well to have proved her to have been such, when Constantine was borne, otherwise what gain you if she were converted afterwards? The true cause why he received not Baptism at his Infancy (so near as I can gather it from the story of his life) was this: Constantius his Father, albeit a man of a sweet temper, and a Prince wonderful tender of the welfare of all his Subjects; first out of the mildness of his nature favoured Christians; (seeing and observing their unblameable conversation and faithfulness in all their employments:) therefore he did not in an hostile way pursue their Religion, as others Emperors did: yea, at length he grew to a good esteem of it, especially towards the latter end of his life: in this time his son Constantine the Great, lived in Dioclesian his Court, from whence (his life being twice in danger) he suddenly escaping, came to his father then sick, and presently upon his death, he was by the Army saluted Emperor: These things considered, it is no marvel if he were not baptised in his Infancy; when, for aught I read, his Parents had not then embraced the Christian Religion when he returned at his Father's death, he was 30 years of age: and whether ever his Father was baptised, the story is silent. Neither is Helena her affection to Religion in his Infancy, related in the Story, though afterwards it is often mentioned. You need not then wonder, why when he was an Infant he was not baptised: inasmuch as it appears not that his Parents were then become Christians; yea, and himself also was an unbeliever many years, as is apparent in the story.  
The next mentioned by you, is Greg. Naz. the son of a Christian Bishop, and brought up long by him, was not baptised 
Nor Gregory Nazianzen.  till he came to be a youth. You say he was the son of a Christian Bishop, but how do you prove it? he that writes his life, tells us, there was a time when his father was not a Christian; yet afterwards, when he had cast of the superstition and deceit of the Hypsistarians, be appeared a true follower, or disciple 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  of the Divine grace; and so first he became a Sheep, and afterwards a skilful Shepherd to the Church. What was the Hypsistarian error, Greg. himself explains in his Funeral Oration for his Father. Whether he was converted from it before Gregory was born, it is not expressed: Yet the Historians tell us when Naz. was but young, he with Basil were bred in humane literature at Athens; from thence he passed to Antioch, all this while we read not of his studying the Christian Religion till afterwards. For it is to be remembered, 
Socr. 4. 21. Soz. 6. 16.  that when he with Basil had spent much time, and well profited in humane literature, some would have persuaded them to become Teachers of that kind of learning; others moved them to betake themselves to public pleading of causes; but refusing that way of study, they beg●n to think how to order their lives holily, as the rule of Christian Religion did direct them, wherein they profited much; in the knowledge whereof origen's books were helpful to them. Greg. Nazianz. having spent 30 years in those studies, he returned to his Father and was baptised: 
Greg. vita.  his education was not under his Father, as you relate; and if his parents were Christians when he was borne, I wonder they should send him to Athens to be trained up under Heathens; and why he was not baptised as soon as he was converted to Christianity, if you can lay down the true cause, I desire you to do it; I dare go no further than I have warrant from the story, and the relation of his life: Yet I may hint my conjecture from his own words; where he says there were three sorts of men (besides those which I named before) who deferred Baptism. 1. Some purposely 
Orat. 40.  put it off, because they would live in sin; there were others living more temperately, taking in as it were the mean between virtue and vice, who though they sinned, yet approved not of their sins, but were overpowered by them. Lastly, some deferred their Baptism, that they might the better prepare themselves to receive it; and possibly he for a while might be ranked in the third sort of them, that for such a thing put off their Baptism: yet himself reasons strongly against delays of that nature, in that Oration, which peradventure was after he was better informed.  
Thirdly, you bring in chrysostom among your instances, 
Nor Chrysost.  Educated by Meletius a Bishop, yet not baptised till he was passed 21 years of age: If you can make this out, you say somewhat, though it will fall short of that you intent to evidence thereby. Christian birth, and Episcopal education might justly give occasion to a man to wonder how such a one came to escape the privilege, which other Infants so borne, had; if it were the custom to baptise such. But stay a little, herein you have adhered too far to your friend Grotius, upon whose credit you have avouched all this, though neither he, nor you tell us from whence you fetch this relation. I being loath to be led by an implicit faith, without some ground; after some search I have found that which makes me think you are deceived both in chrysostom his Parents and education. The Ecclesiastical Story (the Penman whereof undertakes to set forth the place of his birth, his parentage, his call to his Episcopal dignity, and his removal from it) says he was born of a prime family in Antioch, and names his parents, 
Socr. hist.. 5. 2. Siz. 8. 2.  but not a word of his Religion nor of his Baptism. I could here tell you that some others speaking of his Parents and of himself, say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he and they were Heathens, (for so is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there to be taken) and they that say so are Grecians. But however, by chrysostom his mothers own words it appears that his father died within a very short time after his birth: so much is manifest from his mother, see Chrys. de Sacerdotio lib. 1. the death of thy Father presently followed upon the sorrows which I had 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  in thy birth, which unseasonably made thee an Orphan, and me a widow: and this fell out when chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was young and could not speak, as she says; there she puts him in mind of her care of his education, and of the charge she had been at to improve it; but not a word of his Religion. I confess it appears from chrysostom, that about the 20 year of his 
Orat. ad viduam juniorem.  age his mother was a Christian: but whether his Father or his mother was so at his birth, it appears not. His education in his younger time was under Libanius, who was an enemy to Christianity, and a scoffer at it, until he was about 20 years of age: then changing his former studies, habit, and profession, he came to Meletius, by whom being instructed in divine knowledge, within 3 years afterwards he was baptised of him. After his mother's death, he betook himself to a Monastical life, in which time he was much furthered in his holy studies by Carterius and Diodorus, to whom he often repaired.  
These things considered (which chrysostom his own words make out) you can hardly persuade your Reader that there is any strength in what you bring forth from his example to plead against Paedobaptism, for you neither prove his Parents were Christians at his birth, neither was he educated under Meetius, yet both these you have affirmed, but without ground of evidence.  
To all the forenamed instances you add somewhat more 
Grotius not to be relied upon in this point.  out of Grotius, which before I do examine, I have something to say to you concerning Grotius, whom I see you follow in several passages of your Examen. I cannot but wonder, why you (who pretend to be familiarly acquainted with the secrets of Antiquity) should have so much correspondency with them who are not likely to help you with any certain intelligence. Hugo Grotius is the strongest stake to support your tottering hedge; and sure I am Grotius was a friend to the Socinians, and it is well known what they think of Baptism. I have learned from Reverend Doctor Rivet, that Grotius was perverted by Cardinal Peron, 
Rivet. Apol. provera pace Ecclesia contr. votum Grotii.  who pleaded the cause of the Anabaptists in his answer to King James. Quae tum protulerat, congessit, (saith Doctor Rivet of the Cardinal) in suam responsionem ad Regem M. Britan. & Anabaptistarum causam egit, quantum potuit, strenue. Video eum satisfecisse D. Grotio, qui in talibus satis est liberalis. Doctor Rivet told Grotius, that learned Vossius had set forth 8 Arguments in Print, to prove the lawful use of Infant-Baptisme, and desired him to answer them first, and then Doctor Rivet promised to vindicate Vossius; but Grotius made a poor excuse in his Votum pro pace Ecclesiastica, 
Rivet. exam. animad. Grotii.  and returned no answer at all. Grotius that he might comply with the Papists, grants that Infant-baptisme ought to be received upon the authority of the Church of Rome: and to please the Socinians also, (for it seems he intended to gratify both) he puts forth this question: An Christus 
Grotii votum pro pace Eccles. ad articulum 9  ab Joanne baptizatus suit in nomen Patris, Filii, & S. sancti? If any man desire a full character of Grotius, let him read his Piety, such as it is, in that subtle piece, entitled, Hugonis Grotii Pietas, or his Annotations upon Cassander, and his defence of those Annotations, and his Votum pro Pace: and he will acknowledge that Grotius was no fit man to be trusted, nor likely to deliver the true sense of the Ancients in this or any other point. I will not stand to tell you what Laurentius, and Maresius say of him, but sure they prove enough against him; and therefore I will put an end to this discourse, with that censure which learned Rivet hath passed upon Grotius, in Grotius own words; Judicat prout amat, aut odit; amat & odit prout libet. In his verbis exactissime descripsit ingenium suum, saith D. Rivet Apologet. pro vera pace Eccles. Sir. I shall desire you may have a more sure friend to rely upon then Grotius: how far he hath deceived you, and you following him, hath wronged the truth, and both of you your Reader; I will now God willing open.  
You say, Grotius (in Annot in Matth. 19 14.) adds, That the Canon of the Synod of Neocaesare a determines, That a Woman 
P. 9 10. The Council of Neocaes. not against baptism of Infants.  with Child might be baptised, because the baptism reached not to the fruit of her womb; because in the confession made in Baptism, each ones own free election is showed: from which Ca●on, you say, Balsamon, and Zonaras do infer, That an Infant cannot be baptised, because it hath no power to choose the confession of divine Baptism. Your inference from the Canon, gives me just occasion to think that you never read Balsamon whom you name; for if you had, you would not assert what you do. That this may appear, I will set down the words of the Canon, the occasion of it, and what the Glossator (mentioned by you) says of the same. The words of the Canon are these:  
Of her that is with Child, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Con. 6. Con. Neocaesariensis.  that she may be baptised when she will: for she that bringeth forth, in this doth not communicate with the birth that is brought forth, because every one manifests his own free choice in confession.  
The occasion of this Canon was this, as both your Glossators observe, it was propounded to the Fathers in that Council, to know whether a Woman when she is with child might be baptised or no? some opposed it, because (as they thought) in her Baptism, the child in her womb was also baptised: and this they held could not be, because there is required of him that would profess himself a follower of Christ (as Zonaras expounds the last words of the Canon) a free election: or (as Balsamon hath it) there is required of every one in Baptism his own promise, which an Infant in its mother's womb cannot do: at length it is determined in the Canon, the woman in that condition might be baptised when she would, etc. from whence your friend Grotius infers, That the child useth 
Proles baptizari non solere● nisi propria vo untate, et professi●ne.  not to be baptised but of its own proper will and profession: and to back this assertion, he adds some words from Balsamon and Zonaras, as if Balsamon had denied that any were to be baptised, but such as were able of themselves to make confession of their faith in Christ.  
To vindicate the truth here from Grotius false inference, and yours also in concurring with him therein; I desire the Reader to take into his consideration these two things. 1. Of what kind of Women the Canon speaks of. 2. What the Glossator mentioned by you speaks in the same gloss of Infants baptised in their Infancy. The first will let us see, that what you would infer from the Canon▪ is nothing to the question before us. The second will let all men see that you deal not fairly with your Reader.  
Remember our Question is, Whether Infants of believers 
P. 3.  are to be baptised with Christ's Baptism, etc. but this Canon, speaks of children of Women as come out from among Infidels, being then converted when they are with child; for Balsamon says, Such Women as were with child, and come from the Church or company of unbelievers: and 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  what is this to our Question, which is about children born in the Church of believing Parents?  
Secondly, Balsamon distinguishes of children; some are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet in the womb, and not brought forth into the world, others are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, young, but borne into the world, for the first of these he says, no man can undertake, (he means in Baptism) but as for children that are borne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they affirm by such as undertake for them, and they being actually Baptised are accounted worthy of divine illumination: your inference by Balsamons' testimony is directly contrary to Balsamons' words, for he rotundis verbis affirmeth that children born, do in Baptism answer by such as undertake for them: which words are mentioned neither by Grotius nor yourself: herein you wrong the truth, and labour to deceive the Reader: in the beginning you charged me with overlashing (which yet was your haste, and not my error) but here I may safely put you in mind of docking or Curtalling the Author cited by you.  
Lastly, in this Paragraph you tell us that Grotius adds that many of the Greeks in every age unto this day do keep the custom of deferring the Baptism of little ones, till they could 
Pag. 10.  themselves make confession of their saith: you brag much of the Greek Church, but I will not deal with the Greek Churches as you deal with the Fathers, I will not put the 
The Greek Church misreported by Grotius in this point.  Latin Church, Augustine and those Fathers and Counsels which accord with him in one scale, and the Greek Church in the other, such comparisons are odious: But this I can and must say, that when you have searched into the Greek Church to the utmost, that you and all the Anabaptists in England cannot prove that the Greek Church did for many hundred years reject the Baptism of Infants; which is the assertion which I said might well put the Anabaptists to the blush, and (now I add) yourself also for justifying them in so saying.  
To return to Grotius his Annotations, who says, that many of the Greeks, etc. What some of the Greeks may do at this day I know not, but against his testimony of the Greeks in every age I will produce some testimonies (gathered by a learned Grecian, to whom the customs of the Greek Church were better known then to Grotius, or the Anabaptists who rely on Grotius his relation) whereby it is evident that baptising Infants was held eeven necessary to be observed in the Greek Church.  
Photius (that learned Grecian) gathering together the 
Phot. patriarch. Covel. anno, as some, 845. as others, 849.  Greek Counsels and laws for ordering of Church affairs, and reconciling them one with another, hath many things for Infant-Baptisme: as first, he brings in an Imperial Constitution, wherein it was provided, that all baptised Samaritans and Grecians should be punished, who brought not their wives and children in their families to holy baptism. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tib. 1. de fide ca 10.  Here was a Law which required Grecians that were baptised to procure baptism for their children, otherwise they should be punished.  
Again, Tit. 4. ca ●. he brings forth another Imperial Constitution concerning Samaritans; such among them as are of age must not rashly be baptised, but requires they should be trained up in good Doctrine, and then admitted to Baptism; but their children, though they know not the Doctrine, are to be baptised. So for Grecians, it's required that all their little ones without delay be baptised, Conc. in Trullo. Can. 84. Whereupon it was appointed in that Council, when there were no sure Witnesses to be produced, who were able to testify little Children (whose baptism was doubted of) were baptised, neither for their tender age could testify it themselves, without 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  any offence such should be baptised.  
Balsamon in his gloss upon that Canon, relates a story how Children coming from a Christian Country, were taken by the Scythians and Agarens, and bought by the Romans: the question was, whether the Children should be baptised or no? though some pleaded, they came from a Country where Christians dwelled; and therefore it is to be presumed that they were baptised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in their Infancy; Some pleaded it was the care of their Mothers to procure baptism to them: and others pleaded other Arguments for their Baptism: yet if they could produce no witness to make it good, they were to be baptised. All which clearly testifies that Infant baptism was then generally in use among Christians, seeing they were so careful to have it testified that they were baptised, and did presume where Christians dwelled it was in use.  
Now see what from these testimonies may be held out for Paedobaptism among the Greeks; if such among them as brought not their Children to Baptism were punished: if Imperial Laws, as well as Synodical Canons required Infant-baptisme; which they held so fit, that if there were any Children (of whose Baptism it was doubted,) they required they should be baptised; may not I from all this wonder why Grotius, or you from him, do affirm, That in every age they deferred the baptism of their children till they could make themselves a confession of their faith? 
Conc. Carth. ca 14.  Whereas the former Constitutions about Infant's Baptism testify that among them in those ages it was held an undoubted truth.  
I might also add to these one of the eight Canons concluded in Carthage against the Pelaegians; wherein was affirmed, That whosoever denied Baptism for the remission of sin, to a new borne Infant, etc. should be anathematised.  
All which being duly weighed, it will easily appear, Whether the Anabaptists need to blush, in saying, that the Ancients, especially the Greek Church, rejected the Baptism of Infants for many hundred years. Let the several testimonies of the Ancients in the Greek Church alleged by me, speak whether the Greeks rejected that ordinance or no: And so we pass from the Greek Church here, though afterwards you give me occasion to search further into the Grecians.  
Come we now to examine whether the Writers of the Latin Church will be more propitious to you in opposing Paedobaptism, than the Greeks have been; here Cyprian is the first that comes under your Examen; and calculating his age, you tell us Usher places him in anno 240, Perkins 250; I might tell you that others take notice of him in other years, as Trithemius 249, Henr. Oc●us 245; so hard a thing it is to set down precisely the particular year; yet all (as I said before) agree in the Century in which he lived.  
You acknowledge with me, that he was one of the anciencest Writers among the Latin Fathers; only Tertullian, you say, was before him; and who denies that? here upon your Semi-Socinian Grotius his credit you say, That nothing was determined in Tertull. his time, concerning the age in which children were consecrated by their Parents to Christian Discipline; because he dissuadeth by so many Reasons in his Book of Baptism, c. 18. the baptising of Infants. And you add, If he did allow it, it was only in case of necessity; as may appear by his words in his book De Anima. ca 39 Though my task in this examination of your Examen, be only to make good what I said before in my Sermon; yet you shall have my answer to this place quoted by yourself▪ whereby it may appear there are more witnesses to confirm the same truth, which I avouched but only by the testimonies of a few.  
Tertullian indeed in the former of these places, is persuading 
Tert. de Bapt. c. 18. In Tertullia's days Infants were baptised.  men to defer both the Baptism of children, and others who are of age. Yet I beseech you tell me, doth he not therein intimate that it was the custom of the Church in his age to baptise the one as well as the other? otherwise I see no reason why he should desire that they would defer the one as well as the other. And what's the reason of his delay? such as did undertake or promise for children were in danger; whilst they promised on their behalf, that which by reason of their own mortality, and increase of evil disposition in children, afterwards might make them break, or destroy their promise; his words are these, Pro cujusque personae conditione, de dispositione, etiam aetate, cunctatio Baptismi utilior est: praecipue tamen circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse est, si non cam necesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri? qui et ipsi per mortalitatem destruere promissiones suas possunt, & proventu malae indolis falli. Is it not evident by that place, that Baptism was administered in all ages, even to little ones; and that there were some who undertook that they should perform the promises made by them on their behalf? only this custom of baptising them did not very well please Tertullian: wherefore he seeks to dissuade from it, but never pleads against it as an unlawful thing, or an abuse of Christ's institution, as you do; yet how displeasing a delay of that nature was to others (famous in the Church) hath been cleared by several testimonies before: here may you take notice of one, even before Cyprian in the Latin Church, that bears witness against you, that in his time children were baptised. This truth is so perspicuously laid down by him, that you cannot deny it; and therefore you come with an [if,] and say, If he did allow it, it was only in 
●ert. de Anima, c. 13.  case of necessity; for this you refer me to his book de Anima, c. 39 where having reckoned up the idolatry, and superstitious fooleries of the heathen at the birth of their children, he speaks of children, one of whose Parents is holy; and confesses both by the privilege of their birth and profession they are designati sanctitatis, ac per hoc etiam salutis, not sancti, till they be born of water and the Spirit: but in that place is altum silentium, of his allowing baptism 
Cyprians testimony vindicated.  to them in case of necessity, as you say: wherein if a man told you that you did overlash, he should not wrong the truth.  
But before we part with Tertullian, give me leave to ask the question, whether the dissuasion which you cite out of Tertullia's book de Baptismo, may not reasonably be interpreted of the Infants of Infidels? because in that Chapter Tertullian speaks of the baptism of such as were not born of Christian Parents, (such as the Eunuch, and St. Paul;) and therefore he desires that the Baptism of such Infants should be deferred, till they came to years, and were able to make confession of their sins, and profession of their faith, their Parents being Infidels, and their Sponsors mortal; for what (saith he) though these Infants may have some Sponsors to undertake for their Christian education? yet their Sponsors may die before they are capable of instruction; and then that promise is void and of none effect.  
And I am very much inclined to believe, that this is the true meaning of the place, because it is clear and evident by the 39 Chapter of his book de Anima, that Tertullian did acknowledge that the children of believers had a kind of privilege (which he calls prerogative) by their birth, besides that of their education: and therefore in case the Sponsors who undertook for the education of the Infants of Pagans did live, yea, and give those Infants due education; yet there was a great difference between them and the Infants of believers, who had such a birth privilege as gave them right to Baptism; and by Baptism, and the Spirit, saith he, they are made (what they were by God designed to be) holy indeed. Because I will give you, and the learned Readers light enough, I will transcribe the passage at large, and give you leave to judge, for I hope you will make it appear that you are pius Inimicus, and pass judgement upon my side, when you have received some new light, if it be new to you: but truly, I fear, that you saw something in this 39 Chapter, which made against you: and therefore you do barely cite the Chapter, and not set down the words of the Author, which was not so fairly done: be pleased then to peruse the testimony in words at length, and not in figures. Hin● enim Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait, tam ex seminis praerogativa, quam ex institutionis disciplina: caeterum, inquit, immundi nascerentur, quasi Designatos tamen sanctitatis, ac per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios, ut hujus spei pignora matrimoniis, quae retinenda censuerat, patrocinarentur. Alloquin meminerat Dominicae definitionis, nisi quis nascatur ex aqua & spiritu, non introibit in regnum Dei, id est, non erit sanctus. Sir, are you not now convinced that Tertullian did conceive that the Infants of believers had such a sanctity (as I called covenant-holiness) by the prerogative and privilege of their birth, as gave them a right to baptism? I would not abuse Tertullian, as you did Origen and other Reverend and Learned men; and therefore have given you a fair interpretation out of his own words: I believe by this time you are sick of Tertullian; let us confer with Cyprian and his 66 Colleagues, upon whom you have passed a Magisteriall censure.  
Cyprian, say you, saith enough, and more then enough, except he spoke to better purpose: if that which he hath spoken 
P. 10.  be weighed in the balance of your judgement, his words, though many will be found but light: yet you say that Hierom, and especially Augustine relied upon that Epistle for the proving of baptising Infants: for my part, I am more strengthened in my Opinion of the worth of Cyprian's words in that Epistle by this your confession: for had there not been solidity and truth in what he said; learned Hierom, and Reverend Augustine (two eminent men in the Church, though you think great darkness was upon their spirits) would not have relied on that which hath no weight in it; they were well able to ponder the weight of words, before they would rely upon them, or applaud them. And what saith Augustine of that Epistle? That Cyprian was not devising any new decree, but followed the most sure faith of the 
Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens, sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans, etc. Aug. Ep. 28. ad Hier.  Church: doth he not therein testify that Cyprian maintaining that Infants might be baptised before the eighth day, did devise no new decree, but observed faithfully what the Church did before him: whereby it seems, though Augustine approved Cyprians judgement, yet he relied not upon his reasons to make good Infant-baptisme; this to him is no new doctrine, he had another eye upon the constant and sure faith of the Church, which in that point he followed faithfully.  
You tell me, I said Fidus denied not Infant's Baptism, but thought they ought not to be baptised before the eighth day: to this you give no answer; and may I not thereby think that it appeareth evidently to yourself, as well as to me, that Paedobaptism in that age was in use? for this you deny not: and indeed, that this was the question wherein Fidus craved resolution of Cyprian: s●il. whether Infants were to be baptised before the eighth day, it appears by the words of the Epistle: Quantum ad causam pertines, quos dixisti intra s●cundum, vel tertium diem qu● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constitut●s baptizari non opertere, & considerandam esse legem circumcisioni● antiquae, ut intra oct av●m diem, eum qui natus est baptizandum & sanctifieandum non putares, etc. Fidus question therefore was, as I said before: this appears also by August. his testimony, who ad Bonisacium, lib. 4. contr. ●. Ep. Pelag. c. 18. says the same.  
So far then we agree: but you say, I might have gone further, and observed Fidus his reasons; one whereof was drawn from Circumcision, which was done upon the eighth day after the birth of the child: The other is drawn from the child's uncleanness in the first days of its birth, which makes men abhor to kiss it, etc. both which are related by Cyprian, not 
Vestigium infantis in primis parus sui diel us constituti mundum non dixisse  as his own judgement, but as reasons of Fidus his scruples, whereof he sought resolution from him: to both which he gives the judgement of the Council, assuring him, that none of them agreed with him herein. If Fidus did Judaize in both these, or either of them, what's that to me, who say he denied not Baptism to be administered to Infants? if the ground he went upon to tie it to the eighth day, was unsound, I seek not to justify him in it. Yet let me tell you, that Fidus was not the only man that reasoned from Circumcision to Baptism, though they do not tie Baptism to the eighth day, as Fidus did. Besides the testimonies 
Ath. de Sab. & Circumcis. Orat. 40.  brought out of Athanasius before, take notice that he calls Circumcision a type of Baptism. Greg. Nazianz. proves that Children are now to be baptised, as under the law they were circumcised. August. also saith the same, lib. 1. contra Grescon. Grammaticum, c. 30. & de Bapt. contr. Donatist. lib. 4. c. 23. Where he says, Baptism is as profitable to children now, as Circumcision was to children of old. Chrysost. also Hom. 40. in Genes. calls our Circumcision Baptism. But none of all these holy men tied Baptism to a certain day, as Circumcision was, as chrysostom speaketh in the same place.  
How far these worthy men Judaized in that age, in saying Baptism now comes in stead of Circumcision, is not now to be considered by us; therefore I leave it.  
In the next place, you say, The resolution of this Council is not to be slighted, because upon your search, you find it the 
P. 11.  springhead of Infant-Baptisme. It seems when you cast your lead into the sea of Antiquity to find out the depth of this ordinance, your line was too short, and your plummet too light, that it could not reach beyond this Epistle: are there not divers instances among the Ancients which make it manifest, that before that time Infant-baptisme was in use, as hath been manifested to you already? therefore that was not the first time in which it sprung up in the world.  
You say further, I am mistaken about the proofs of their opinion, which you call not reasons or proofs, but answers to objections. I will not wrangle with you about words, call them what you please, Arguments or Answers: this is enough to me, what I have produced is recorded in the Epistle: and all of them do justify the lawfulness of baptising Infants, which was the thing which I went about to clear: neither doth any of them enforce Baptism to be tied up to the eighth day, as Fidus thought.  
From the words of that Epistle, you allege 3 things; 1. They thought baptising, giving God's grace, denying it, denying God's grace. 2. They thought the souls to be lost, which were not baptised. 3. That all Infants (not believers only) were to be baptised. The 2 first I grant are rightly collected from the words of the Epistle; you might, if you pleased, have collected divers other things, as that Baptism comes in stead of Circumcision, etc. But suppose all their grounds which they plead be not to be justified: yet they do not darken the light which the place gives to our question. If a man were to make good any assertion of a necessary truth, and use several arguments to make it out; if one of these arguments be not good, or be weak, that may be rejected, and yet the truth stand firm, seeing the other arguments are good and strong to evidence the truth. It is true, when the Ancients said that Children were to be baptised, sometimes they stood peremptorily for the necessity of Baptism, as if without it no salvation were to be excepted; yet they made it out by other Arguments then that: why should then the truth justified and cleared up by them, be rejected for this? When they were to prove that men of years instructed in the truth, should receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, they made that good by several Reasons; as sometimes from the necessity of the command which Jesus Christ laid upon all the Disciples of the Gospel, that they might remember his death till his coming again. At other times they urged it, lest men should brand themselves with unthankfulness in not coming to the feast when they are invited. Sometimes again they pressed the same duty upon the people to come to that ordinance, that they might have the inward Grace signified and exhibted in the Sacrament, to be sealed up and confirmed to them. These three ways did they use to press their Hearers to the frequent receiving of the Sacrament: yet at some other times also they pleaded the necessity of that Sacrament, as if no man without the use thereof could be saved. No man can deny the first three Arguments to be good, though the last is not: and notwithstanding the weakness thereof, this is a sure truth, That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to be received. So it is here, divers Arguments are brought to prove that children are to be baptised; and amongst many, this is one, They conceived the want of it might be prejudicial to the salvation of Infants, which I will not justify; yet I dare not reject the truth made out by other media, reasons or arguments. And it is to be remembered that this Argument was most frequently used by the Ancients in the heat of disputation, when they had to do with them that denied the traduction of original sin from Adam to Infants: howsoever, at some other times they confess with Augustine, that some do receive rem Baptismi 
Lib. 4. c. 22. contr. Donat▪  absque Sacramento, a man may have the grace given in Baptism, and not be baptised.  
As for the third inference made by you from his words, that not only Infants of believers, but all Infants are to be baptised: though he lays it down in general terms, that none are to be hindered from coming to Christ: yet what he says aught to be understood of the Church, because he speaks of such as God hath cleansed or purified, who were common.  
You construe some passages of the Epistle as answers to some objections, which do no ways weaken, but strengthen what I have said from thence. Only in the closure of this Section, you would find fault with my gathering up of Cyprians mind, as if he had meant that Infants are to be baptised, because they are under Original sin, and need pardon. You say the Argument is rather, that they have lesser sins than others; and therefore there is lesser hindrance to them to come to this Grace, remission of sin, and Baptism. Cyprian indeed says, if Baptism be not denied to men of years, who hath committed more heinous sins than Infants, why should Baptism be denied to Infants, who are only guilty of Original sin derived to them from Adam: doth he not there mention Original sin, which he says is remitted to Children when they are baptised: which in his judgement is less than the grievous actual sins of men of years, added to their Original sin.  
In the farewell of your censure of Cyprians judgement, you call it naked, and say, you would have covered the nakedness thereof, but that the truth suffered so much thereby: and so can at your pleasure put upon it the title of an absurd Epistle. 
P. 12.  Sir, for one man to slight the judgement of 66. men, eminent in their generation, doth not well become a modest disposition taught in the Gospel, to think better of others than himself. I am afraid, that when Cyprians Epistle, and your answer shall be compared together; the nakedness of your answer will rather appear; yea, remember what the Philosopher trampling upon Plato his neat Carpet, said, calco Platonis superbiam: yet he spying a hole in his slovenly cloak, answered, & ego per rimam pallii tuam video superbiam, etc. I cannot but account it your nakedness, that if it be naked, you have not in your answer laid open the nakedness of it: but though it be absurd in your eye, yet in the judgement of men renowned for learning and piety, it hath ever been accepted in the Church, notwithstanding some mistakes in it.  
Next to Cyprian comes Augustine under your Examen: 
P. 12.  Whose authority was it (as you say) that carried on Baptism 
Augustine vindicated.  of Infants in the following ages almost without control: For which you bring forth Walfridus Strabo, and Petrus Cluniacensis testimonies, which I here mean to pass over, and take notice of them in another place.  
I confess learned Augustine his authority was great in the Church, both whilst he lived, and since, and that worthily; not only for his defence of the truth which you now oppose, but of other greater and more necessary truths also, which he solidly maintained against the adversaries who laboured either to suppress or corrupt the same: albeit you seem not much to stand upon his judgement: which with you is of no more value, than his proofs and reasons can add weight thereunto. Thus you slight him, though what he said is approved by divers Fathers and Counsels named by yourself; and how far your bare single judgement and censure will outweigh Augustine, Prosper, Fulgentius, and the Counsels, (which you mention in this Question) let the Reader judge.  
It hath been an ancient justifiable course in the Church in examining of controversies in Religion, to look back upon the writings of famous men who flourished in the Church before: was not Sisinnius his counsel to good purpose, which he presented to Theodosius (then studying how to put an end to the unhappy differences which troubled the Church in his time) when he persuaded him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Soz. 7. 12.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and to demand of them who petitioned him, whether they would not stand to the judgement of such as were Teachers in the Church before it was divided? especially when their judgement dissented not from the Scriptures: his counsel no doubt was good and wholesome; yet I desire that herein I may not be mistaken. This I speak not, as if I attributed more to Antiquity then to Verity. I have long since resolved (by God's assistance) with Hierom, Antiqua legere, probare singula, ●etinere quae bona sunt, & a fide Catholicae Ecclesiae non recedere; it were happy for the Church among us, if in this unruly age, many (who not content with former truth:, are carried on with an itching disposition after novelties) would do the like.  
I return to judicious Augustine: Here I expected your accurate Examen would have canvased the several testimonies in the places quoted by me; but I am deceived: Whereby it seems you have nothing to say against them, but that they evidence what was that Church's practice in his time about our question (which was the true and only end why I named any testimonies from Antiquity:) for if they did not, I doubt not you would have said so much: only here you tell us what your account is of his proofs and reasons of his judgement in this controversy: all which to you seem to be but light: this you labour to prove in 6 following Sections, which I will now view; and see whether your weighty answers will satisfy his light reasons in the judgement of any indifferent Reader.  
Your first exception against his judgement is, because he makes it an universal Tradition; a shrewd fault, or a dangerous 
P. 14.  position; which will not down with an Antipaedobaptisme. And first you reason against it to this purpose; If the Church had thought it necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptised in their Infancy; then none born within the pale of the Church should have miss of it. But so it is that many did. Ergo, etc. Your Minor you prove, Augustine himself, Adeodatus his son, and Alipius his friend were not so baptised; and thus you labour to prove against Augustine, that Infant-baptism was not universally received in that Church as he said, which you think to evince by the induction of these instances.  
First, that it was universally used in the Church, testimonies of good Witnesses recording the practice of the Church make it manifest; and we have heard of some of them before in their several ages; as, Irenaus lib. 2. cap: 39 (notwithstanding the bar you put in against him;) he tells us that Christ came to save all sorts of people, whether young or old, for they are regenerated by him in Baptism. Origen in several places; as, in Luc. 14. lib. 5. in Ep. ad Rom. & in Levit. Hom. 80. in which places he tells us, it was the custom of the Church to give Baptism to little ones; and says, not of this or that Church: which by a constant course they had observed: therefore in his time we find it universally practised in the Church; otherwise he could not say that the Church observed it. Cypr. Ep. 39 proves (as we have heard) that Baptism is to be denied to no age: then he adds, quanto magis prohiberi non debet Infans, etc. this he sets down as no new Doctrine, but faithfully adhering to the order of the Church; as we heard from Augustine before: may we not now from all these say, it was in his time the universal custom of the Church to baptise Infants?  
Shall I add other Witnesses who lived in the same Century with him? chrysostom Hom. ad. Neophytos. Ambrose 
Other ancient testimonies for Infant baptism.  Ep. ad Demetriadem Virginem. Hieron. ad Laetam, & lib. 3. adv. Pelag. all which I now pass over: and are not all these Witnesses of the practice of the Church? which being weighed, who can deny that Augustine might well relate Paedo-baptism to be universally practised, having such a cloud of Witnesses to confirm it.  
And to manifest it further, this is somewhat to me; Epiphanius (whose testimony you looked for) in the end of his work relating what was generally observed in the Church tells us, The Baptism administered in the Church in his time, was performed according to the Tradition of the Gospel, and the authority of the Apostles; as well as other mysteries then in use. And we know that in his time Baptism was administered to Infants; therefore in his judgement, what the Church did therein, they had authority for it from the Gospel and the Apostles: to make that good, he says afterwards, That Baptism came in stead of Circumcision, which then was not in use.  
Furthermore, sometimes Historians relating particular customs in some things which were not in use in some Churches and Countries, (upon which arose some debat●s in the Church) do not mention that of Infant's Baptism as one of these particular customs observed in some Churches, and not in other; See Socrates Hist. lib. 5. 22. its true, he relates some diversities of several Churches about persons that had power to baptise, and about the time in which Baptism was commonly administered; but he mentions none that excluded Infants from Baptism, whilst others baptised them; which no doubt he would have done if there had been any such custom then afoot in the Church. Sozom. likewise setting down the several customs of several Churches (though they were of the same Opinion) 
Soz. 7. 19  among all which singular customs, baptising Infants is not named for one, yet in use in that age: therefore it is to be conceived as the general practice of the Church. Indeed there was a different custom (especially in some after ages) in the manner of baptising both Infants and grown men; in some places they dipped them thrice, in some but once: and of this very custom Gregory the great means, when he saith, In una side nil officit ecclesiae diversa 
Soz. 1. 17.  consuetudo. But in none of these Ancients do I read any such diversity of customs that some Churches baptised Infants, others baptised them not: if you know any, I pray you produce them in your next.  
Now I come to speak to the particular instances, by which you go about to disprove this universal practice of the Church: you tell me Augustine was not baptised till above 30 years, though educated as a Christian by his Mother Monica. First, I might answer you with the Proverb, una 
P. 1 ●.  hirundo non facit ver; or that one exception takes not away 
Augustine's baptism, no argument that Infants were not then baptised.  the general rule: if after ages come to read the stories of the Church, after the Lord was pleased to begin the Reformation thereof in Luther's time: and then find that even in that time Baltazzar Pacommitanus with some of his seduced brethren did withstand Paedobaptism; or if after generations among us shall find that when God begun so happily to advance that blessed work of Reformation beyond the pitch it was brought unto in our Ancestors days, if they should meet with Mr. Tombs Examen of this question, and therein see your Judgement against the constant and universal practlse of the Church at this day: if such should from a few particular Examples infer that this was the Doctrine commonly received in the Reformed Churches (that children should not be baptised:) Or deny that this was the common received Doctrine that children should be baptised; assuredly, a man that knows the Doctrine and present practice of the Church, might with all reason deny the consequence, because some among them did not stand for Infant-Baptisme; therefore the generality of them denied it. So it may be here thought, peradventure some (though born of Christian Parents) were not in that age baptised in their Infancy; yet that is no way prejudicial to the universal practice of the Church, in which Paedobaptism was received.  
But secondly, I answer more particularly: I grant Augustine was not baptised till he was 30 years old. And I will not take upon me to determine (besides the general observation of the reasons, upon which Baptism in those days was deferred by some, which formerly have been hinted) what the particular reason was of his not being baptised in his Infancy: but I will hold forth unto the Reader so much as shall clearly show that you have no cause from that example to say, That children of Christians by profession in that age were not baptised in th●ir Infancy; because you should first prove that Augustine his parents were Christians at his birth; otherwise you speak not to the question before us; What was the profession of his Parents when he was borne? take it from Augustine himself: who says (though Possidonius in his life seems to say otherwise) when he was Putr, a child grown, he fell extreme sick, which put him in fear of death, (than he and his mother also were both troubled that he was not baptised:) he says of his Father at that time, as yet he believed 
Aug. C●nf. l. 1. c. 11. ille nondum erediderat.  not in Christ. When Augustine was about 16 years of age, his father was but catechumenus, Conf. lib. 2. ca 6. In another place speaking of his mother's peaceable cohabitation with him, (though he was a man of a hasty disposition, and sometimes used her unkindly) yet he says of her, virum suum in extrema vita temporali ejus lucrata est 
Confess. 9 9  tibi (i. e. Deo,) etc. Doth not that testimony plainly hold out, that he was not gained to the Christian faith until he drew near the end of his life? and if it was so long before he was truly gained to the Lord; how can it seem strange to any, that he who believed not in Christ himself, should neglect, or it may be hinder the baptising of his Child in the name of Christ?  
It is also said of Monica, that when she was but 13 years old, she was married; her mother taught her to pray, but we read not of her baptism when she was young: or if she were baptised when he was borne, how shall we know that her husband would give way to her to have Baptism administered to her son, she suffered many things of him whilst he continued an Infidel, as Augustine confesseth. Nay more, if she were baptised herself at his birth, why might she not be conceived to be carried away with the error of some in that time of deferring Baptism till death, that they might not sin after it? it appears not, his Parents were Christians (it is out of doubt his Father was not) at his birth: therefore nothing for the strengthening of your assertion is gained by this instance.  
Afterwards Augustine put off his own Baptism till he was about 30 years, and upward, and what marvel? He was poisoned with the Manichaean heresy, in which he continued 
Poss●d. de vita Aug c. 1.  almost 9 years, Conf. lib. 3. c. 11. in which time what account he made of Baptism, may be seen in his deriding 
Conf, 4 3.  of it to his dear and intimate friend (who was baptised in his sickness) by whom he is sharply rebuked for it. I might also add what he confesses, that the strength of his lustful disposition carried him on to many sins, which made him make no haste to be baptised; quia post lavacrum illud, major & periculosior in sordibus delictorum reatus 
Conf. 1. 11.  sorct: so much may be read in Augustine himself, of the causes of deferring his baptism, which yet can be no prejudice to the general practice of the Church in that age; as it is mentioned by himself, and others.  
Neither is it any wonder why Adeodatus his son was not baptised in his Infancy: for how can we seek for 
Nor his son Adeoda●us.  his Baptism in Infancy when as his father was unbaptised? he being borne when his father was about some 15. or 16. years of age. When Augustine himself was baptised, he caused him to be baptised with himself, Adeodatus being 
Conf. 9 6.  almost 15. years old. Indeed if Adeodate had continued unbaptised after Augustine his baptism, your objection drawn from him might have had some colourable pretence, which now it hath not; much less any weight in it to confirm what you seek to strengthen thereby.  
As for Alipius, besides his scandalous conversation, he 
Conf. 6 7. Conf. 7. 19 Nor Alipius.  was also poisoned by the Manichees: and further it appears also what mistake he had concerning the doctrine taught in the Church about Christ's soul; whereupon it is said of him, ad ipsam Christianam sidem tardius movebatur: therefore considering how long he continued in his errors, it is not to be wondered at that he also was so long unbaptised. So much for your three instances.  
Afterwards because you fear these instances will not be sufficient to make good your answer, therefore you grant with Grotius, that Paedobaptism was much more frequented, and with greater opinion of necessity in Africa, then in Asia, or other parts of the world: I take what you grant, that it was used both in Africa and Asia: and may I not then with Augustine say it was universal, both among greeks and Latins?  
And when you say it was more frequented in Africa then in Asia; I know you would intimate that the received custom was, that some did, others did it not, each doing what he thought best, but that the Greeks less regarded it then the Latins: for so I find both Grotius, and the Arminians in their book Censura censurae, Cap. 23. to affirm confidently, but neither you nor they must be believed upon your bare assertion against so many witnesses: yet this sticks with you, that in the Counsels (as Grotius saith) you cannot find ancienter mention 
Pag. 14.  of that custom than the council of Carthage: I have formerly told you why Fathers and Counsels mention not all things which are controverted in our age, which was this: because their care was to resolve the doubts which troubled the Church in their days: if there be no Canon concerning it, why may it not be thought that they did not mention it, because in their times none did scruple it? yet when any thing relating to children's Baptism was started, than the Church maintained it, witness the 66 Bishops assembled in a Council answering Fidus about that question. I might also put you in mind that Constitutiones Clementis make mention of it saying, But baptise ye your Children: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 albeit for my part I conceive these Constitutions not to be his, under whose name they go, yet with the best Critics I may affirm this, that they relate the ancient customs of the Greek Church, gathered into one volume, the Compiler of them desiring to put credit upon them would have several Constitutions to come from several Apostles.  
And although it was more used in Africa then elsewhere, yet 
Fulgent▪ de fide ad Petrum, ca 30.  you question whether they did in Africa baptise Infants but in case of necessity, or for healths sake: I pray remember what Tertullian that learned African said de Anima. Fulgentius tells us baptism is sufficient to wash away original sin from Infants, so Hilarius Ep. 2. ad Augustinum mentions it, yet neither of these speak of Baptism in the danger of death: to which you say they restrained it.  
You mention the distinction of Catechumeni and persons Baptised, and the use of catechising before Baptism, that even after Augustine his days the baptising of persons of grown age did continue as well as of Infants, etc. Do you not forget the question before us? you should have proved that Infants were not baptised, and now you speak of baptising of men of years, which gives you occasion to mention the distinction of Catechumeni and others, and that is nothing to our question; for who ever doubted that even in Augustine his time many still adhered to Paganism? and when any of them had embraced the faith, why might they not be catechised, and so prepared for Baptism, and when they were sound fit baptised? Augustine could us before, that his father was Catechumenus when he was sixteen years of age.  
Then you come to censure baptising of whole Countries upon the baptising of their King, etc. which is nothing to our question, otherwise I might relate unto you several examples where you might see, what a notable preparation for the conversion of Nations it hath been to have their Governors show them the way, but I forbear.  
In your second Section you except against Augustine his judgement, because he held that Infants without baptism must 
Pag. 15.  be damned by reason of original sin, which is not taken away but by baptism. I grant that Augustine, and some others of the Ancients pressed baptising of Infants upon that ground, but not only upon that ground: and they did most press that ground when they had to do with Heretics, denying original sin to be conveyed from parents to their children: yet they maintained Paedobaptism upon other sound grounds, as formerly I have proved; therefore this exception is of no vilidity, nor was this Augustine's constant Doctrine: yea it was a Doctrine which he retracted as an error, as shall afterwards appear.  
Again you say, that you cannot find among the Ancients the ground that I go upon: that the Covenant of grace belongs to believers and their seed. What if you have not found it, will you therefore say it is not to be found in their writings? Bernardus non vidit omnia: why may not some things in the vast monuments of Antiquity pass unseen by you? though you have seen much, and think that you have seen more truth than all the Ancients did, and can censure what they say at your pleasure: But if you did find this in the writings of the Ancients, it would make nothing for, or against me, who have not placed Infant-baptisme upon that ground, because they placed it so: I have asserted that ground from the Scripture, as afterwards, God willing, shall be made good. But that they also, (even many of the ancients) pressed Baptism upon the sound grounds which we do, I have made it appear out of several writings.  
As for the judgement of Bellarmine, Aquinas and others quoted by you, I will not trouble myself in answering for them: they were not alleged by me, neither will I stand to their judgement.  
In your third Section you bid me consider of Augustine his judgement, holding it necessary for Infants to receive the Lords Supper: that opinion is nothing to our question in debate before us, therefore you can expect no answer from me to it, for I never pleaded it.  
But what is your Argument from hence, Augustine held it fit to give Infants the Lords Supper, Ergo, What? draw a conclusion to hurt me if you can, our question being whether Infants were baptised in his days.  
Fourthly you tell me that Augustine held a certainty of 
Pag. 16.  Regeneration by Baptism, and he makes no question of the Regeneration of Infants, etc. I confess that sometimes he says so, yet at other times (as I told you before) he says there are some qui rem baptismi absque Sacramento baptismi consequentur. So also did Ambrose comforting Valentinian his sisters upon his death (for he died whilst Ambrose was on his journey coming to Baptise him) where he said of him, Quem in Evangelio geniturus eram, amisi: sed ille non amisit gratiam quam poposcit— vita jam fruitur aeterna— qui habuit speculum tuum Sancte p●ter, quomodo non accepit gratiam tuam? he speaks confidently of his eternal estate, though unbaptised: yet Ambrose as well as Augustine at other times attributed too much to outward Baptism.  
Fiftly, you scorn his judgement in defending questions put to Infants at their Baptism, and answered by others. That's enough to me to prove that Infants were then baptised, though I will not take upon me to justify that custom of putting forth questions to them, who by reason of their age were not able to return an answer: possibly I could tell you how, and that many other customs crept into the Church, but because it is not to our purpose, I forbear.  
Lastly, you say, it is apparent out of that Epistle of Augustine, That Infants, whether borne of Believers, or of such as had not received the Christian faith, were baptised, neither do ●● in that justify him: you may take notice that here again you confess the question that Infants were baptised.  
But because you make such a great matter of it that it must needs follow that they rejected covenant-holiness or the birth-priviledge of believers Infants, because they baptised other Infants if brought unto them; I reply that you cannot be ignorant that many learned men deny this consequence, because they conceive that not only such as are borne of Christian parents might be baptised, but that other Infants also if any Christian would undertake to train them up in Christ's School might be admitted into it by Baptism; you know many of the reformed Divines think this lawful, who yet plead covenant-holiness, as further warrant why believers children not only may, but aught to be Baptised: and Tertullian pleads both these grounds in the place I quoted at large, both prerogative of birth, and benefit of education. Furthermore many of the Rabbins say, that the children of Gentiles might be circumcised if a Jew would bring him up in Religion, yet they all hold a birth-priviledge of Jew's children, for Circumcision; I allege all this to show that you should not thus vilify and scorn their practice and grounds without a more clear refutation of them then yet you have made: whether that which hath been spoken out of Cyprians Epistle, and Augustine's approbation of it, do not advantage my cause, whether they have not proved as much as I alleged them for, I leave to the judicious and impartial Reader.  
To all the forenamed Authors I added Hierome and Ambrose his testimonies to prove the same: here you confess that they were of the same judgement with Augustine in our question, therefore you conceive your answer to Augustine his testimony to be a sufficient answer to them also: in like manner I refer you to my reply to your former answer.  
Your last Section of this Chapter is a Recollection of what you have already alleged both for the invalidating of the testimonies brought by me to prove the practice of Infant-baptisme, as also of what you have brought to induce an opinion that there was no such thing practised in the first and best Antiquity. You must give me leave to recollect what I have already answered to these exceptions and allegations; as for your Vives and Strabo, I shall give you my thoughts of them anon.  
You confess I brought these testimonies only to prove the practice of Infant-Baptisme, and that you cannot deny they prove, only you add they rather prove the thing an error than a truth, because practised upon such erroneous grounds. As the necessity of Baptism to salvation: The certainty of the Remission of original sin: The denying of Baptism unto none. But are these the only proofs by which the Ancients did assert the baptising of Infants; I have proved, that notwithstanding some of them owned that corrupt ground (and pleaded it especially in the heat of disputation) yet they baptised them upon the same grounds which we do. Do not Tertullian, Cyprian, etc. argue from Circumcision unto Baptism as we now do, and others of them from covenant-holiness? (but this and our other proofs you threaten to consider hereafter.)  
In the mean time this you add, (you should have said repeat) for you add nothing to what you had spoken before.  
That the Testimonies produced prove not that it was in practice, but in case of supposed necessity. Let the Reader judge whether these Testimonies have not proved it an universal practice, and so not only in case of supposed necessity; and let Mr. Tombs but consult that Book, which I perceive he hath made great use of in this Controversy, an Arminian Book commonly known by the name of Censurae Censurae, and that will tell him that Augustine may be said to be the first that grounded Infant-baptisme upon necessity, Cen. Cen. cap. 23.  
Secondly, you say there was still in practise a constant course of baptising the grown children of professed believers when they were at full age: you have seen already how much you are mistaken in those instances you give of such a practice, and how much this practice was disavowed by the Fathers of those times, could you but find as much in Antiquity against the baptising of Infants as there is against the deferring Baptism, how would you triumph?  
Thirdly, you say they did conceive a like necessity of, and accordingly did practise the giving of the Lords Supper to Infants. But did all the Father's forementioned judge and practise so? you cannot but know that all that plead for them do not plead for the other, nor can you show that all that practised the one practised the other; I confess some of the Africans did so.  
Your fourth, that they made no difference between the Infants of believers and unbelievers brought unto them, if it were true, doth not disprove the practice of Baptising Infants, only it proves an error in that practice. But (if by unbelievers you mean Pagans) it is not proved to be their general practice, I think it was practised by some of them upon the grounds above mentioned, but not found in their constant and general practice.  
In your fifth you speak cautelously that the Ancientest of Testimonies for practise [according to any Rule determined] is Cyprian near 300. years after Christ. Here I must needs take notice of your overlashing, who before calculating his age acknowledged him to live but 250. years, and here you say he lived almost 300. years. I see that the Testimonies of justine Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, (who all lived nearer the times of Christ then Cyprian) are made good against your exceptions; you find only this evasion, that their Testimonies do not prove the practice of Infant-baptisme, according to any Rule determined. But Sir remember our controversy at present is concerning the practice, not the Rule.  
In the next place you undertake to prove that it was not so from the beginning, and that by many evidences. Now I cannot but conceive it likely, that Augustine's Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit, should sway as much with the intelligent impartial Reader, as Mr. Tombs his Non semper habuit, non semper tenuit; especially considering that you bring not in all the Antiquity you have produced one man that doth either deny the Baptising of Infants to have been the ordinary practice of the Church or that condemn it, only two you cite that do advise the deferring of it, as they do also the Baptism of grown men.  
As first, the propounding of questions unto Infants, which as Strabo and Vives did, so any reasonable man say you will think a manifest proof that at first none were baptised but such as understood the saith of Christ.  
This supposeth these questions to be of as Ancient use in the Church of God as Baptism itself, which certainly you can never prove from Scripture, and how can any reasonable man think that a manifest proof to whom Baptism was, or was not at first administered, that was not in use in the first administration. I have produced testimonies bearing witness to the baptising of children, which plead for it, before you can bring any to witness that those forms of questions and answers, had any being in the Church.  
Secondly, your examples of Greg. Naz. Chrysost. August. Constantine the Great, have been already answered. Your mistakes in their parents, education, reasons of their deferring Baptism, so made manifest, as it is abundantly evident they are far from proving the Baptising of Infants of Christian parents not to have been the received and constant practice of the Church of Christ.  
Thirdly, Greg. Nazianzen and Tertullian whom you cite as dissuading; you have heard even in the places cited to you, the one bearing witness to the practice of Infant-baptisme, the other commanding it.  
Fourthly, the Testimony of the Council of Neocaesaerea which you say is plain against it; of the testimony of this Council, let the Reader look back and judge, but the gloss upon that Canon to which you referred us, I am sure is a plain Testimony for it.  
Fiftly, the silence which you impute to the chief writers, Eusebius, etc. is your mistake, not their fault; for Eusebius, what the reason of his silence is you have heard; and for your, etc. if you mean Tertullian, Athanasius, Epiphanius, whom before you charged with silence in this cause, I hope you may now hear them speaking and witnessing for us.  
Sixtly, for the many passages in Austin and others that call it an Apostolical Tradition, in what sense they are to be understood I have already showed, and am loath to detain the Reader with Tautologies.  
For your Triumvirs that bring up your rear and shut up this first part of your Battalia, Grotius, Vives, and Strabo. (to whom I wonder you did not add Censura Censurae, for you are more beholden to them for your Testimonies of 
Chapter 23.  Antiquity, such as they be, then to all your other three, and I dare say, without disparagement to your reading, whoever looks in Grotius and them, shall find almost all that you have spoken in this Controversy from Antiquity collected to your hand.) One of your three Champions I have encountered, and I hope dispatched already; and for the other two Vives and Strabo, I see they are men of great account with you. Vives you quote five or six times, and adorn your Frontispiece with a piece of his, and Strabo you mention often. But I beseech you Sir, must we take the bare word of Vives a man of yesterday, or of a Strabo in matters of fact in things done so many hundred years before they were borne, and that against the express witness of so many worthy and learned men who lived in those times? what evidence do either of them produce out of Antiquity to make their assertion good? You know well enough that learned Vossius did take notice of Strabo and Vives, and proves out of Authors that lived many hundred years before Strabo (for he lived but about 850) that Infants were baptised in the Church of old, and wonders that Strabo should rely upon so weak an argument as he doth; and I as much wonder that you knowing all this should boast so much of such broken Reeds. And so I leave you and your men, and shall expect to see what relief you will be able to give them, for they can give none to you.  
More Testimonies you say you could have added out of sundry Authors: which I hardly believe seeing you are forced to rake up an old use continued in some Cities of Italy only upon the hearsay of Vives. But these you say are enough to you, and you think to any that search into antiquity, to prove that the custom of Baptising of Infants was not from the beginning, and therefore is but an innovation, I verily believe upon your next search into Antiquity, you will be of another mind.  
And for your confident assertion that the Doctrine that Baptism is to be● given to Infants of Believers only because of covenant-holiness, is not elder than Zuinglius: Zuinglius I confess was a great Patron of this cause, who in a public dispute did so convince and stop the mouths of the Anabaptists, that they appearing to the Magistrates unreasonably obstinate were banished the City. But whereas you say he is the first that you can find that maintained the Baptism of Infants upon this ground; I shall be glad to help you; peruse but what is before your eyes, and you shall find Tertullian and Athanasius pleading the right of Infants to the Kingdom of heaven upon Covenant holiness: you may find Epiphanius, Cyprian, Nazianzen, Augustine, chrysostom, and others pleading Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision, and divers of them pleading Infants right to Baptism from the Jews Infants right to Circumcision, which to me is all one as to plead it from covenant-holiness: you may also find even the Pelagians acknowledging a Divine Institution for it, secundum sententiam Evangelii. And now I hope it will not offend you if I say, I am sorry you discover so much either ignorance, or negligence in the search of Antiquity, as to say, The Tenet and Practice of Infant-baptisme accordingly as we hold and practise, is not much above 100 years old, so far as you can find.  
To conclude this part of my Treatise about the Antiquity of Infant-Baptisme, give me leave to add these few things. First, that I should not have judged it convenient to have made so much search into the practice of antiquity, if you had not so confidently undertaken to show that the ancients were of your mind, and that I perceive your fair shows make many begin to think it was as you affirm, and therefore taking myself bound to give the best account I could with truth, I have not only made what diligent search I could myself, but have also (which I willingly acknowledge that no man may think of my reading above what it is) made use of my friend who is better versed in their writings then I am, lest the truth in this matter of practice might suffer through my weakness, who have but just leisure enough to look into these Authors now and then, and consult them upon occasion. Yet had it been needful, I could have added many other testimonies out of the Ancients to let you see that they approved Infant-Baptisme, and affirmed that Baptism came in the place of Circumcision, as the Author of the Book De Vocatione Gentium, lib. 1. cap. 7 Cyrill. Alexandrin. in Levis. lib. Isychius Presbyter in Levit. lib. 2. cap. 6. and many more.  
Secondly, in this search I find that the Ancients did not think that all who died unbaptised were damned, as you usually charge them.  
They conceived that Martyrs were baptised with their blood, and therefore might be saved though they were not baptised with water. When great Basil discoursed of this point in his Homily of the 40. Martyrs, he saith of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; He was baptised not by another (or the saith of another) but by his own faith: not in water, butin his own blood. Here Baptism by water was denied, and yet salvation attained by a two fold Baptism, by faith, and in blood.  
Yea I also observe that they who were no Martyrs, were in the judgement of the Ancients sufficiently baptised by the holy Ghost, without blood or water: and for proof of this point, I shall produce a testimony out of Augustine, whom I cite the rather, because upon second thoughts he did retract his opinion, and acknowledge that Baptism was not Absolutely necessary to salvation, Martyrdom might suffice without Baptism, nay faith and conversion of the heart might suffice without Martyrdom, or Baptism, in case a man were cast into such straits, that he could not be made partaker of Baptism; Etiam atque etiam considerans inv●nio (saith he) non tantum passionem pro nomine Christi, id quod ex Baptismo deerat, posse supplere, sed etiam fidem conversionemque cordis, si forte ad celebrandum Mysterium Baptismi in angustiis temporum succurri non potest, in his fifth book De Baptismo contra Donatistas'; observe that he saith, etiam atque etiam considerans, etc. and therefore I told you this was his judgement upon second thoughts, and more mature deliberation.  
And when this point came to be debated in after ages, the Church took notice of this Retractation, Bernard discourses upon this subject at large in his 77. Epistle, and proves clearly out of Ambrose and Augustine that invisible sanctification was sufficient to salvation without a participation of the visible Sacrament. Invisibilem sanctificationem quibusdam affuisse, & profuisse sine visibilibus Sacramentis— Solam interdum fidem sufficere ad salutem, et sine ipsâ sufficere nihil, etc. Faith alone saith he, (that is, faith without Martyrdom) is sufficient to salvation, and nothing but saith: for though Martyrdom, saith Bernard there, may supply the defect of Baptism, we must not conceive that the punishment or suffering prevails, but the faith of him that suffers. Sufficiet spiritus solus (saith Blesensis, one that's as ancient as Bernard, more ancient than your Walafridus Strabo) quia ipsius testimonium pondus habet. It is also clear and evident, that after this opinion prevailed, Infant-Baptisme was not rejected, and therefore you are extremely mistaken in this point. Now if (in the opinion of the ancients) men of grown years might be saved without Baptism, if they were either converts, or Martyrs, why may not elect Infants who are certainly sanctified, be made happy without Baptism, when they have been made holy by the spirit of holiness? could any of the ancients reasonably grant the one, and deny the other?  
Thirdly, you may see that in pleading for this universal practice I speak no louder than other Reformed Divines, for the antiquity of Infant-Baptisme. Judicious Calvin who was well versed in Antiquity, in his instruction against the Anabaptists hath these words; I affirm that this holy Ordinance of Infant-Baptisme hath been perpetually observed in the Christian Church, for there is no ancient Doctor, that doth not acknowledge that Infant-Baptisme was constantly administered by the Apostles.  
4. That notwithstanding all this evidence I have brought from Antiquity, yet I build as little upon Antiquity as any other man. I acknowledge what learned Rivet saith to be very true, that Tradition is in most points uncertain, and therefore he that will build sure must build upon the Scripture: Proinde necessario veniendum erat ad argumenta ex Scriptures; quae si rem non evincant, frustra traditionem advocabimus. Animadv. in Annot. Grotii in Cassandrum, Art. 9 Pag. 71. And I would have you and every Reader to remember, that I do not build my faith upon humane Traditions in this Argument, nor did the ancients build upon humane traditions in this thing: the very Pelagians themselves acknowledge it upon this ground. Parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt (saith Augustine of the Pelagians) qui contra authoritatem universae Ecclesiae procul-dubio per Dominum et Apostolos traditam, venire non possunt, lib. 1. de peccat. merit. et Remiss. cap. 26. Nay, they were forced to their own prejudice to acknowledge that Infants were baptised secundum regulam universalis Ecclesiae & Evangelii sententiam, lib. cont. Caelest. & Pelag. Now that which was pressed from the scope of the Gospel was not pressed as a Tradition, and that which was acknowledged by the Pelagians to be the practice of the universal Church, according to the rule of the Gospel, was not built upon tradition. I will therefore close up my testimonies produced out of the ancient writers, with that savoury passage of learned Calvin, in his Instructions against the Anabaptists; Caeterum minime peto, ut in eo probando nos Antiquit●s ●●llo modo juvet, etc. I do not desire (saith he) to borrow any help from Antiquity for the proof of this point, any whit farther than the judgement of the Ancients shall be found to be grounded on the Word of God: for I know full well, that as the custom of men doth not give authority to the Sacraments, so the use of the Sacrament cannot he said to be right, and regular, because regulated by custom.   

PART II.  
HAving made good the practice of Antiquity for the Baptising of Infants, I follow you in that which 
Reply to Sect. 1.  you are pleased to make the second part of my Sermon, which you call prejudices against Antipaedobaptists, from their novelty and miscarriages. Where, first, you blame me for seeking by prefacing and setting down a brief touch of the Anabaptists carriage in Germany, to create prejudice in my Auditors.  
To which I answer, that I yet never learned that a brief 
Answ.  setting down the Original History and State of a Controversy, or the weight and consequence of it, thereby the more to engage the Readers attention, was against any Rule or Law of Art either divine or humane; but in case it were a fault, Quis tulerit Gracchoes? You who begin your book with telling, how nine months since you sent thus many Arguments in Latin, drawn up in a Scholastic way, etc. and never yet received any Answer, and in the end of your book intimated that though you allowed me but a month, yet I have kept your book a whole year unanswered: and throughout your whole Treatise strive to make an ostentation of reading, and put abundance of scoffs and jeers upon them who are of a contrary mind to you, and seek to load the opinion you write against as if it carried all kind of mischiefs in the womb of it. All which things you know well enough are apt to take the people; but have no weight with them who use only to weigh Proof with Proof, and Argument with Argument: you (I say) of all other should pardon such a peccadillo, and might very well have passed over what either myself or Dr. Featlies' Frontispiece, or Mr. Edward's his expressions might seem to be liable to, of exception in this kind.  
In your second Section you blame me for two things, 
Reply to Sect. 2.  first that I gave you no more light out of Augustine, to know who they were that questioned Paedobaptism in his days, you have searched and cannot find any, the Pelagians you acknowledge opposed it not, the custom was so universal, and esteemed so sacred that they durst not oppose it.  
All the further light I shall now give in a matter of no 
Answ.  greater consequence is, that if you cannot find any in Augustine's days who questioned it, I am contented you shall believe there were none.  
Secondly, you blame me for making such a leap from Augustine's time, to Baltazzar Pacommitanus, as if be were the first who opposed it, where as you allege many who opposed it 400. years before his time. To which I answer, I said not he 
Answ.  was the first whose judgement was against it, but the first that made an head against it, or a division (or Schism) in the Church about it. It is possible men may hold a private opinion differing from the received doctrine, and yet never make a rent, or divide the Church into factions about it. 
That the middle times between the Fathers and Luther were for Baptising Infants.   
But let us examine your instances; you allege the famous Berengarius as one. 2. The Albingenses. 3. Out of Bernard you mention another nameless Sect. 4. Petrus Cluniacensis, charges the same upon the Petro-Brusians.  
To all which I answer, first, in general. That (these instances of yours having occasioned me to make a more diligent 
Answ.  search into the doctrine and practice of those middletimes between the Fathers, and the beginning of Reformation in L●●bers time) I dare confidently think, that you will have an hard task to prove out of any impartial Authors, that there were any company of men before the Anabaptists in Germany, who rejected the baptising of Infants out of the confession of their faith; possibly some private man might do it, but I shall desire you to show that any company or Sect (if you will so call them) have ever denied the lawfulness of baptising of Infants: produce if you can any of their confessions, allege any Acts of any Counsels where this doctrine was charged upon any, and condemned in that Council: you know, the generality of the visible Christian world was in those days divided into the followers of the Beast, and the small number of those who followed the Lamb, who bare witness to the truth of the Gospel in the times of that Antichristian Apostasy, these were called by several names, Berengarians, Waldenses, poor men of Lions, Albingenses, Catharists, Petr-Brusians, and several other names, as may be seen in Bishop Ushers book of the Succession and State of the Christian Churches. Now all grant that the Church of Rome even in those days, owned the baptising of Infants, and so did all those persecuted Companies or Churches of the Christians, for any thing I can find to the contrary. Several Catalogues of their confessions and opinions I find in several Authors, 
Usher de successione, cap. 6. Sect. 1●. 17. Cap. 8. Sect. 34. Cap. 10. Magdeburg●en●. 12. Cap. 8 col. 1●06.  and more particularly in that forenamed book De successione Christianarum Ecclesiarum. But not any one of them denying this point; they indeed denied any Sacrament to confer grace ex opere operato, and thereupon some of their adversaries would lay to their charge that they denied gratiam Baptismi, the grace of Baptism: And others of them denied the trumperies that went along with Baptism in the Church of Rome: And thereupon some of their adversaries charged them that they laughed at the Baptism of Infants: but I can find none who laid to their charge simply that they denied the lawfulness of Baptising of Infants, except only such who also charged them with Manicheisme and other abominable doctrines & practices, which we all believe they utterly abhorred; Nothing tends more fully to manifest their doctrine then their own confessions, one whereof was published by Baltazzar Lidius which was presented to Vladislaus King of Hungary: In their Apology 
Baltazzar Lidius, Tom. 2. Pag. 285. etc.  and defence of their doctrine, they have a whole Chapter wherein they assert and prove Paedobaptism largely. The confession of the Taborites hath not a word sounding 
History of the Waldenses. lib. 1. cap. 3. p. 10.  against it. I find also in the History of the Waldenses, this is set down among the calumnies unjustly cast upon them, That they reject the Baptism of Infants, for which Bernard is cited in his 66. Hom. in Cant. but of this they are purged out of their own writings, and there the ground and occasion 
Lib. 1. cap 4. pag. 15. Lib. cap. 6. pag. 43.  of imputing this error to them is expressed line 15. True it is, that having been constrained some 100 years, etc. The same Author in the third part of his history, professedly sets down the doctrine of the Waldenses and Albigenses, and among other things concerning Baptism, he expresses this: And whereas Baptism is administered in a full Congregation— and for this cause it is that we present our children in Baptism, which they ought to do, to whom the children are nearest, as parents, etc. Waldensis against the Wicklevists and Hussits imputes this heresy to some of the Lollards, that believers 
Tom. 3. Tit. 5. cap. 53.  children were not to be baptised, and that Baptism was to no purpose administered to them, secundum ritum quem servat Ecclesia, but he imputes it not to Wicklefs followers in general, only ascribes it to some Lollards of the Highlands in Scotland, and some few of the Diocese of Norwich, and yet in the same place confesses he had seen none of their writings to that purpose, nor knew what their grounds were, but only had transiently heard that they used to produce 1 Cor. 7. Sanctificatus est, etc.  
2. I answer to your particular instances, first, for Berengarius, it 
Usher de Success. cap. 7. Sect. 37. Berengarius cleared from Anabaptism.  is true that Deoduinus Leodienses took it up as a common fame, and upon his credit Guitmund Archbishop of Averse relates it: But saith Bishop Usher, in so many Synods held against Berengarius, we never find any thing of this nature laid to his charge: and to him it appears that they who in those days were charged to hold that Baptism did not parvulis proficere ad salutem, held nothing but this, that Baptism doth not confer grace ex opere operato.  
The same answer serves for the Albigenses and Waldenses; clear it is that neither Aene● Silvius in his book de Origine 
Waldenses, Albigenses, etc. cleared from Anabaptism.  Bohemorum, when he sets down their opinions, nor the Magdeburgenses, who out of an ancient Manuscript relate their doctrines, no nor William Reynolds in his Calvino-Turcismus, wherein he endeavours to reproach them, lays any such thing to their charge. Sure I am, the confession of the faith of the Albingenses recorded by Hoveden doth enough, 
Usher. ubi supr. ca 8. Sect. 34.  and more then enough own the baptising of Infants. 'tis true, Bernard in the place cited by you says of those Anonymous people whom he wrote against, (who were no other than some of the Waldenses) Irrident nos quia baptizamus Infants, and the rest of the Doctrines which you mention, but withal in the same place charges them with Manechisme, and relates how the people threw them into the water as if they were witches, and when they would not sink they fell upon them with stones and killed them; and if you believe Bernard slandered them in these two last, you will forgive the Reader if he believe that he did no less in the other. And as for what Petrus Cluniacensis writes against Peter de Bruis and his successor Henry, the truth is, these two men, did for 20. years together so much spread the Doctrine of the Waldenses, and so plague the Bishop's Mitres, and the Monk's bellies, that I wonder not though they charged any thing upon them which might make them odious to the people. He who reads that railing book of Petrus Cluniacensis, will find that he acknowledges most of what he lays to their charge to be upon the report of others, and lays this for one of their Articles, that Children who died before they could actually believe were damned, and that they would have all Churches demolished, and encouraged people to pull them down; and that common fame gave out that they condemned all the Latin Fathers, and not only excluded the Latin Doctors è Cathedra Doctorum, but è regno Caelorum; that they did not altogether believe the Prophets, Apostles, nor Christ himself. And no marvel that these opinions should be charged upon them, though they held them not, seeing we find this particular charged upon Luther, Calvin, and Beza, who did all in special manner oppose this error: So that until you or some other do out of their own confession, 
Jos. Vicecom. Obser. Eccl. Vol. Lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 103.  or some other impartial and authentic Register give better evidence than yet you have done, I shall believe that this doctrine of opposing the baptising of the Infants of believers, is an Innovation no ancienter than the Anabaptists in Germany; concerning whose practices we now proceed to inquiry.  
In your third Section you take great pains to show out of 
To Sect. 3.  your reading who first in Germany stirred this question. I shall not stay the Reader long about it, because yourself grant that it is not tanti; I deny not but Nicholaus Storch, Marcus Stubner, and Thomas Muncer did bring it first upon the Stage about 1521, or 1522, and that by Muneers doctrine, a sad sedition was raised in the upper Germany, among the Country people, but because this Baltazzar Hubmir P acommitanus Pastor of the Waldshut, a Town near the Helvetians, was a man of greater note for learning, of an active turbulent spirit, one who both by preaching and writing much fomented their way, & was in very great repute among them, I feared not (as others have done before me) to name him as the Antesignanus of that unhappy Sect: of whose seditious practices, doctrine, recantation, Apostasy, and miserable death, for which he was esteemed a Martyr by his followers, I might out of many German writers easily inform the Reader, if I affected a needless ostentation of reading.  
In this Section upon occasion of the name of Anabaptism, and reiterating of Baptism, you desired to have it 
To Sect. 4.  proved unlawful to repeat Baptism, or for a man that hath been baptised rightly to be baptised again: and afterward in your third part Sect. 12. you profess you are not satisfied, but that both Circumcision might have been, and baptism may be reiterated: and here you add that the Argument used against the repetition of Baptism are insufficient; and that if there were but as much for baptising of Infants, as Acts 19 5, 6. affords for rebaptisation, the controversy were at an end with you.  
I answer, you here clearly discover your itch after new 
Answ.  opinions, your joining with the Marcionites and Aetians, who allowed it to be done at least thrice. I suppose in your next we shall have your Arguments to prove the lawful fullness of it, which if you do, I beseech you also to show how oft it may be done, whether as oft as the Pharisees used to wash: at least (because your answers here seem to imply so much) whether it may not be repeated as oft as we should attend upon the preaching of the word, or as oft as we should endeavour to mortify our corruptions? In the mean time I shall tell you some of the reasons which have hitherto satisfied 
Vide Vossii Theses de Anabaptist. Reason's against rebaptisation of such as are rightly baptised.  the Orthodox Church in all ages.  
First, Baptism is primarily and properly the Sacrament of our new birth, the washing of regeneration, which is done but once, the Sacrament of our insition into Christ, which is done but once; the Sacrament of our admission into the new Covenant, and partaking of the benefits of it, and (although many of those benefits and privileges are repeated and augmented, yet) we have but one admission to them.  
Secondly, in no place where the Institution of it is named is there any mention, directly or by consequence, of any repeating of it, nor any order taken about it; whereas in the other Sacrament, we have a quotiescunque in the very Institution: nor in any of the thousands baptised in the Scripture is there the least hint of any example of rebaptisation of such as were rightly baptised, no not though some of them had played the Apostates, as the Galatians, some of the Corinthians and many others. And me thinks this Argument should move you whose principle is, that nothing should be done about the Sacraments, but what we have either institution, or example for.  
Thirdly, Baptism succeeds Circumcision, which was but once administered nor to be administered any more, as is clear to me not only from the total silence of the Scripture, but out of Josh. 5. 4. etc. where the holy Ghost is pleased to give this as a reason, why Joshuah Circumcised the Israelites in Gilgall, viz. because all the Circumcised were dead; intimating that had they been Circumcised already, it should not have been done again. Beside, by God's institution it was tied to the eighth day and unless you can find another eighth day after the birth beside the first, you will never be able to justify it from being a breach of the institution.  
Fourthly, to this I might add the uncontradicted custom of all the ancient Church, with whom it was numbered among Heresies to reiterate a Baptism, which was acknowledged to be valid: Indeed Cyprian and his fellow Bishops baptised such as had formerly been baptised by Heretics, but it was only because they thought the Baptism administered by Heretics not to be true Baptism. What weight these things have with you I know not; the judicious Reader will consider of them.  
But whereas you add that if you saw but as much for baptising of Infants as Acts 19 5. etc. affords for rebaptisation, the controversy were at an end with you; give me leave to tell 
Answ.  you that I perceive a small Argument would satisfy you if we could but once gain your good will. As will easily appear by a serious examination of the sense of that place, Act. 19 which it seems satisfies you for rebaptisation. I 
Act. 19 5, 6. vindicated from favouring rebaptiztion.  acknowledge, Interpreters differ very much concerning the meaning of that Text, but none of their expositions do in any degree favour that opinion, that such as were once rightly baptised may be rebaptised: which I thus manifest; very many Interpreters do judge that those twelve Disciples were not baptised in that place, and they make the fifth Verse, when they heard this they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, to be a part of Paul's speech, not of Luke's the Historian, and then the sense is this, when those twelve men had told Paul that they were baptised with John's Baptism, 
Vid. Vossii Theses de Baptismo Johan. pag 402. etc.  Paul took upon him to explain to them what john's Baptism was, namely that John's ministry did first exhort men to repentance; and than that they should believe in Christ, who would give all them who believed in him the gift of the holy Ghost, which after John had sufficiently instructed them in, he then baptised them in the name of the Lord Jesus, which say they is a paraphrastical interpretation of this fifth Verse: and so Paul having approved the doctrine and Baptism of John, which these twelve Disciples had received, he did not rebaptize them, but laid his hands upon them, and then the holy Ghost immediately came upon them. Other Interpreters think, that these words in the fifth Verse. are the words of Luke the Historian, and that these twelve Disciples were then baptised after Paul had done his speech; and of these some conceive that these were first baptised by some of john's Disciples into john's name, and not into Christ's: and so their baptism was a nullity; or at least, if they were baptised into Christ's name, yet they were not instructed in the right faith of the Trinity, of Jesus Christ, his person, gifts; and offices; and so consequently that their faith and Baptism were deficient in some fundamental and essential things; and this way go many of the Fathers, and Schoolmen. Others think they were rightly baptised with John's baptism, and yet were baptised again by the Apostle Paul; because they think that John's baptism, and Christ's did really differ; and that the Lord would have them re baptised, who were baptised with John's baptism only; but not them who were baptised with Christ's. And this way generally go the Papists: now whichsoever of these you take, here is no colour of rebaptising of such who were rightly baptised with Christ's baptism: and indeed, whoever considers the Text, must needs grant that if they were rebaptized, it was because of the deficiency of the baptism which they had received. Paul demands of them, Have you received the holy Ghost since you were baptised? They answ. The holy Ghost: what mean you by the holy Ghost? we never so much as heard whether there be an holy Ghost: No? (saith Paul) what were you then baptised into? what strange kind of baptism have you received? what Doctrine, or Faith were you instructed in before your baptism? if you never so much as heard that there is an holy Ghost. Doth not this plainly hold forth, that if they were rebaptized, it was because Paul thought their former baptism to be insufficient? Truly Sir, I conceive you might easily be persuaded, that there are at least as good grounds for Infant's baptism, as this Acts 19 affords for rebaptising of such as have been rightly baptised.  
In this 5. Section, I very much wonder at your spirit; the sum of it is, That although much of what I speak of the 
To Sect. 5.  Anabaptists in Germany (especially about Munster) is true; Yet you say, 1. Perhaps vehemency of opposition hath made matters more or worse than they were. 2. No marvel though such things happen, when Reformation of abuses is denied men by an orderly Synodical way; and the persons who seek it, declaimed against, and persecuted as Heretics, etc. 3. That the like things, if not the same, happened among the Non-conformists, and such as sought to remove Episcopacy and Ceremonies in Queen Elizabeth's days; that some of them grew to be a dangerous and turbulent Sect: the practice of Hacket, and his companions proved like that of John a Leiden at Munster. That miscarriages, divisions, and persecutions brought the Non-conformists of England as low as the Anabaptists. That Whitgift and Hooker have long ago compared the Non conformists principles and practices with the Anabaptists, etc.  
To which I answer. First, I am confident you show more 
Answ.  good will to the Anabaptists, than you intent ill will against those worthy men who have written these Stories: but the things have been done so lately, and so many agreeing stories are written of them, and by men of such undoubted faith and honesty, that the things are not to be questioned. And I think you are the first of our Divines who have suspected them to overlash in their relations.  
Secondly, what you mean by denying Reformation to them who seek it in a Synodical way, etc. I can hardly guess: whether you intent it to excuse the Anabaptists in part, and to blame the Reformed Churches, as laying that stumbling block in their way, by refusing to hear them, or whether you hint it as a warning to ourselves. As for them, I never read that they sought Reformation in a regular way, or were denied it, before they fell into these furies. And as for ourselves, you are the only man, who hath pretended to seek Reformation (if it may be so called) in this point; the rest of our Anabaptists seek not 
The old Nonconformists in Qu. Elizabeth's days, pleading against Episcopacy and Ceremonies, il compared with the Anabaptists in Germany.  to our Assembly; unless it be to reproach, and load them with scoffs, libels, threatenings, etc.  
Thirdly, but the rest of this Section is to me extremely scandalous, when I read your odious comparisons between the Non-conformists in Queen Elizabeth's days, and the Anabaptists in Germany; it even grieves me to consider, whither affection to your cause doth carry you. Sir, are you persuaded in your own conscience these things are so? The Anabaptists in Germany rose up, and with fire and sword pulled down Magistracy, Schools, etc. wrought woeful Tragedies in upper Germany, in M●ravia, Silesia, Helvetin, and elsewhere; did the like if not the same things happen here? What did the Non-conformists ever endeavour to do beyond prayers and tears? what turbulent Sect was ever found among them? what were those divisions and miscarriages which brought them so low? the persecutions of the Prelates indeed brought them low; but I profess I am wholly ignorant of any divisions and miscarriages of theirs in that kind: Hacket indeed was a blasphemous wretch; and he and his two Companions (for no more there were of them that I can find:) Coppinger, and Arthington made a noise in the City of London for a few hours. Hacket was taken and hanged for his blasphemy, his two Companions laid in prison, where one of them died, and the other (I think) was spared in hope of his repentance But what is this to your purpose? what had Hacket to do with the Nonconformists, who (you know, if ever you read that Story) abominated him, and would have nothing to do with him, even before he fell to those pranks he played in London? Or wherein was Hacket to be compared with John of Leiden, who overthrew Magistracy at Munster; set up a King of his own Sect; plundered the Town, gave up all to Polygamies, Adulteries, etc. And lastly for the parallel which you say Whitgift, and Hooker made between them and the Anabaptists both in principles, and practices, (under which reproach you leave them, without speaking a word in their behalf to vindicate them) I answer only this, that I am persuaded yourself believe, that Whitgift and Hooker abused them in these Comparisons: and what your aim should be in setting it down, I cannot tell; unless it be to insinuate, that as the good Nonconformists were thus abused by their Adversaries; so Sleiden, Bullinger, Calvin, etc. are not too much to be credited in their relations of the Anabaptists, to whom they were professed adversaries.  
In this Sect your quarrel is against Mr. Vines, for suspecting 
To Sect. 6.  the Anabaptists will endeavour to undermine Magistracy, if they could once get strength. To which you answer: 1. You take not Mr. Vines for a Prophet. 2. It follows not, that because they oppose Paedo. Baptism, out of Mat. 28. 19 that therefore they will oppose Magistracy out of Rom. 12. 19 3. That you will undertake to make good that to prove Paedobaptism from the equity and reason of Circumcision, doth undermine much of the Magistracy and Laws of this Kingdom. 4. That some of the enemies of Anabaptists have opposed Magistracy. 5. That since the actions of Muncer and Munster, you find neither their writings nor actions opposing Magistracy. 6. You bring in Cassander a Papist, speaking moderately of some of them. And to make your Reader think obaritably of them in this point; You 7. refer them to the Compassionate Samaritan, and the London Anabaptists late confossion.  
I see how diligent and willing an advocate you are for 
Answ.  your friends, but few of these things will either help you, 
To 1, 2 Mr. Vines vindicated.  or endure the trial. 'Tis true, Mr. Vines is no Divining Prophet. And 2. it follows not by Logical argumentation, that because they have opposed the one, therefore they will oppose the other. But Sir, without a Spirit of Divination, or necessary consequence of reason, when we see clouds gathering, we may suspect rainy weather; when we 
Almost all the Errors of the German Anabaptists, lately drunk in in England.  see multitudes of our Anabaptists, especially those of the last edition, to have drunk in almost all the rest of the dregs of the German Anabaptists; (I say) in a manner all, except that of opposing Magistracy; may we not fear that even that also would be embraced if they were fit for it? Read over the whole Gangrene of their opinions recorded by Bullinger, Calvin, and others; and lately epitomised by Cloppenbergius; and see whether among our Anabaptists in England, they are not almost all to be found: Do not some of ours, as well as they, hold blasphemous Opinions about the flesh of Christ's? Have not multitudes of ours swallowed down all Arminianism, as well as they? Plead not some of ours for the mortality of the soul, as well as they? have not some of ours laid down their Arms out of opinion that even in a just cause war is unlawful? have not many of ours drunk in the conceits of immediate revelations and Enthysiasmes as much as they? do not many of ours conceit a perfection of grace? do they not oppose the Christian Sabbath? do they not cry down our Ministry as no Ministry? our Churches as no Churches? Verily one egg is not more like another then this brood of new opinions (lately hatched in England, and entertained among them who are called Anabaptists) is like that Spawn which so suddenly grew up among the Anabaptists in Germany; and ours plead the same Arguments which theirs did; and if they flow not from the same Logical or Theological principles, it is yet their unhappy fate to be led by the same spirit. I confess I yet hear not much of their denying the Magistrate's authority, but if these men should increase to much strength, I will not take upon me to divine, but I shall pray that Mr. Vines prove not too true a Prophet, especially considering the nature of erroneous and heretical spirits is to grow worse and worse, and not at first to vent all their poison; even the Anabaptists of Munster in the beginning of their Schism set forth a confession of faith every way as Orthodox as that which you mention of the seven Churches of the Anabaptists of London, in their Confession mentioned in the latter end of this Section, as I am credibly informed by a Reverend and Learned Divine, 
Mr. Dury.  who hath many years ago both seen and read it in Germany.  
To your third and fourth I answer, only this, that I shall wait until you clear them, as being not able out of my 
To 3. 4.  small judgement and Reading to conjecture either what proofs you can bring for the one, or example for the other: you who make yourself merry with Mr. Vines his Logic, will show your own to be supereminent when you make this consequence good, that pleading baptising of Infants from Circumcision of Infants, overthrows much of the Magistracy and Laws of England.  
But your fifth seems very strange, that you cannot find, that since Munster and Mun●er the Anabaptists in Germany have either by writing or action made any opposition against magistracy: as for their actions, they have of old paid so dear for their insurrections, that we have not lately heard of any new ones; but for their writings it is most apparent that their books written by them, even to this day, do constantly defend, that though Magistracy be an Ordinance of God, as to them who are not under the kingdom and dominion of Christ, yet Christ hath put an end to it among his own people, taken away all Magistracy from among them, that no Christian can be a Magistrate with a good conscience, and that if Christians do live under any such, they are to bear them but as other plagues and judgements are to be borne.  
You oppose Cassander's moderate testimony of some of 
6.  them to the Duke of Cleave a Papist, against Mr. Vines his speech before the Lord Major and City of London; Cassander indeed spoke favourably of some of their persons, but doth not excuse or plead for their doctrine or principles; and Mr. Vines speaks against their doctrine or principles, but speaks nothing against the persons of any of them: so that I can see no cause of your bringing in this long testimony out of Cassander, in the favour of Menno and his followers, but only to show your goodwill to the Anabaptists, and your displeasure against Mr. Vines, who differs from your opinion. One thing more I add concerning this Menno (whom you plead for by Cassander's pen) that his whole doctrine is as full of blasphemy about our Saviour's taking flesh of the Virgin Mary, and other Heretical and abominable stuff, as the rest of his fellows, though I think his spirit was not so seditious as many of theirs.  
And as to your allegation out of the compassionate Samaritan, which endeavours to speak all possible good of 
7.  such as oppose Presbyterial government: pleading to obtain an universal liberty for all their opinions, and practices, and endeavours to brand as infamous, and cast all manner of filth in the faces of such, as endeavour to promote it, I leave such Lettuce to their lips who like it. And for what you allege out of the London Anabaptists confession, I acknowledge it the most Orthodox of any Anabaptists confession that ever I read, (although there are sundry Heterodox opinions in it) and such an one as I believe thousands of our new Anabaptists will be far from owning, as any man may be able to say without a spirit of divination, knowing that their received and usual doctrines do much more agree with the Anabaptists in Germany, then with this handful who made this confession here in London.  
In your seventh, you first express your good affection 
To Sect. 7.  to further Reformation; secondly, you propound what in your judgement is the best way to promote it In the first you are sensible of your ●ath and Covenant, declare the sincerity of your desires and prayers to promote it according to the Word of God, etc.  
Your desires, and prayers, and intentions are holy, and 
Answ.  good, well suiting with the report I have often heard of you before I read this your book; and would the Lord please to draw out those good Talents he hath given you in the most useful way; I conceive you may be a very profitable instrument in this great work, and I verily think your abilities greater than many others, whom you suppose to have been employed more eminently than yourself▪ But pardon me, that I tell you sadly and freely, that the frame of spirit which the genius of your book shows forth makes me fear the contrary, you every where manifest such height of selfe-confidence, you pour out such abundance of scorn upon them who think otherwise then you do, you so magisterially tread under foot the Arguments and Reasons of those who differ from your opinion, though they appear never so strong or evident to others; you so boldly call into question some doctrines which few have ever questioned before you; you so slight the Authority both of ancient and modern writers, especially in this point, though you know the generality of all Confessions and Harmonies (except only the Anabaptists) concur in one against you, that unless God alter your present temper, I suspect this is not the last trouble you are like to put the Church unto; and I assure you, very many who willingly acknowledge your learning, and other abilities and are no whit sorry your book is extant, (because they conceive this controversy may thereby receive a fuller scanning) are extremely scandalised at your high and scornful spirit.  
You propound what you conceive is the best way to promote Reformation, and your thoughts are, that the 
2.  only way to further Reformation is to begin with this your darling, the casting out this point of Infant-Baptisme, a point which you conceive to be a mother corruption, which carries in her womb most of those abuses in discipline and manners, and some of the errors in doctrine which defile the reformed Churches, without which all after Cathechizing, Censures, separaton, Church-Covenant, etc. are altogether insufficient to supply the want of it. Secondly, that Baptism therefore hath not that influence into the comfort and obligations of Consciences as it had of old. And thirdly, that the Assemblies not beginning with this point is one great cause why God's blessing doth no more accompany them, whilst they waste much time about things inconsiderable in comparison of this, and either hastily pass over, or exclude from examination, this which deserves most to be examined.  
Ah Sir, How dear and lovely are our own children in our eyes! did ever any before you conceive so many and great evils to follow upon the baptising the children of 
Answ.  believers? that such Monsters should be bred in the womb of it, or conceive that the removing of this would be the healing of all? I verily think, should another have spoke such things of far greater points, you would have called them dictates, Chimeras, bold, assertions, and what not? Whether your Examen of my Sermon, and your twelve Arguments in your exercitation will prove it to be a corruption of Christ's institution; whether the reasons for Paedobaptism be far fetched; whether there be a clear institution of Christ against it. (as here you affirm) we shall have leisure (God willing) to examine in their due place: but for the present, suppose me to grant your postulatum, that it is an applying of an institution to a wrong subject, yet I would fain learn of you, how all these odious consequences will be made good, how these abuses in doctrine, discipline and manners (which you mention) would be taken away if Paedobaptism were removed; nay would not the self same things still be found as grounds or occasions of the same differences, while some profess they would baptise any, whether Turks or Heathens, who only would make a profession of their faith in Jesus Christ, and then admit them to all other Ordinances, and not have them Excommunicated è sacris, (but only a private consortio) though their lives should prove scandalous; (and I am misinformed by good friends who know and love you very well if yourself incline not this way) others would take the same course before Baptism, which now they do before admitting men to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and would proceed to excommunication à Sacris as well as privately withdraw from such as prove scandalous and obstinate; yea and take themselves bound to separate from mixed communions with them, as much as they do now, notwithstanding their admission by Baptism in your way. And in this various manner of admitting men to Baptism, and dealing with men in other censures, every Church or Eldership proceeding according to the largeness or strictness of their own principles, I can see nothing but that the same abuses in discipline and manners which are now found among Christian people, the same controversies about such as should be admitted to the Lords Supper, the same divisions and separations would be sound in the Church, which now (alas!) take too much place amongst us. This I say, supposing your Postulatum were a truth; But on the contrary supposing it not to be a truth, what a Deformation instead of a Reformation should we bring in, in casting the children of Believers out of the visible Church, reputing them no better than Turks and Indians, and especially doing it upon such grounds, as are pleaded by you and others; which even alter the state of the Covenant of grace? As for your second, I know not what influence of comfort or obligation upon conscience Baptism had of old, which is not now to be found among them who are truly baptised, who enjoy not only the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  
And lastly, for what you speak of the Assembly, I impute it to your prejudice, and extreme doting upon your own opinion, that you think this Point most worthy of their examination, and to your misinformation (to speak no worse) that they waste much time about things inconsiderable in comparison, or that they exclude this from Examination, or seek to stop it from any Trial, or that they hastily pass it over; This is a very bold charge which you give upon the Assembly in the face of the world: What evidence have you for this? unless your Compassionate Samaritan be Authentic with you? The Apostle commands Timothy not to receive an accusation against an Elder unless it be under two or three witnesses. But for one man to cast thus much filth in the face of an Assembly of Ministers is very high, and savours little of that modesty or meekness to which you did sometimes pretend. How far the blessing of God (who hath not hitherto altogether left us, notwithstanding our unworthiness) doth and will accompany the endeavours of the Assembly; it is fit to leave to himself, who gives increase to Paul's planting and Apollo's watering according to his good pleasure. But as for their shutting out the due examination of this Point, you are wholly mistaken (though they have returned no answer to your paper.) It is true (as I told you in the beginning) that we are shut up by Ordinance of Parliament from answering any private men's Papers or Books without leave from the Houses; but I dare speak it in the name of the whole Assembly, that they would be glad you were admitted to dispute all your grounds among them.  
In your next Paragraph which contains a comparison 
Sect. 8.  betweeve the evidences held out in the New Testament for the Religious observation of the Lords day, and this of Infant-Baptisme, you first make yourself merry with my expressions, that all who reject the baptising of Infants, because there is not an express Institution or Command in the New-Testament, do and must upon the same grounds reject the observation of the Lordsday. But I am no whit ashamed of those words. They do, and they must upon the same Principles (if they be true to their Principles) reject the one as well as the other. And though I want the skill which some others have to plead for the Lord-day; yet I suppose you shall find I have skill enough to make this good, That there is no more express Institution or Command in the New-Testament for the Lords day then there is for Infant-Baptisme. And whereas you allege that some of the reformed Churches reject the Lords day, and yet entertain Infant-Baptisme, and thence infer that these two must not necessari'y stand and fall, be received and rejected together. I answer, Those Churches which do so conceive that there is an institution for the Baptising of Infants, but none for the observation of the ●ords day, although herein I humbly conceive they are mistaken, I doubt not but it doth and will appear to impartial and unprejudiced Readers, that there is sufficient evidence of an Institution for both of them, though not in such express Texts of Scripture in the New-Testament as the Anabaptists require, and I shall now examine whether you bring any better evidence for the one, then is to be found for the other.  
First, you say, they mean it of positive worship, consisting in outward rites, and not of worship which is natural or moral.  
Answ. But this but a blind, moral and natural are not to be confounded; whatever worship is natural may be indeed acknowledged to be moral, but not whatever is moral is to be esteemed natural: I know you cannot be ignorant of the received distinction of Morale Naturale, and Morale positivum, and I beseech you, though a Sabbath be granted to be Natural, yea if I should add, that one day in the revolution of seven should be so; yet that this or that seventh day in the revolution of a week should be observed, all grant this depends upon an Institution, and hath no more morality in it then what can be made out from an Institution, and consequently, that the first day of the week should be the Christian Sabbath, or that this one day of seven which God hath separated to himself and had once expressly fixed upon the seventh or last day of the week, should be translated from the last day to the first day of the week, must depend wholly upon an Institution, and consequently they who reject that which depends upon positive Institution, unless its Institution can be expressly found in the New-Testament are as much at a loss for the Lords day, as for the baptising of Infants.  
Nay give me leave to add, that in this point in question, the advantage lies more on this hand, (I mean for Infant-Baptisme) because there is more necessity of clearing the Institution for the Lords day, then for baptising of Infants, because in the one the ordinance itself, and its institution is questioned, but in this of Infant-Baptisme, the question is not of the Institution of the Ordinance itself, but only of the subject to whom the Ordinance is to be applied. If the question be betwixt Baptism and the Lords day, all grant that we have clearer Institution for the Sacrament of Baptism, then for the Lords day: Baptism is clearly instituted in the New-Testament to be the Sacrament of our admission into the Covenant of grace, and to succeed in the room of Circumcision, (as yourself grant.) Now the only question is, whether (taking this for granted) that baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcicision, and to be applied unto all persons by the will of God who are in Covenant with him, whether the same persons may partake of this Sacrament, as might partake of the other, unless those persons be expressly set down in the New-Tement; I hope in the judgement of all indifferent men, a question about the persons to whom an ordinance is to be applied, is a question of a far inferior nature to that question, whether such a thing pretended to be an Ordinance have any Institution at all or not. It's one thing to invent a new Ordinance of worship, another (and that of inferior rank) to mistake in some of the persons to whom an Ordinance is to be applied. In some of the ancient times the Lords Supper was given to Infants, and carried to sick persons when absent, to testify their communion with the Church: I take them both for errors, but yet not for errors of the like nature with inventing a new Sacrament; I say again, there is a great difference between bringing in a new Ordinance, and applying it to these or these persons, especially, when the question is not of the persons in general, who are the subject matter, (as whether men or Angels, men or beasts) but whether men of such an age or of such a Sex. Sir, to my best understanding, these two questions are not parallel, a just parallel question to this of Infant-Baptisme would be such a one as was once disputed betwixt Mr. Bifield and Mr. Brerewood, viz. Taking it for granted, that by a clear Institution, the Lords day succeeds in the room of the old Sabbath, whether yet the same persons are tied to keep the Lords day, who of old were tied to keep the Sabbath, unless those parties were mentioned in the New-Testament, as whether servants as well as their masters, the same holds here.  
All this I speak not as any whit doubting that there is as clear evidence for Baptising of Infants, as there is for the religious observation of the Christian Sabbath, notwithstanding the latter seems to require fuller evidence than this doth.  
Your second explication gives you as little advantage, you say that Apostolical example which hath not a me●re temporary reason, is enough to prove an Institution from God, to which that practice doth relate, especially when such examples come to be backed with the constant practice of all Churches in all ages. And then you bring in Paul's preaching at Troa●, the collections upon the first day of the weeks in the first of the Corinthians and the sixteenth, the mentioning of the Lords day, Revel. 1.  
Sir, I except against none of all this to be a part of that good evidence which we have for the religious observation of the Lords day, but I dare confidently speak it, that out of these you can never evince more (laying all things together) to prove the Institution of the Lords day, than I have done for the lawfulness of baptising of Infants; and I appeal to all learned Readers, whether the many books written of late against the Institution of the Lords day, give not as specious and plausible answers to these places alleged by you concerning the Christian Sabbath, as yours are against Infant-baptisme (although they have received sufficient clear and solid answers) yea and tread under their feet all arguments taken from these examples, with as much confidence and scorn, as yourself do that which I and others have named for Paedobaptism. And as for the supplement which you bring out of the constant practice of the Churches for the religious observation of the Lords day in stead of the old Sabbath: I earnestly desire you in your next to produce as many of the ancients to bear witness to that truth, as I have done in this point for Paedobaptism, and I promise you, you shall receive my hearty thanks among the rest of your Readers; in the mean time the Reader shall judge whether I have not brought a moiety of that for the Baptising of Infants, which you have done for the Lords day.  
Further, whether you have not abused your reader in so confident averring that there are no footsteps in Antiquity for Paedobaptism, till the erroneous conceit of giving God's grace by it, & the necessity of it, to save an Infant from perishing some hundreds of years after Christ's Incarnation, is easily to be seen by what I have at large produced in the former part of this treatise.  
Lastly, your tedious discourse of that dangerous principle of framing additions to God's worship by Analogies of our own● making without warrant from God's Word; I desire you to apply it to them who do so, I no further make use of it, than I find God's Word to go along with me: Whether believers Infants are confederates with their parents in the Covenant of Grace, comes afterwards to be examined; the rest of this Section being carping at a phrase or expression which yourself grant being taken cum grano salis, may pass with a candid Reader, I pass over as worthy of no further answer, only I add this one word, that though it be not safe to reason barely from events of things, yet it well becomes us thankfully to take notice of God's blessing upon his own Ordinance, and the more earnestly to contend for that which God is pleased so mercifully to accompany with his grace.  
In your ninth Section you concur with me in condemning 
To Sect. 9  it as a wicked practice to separate from ministry and communion in Ordinances, by reason of this difference in opinion, and that the making of Sects upon these grounds is contrary unto Christian Charity: and I as willingly concur with you in what you say in the latter part of this Section, that godly Ministers and other Christians should not by harsh usage of their brethren in stirring up hatred in Magistrates and people against them, cast strumbling blocks in their way, thereby to alienate dissenting brethren from them: but for what you say in the middle of this Section, that this is not the evil of Antipaedobaptisme; I answer, I conceive it flows from the principles which most of the Anti-paedo-baptists do conceive (though possibly all (and yourself for one have not wholly embraced them) for if you please to take and to compare these three principles of theirs together. First, members are added to the Church by Baptism, and not otherwise. Secondly, that such as are not baptised according to Christ's Institution, their Baptism is a nullity. Thirdly, that because the Baptism of Infants is not clearly held out in the New Testament, it is therefore not warranted by Christ's Institution, but contrary to it, and then tell me what follows less than this, that none so baptised are Church-members, & consequently can perform no acts of Church-members, and that therefore our Churches are no true Churches, our Ministry can be no true Ministry, and therefore a necessity of separation from us. What you add in the end of this Section, that a passage in one of my Sermons about the hedge which God hath set about the second Commandment hath been one cause of your startling at this point of Paedobaptism. I answer, only this, had you not been startled before, there is nothing in that speech could have moved you; and when once you have manifested that Baptising of Infants doth break down the hedge which God hath made about the second Commandment, I shall be startled with you, and not till then.  
In your tenth and last Section, wherein you undertake to answer that passage in my Sermon, that the opinion 
To Sect. 10.  of the Anabaptists puts all the Infants of believers into the selfsame condition with Turks and Infidels, you answer several things: wherein I plainly perceive you cannot deny what I affirm, and yet you are loath to grant it: you say, first, Cyprian with his 66. Bishops doth the same, which I have forinerly showed will not follow out of the words of of that Epistle: secondly, you say, Mr. Rathband pleading that such Children whose Ancestors in any generation were faithful may lawfully be accounted within God's Covenant, grants the same also. But this no ways follows without extreme wracking those words in any Generation. I suppose yourself doth not think those words, Exod. 20. 5. were intended to intimate that all the children in the world, who came from Adam or Noah were included in the Covenant of grace, nor do I conceive you believed Mr. Rathband to think so. For your own opinion you declare it thus; 1. You know no warrant to think election to reach believers children more than unbelievers children. 2. You know no more promise for them then for the children of unbelievers. 3. All the likelihood there is, that they belong to God's election rather than Turks and Infidels, to be, because they have their parents and the Church's prayers, some general and conditional promises, and enjoy the benefit of good instruction and example, which puts them into a nearer possibility to be believers and saved, and experience shows God frequently continues his Church in their posterity. But this you dare not ground upon any promise made unto believers as such, for store you should incur blasphemy by challenging a promise which God doth not keep: in that many of the posterity of godly parents prove very wicked.  
To all which I answer, first, in general, that to my understanding you here clearly yield the Infants of believers to be in the same condition in reference to the Covenant of grace, which the Infants of Turks and Indians are in, no more promise for the one then for the other: which so oft as you consider, me thinks your fatherly bowels to your own children should be moved within you. Secondly, I answer, first, to that of election, your own speech that experience showing that God frequently continues his Church among believers posterity, should be one argument to make you think God's election lies more among them then among others, though we can be certain of no one of them in particular. Secondly, what promises are made to believers children more than to Turks, and whether Abraham's promise reach them, shall God willing be scanned in its proper place. Thirdly, as to that which you say, that the children of believers are in a more hopeful way, because of their parents prayers, instructions, examples, etc. and some general and conditional promises which puts them in a more possibility; I answer, this is nothing to the children which die in their Infancy, nor secondly, any more than children of Pagans enjoy, whose lot may fall to be educated by Christians, but no more promise by your doctrine for the one than the other. Thirdly, whereas you affirm that General, Indefinite, and Conditional promises do prove that there is a more comfortable likelihood that the children of believers are elected by God rather than the children of Turks. I reply, 1. You do not express what those promises are. 2. I wonder that you should infer election from conditional promises. Did God ever say that if you will perform these and these conditions, than I will regenerate you, give you a new heart, and put my spirit within you? 3. If the promise of regeneration be not conditional than you must say that there is some comfortable likelihood that such Infants may be elected though they are not regenerated, for if there be any thing less than regeneration promised, sure there can be no comfortable likelihood of the election of a child gathered from a promise of any thing which leaves a child in an unregenerate estate. But I much admire that speech of yours, where you fear you should incur blasphemy by challenging a promise which God doth not keep, because many of the children of believers prove wicked; I beseech you tell me, was it not so among Abraham's posterity? and yet you grant Abraham had a peculiar promise which we have not; might not they without blasphemy plead that promise, notwithstanding that promise, I will he the God of thee and thy seed, was not made good to every one of them? for it is most clear by the Apostles discourse in the ninth and eleventh Chapters to the Romans, that God was not the God of thousands of Abraham's seed, either in respect of saving grace, or outward privileges, for he cast off the Jews from being his people, and suffered them not to enjoy so much as outward privileges, but made choice of the Gentiles in their stead; and yet I hope you will not say that God broke his Covenant with those that had the seal of the Covenant in their flesh; and yet were rejected not only from saving grace, but from outward privileges.  
Next let us see how you avoid being gored by the three horns of my Syllogism. I said, all being left in the same condition, 1. All must be saved. Or 2. all must be damned. Or 3. God saves some of the Infants of the Turks, and some of the Infants of believers pro beneplacito. After some discourse of the two first of these, you deny the consequence: It follows not (say you) God may save some, and those some may be the Infants of believers, and none of the Infants of Turks and Indians. It's true, a man that will may venture to say so; and if another will, he may venture to say, That those some, are the Infants of Pagans, and not of Christians: and he that should say so, hath as good warrant for this, as you have for the other, according to your principle. But what's this to the question before us? I said, This opinion leaves them all in the like condition; One having no more reference to a promise then another. Now if you will avoid being gored by any of these three horns, you should have showed, that according to your opinion, there is some promise for some of the Infants of believers, though there be none for the Infants of Pagans. But in stead of showing how your doctrine and opinion leaves them: you tell me what God may possibly do in his secret Counsel, which is altogether unknown to us. But I perceive yourself suspected this answer would not endure the trial: and therefore you quarrel at that expression of mine, That if any of the Infants, of such as live and die Pagans be saved by Christ; then salvation by Christ is earryed out of the Church, whereof God hath made no promise. Against this you except; 1. That salvation is not carried out of the invisible Church; though some Infants of Pagans should be saved by Christ. I answer, it's true; and I add, That if any man shall say, the Devils should be saved by Christ: even that Opinion would not carry salvation out of the invisible Church. But Sir, we are enquiring after the salvation of them to whom a promise of salvation is made. Now when you can prove that God hath made a promise, that he will gather a number, or hath a number whose names are written in the Lamb's book, although their Parents never knew Jesus Christ, nor themselves ever live to be instructed, you may then persuade your Reader to believe, that even some of the Infants of Pagans dying in their Infancy belong to the invisible Church: and till then, you must give him leave to believe that this answer is brought in as a shift, only to serve your present need.  
Secondly, you answer, That men may be saved out of the communion of the visible Church; and you instance Abraham called out of Chaldea; Job in the Land of Us; Rahab in Jericho: and you say, He that called these, may save some amongst Turks and Indians out of the visible Church. I answer, I hope in your next, you will a little better explain your meaning: The Reader will certainly take this to be your meaning: that as Abraham, Job, and Rahab, were saved out of the communion of th● visible Church in their days: so some among the Turks and Indians may be saved out of the communion of the visible Church in our days. But surely this is not your meaning, you do not believe, that Abraham, Job, and Rahab were out of the communion of the visible Church, though possibly the manner of their calling might be extraordinary, as afterwards St. Paul's was. Nor do you believe that the Eunuch when he was returned into Ethiopia was out of the Communion of the visible Church; though his habitation (at least for a● while) was not among Christians but Infidels. I am persuaded that you think all visible believers to be within the Communion of the visible Church, though possibly they may be hindered from being actual Members of any particular Church. I will not so much as imagine that you mentioned these three examples, as a Blind to deceive your uncautelous Reader: and therefore I only desire you in your next, to let us know your meaning plainly: and discover to us this mystery, how men may be called to fellowship with Jesus Christ, and yet have no communion with the visible Church of Christ.  
The rest of this Section, wherein you inquire what those promises are which are are made to the seed of believers, I shall (God willing) give you an account of them in the next part of the Sermon, whither now you call me; only I cannot but take notice of your confident brag in the close of this Section, how manfully you have entered my outworks, and thereby encourage yourself to scale my walls: You indeed entered, and set up your flag, but I hope it appears to the indifferent Reader that you are in no great probability of getting any great spoil, unless my walls prove weaker than the outworke, which as yet are far from being taken by you.   

PART III.  
NOw we come to that wherein I rightly placed the strength of my cause, the evidence which the Scripture gives 
Defence of the third part of Sermon. Reply to Sect 1. Of the connexion between the Covenant, and Seal.  for Infant-Baptisme: which before I proceed in the examination of, I briefly propound to the Readers consideration, that you have this advantage to make your work have a specious probability, in that the question is concerning Infants, concerning whom there is much silence in the Scripture, and should any man argue against the justification of Infants, by the Theological doctrine that is to be found clear in the Scripture, how specious a plea might he make, especially if his disputation should be carried as yours is altogether in the way of making exceptions against arguments, but not positively affirming any thing? But notwithstanding, by the help of God, I hope clearly to vindicate my arguments from your exceptions.  
My first Argument was, the Infants of believing parents are faederati, therefore they must be signati, they are within the Covenant of Grace, therefore are to partake of the Seal of the Covenant.  
This Argument, because I knew the terms of the propositions and the reasons of the consequents would not be clear at the first propounding, I therefore made no further prosecution of until first I had cleared five conclusions 
The consequence of the argument made good.  from which it receives not only its light, but strength, and from which it ought not to be separated, because in them I both prove a Covenant and sign initial, this, first you assault singly, and denying both the propositions you try your strength in this Section against the consequence, and affirm that they who deny the consequence do it justly, because (say you) if they who are faederati must be signati, it must be so either by reason of some necessary connexion between the terms, or by reason of Gods will declared concerning the Covenant of Grace: but for neither of these causes; first, there is no necessary consequence that God gives a promise, ergo he must give a seal, or a special sign, Joshuah had none for his promise of bringing Israel into Canaan; Phinehas none for his, for the Priesthood to continue in his family; nor secondly, by any declaration of God's will, Adam, and all the rest to Abraham had none, yea, and in Abraham's time Melchisedeck, Lot, Job; and for Abraham's family there was no such universal order or declaration of God's will, for children under eight days old, and all the females had no such command, and therefore to have sealed them, would have been will-worship, and so you conclude here and in many other places of your book, that it is not being foederati in Covenant which gives title to the seal, but only the declaration of Gods will to have it so.  
To which I answer clearly, and first in general. That concerning the truth of this consequence, the difference between 
Reply. The consequence proved by Mr. Tombs own principle.  you and me is not so much as you would make the world believe, we differ indeed in the interpretation of the word faederati, about what is meant by being in Covenant. I assert, that many are to be reputed to belong to the Covenant of grace, and in some sense to be Covenanters though they be not partakers inwardly of the saving graces of the Covenant, for the Covenant of grace contains not only saving grace, but the administration of it also in outward Ordinances, and Church privileges, and that according to Gods own word many are Covenanters with him, or in some sense under the Covenant of grace, who are partakers only of the outward administrations and Church privileges; you allow none to be under the Covenant of grace in any true Gospel sense, but only such as are inwardly believers, justified, sanctified, and partakers of the saving graces of the Covenant. Whether of us are in the right, shall (God willing) be tried out in this dispute; but as to the truth of the consequence, That all who are in the Covenant of grace, ought therefore to be partakers of th● seal: you acknowledge more than once, or twice, or ten times; for though you every where dispute that God hath made no declaration of his will concerning baptising of Infants, yet rotundis verbis, you profess that if you knew an Infant to be regenerate, you would baptise it. And when I said, Such as have the inward grace, ought not to be denied the outward sign: You answer, There is none of the Antipaedobaptists but will grant that proposition to be true, pag. 142. And the present state of a person is that which gives right to baptism, pag. 158. It's granted that (such Infants) such as are inwardly sanctified are disciples, and may not be debarred from baptism; mark, Infants disciples; and is not this in plain English, That such as are Covenanters, ought not to be denied the initial seal of the covenant; Now then, if I can prove that not only such as are inwardly regenerate, but others also, whether Infants or grown men are to be reputed to belong to the Covenant, and that an external visible right (in fancy visibilis Ecclesiae) may be made out for any person or persons, to be by us owned & received as Covenanters with God, you yourself grant that the seal may be applied to them; and whether this be so, or not, shall (God willing) afterwards fully appear.  
Secondly, I answer more particularly; 1. I grant with you that there is no necessary dependence between a promise and a seal, the addition of a seal to a promise is of free grace, as well as the promise itself; & if God had never given any Sacrament or seal of his Covenant, we should have had no cause to complain of him, he well deserves to be believed upon his bare word. Nor 2. did I ever think that by Gods revealed will this Proposition was true in all ages of the Church; All Covenanters must be sealed, I carried it no higher than Abraham's time, when God first added this new mercy to his Church, vouchsafing a seal to the Covenant: And 3. from Abraham's time and so forward, I say it was Gods will, that such as are in Covenant should be sealed with the initial seal of the Covenant, supposing them only capable of the seal, and no special bar put in against them by God himself, which is apparent in the very first institution of an initial seal, Gen. 17. 7, 9, 10, 14. Where the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant, I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God to thee and thy seed after thee: thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore; and this is my Covenant which ye shall keep, every man child among you shall be circumcised; and afterward in the 14. the seal is, by a Metonymia called the Covenant, for that it's apparent not only that God commanded them who were in Covenant to be circumcised, but that they should therefore be circumcised because of the Covenant, or in token of the Covenant between God and them; and he that rejected or neglected the seal, is said not only to break God's commandment, but his covenant: so that because the initial Seal was added to the Covenant, and such as received it, received it as an evidence of the Covenant, or because they were in Covenant: I therefore concluded, that by Gods own will, such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal, supposing still that they were capable of it. So that to lay Circumcifion upon God's command, and the Covenant of grace too, are well consistent together; for the command is the cause of the existence of the duty; but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it. 4. Whereas you allege concerning Melchisedeck, Lot, Job; we find no such thing that they either received this seal of circumcision, 
Answ. to Melchisedeck, Job. and ●et.  or were tied to it. I reply, it's very hard for you to prove that Melchisedeck was then alive; and had he been alive, he was of an higher Order, and above that pedagogy. Or in what age of the world Job lived, though he be thought to be of the posterity of Esau, and so might have a right to it (even in your sense) as descending lineally from Abraham; however this is a mere negative Argument in matter of fact, which yourself know to be of no validity; Negative arguments from Scripture are good in matters of faith. I am not bound to believe this or that, unless it be found in the Scriptures; but they are not good in matter of fact; this or that fact is not recorded in the Scripture, therefore I am bound to believe it was not done, is no good consequence; A non scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia. No Scripture saith they were circumcised, (though very good Authors think that Lot and job were circumcised,) nor doth any Scripture say they were not circumcised.  
As to that you say of Infants under eight days old, and of all the females in Abraham's family. I answer to that of Infants, 
And to Infants under eight days old.  there was a peculiar exemption of them by God himself, whether for any typical reason, or in regard they were not fit in nature to undergo so sharp a pain as was to be endured in Circumcision, before the seventh and critical day was past, or whether for any other cause, I dispute not; it is sufficient, God forbade them to have the seal till they were eight days old. For the women, they were not 
Women not capable of Circumcision.  subjectum capax circumcisionis, there was in them a natural impediment against it, therefore could not be enjoined them: and suppose some men among them, or some who turned proselytes to them had not had a praeputium (as some sort of Eunuches) this Ordinance had not reached them; whether the wisdom of God purposely chose a sign that Women might not be capable of receiving it, for some typical use, as some conjecture: I cannot tell, it is sufficient that they were not capable of it, & were exempted from it by God himself: so that if you please to state the general Proposition, as you needs must, That all who since Abraham's time are foederati, or covenanters with God, must by Gods own appointment receive the seal of admission into covenant, unless they be either uncapable of it, or are exempted by a particular dispensation: This proposition will endure all the shock of your arguments, and remain unmovable.  
Next you reply to my answer concerning Women among 
Women circumcised in the men, vindicated.  the Jews, I said they were circumcised in the males: this you cast away with scorn, affirming it to be an easy answer, because it's easy to be answered. Indeed Sir, you answer it as easily as he who undertook to answer Bellarmine in one word, and said, Bellarmine thou liest: so you, it is an insufficient answer to take away the exception against the proposition, and that you might have a little matter to work upon, you go to another part of my Sermon, and thence you fetch the word virtually, with which you make yourself merry putting my proposition into several shapes and forms; and in one form (you say) it concludes not the thing in question; in another, it hath 4 terms; in another, the major is false. Whereas my plain meaning was, and is, that the women being uncapable of it in their own person, because of their sex, wherein was a natural impediment, as to this Sacrament, God imposed it only upon the Males, and yet the women were not esteemed as uncircumcised, being (as Divines use to express in this point) viris annexae & in iis censerentur qui familiarum capita debebant esse; and whether this will not be justified, we shall presently inquire. But first give me leave to observe by the way how you pinch me with a point of law, That no man can be said virtually to have that by his Proxy or Attorney, which he might not actually receive himself in his own person. I question whether this be good law, but I am confident it is bad Divinity; sure we sinned virtually in Adam, yet we could not actually, though that sin of Adam be ours by imputation. The sun is virtually hot, yet Philosophers say it's not actually. And the Jews of old offered to God such things by the hands of the Priests who were their Proxies in that work which they might not offer in their own persons: yea, and received such things by the hand of the high Priest (who bore their names in the most holy place) which they might not receive in their own persons immediately: and the Saints now in this world do virtually, and quoad effectum juris, receive some such privileges in Christ their Advocate, who in their right, is at God's right hand, which here they are not capable of receiving immediately in their own persons. I also obiter desire you to remember this expression of yours, That it had been a sin for a child to have been circumcised after the eighth day was passed. And try how you will reconcile this with an opinion of yours delivered elsewhere; viz. That circumcision might be administered oftener than once; surely those other times must be after the first eighth day.  
The other fault you note in my argument, is, That I conclude of a sign of the Covenant indefinitely, and not of Baptism only; whereas the Lord's Supper is also a sign of the Covenant; which yet you think I will say is not to be delivered to them, because not appointed for them: I answer, I clearly in my Sermon showed this Proposition only to be meant of the initial sign, and not of the other; and I am confident yourself, who durst baptise an Infant known to you to be regenerate, durst not yet give the other Sacrament to it▪ because more is required to make one capable of that Sacrament, then is required to make them capable of Baptism: a regenerate Infant you think is capable of this: but besides regeneration, I am sure you will grant, That an examination of a man's self, and an ability to discerns the Lord's body, is required to make one capable of that.  
Now let us see how you avoid my proofs, That the Women were circumcised in the men. My first was, That the whole house of Israel are in the Scripture said to be circumcised. You answer, That by the whole house of Israel must not be meant all, but the major part, or the most considerable part. But Sir, do you imagine that any of your judicious Readers can 
Circumcised not put for the major or nobler part.  be satisfied with this answer, when (you know well enough) that the Circumcision is put for the Church and people of God, in opposition to the uncircumcised that is, all the rest of the world who are not the people of God. When Peter was to go to the Circumcision, & Paul to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel; does not circumcision include the Women Jews, as much as the men, in opposition to the Gentiles; as well as the word Gentiles includes the women Gentiles as well as the men, to whom 
Gal. 2. 8.  Paul was sent? Gal. 2. 8. 9 Surely it must needs be granted, that not only the major, or nobler part, but the whole Nation of the Jews, both men and women are there meant by Circumcision, which could not have been, if in some sense they were not to be accounted Circumcised.  
Secondly, I argued thus, No uncircumcised person might eat the Passeover: Ergo, Their women might not have eaten it, if in some sense they had not been circumcised. Your answer is, This is to be limited pro subjecta materia, none that ought to be circumcised might eat the Passeover, unless they were circumcised. But this answer is altogether insufficient. For, 1. Where is this distinction of yours found, or founded in the Word of God? other distinctions about eating the 
Reply.  Passeover, are clearly found, the clean might eat it, the unclean might not eat it, the circumcised might, the uncircumcised might not: but of your limitation there is altum silentium.  
2. I demand further, where is there any command or institution for women to eat the Passeover, (more than 
No warrant for women to eat the Passeover, unless they were to be esteemed circumcised.  for Women now to eat the Lords Supper,) unless it be founded upon Circumcision? yet in practice we know they did eat it; and if they eat it not as circumcised persons, tell me by what right they did it. If you say they were included in the household, Exod. 12. 3, 4. Every household was to eat the Paschall Lamb, and there was no exception of women. I reply, first, grant but the same consequence, that when we read so frequently in the new Testament, that whole households were baptised, & no exception of children, that therefore all the children in those households were baptised, and this controversy is quickly ended But I add further, it is not said that the whole household shall eat it, for all uncircumcised persons were forbidden to eat it, & none but circumcised persons had any warrant to eat it. Yea further, suppose some words in the institution should reach the jewish women, yet how doth it reach the women Gentiles, who should prove Proselytes to them? for Exod. 12. 48, 49. there is order taken for the male stranger, Let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; but there is not any word that takes order for the stranger's females. I hope by this time it appears that your exceptions against the consequence of my Argument have no weight, they are foederati; therefore they are to be signati.  
Next come we to examine the truth of the Antecedent which I manifested in those five Conclusions opened in my 
Reply to Sect. 2.  Sermon: The first whereof is this, That the Covenant of Grace, for substance, hath always been one and the same, both to 
The Covenant of grace always one and the same.  the Jews and Gentiles. This first conclusion you grant; and therefore there were no need to have stayed the Reader any further about it; were it not that some of your exceptions do almost recall your grant: If it be in substance the same, though you should reckon up a thousand accidental and local differences, it were nothing to the purpose: but the first doth almost recall it; wherein you charge me to carry the narration of the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. as if it did only contain the Covenant of Grace in Christ; whereas it is apparent (say you) out of the Text, that the Covenant was a mixed Covenant, consisting of temporal benefits, the multiplying of Abraham's seed, possession of Canaan, the birth of Isaac, besides the spiritual blessings. To which I reply, I meant so indeed, and so I plainly expressed myself, that all the difference betwixt the Covenant then made with Abraham, and the Covenant made with us, lies only in the manner of the administration of the Covenant, and not in the 
The Covenant with Abraham no more mixed for substance then the Covenant with us.  Covenant itself. The Covenant itself in the substance of it holds out the same mercies, both spiritual and temporal, to them, and to us: Godliness having all the promises both of this life, and that which is to come; and that they, and we have our right to all these promises upon the self same condition: earthly things indeed were to them promised more distinctly and fully, heavenly things more generally and springly then they are now to us; and on the contrary, spiritual things are more fully and clearly promised to us then to them; and earthly promises more generally and sparingly: And that these temporal benefits which you mention, viz. multiplying of Abraham's seed, the birth of Isaac, and possession of Canaan were all of them administrations of the Covenant of grace, they were figures, signs, and types of spiritual things to be enjoyed both by them and us. These things I not only asserted, but proved in my Sermon. If you think otherwise of these earthly blessings, I desire you to explain your meaning in your next. If you mean no more than this that all these temporal blessings were promised and given as flowing from the promise of Christ, and were subservient to it, or were but types and shadows of it, you mean no more than what we all grant, who yet deny any more mixture in the Covenant made with Abraham for the substance of it then there is in that made with us: and that the difference lies only in the manner of administration. But I confess I suspect you have a further meaning, not only because you here mention the temporal blessings before the spiritual, and call the land of Canaan the Covenant made with Abraham, but especially that expression which you own from Cameron, that Circumcision did primarily seal the temporal promise, and signified sanctification but secondarily; what your meaning is in this expression, I cannot tell, it hath an untoward look, as if the meaning were, that God did primarily and chiefly, in a Covenant of Grace founded in Christ (wherein himself promises to be their portion) intent in the seal of it to ratify temporal blessings which only concerns vitam animalem; now that the Seal (I say) of this Covenant should primarily, and chiefly give evidence to such a porton which a people may enjoy, with whom God 
Circumcision sea●ed the spiritual part of the Covenant.  never made a Covenant to be their God, is so gross a thing to imagine of God, and so expressly contrary to the word, that until you own it, I will not impute it to you, although I know the Anabaptists in Germany shame not to say, that the Covenant made with Abraham was a mere carnal thing, and had nothing to do with eternal life. As for that expression of the learned Cameron that Circumcision did primarily seal the earthly promise, etc. if by primarily he meant immediately, though not chiefly, that it sealed these things first in order, as they were types of spiritual things, it may then pass ●um gran● salis, but if by primarily be intended principally, that Circumcision did chiefly seal earthly blessings, the opinion is too unsavoury to be received: and whereas he, (and you with him) say that Circumcision did thus primarily seal the earthly part of the Covenant, I desire to know of you what Scripture ever made Circumcision a Seal of Canaan; we have express Scripture that it sealed the righteousness of faith, whereby he was justified, but I no where read that i● sealed the Land of Canaan. Whereas you say, though the promises were types of spiritual and heavenly things, yet the things promised were but carnal and earthly, as the sacrifices were but carnal things, though shadows of spiritual: I reply, all this is true, but this belongs to the administration of the Covenant (as was said before) but makes it never a whit the more a mixed Covenant for the substance of it; the Covenant than was more administered by carnal things than it is now, and yet the administration of the Covenant even now also hath some carnal promises, and privileges as well as then, as the external ordinances of the Gospel, Baptism and the Lords Supper; and we as well as they have in the Covenant of grace, the promise of this life, and of that which is to come: and so you may, if you will, call ours also a mixed Covenant, consisting both of temporal and spiritual blessings; and as among them some who were in Covenant did partake only of the temporal part, and never were partakers of the spiritual, others of them were partakers of the spiritual part also; even so now, some partake of the external and carnal part only, whilst others partake of both: this you must grant to be true, unless you will maintain that none are now members of the visible Church, but only Elect and true believers.  
Secondly, you except against me that when I said the manner of administration of this Covenant was first by types, shadows, and sacrifices, etc. it had been convenient to have named Circumcision, that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant: I reply, first, this is a very small quarrel, I added, etc. which supplies both Circumcision and other things. Secondly, you know the Covenant of grace was administered by sacrifices and other types before Circumcision was instituted.  
Thirdly, whereas I said there were some Proselytes in the Jewish Church who were but selfe-justiciaries, carnal and formal professors, who are yet in the Scripture called Abraham's seed, you answer I call them so without the warrant of Scripture, as you conceive: to which I reply, my words were that there was another 
Proselytes were Abraham's seed.  sort of Abraham's seed who were only circumcised in the flesh, and not in the heart, who though they were borne of Abraham's seed, or professed Abraham's faith, and so were Iewes facti, though not nati, yet they never made Abraham's God their portion, but rested in somewhat which was not Christ, etc. and so were to perish with the uncircumcised. This you do not here deny to be true, only you would have me show where the Proselytes were called Abraham's seed; I reply, had I mentioned no proselytes at all, but only said there were some in the Church of the jews, who were visible members, and partakers of outward Church-priviledges, and yet were not inwardly godly, nor partakers of the spiritual part, and that these were called Abraham's seed as well as others, it had been enough for my purpose. I named not Proselytes to add any strength to the argument; and because they are called God's people, I feared not to call them Abraham's children by profession, and never expected to have met with a quarrel for calling them who joined to the Church of Israel by that common name whereby the Church members were called, viz. the seed of Abraham or the children of Israel: and could no place of Scripture be produced where proselytes are expressly called by this name, the matter were not tanti. But if it were a thing of any moment, it would be no hard matter to produce evidence sufficient to prove that proselytes were called Israelites and the seed of Abraham, as Acts 2. 10. and 22. compared, Act. 13. 26. compared with Verse 43. but I forbear. You go on and accuse me, that herein I join with Arminius, who saith, there is a seed of Abraham mentioned, Rom. 4. 9 10. Gal. 3. Gal. 4. who seek justification and salvation 
This is not to join with Arminius.  by the works of the Law, and that he makes this the ground of wresting that Scripture, and that Mr. Bayne upon Ephes. 1. says that the seed of Abraham without any adjoined is never so taken: I reply, you give an high charge, but a weak proof; I said there was a sort of proselytes who were the seed of Abraham by profession only, or outward cleaving to the Covenant, who though they professed Abraham's faith, yet did not place their happiness in Christ, or make choice of Abraham's God for their all-sufficient portion. Sir, is this to join with Arminius in his interpretation of the ninth to the Romans? 1. How do you prove that Arminius means the words which you cite, of Jewish Proselytes? Nulli filii carnis censentur in semine, saith Arminius; doth he mean that no proselytes were the seed of Abraham according to the flesh? if so, I believe acute Mr. Bayne would 
Mr. Bayne of of my judgement, That civil justiciaties were called Abraham's seed.  have been more wary then to have opposed him in that point. Nay Mr. Bayne in the very self same page which you quote, having set down Arminius his two conclusions. (1. The children of the promise are reckoned for the seed. 2. The children of the flesh are not reckoned for the seed;) passes his judgement upon them in these words, Page 140. The Conclusions are true, but not pertinent to this sense, for the children of the flesh here, are those only who in course of nature came from Abraham. But you very wisely mention neither of these Conclusions of Arminius, you thought it more for your advantage to fasten upon some other proposition laid down by Arminius, and as you set it down it runs thus: There is a seed of Abraham, qui per opera legis justitiam & salutem consequuntur; I was much amused at the words. I know Arminius saith, Deus ex promisse ac debito dat vitam aeternam operanti, but he means it not of the works of the Law; and therefore I wondered to see opera legis in your proposition; but the word which puzzled me most, was consequuntur. Sir, let me entreat you to correct your book, there is no such word as consequuntur in Arminius his exposition, and it doth not agree with your own exposition, for consequuntur justitiam, is by you translated; Follow after righteousness. I have perused Arminius, (with whom you say I join) and Mr. Bayne, from whom you say I say I differ, and I shall give an account of both to the reader.  
First for Arminius, his words are these, Filii carnis Apostolo hoc loco sunt, qui per opera legis justitiam & salutem consectantur, not consequuntur: so that the question between Arminius and Mr. Bayne, is, whether in that place, namely, in the 9 to the Romans, the Apostle by children of the flesh, do mean such as seek righteousness by the Law? Hoc in loco, saith Arminitor, the phrase is to be so interpreted in this place; No, saith Mr. Bayne, it is not to be taken so in this place, though it may be taken so in other places: I shall set down Mr. Baynes his own words, that the Reader may see how grossly you have abused me; For though (saith Mr. Bayne) children of the flesh in some other Scripture, doth note 
Bayne in Ephes. p. 138. cap. 1. 5.  out justiciaries, seeking salvation in the Law, yet here the literal meaning is to be taken, a child of the flesh, being such a one as descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh. Good Reader observe, 1. That I was not expounding the 9 to the Romans; and therefore did not at all meddle with the question between Arminius and Mr. Bayne.  
2. I am cleared by Mr. Bayne himself, whom Mr. Tombs produced against me. 3. The words which clear me, are within six lines of those words which Mr. Tombs citys against me: whether Mr. Tombs be guilty of negligence or falsehood, I leave to your judgement. 4. The errors of Arminius are many in the place cited, and I join not with him in any one of them. First, I do not conceive that by [Word] Rom. 9 6. the Jews meant the legal Covenant, but the word of promise, or else the Apostle had not answered directly, v. the 9 Secondly, by the word [Seed] was meant the children of the promise, the elect, Rom. 9 8. as Mr. Bayne, nay Arminius confesses; only Arminius saith that they were elected upon God's forefight of their faith; an Opinion which I detest, as being injurious to the free & effectual grace of God. I need not instance in any other errors, only draw this Corollary, if God did fulfil this promise made to the seed of Abraham, though God did reject so many of his seed (that had the token of the Covenant in their flesh) not only from salvation, but from the partaking of outward privileges, from the dignity of being accounted his people any longer: then God may reject many of the seed of believers now under the Gospel, though baptised, not only from salvation, but from all Church-priviledges besides baptism, and yet make good his promise sealed in baptism, in which he engageth himself to be the God of believing Christians and their seed.  
Fourthly, Mr. Tombs speaks of Abraham's seed by celling, and saith that promise, [I will be the God of thy seed] was made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles, pag. 43. Now Mr. Tombs will not say that all the Gentiles were made partakers of an inward calling, the Gentiles then which had but an outward calling, are the seed of Abraham only by profession say I, because they are of the same profession with the spiritual seed of Abraham, who are inwardly called. If Mr. Tombs say that it is better to term them seed by calling, than seed by profession; if it be but an outward call, where lies the difference?  
Fifthly, Mr. Bayne and Arminius are agreed, that by the seed of Abraham, Rom. 9 8. is meant the elect only, Omnes filii promissionis censentur in semine, nulli filii carnis censentur in sentine, saith Arminius.  
Sixthly, the principal difference between Mr. Bayne and Arminius, is, that this elect seed was elected upon God's foresight of their faith, as Arminius would have it; but I join with Mr. Bayne in detesting this opinion, as injurious to the free and effectual grace of God: and Mr. Bayne joins with me, in confessing that in some places of Scripture they who seek to be justified by the Law, are termed children of the flesh. To conclude this of Arminius, I 
Mr. Tombs joins with Servetus.  wonder you should seek to cast an odi●● upon my expression (as you do here and several other times) by saying its a joining with Arminius, when you know well enough that you join not only in an expression or two, but in this your very doctrine of opposing Paedobaptism, with that monster Servenus, and other like him.  
Lastly, you are much more stumbled and offended that Mr. Blake should say, There yet remains in the Church a distinction 
Mr. Blake vindicated.  of Abraham's seed, some borne after the flesh, some after the spirit; and that both these have a Church interest, or a 〈◊〉 bright to Church privileges; and that ●ee for this alleged Gal. 4. 29. even so it is now, etc. I reply, for my part I as much wonder at your calling these passages very gross, for though it be granted, 1. That the Apostle shows Ishmael to be intended as a type of civil justiciaries who sought righteousness by the law. Yea, and 2. that these persecuted the true Church, who sought justification by Christ. And 3. That they are cast out from being heirs, never to partake of the spiritual privileges of the Covenant; yet because it is apparent that even these (who Paul said were typified by the son of Hagar) had a visible standing in the Jewish Church, and were partakers of outward Church privileges, and were the same of whom Paul speaks, Rom. 10. 3. Who being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. And that in the same place Paul himself saith, even so it is now, (even in the Church of Gallatia it was so) and Paul by this Doctrine laboured to make them better.) I see not why Mr. Blake might not use this as an argument, that some have a visible Church membership, and aught to partake of outward Church privileges, notwithstanding they will not have the inheritance of children, unless they repent. The thing which I conceive offends you in his expression is, that he thinks there is a fleshly seed of Abraham: but I know no reason of stumbling at that phrase, since by flesh is there intended any thing which is our own, whatever we put confidence in, and lean upon, as that which may commend us to God; whether our birth, or parts, our understanding, or moral virtue, yea, or our Religious duties, and performanc●s, all are but flesh; and this St. Paul plainly signifies, Phil. 3. 3 etc. We are 
Phil. 3. interpreted.  the Circumcision which worship God in the spirit, and put no confidence in the flesh, and in the verse following he tells you what he meant by flesh, viz. his birthright, his circumcision, 
What meant by seed of the flesh.  his unblameable conversation, etc. And might not Mr. Blake safely say, there is still a seed of these who are visible members?  
My second conclusion was to this effect, Ever since God 
Reply to Sect. 3.  gathered a distinct number out of the world, to be his Kingdom, 
Infants taken into Covenant with their parents.  City, Household, in opposition to the rest of the world, which is the Kingdom, City and Household of Satan; He would have Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him, to be accounted his, to belong to him, to his Church and family, and not to the Devils.  
So much weight lies upon this Conclusion, and it so nearly concerns you to make at least a show of overthrowing it, that in 40 Pages and upward you try all your wits, and artifices to shake the strength of it, by scornful speeches, by clouding and darkening what was expressed plainly, by framing senses, and confuting what was never asserted nor intended, by Bringing in at the by, opinions of other men, and disputing against them, by alleging the Testimonies of some eminently learned men, when they are nothing to the purpose in hand, and by seeking to elude the strength of my arguments: In all these I shall attend you, and endeavour to clear what you would seem to have obscure, briefly to pass over what is impertinent, and chiefly buckle with you in that which concerns the cause in hand.  
First, you tell me this conclusion is a b●●kin, that may be put on either leg, right or left, expressed so ambiguously that you know not in what sense to take it.  
Truly Sir, you take a course to make it seem so: I knew 
Reply.  a man in Cambridge that went for a great Scholar, whose remarkable faculty was, so to expound a Text, as to make a clear Text dark by his interpretation; even thus have you dealt with a plain Conclusion, you bring first, three sorts of senses, than you subdivide them, and under each of them bring several Imaginable senses, four or five under one head, five or six under another head, and then blame me that I have not distinctly set down in which of these senses, Infants of Believers belong to the Covenant, whether in respect of Election, or of a promise of grace in Christ, whether potentially, or actually, whether they are so to be accounted by an act of science, or faith, or opinion, and that grounded on a rule of haritie, or prudence, or probable hopes for the future; thus you express your skill in multiplication of senses: But I reply, that he that runs may read my sense, and with the tenth part of the pains you have taken to fasten a sense upon it, which I never thought upon, might confidently have concluded that I meant of a visible privilege in fancy visibilis Ecelesiae, or have their share in the faedus externum, which my words plainly enough held forth when I spoke of Gods separating a number out of the world to be his Kingdom, City, Household in apposition to the rest of the world which is the Devil's Kingdom: and afterwards in the same Conclusion, God having left all the rest of the world to be visibly the Devil's Kingdom (although among them many belong to his invisible kingdom as being of the number of his elect) he will not permit the Devil to come and lay visible claim to the offspring of those who are begotten of the children of the most High, is not this plain enough? that as all they who by external vocation, and profession join to the Church of God, (though few of those many so called are elected) have a visible right to be esteemed members of the Church & Kingdom of God, (which is a visible Corporation, distinct, and opposite to the rest of the world, which is visibly the corporation and kingdom over which the Devil doth reign;) So God would have their children, even while they are children, to enjoy the same privilege with them: what Delian Diver is there any need of, to fetch up the meaning of this? But that you may no longer complaint of not understanding my sense, I say plainly, The Covenant 
The sense of this second proposition cleared.  of grace is sometime taken strictly, sometime largely; as it is considered strictly, it is a Covenant in which the spiritual benefits of justification, regeneration, perseverance, and glorification are freely promised in Christ. Secondly, as the Covenant of grace is taken largely, it comp●●hendss all Evangelicall administrations which do wholly depend 
Men may be under the Covenant several ways, some spiritually, and some under the administration only.  upon the free and gracious appointment of God, and this administration is fulfilled according to the counsel of God's will; sometimes it was administered by his appointment in type● shadows, and other legal Ordinances; this Covenant of administration, God said, Z●●●ary 11. 10. h●● did 〈◊〉 with the people of the Jews, and at the death of Christ he did wholly evacuate and abolish, and in stead thereof brought in the administration which we live under, where also he rejected the Jews or book them off from being his people in Covenant, and called the Gentiles, and graffed them in ram●rum defractorum locum, into the place of the branches broken off, as yourself page 65. do with Beza rightly express it. Now according to this different acceptation of the Covenant are men differently said to be in covenant with God, or to be members of his Church and family; some are mystical members by inward grace, the inward grace of the Covenant being bestowed upon them, being made new creatures, etc. others are members in regard of the external and visible aeconomy; accordingly among the Jews some were said to be Abraham's seed according to the promise, and not only after the flesh, who had the Circumcision of the heart as well as that which was outward, others were Jews in propatulo, Jew's only in foro visibilis ecolesia: and in like manner is it under the Evangelicall administration in the Christian Church, some are in Christ by mystical 〈◊〉, so as to be regenerate, etc. 1 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Cor. 5. 17. others are said to be in Christ by visible and external profession, as branches which bear no fruit, john 15. 2. and these also are called branches of the Vine, though such branches, as for unfruitfulness shall at last be cut off and cast away; and often times tells us many are called, but few are chosen: Unto both these do belong great privileges, though the priviledg●● of the one be saving, & the other not, as shall by and by appear.  
Furthermore, according to this different notion of the Covenant grounded upon the different manner of men's being in Christ, there are also different S●ales belonging unto the Covenant; some peculiar and proper only unto those who are in Covenant spiritually, a quo●d substantiam et grati●● fae●●ris, as the testimony and Seal of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 1. 2●. Ephes. 1. 13. 14. 30. Rom. 8. 16. others common and belonging unto all, who are in the visible body and branches of Christ the Vine in any relation, and so in Covenant quoad 〈…〉, till by scandalous 〈◊〉 which are 〈◊〉 with that very outward dignity and profession they cut themselves off from that relation, and such are the visible and external Seals annexed to the external profession among Christians, as the Jewish Seals were to those who were Jew's externally.  
When therefore I say, they are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents, I mean look what right a visible professor hath to be received and reputed to belong to the visible Church, qu● visible professor, that right hath his child so to be esteemed: now all know the spiritual part and privileges of the Covenant of grace belongs not to visible professors as visible, but only to such among them who are inwardly such as their external profession holds out, but yet there are outward Church-priviledges which belong to them as they are visible professors, as to be reputed the sons of God, Gen. 6. 1. the sons of God saw 
Great priviviledges belong to them who are under the external Covenant. Gen. 6. 1. Deut. 14. 1. Gal. 3. 26.  the daughters of men, Deut. 14. 1. ye are the children of the Lord your God; and Paul, writing to a visible Church, Gal. 3. 26. saith, yea are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, (yet I suppose you do not think that all the Galatians were inwardly so) so likewise to be reputed children of the kingdom, Matth. 8. 12. the children of the kingdom shall be cast out, the children of the Covenant, Act. 3. 25. ye are the children of the Covenant which God made unto our fathers, and many other of their privileges which belong to them, who are Israelite● in this sense, viz. being by such a separation and vocation the professed people of God (though they were not all heirs of the spiritual part of the Covenant) Saint Paul reckons up in several places, as Rom. 9 4. to them pertaineth 
Rom. 9 4.  the adoption, even to the body of that people (not a spiritual adoption, but the honour of being separated and reputed to be the children of God, Deut. 14. 1.) and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; yet of these Paul saith, they were not all children of Abraham, when he speaks of the spiritual seed. So likewise Rom. 3. 1. after Paul had showed Rom. ●. 
Rom. 3. 1.  that nothing but faith and inward holiness gave right to the spiritual part of the Covenant, and that all the external privileges of the Jews, who were only Jews in propatulo, Jew's outwardly, were nothing to justification before God, he than propounds this question, Cap. 3. 1. What advantage then both the Jew, or what profit is there of Circumcision? what privilege or gain is it to be a visible professor, a visible member of the Jewish Church? he answers, the advantage is great many ways, and instances in this one particular, that the Oracles of God were deposited to them, the custody and dispensation of his Ordinances, which they might use as their own treasure, and thereby learn to know and fear him, (therefore it is called their Law, John 8. 17. It is also written in your Law) when the rest of the nations all that while were without God in the world, and received 
John 8. 17. Deut. 33. 4.  the rule of their life from the Oracles of the Devil, according to that of the Psalmist, Psal. 147. 10, 20 He showed his word to jacob, his statutes and his judgements to Israel, he hath not dealt so with any nation, and as for his judgements they have not known them: So Deut. 33. 4. The Law is called the inheritance 
Psal. 147. 20.  of the Congregation of jacob. And although it be true that these visible and external privileges will end with the greater condemnation of them who live and die in the abuse of them while they rest in Cortice, in the outward thing itself, and labour not after the spiritual part, yet the privileges themselves are very great. It is no small mercy to have a membership or visible standing in that society where salvation is ordinary, this our blessed Saviour told the woman of Samaria, john 4. 22. Salvation is of the jews, this was the privilege which the Church of the Jews had 
John 4. 22.  above the Samaritans, that salvation was to be found in their way, and God in his wisdom hath so ordained it to have his visible Church made up of such, I mean so, as to have some of them inwardly holy, and others of them by external profession only, for this reason among many others, that there might be some who should from time to time be converted by the Ordinances dispensed in his Church, as well as others, who should be built up, that the Pastors which he sets up to feed his flock, should not only be nursing fathers to build up, but also fathers to beget sons and daughters to him: and though all are bound de jure to be inwardly holy, who join to the Church, yet would he have his Church admit those who profess their willingness to be his, that he by his discipline might make them inwardly such as they externally profess themselves and as yet are not in truth, as into a School are admitted not only such as are actually learned, but such as are dedicated to be learned, not only quia docti, sed ut sint docti: and who ever will deny this, that there are some rightly admitted by the Church to visible membership, who only partake of the visible privileges, must deny, that any are visible members who are not inwardly converted, which I think you will do, but lest you or any other should, I shall at the present back it only with that speech of the Apostle, Rom. 11. where Paul speaks of some branches grass into the Olive, and 
An external right to the Covenant proved. Rom. 11.  afterwards broken off, not only the jews whom he calleth the natural branches were broken off, but the Gentiles also; the Gentile Churches who were graffed in in their room, and were made partakers of the root and fatness of the Olive, even they also may be broken off if they believe not, and God will no more spare these branches than he did the other; now this cannot be meant of any breaking off from the invisible Church, from partaking of the spiritual root and fatness of the Olive, from this neither Jew 
This proved from Mr. Tombs own principles.  nor Gentile are ever broken off, it were Arminianism to the purpose to affirm the contrary, it must therefore be meant only of a visible standing and external participation of Church-priviledges; and if you think otherways, that none of old were, nor now are visible members of the Church, or had right to external Church privileges, unless they were inwardly sanctified; I beseech you in your next, to clear this, and open our eyes with your evidence that we may see it with you, and in stead of leading your Reader into a ma●e by framing multitudes of senses & the like, produce some solid arguments to show, and prove that no other but true believers, may in fore visibi●●● Eccl●siae, be reckoned to belong to the Church and people of God. But I suppose in this particular, you will hardly deny a lawfulness of admitting men into a visible communion upon a visible profession, and that rightly, even by a judgement of faith, though their inward holiness be unknown to us; for so much you grant, pag. 159. and if by a judgement of faith a Minister as God's Steward may dispense the seal of the Covenant of grace, and not stay from applying the seal to him, who makes an outward profession, because we have not a Spirit of discerning, to know them to be real believers; than it undeniably follows, That some may rightly be accounted to belong to the Church of God, and Covenant of grace, beside real believers, which is as much as I need, to make my sense and meaning in this Proposition to pass for currant. And truly Sir, whoever will grant that a Minister in applying the seal, must do it de fide, in faith, being assured he applies it according to rule; must either grant such a right as I plead for, that many have right to be visible members, and be partakers of the external administration of Ordinances, though they be not inwardly sanctified; or else he must by revelation be able to see and know the inward conversion of every one he applies the seal unto; for certainly he hath no written Word to build his faith upon, for the state of this or that man. And for my own part, when once you have disproved this, that there is such a visible membership and right to external administrations as I have here infisted upon, I shall not only forbear baptising Infants, but the administration of the external seal to any, what profession soever they make, until I may be de fide assured, that they are inwardly regenerate.  
This than was and is my meaning, when I say, That Infants of believers are confederates with their Parents; that they have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members, as their Parents have by being visible Professors; and are therefore to be admitted to all such external Church-priviledges as their Infant age is capable of; and that the visible Church is made up of such visible Professors and their Children, that the invisible takes in neither all of the one, nor the other, but some of both. Whereas therefore you say you are at a stand to find out what my meaning is, and know not what to deny, or what to grant: and again, pag. 45. You are at a stand whether I mean they are to be taken in with their Parents into Covenant, in respect of saving grates; or the outward privilege of Church-ordinances. I beseech you stand no longer doubtful of my meaning, I mean of them, as I mean of other visible Professors, they are taken into Covenant both ways respectively, according as they are elect, or not elect, all of them are in Covenant in respect of outward privileges the elect over and above the outward privileges, are in Covenant with respect to saving graces; and the same is to be said of visible members, both Parents and Infants, under the New Testament, in this point of being in Covenant, as was to be said of visible members, in the former administration, whether Jew's and their children, or Proselytes and their children. I endeavour in all this to speak as clearly as I can possibly, not only because you say you are oft at a stand to pick out my meaning; but because this mistake runs through your whole book, that none are to be reputed to have a visible right to the Covenant of grace, but only such as partake of the saving graces of it. Now I proceed with you.  
When I say, That God would have believers children reputed to belong to his Church and family, and not to the devils. You answer, That you fear I use that expression (of not belonging to the Devil's Kingdom) to please the people. But Sir, why do you judge my heart to intend amiss, in using an expression which yourself cannot mislike? I have more cause to think you use all these words (it cannot be denied but God would have the Infants of believers in some sort to be accounted his, to belong to him, his Church and family, and not to the Devils. And again, it is true in fancy visibilis Ecclesiae, the Infants of believers are to be accounted Gods, etc.) only add faciendum populum, to please the people, because this is not 
Mr. Tombs leaves all Infants of believers to be under the visible kingdom of the Devil actually.  your judgement; for when you speak your full meaning and sense of this point, you profess you know no more promise for them in reference to the Covenant, then to the children of Turks: And even here you only grant them a nearer possibility to belong to the Covenant of grace then the children of Infidels have: therefore in your judgement they are not now actually belonging to it, but only in a possibility: so that though they may be accounted to belong to the Kingdom of God potentially, yet (by your doctrine) they belong to the Kingdom of the Devil actually▪ and all this charitable opinion which here you express toward them, dontaines no more than is to be allowed to the child of a Turk, if born among Christians; especially, if a Christian will take it, and bring it up in Christian Religion; and by what may we ground any probable hopes they will actually receive the profession of Christ, since by your rule there is no promise, no external Covenant? why may I not have as good hopes of Heathens children, if Gods promise help not here? But say you, To make them actually members of the visible Church, is to overthrow the difinitions of the visible Church, that Protestant Writers use to give; because they must be all Christians by profession. I reply, it overthrows it not at all, for they all include the Infants of such Professors▪ as the visible Church among the Jews did include their Infants, male (and female too, lest you say that Circumcision made them members:) I add also, Baptism now (as well as Circumcision of old) is a real, though imp●i●●● Profession of the Christian Faith. But (say you) Infants are o●ly passive, and do nothing whereby they may be denominated visible Christians. I answer, even as much as the Infants of Jews could do of old, who yet in their days were visible members. Yea (say you) further it will follow, That there may be a visible Church which consists only of Infants of believers. I answer, no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church; it's possible, but very improbable, that all the men and Women should die and leave only 〈◊〉 behinds them, and it's far more probable that a Church 〈…〉 Anabaptists why may consist only of Hypocrit●●▪ Again, you affirm, We are not to account Infants to belong to God, either in respect of election or promise of grace, or presen●● 〈◊〉 of in being in Christ, 〈◊〉 ●state by any act of 〈…〉 with in a particular revelation, because there 〈…〉 declaration of God, that the Infants of pris●●● 〈…〉 all or some, either are elected to life, or in the Covenant of grace in Christ, either in respect of present in-being, or future estate. To which I answer briefly, though all this be granted, if meant of the spiritual part of the Covenant only, yet this makes nothing against that visible membership which I plead for. Yea, I re●ort the argument upon yourself, and dare boldly affirm, that by this argument, no visible Church, or all the visible Professors of any Church are to be accounted to belong to God either in respect of election from eternity, or promise of grace, or present state of in-being in Christ, etc. without a particular revelation, because there is no declaration of God that the present visible Professors are indefinitely all, or some, either elected to life, or are in the Covenant of grace in Christ, either in respect of present in-being, or future estate: look by what distinction you will answer this, for visible Professors who are grown men, the same will serve for the Infants of believers.  
In the next place, you make a digression against an expression of Mr. Cottons, which you think necessary to do, because 
Mr. Cotton vindicated.  you f●●de many are apt to swallow the dictates of such men as Mr. Cotton is, without examination; he affirmed, the Covenant of grace is given to Christ, and in Christ to every godly man, Gen. 17. 7. and in every godly man to his seed; God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever: against this you except many things, and according to your usual course, you frame many senses, of the Covenants being given to every godly man and his seed; some whereof are so absurd, as no charitable man can imagine ever came in Mr. Cottons thoughts, That every godly man should be to his seed, as Christ to every godly man; which in truth (as you say) would be little less than blasphemy. But I shall give you this short Reply, that I take Mr. Cottons meaning to be, that look as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and other godly Jews were to their seed, in respect of the Covenant; that is every godly man to his seed now; except only in such things wherein those Patriarches were types of Christ, in all other things wherein God promised to be the God of them and their seed, godly parents may plead it as much for their seed 〈◊〉, as they could then; and whatever inconvenience or absurdity you seem to fasten upon Mr. Cotton, will equally reach to them also: as for example, suppose an Israelite should plead this promise for his seed, you'll demand if ●ee plead it to his seed universally, that's false, and so of the rest of your inferences, look what satisfying answer an Israelite would give you, the same would Mr. Cotton give, and at satisfyingly. As for what you say concerning Abraham, that by the seed of Abraham are meant only elect and believers; I have sufficiently answered to it before, and shall have occasion to meet with it again in its due place; therefore I now say no more of it; but the chief thing you grate upon against M. Cotton, is that expression in the close, That God will have some of every godly man's seed stand before him for ever. You aggravate this to the utmost, as a bold dictate, imposing on God's counsel and Covenant, the absurdity and falsity whereof, you endeavour to manifest at large: to which I answer in two or three words, that supposing his meaning to be as you set it down, That it is in reference to election and everlasting life, that every godly man shall have some of his seed infallibly saved. I confess the expression is not to be justified; nor do I think that that sense ever came into the mind of so learned and judicious a man as Mr. Cotton is: for my part, I think he only alluded to that promise made to Jonad●●s children, Jer. 35. tha● God would always bear a merciful respect unto the posterity of his servants, according to that promise, Exod. 20. 5. I will show mercy to thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. And that being his scope, (as I think it was) you need not have kept such a stir about it.  
After your digression to meet with Mr. Cotton, in stead of returning to my Sermon, you wander further out of your way; for after a short discourse of judging children to be 
Tombes●●deavours ●●deavours to 〈◊〉 a sense upon this Proposition, never intended by 〈◊〉 not owned by me.  within the Covenant (by opinion) according to a rule of prudence or charity (senses which I meddle not with: and therefore need not stay the Reader in descanting upon them. My rule of judging their condition, being limited to the Rule of Gods revealed will in his word) you then proceed in an endeavour, wherein you do but lose time, and waste paper for many pages together, endeavouring to confute what was never asserted by me; viz. That the Covenant of saving grace is made to believers and their natural seed; that the Infants of believers are so within the Covenant of grace, as to be elected, and to have all the spiritual privileges of the Covenant belonging to them; this you would needs have to be my meaning: and I almost suspect you would fasten this sense upon me, against your own light; for pag. 142. you do as good as clear me of it; where you say, You suppose that I do not hold, that the Infants of believers indifferently have actually the thing signified by baptism, union with Christ, adoption, pardon of sin, regeneration, etc. So that in all this discourse, you do but luctari cum larvis, according to your own expression, pag. 45. my plain meaning was as is before expressed; nor do any of the expressions used by me, and here brought by you as Arguments to prove this to be my meaning, hold forth any such thing; as, they are within the Covenant of grace, belonging to Christ's body, kingdom, household; therefore are to partake of the seal. True, as visible professors are, quà visible. Again, they are to be accounted to belong to him as well as their parents. True, as well as their parents do by a visible profession. Again, they are made free according to Abraham's copy. True, according to the promise made to Abraham, I will be a God to thee and thy seed; that look as Abraham and his seed, the Proselytes and their seed, upon their visible owning of God and his Covenant, had this visible privilege for their posterity, that they should be accounted to belong to God's kingdom and household with their parents; so it is here.  
One Argument more you bring (beside laying of my words together) to prove that this must needs be my sense, because you doubt not but my meaning is agreeable to the Directory, which holds forth, That the promises are made to believers and their seed: and directs Ministers to pray, That God would make Baptism to the Infant a seal of adoption, regeneration, and eternal life. And you conclude, that if there be not a promise of these saving graces 
What the Sacrament seals absolutely, and what conditionally.  to Infants, in vain are they baptised, and the seal is put to a blank; To which I reply, my meaning is indeed according to the sense of the Directory, and according to that direction, I do pray that God would make baptism to be a seal to the Infant of adoption, and the rest of the saving graces of the Covenant; yet I utterly deny you consequence, that unless there be absolute promises of saving grace to Infants, the Seal is set to a blank, for give me leave but to put the same case; first, for the Infants of the Jews, was the seal put to a blank with them, or had they all promises of saving graces? Secondly, let me put the same case in grown men, who make an external visible profession, and thereupon are admitted to baptism, can any man say, that all the saving graces of the Covenant, or the spiritual part of it, is promised to all visible professors? is it not abundantly known that in all ages, even in the best times, even in the Apostles times, multitudes were baptised, to whom God yet never gave saving graces, and therefore never promised them? for had he made a promise, he would have performed it. But I shall desire you a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament, in what sense it is a seal, and then you need stumble at this no longer; these three things are necessarily to be distinguished, first, the truth of the thing signified in a Sacrament; and secondly, my interest in that thing; And thirdly, my obligation, to do what is required in or by that Sacrament: I say therefore, that in every Sacrament, the truth of the Covenant in itself, and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea, and Amen; Jesus Christ became a Minister of the circumcision, to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers, & so to every one who is admitted to partake of Baptism, according to the rule which God hath given to his Church, to administer that Sacrament, there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel, that they are all true in Christ, and that whoever partakes of Christ, shall partake of all these saving promises; this is sealed absolutely in Baptism, but as to the second, which is interest meum, or the receivers interest in that spiritual part of the Covenant, that is sealed to no receiver absolutely, but conditionally; in this particular, all Sacraments are but signa conditionalia, conditional seals, sealing the spiritual part of the Covenant to the receiver, upon condition that he perform the spiritual condition of the Covenant: thus our Divines use to answer the Papists, thus Doctor Ames answers to Bellarmine, when Bellarmine disputing against our doctrines that Sacraments are seals, alleges than they are falsely applied ostentimes; he answers to Bellarmine, Sacraments are conditional Seals, and therefore not seals to us but upon condition. Now for the third thing, the obligation which is put upon the receiver, a bond or the for him to perform, who is admitted to receive the Sacrament, this third I say is also absolute, all Circumcised and Baptised persons did or do stand absolutely engaged to perform the conditions required on their part, and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision obliged to keep the Law, that is, that legal and typical administration of the Covenant which was then in force, and Infants among the rest were bound to this, though they had no understanding of the Covenant, or that administration of the Covenant, when this Seal was administered to them. Now then, since in Baptism there is first an absolute Seal of the truth of the Covenant of grace in itself, a conditional seal of the receivers interest in the Covenant, and an absolute obligation upon the receiver to make good the Covenant on his part, is there any reason that you should say, that the seal is put to a blank, where the spiritual part or saving grace is not partaked of? What you further say here, that by Abraham who is the father of the faithful is meant Abraham's person, and not every believer, that it was a personal privilege to Abraham, and not a common privilege to believers as believers, which thing you repeat very often, it shall be considered in a more proper place. So that, you having thus wholly mistaken my sense, and undertaken to dispute against a sense which I never owned, I may therefore pass over your six arguments which you bring to confute this sense which you have set down: I join with you that it is an error to say that all Infants of believers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the Covenant, for although I find abundance of promises in the Scripture, of Gods giving saving graces unto the posterity of his people, and that experience reaches us that God uses to continue his Church in their posterity, and that God's election lies more among their seed then among others, yet neither to Jew nor Gentile was the Covenant so made at any time, that the spiritual part and grace of the Covenant should be conferred upon them all; it is sufficient to me that they may have a visible standing in the Church, partake of the outward privileges of the Church, and be trained up under that discipline, or administration of the Covenant which God uses to make effectual to salvation, in the mean time all of them to be visible members as well as their parents, and some of them invisible as well as some of their parents. And therefore although in some of your fix reasons there are divers expressions which I cannot swallow, yet I shall not here stay upon them, but examine them when you bring them elsewhere to dispute against me, as here you do not; only give me leave to touch upon the last of your fix arguments, because in some sense it militates 
How Christianity may be called a birthright.  against my Thesis, Is this were true, say you, that the Covenant of grace is a birthright privilege, than the children of believers are the children of grace by nature, than Christians are borne Christians, not made Christians; if the child of a Christian be borne a Christian, as the child of a Turk is borne a Turk; and if so, how are they borne the children of wrath as well as others? I answer, According to the sense which I own I maintain this assertion to be true, that the child of a Christian is borne a Christian, it is his birthright to be so esteemed; I mean to be reputed within the Covenant of grace, or a member of the visible Church, our▪ I am sure it was so, the child of a jew was borne a jew, and it was his birthright to be an Israelite, a visible member of the Church of Israel, and the Apostle Paul stuck not to use the word jews by nature, Gal. 2. 15. We who are jews by nature, and not 〈◊〉 of the ●●●tiles, ●ee there opposes the natural privilege of the members of the Church to the condition of the heathens, and Rom. 11. he calls the whole nation of the jews the natural branches of the Olive tree, because they were the visible Church of God: Will you say of them also, how were they then the children of wrath by nature? I answer, do but consider the Apostles distinction, Rom. 2. last. betwixt a Jew in propatulo in facievisibilis ecclesiae, a Jew without, and a Jew 
Rom. 2. 〈◊〉.  in abscondito, a Jew within, and your objection is answered; in the first sense, every child of a believer is brone a Christian, that is, he is a member of the visible Church; in the second sense, none can claim it as a birthright, men must be made Christians in that sense, and not borne Christians; thus this, which is a weak objection of the Lutherans against the Calvinists, is easily answered, to be children of wrath by nature▪ and yet to be holy in an external Covenant, being borne of believing parents, do no whit oppose one another; thus it was not only among the Jews who had a visible standing under the Covenant of grace, and yet multitudes of them were the children of wrath; but even thus it is unto this day among grown men, who are admitted to be Christians in your way, some of them are sancti, called and holy in the face of the visible Church, and yet not so coram facie dei, whilst others are so both in the spirit and in the letter. Your great error and mistake is, that you speak not distinctly of the Covenant of grace, for whereas the Covenant is to be largely understood for the whole dispensation of it in outward Ordinances as well as saving graces, you usually take it strictly for saving graces which belong only to the elect; You cannot be ignorant how our Divines own the outward administration of the Covenant, under the notion of faedus externum, and the spiritual grace of it under the notion of faedus inte●●um; you still restrain the Covenant to the spiritual part only, and would persuade your Reader, that they who speak of the Covenant of grace must mean it thus strictly, and yet you bring not arguments to disprove a true visible membership, upon a visible profession, whether the inward saving grace be known or not.  
Now I return with you to my Sermon, where your 
To Sect. 5. Comparison between Christ's kingdom and other kingdoms, vindicated.  examen proceeds, I used for illustration sake ●● comparison from other Kingdoms, Corporations and Families; the children follow the condition of their parents, free m●n● children are borne free, the children of slaves are borne slaves, etc. and thus hath God ordained (said I) that it shall be in his Kingdom and Family, children follow the Covenant condition of their parents; this passage you slight, first in general, as that which contains nothing but dictates; but par●ius-ista-vitis, you may give your adversary two in the seven at dictating, you who call my only using a comparison or allusion to be a dictating can dictate in this very place, Christianity say you is no man's birthright, this was but even just now the question betwixt you and Mr. Blake, and you here without any proof ●et down this peremptory conclusion (which was the very question betwixt you) Christianitis is no man's birthright, but the thing is true, call it what you please, and will not be blown away with a scornful puff: but say you, I do●very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like civil Corporations, as if persons were to be admitted into it by birth, whereas in this all is done by free election of grace, and according to God's appointment. I reply, you carnally and sinfully judge of God's ways in this particular, for is it not evident that the Jewish Church was in this like civil corporations? were not children then admitted in by birthright, and yet was not grace then as free as it is now? had the Jews by birth no seal of grace, and that by Covenant, because God was the God of them and their seed, or was there no grace accompanying the Jewish Sacraments? I suppose you are not so Popish as to deny it. And further I pray you tell me, was not all done among them as much by the free election of grace, as among us? are you of Arminius his mind, that jacob and Esa● (both circumcised persons) are not proposed to us, Rom. 9 as such who hold forth to us the sovereignty of God in election and reprobation? Secondly, what mean you when you say, all is done in the Church according to the f●●● election of grace? 'tis true, if you mean it of the Church invisible, all is there done by the free election of grace, but we are speaking of the visible Church: and I hope you will not say, all is there done by free election of grace, you will not say that none have any interest in the visible privileges, but only they who are elected. You add, yea to conceive that it is in God's Church, as in other kingdoms, is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors; Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Hart hath showed that hence arose the frame of government by Patriarches, Metropolitans, etc. and this is (say you) the reason of invocation of Saints, etc. I reply, true, for men to say thus it must be, or thus it may b●e in God● kingdom, because it is so in other kingdoms, is the very Seminary which Dr. Reynolds speaks of; but to mention some things alike in God's Kingdom and other kingdoms, when God himself hath made them so, it is obedience and not presumption. Yea, it is a great sin to call that a carnal imagination which is Gods own doing. Next when I say, if he take a father into Covenant, he takes the children in with him, if he reject the parents, the children are east out with them. You answer, if I mean this in respect of election and reprobation, it is not true, or in respect of the Covenant of grace which is congruous to election or reprobation. I answer, you judge right, I meant it not of election or reprobation; nor that the saving graces of the Covenant are always made good, either to Infants or grown men, who are taken into Covenant▪ I meant it as before I expressed it, of taking in, into a visible Church-standing. But (say you) neither is that true, it is not true in respect of outward Ordinances, the father may be baptised and not the child, and è contra, the father may, be deprived, and the child may enjoy them, I answer, but this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the thing that is in question betwixt us, the contrary whereunto I undertake to justify; Indeed de sacto, the one may enjoy them, and the other he deprived of them, a father may be baptised, and his child die before it be baptised▪ but our question is de jure, whether a Parent, being a believer, his child hath not right to Baptism, and other Church-priviledges, as it grows copable of them, at the ●ew●s children had to Circumcision, etc. De sacto, it fell out sometimes so among the Jews, David, the ●ather circumcised, and not the child borne to him by Bathsheba, which died the seventh day, and was not Circumcised, and many multitudes more in the same condition, but is this any thing against the right of Infants to be● Circumcised?  
Next (say you) In this point there i● 〈◊〉 certainty or agreement in the paedobaptists determination, because Mr. Rutherford says, the children of Papists, and excommunicate Protestants which are barn with in our visible Church, are baptised if their forefathers have been found in the faith, but others will deny it, and you cite Mr. Cotton in the Margin, wh● says that if hath 
Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Cotton reconciled.  the nearest parents be excommunicated, the child is not to be baptised, because the parents are to us as heathens, and th●●, say you, Paedobaptists as well as Anabaptists, like wates of the Sea, beat one against another: To which I answer, This peculiar controversy betwixt some Paedobaptists, by 〈◊〉 right the children are to be baptised, whether by right of their nearest parents only, or by the right of their remoter forefathers, who have been sound in the faith, is very little helpful to your cause, nor is it any very great controversy betwixt those parties whom you mention, for Mr. Cotton in the very words cited, doth almost, (if not altogether) reconcile it, while he saith, when the nearest parents are excommunicate, it may be considered whether the child may not be baptised either if the Grandfather or Grandmother make profession, or in the right of the Household Governor, who promises to educate the child in the faith, 〈◊〉 by proportion of the Law may be gathered from Gen. 17. 12, 13. Here is little or no beating of one wave against another, but both of them beating Anabaptists; and I wish, that your answer did no more beace against the very reason of the holy Ghost, Gen. 17. 7. who makes this his Argument why he would have the male children circumcised, and thereby reckoned to be in Covenant with him, because their parents are in Covenant with him; this in me you call a carnal imagination, take heed you dash not against the Lord Jehovah himself. Lastly, whereas I add thus i● w●● in the time of the jews, both Jews and Proselytes, they and their children came thi● Covenant together, and when God rejected the parents out of the Covenant, the children were cast out with them. To this you answer, indeed when parents' were taken into Covenant, their children were circumcised with them, but whether this make any thing for baptising of Infants you shall con●ider in du● place, and there (God willing) I shall meet with you. But for the second thing, that when the parents were cast out of Covenant the Children were cast out with them; this (say you) is not true, parents might be Idolaters, Apostates, etc. yet their children were to be circumcised; I answer, first, Is it not evident in the Jews at this day, that they and their children are cast out together? and (I add) if you would show the falsity of it, you should have given some instance, not of parents, who remain God's people in external profession, not having received a Bill of divorcement, though their lives might possibly be very wicked, but of some who were cast off from being visible professors, and yet their Infants remain in the visible society of the Church, or of some who were visibly thus taken in, and their Infants left out, but instead of this, you still go on in your wont equivocation of the word Covenant of grace, taking it only of the Covenant of saving grace, not including the external way of administration with it.  
Now (God willing) I shall try what strength there is in 
Io Sect. 6. Vindicating Act. 2. 38. 39 as a proof of Infants of believers to belong to the the Covenant of grace.  your exceptions against those Texts I brought to prove that Infants of Believers do belong to the Covenant now as well as the Infants of Jews did under the former administration. The first whereof was taken out of Acts 2. 38. 39 where Peter exhorting his hearers to believe and be baptised, used this as an Argument taken from the benefit which should come to their posterity, The promise is made to you and to your children, etc.  
The first branch of your answer is according to your usual method, to throw dirt in the face of an Argument 
Mr. Tombs his method of answering.  which pinches you, slighting and scorning that which you know not how to answer; and then to frame several senses, and raise a dust about it▪ You complain how irksome it is to Readers and Answerers, to find them who allege ● Text to paraphrase upon it, but show not how they conclude from it. It is harder for you to find your enemy then to vanquish him; and you wish, that I would first distinctly expound, and then frame my arguments out of the Text.  
I answer I hardly can tell whether it were best to smile at or pity this grievous trouble you are put to, that your patience should be thus compelled deverare taedium; it seems you expected I should make syllogisms in mood and figure, in a Sermon ad populum, if you did not, I wonder why you should be thus troubled, since as plainly as I could I expressed the meaning of the Text: I first showed where the strength of the Argument lay viz. That not only themselves upon their faith and Baptism should receive such an Invaluable benefit, but their children should also (as under the former administration they were) be taken into a better administration, the Covenant being now exhibited in the best and fullest manner, and all they whether near or far off, who would own this should themselves and their children with them, be under this best Covenant, as formerly they were when the Covenant was more dark. And in the progress of my discourse I both proved this to be the meaning, and answered the exceptions to the contrary.  
Next follows your several senses: You doubt whether I 
Mr. Tombs his art in multiplying senses.  fetch children in under the first part, I will be thy God; or whether under the second, I will be the God of thy seed. Or whether I mean is of saving graces, or Church-priviledges. One while you doubt whether my sense be, that God will be the God of their children if they obey his call: than you rather guess it, That if the Parents obey his call, be will be the God of them, and their children, though the children do not obey his call. Yea further (because here are not yet senses enough) you proceed and say, If by the promise to them and their children, be meant of outward Church-priviledges; then the sense must be, If you will believe, repent and be baptised, than you and your children shall be baptised. Yet another sense you make out of that which I spoke (at the by) of Zacheus, Luke 19 that salvation came to his house upon his believing; that thence may be gathered, That the meaning is, a man's whole household may be saved barely by his believing: and not content with all these senses, you step out of your way to bring in Mr. goodwin's interpretation of Zacheus, that he meant it of the whole household; and that thence he collected that an household was Ecclesia prima, which you confute, and then you set down your own sense of salvation coming to Zacheus his house; that by Zacheus his house is mean● only Zacheus himself.  
What multiplicity of imaginary senses, and consequences of senses are here poured out on an heap? could the ●arest Chemic have extracted any more? The Reader would hardly swadlow down the tediousness of my discourse, if I should take them all singly, and show what I own or reject of each of them: It is better to set down the plain sense together, and make it goods; and then he will discern how you have endeavoured to cloud an argument, and wrangle against it, when you cannot answer it. I plainly expressed the Apostles argument to be fetched from 
The prame sense & scope of this argument opened and vindicated.  the benefit, which would not only come to themselves, but to their children by their believing in Christ; and after added, that the clear strength of the Argument lay thus; God hath now remembered his Covenant to Abraham, in sending that blessed seed in whom he promised to be the God of him and of his seed; do not you by your unbelief deprive yourselves and your posterity of so excellent a gift: In which passage you acknowledge I have hit the mark, and given that very interpretation which you own. And whereas you add as a further illustration, that the promise is now fulfilled to them and their children, according to Acts 3. 25. Ye are the children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant, which God made with our fathers, etc. I confess that is true, but not all that is meant; and yet even that strengthens my Argument, the Covenant which God made with their Fathers, That he would be th● God of them, and of their seed, and they were the children or heirs of that Covenant▪ that look as God was the God of Abraham and his seed, so he would be the God of them and of their seed, if they did believe and were baptised; and therefore he would not have them by their unbelief deprive themselves and their children of that privilege: this I then made my argument, and this you saw well enough, and therefore say, that this expression, do not by your unbelief deprive your posterity of so excellent a gift, hath a little relish of my interpretation of the promise concerning the natural seed of believers. But Sir, why do you call it a little relish? it is the very scope of my Argument, that look as God did when he made the promise of grace in Christ to Abraham upon his believing, and took also his posterity, those that were borne of him, into Covenant with him, in the sense which I before alleged; and not only the natural Jews, but even among all Nations, whoever became followers of Abraham's faith, did inherit Abraham's promise, That he would be the God of them and their seed, and by virtue of that promise, their children were taken into visible communion: so this blessed seed [in whom this promise was founded] being now come, would according as heretofore, make it good to all, whether Jew's or Gentiles, that should believe in him.  
This clause of the Covenant of grace, and the interpretation of it, viz. That it belongs to all believers, and that by virtue of it their children are to be received into visible communion, you often dispute against, and sometimes say that it was a promise peculiar to Abraham at other times, it was at the utmost to be extended no further then to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to have their posterity (as born of them) to belong to the visible Church, though in this place where it was most proper, you say little or nothing about it, only make wrangling exceptions against my interpretation; but because it most pertinent to the business in hand, I shall here take it into consideration, and manifest that it was not a personal privilege to Abraham; no nor to Abraham, Isaac 
The promise given, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, not peculiar to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, proved by three Arguments.  and Jacob, to have their posterity taken into Covenant by virtue of that promise, I will be the God of thee and thy seed  
For first, though Abraham was the father of the faithful, and so in some sense [the root, as you elsewhere call him:] yet the Covenant was made with him for his faith's sake, and believers are his children and heirs, and partake of those privileges and promises which were made to him: and therefore look as Abraham's faith justified him before God, & gave him interest in the spiritual graces of the Covenant, and none but himself; yet it was so beneficial and advantageous to his children, that for his sake they should be accounted to belong to God's Kingdom and household, and partake of the external privileges of it; and thereby be trained up under the discipline of it, and so be fitted for spiritual privileges and graces which God doth ordinarily confer upon them who are thus trained up; so shall it be with them who become followers of Abraham's faith.  
Secondly, had it been a peculiar privilege to Abraham's natural seed, Proselytes of other Nations could never by virtue of their becoming followers of Abraham's faith, have brought their children into Covenant with them, so as to have a visible Church-membership, as we know they did.  
Thirdly, and we know also that this promise of being the God of believers and their seed, was frequently renewed many hundred years after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dead and rotten, as Deut. 30. 6. The Lord will circumcise thy 
Deut. 30. 6. Esa. 44. 2, 3.  heart, and the heart of thy seed, etc. so Esa. 44. 2, 3. Fear not O Jacob my servant, and thou Jesh●run whom I have chosen, I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring, and they shall spring up as among the grass, etc. So likewise Esay 59 21 As for me this is my Covenant 
Esa. 59 21.  with them, saith the Lord, my Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever, and this last promise yourself acknowledge, page 54. to be intended chiefly of the nation of the Jews at their last calling in: and whereas you use to elude these Texts by saying these things belong only to the elect, when they 
These places vindicated.  come to believe, and reach not to any privilege which is external; I reply, by the same answer you might cut off the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for to believers then as well as to believers now were these promises made; and I shall desire you, to think how by this Answer you will avoid that which page 42. you call absurdity and trifling in Mr. Cotton. For Instance; God made this promise (say you) to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to be the God of them and of their seed, in all generations: see how you will answer your own objection; if it be understood universally to all his seed, that is manifestly false, all his seed had not God to be their God; or if it be meant conditionally, if they believe, than the meaning must be, that God would be the God of Abraham and his seed if they did believe; and than it signifies no more than thus, that God will be the God of every believer, and then it is but trifling to add, to be the God of him and of his seed, because nothing is more expressed in the last words th●n what is said in the former; therefore this promise made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, must be restrained to elect and believers only, not to the natural seed of Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, but to believers, as they and their seed by calling: thus by your own Argument you cut off all the Jews but such as were elect and inwardly holy, as much as you do the Gentiles, from having any visible communion in external privileges. Consider what you will answer to these things, I nothing fear but by what distinction you will fetch off the Jews, we shall fetch off the children of believers, whether jews or Gentiles. This I add to make it more clear, that that promise, Gen. 17. I will be the God of thee and of thy seed, (to which the Apostle here relates) is a Gospel's promise, which from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the natural seed of believers. So that when the Apostle presseth them to believe in Christ, and by being baptised to come under this new and best administration of the Covenant, by an Argument reaching to their posterity; the sense is no more than thus, you have indeed crucified the Lord of life, and deserve that his blood should be required of you and of your children, and that that Vineyard (the heir whereof you have killed) should be taken away from you, but if yet you will receive him offered to you in his Gospel, it shall not prove so, but you shall receive the holy Ghost, you shall be justified, accepted, you shall still be a chosen generation, the Church and people of God, ye● and your posterity shall be under this best administration, they shall be accounted by virtue of this promise still to be his, and be trained up for him, in his School, in his house, as heretofore they have been, yea and with greater advantage, because a greater abundance of the spirit is now poured and to be poured out. Try what absurdities you can make to follow from this Argument.  
After I had opened the scope of the Argument, I proceeded to examine what exceptions are made against it. First, 
Mr. Tombs his exceptions against this argument answered.  some say the promise here mentioned is meant of extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, this I confuted, in this you concur with me, only (that you might debase as much as is possible what ever I go about to prove) you add, my reasons are not sufficient to confute it, for though all who then 
1 Exception.  believed and were baptised did not receive those extraordinary gifts, yet Peter might assure them that it should be so for the future; This deserves no reply; is it imaginary that Peter might promise what never was to be performed? was it to be true 
Answer.  at any time, that all who believe should receive the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost? Yourself say elsewhere, you should incur blasphemy to challenge a promise which God should not make good. And whereas you add further, that it doth not follow that this promise must be true in all ages, that whoever believes and is baptised, shall receive remission of sins, and the gift of the holy Ghost; b●cause there is nothing in the Text to prove that this promise should be in force in all ages. But Sir is there not in the Text, all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call; and doth not that reach to all ages?  
The other shif● which I said was insufficient to avoid the force of this Argument, is their interpretation 
2 Exception.  who say, To you and your children, must be thus limited, viz. as many of them as the Lord shall call, that is, when any of your children come to be called, this promise shall be made good unto them; now I said this was but a shift, because the Apostles Argument is taken from the benefit which should come to their children, which would be no Argument at all; because with this limitation, it holds forth no more to the children of believers then to Pagans, the promise is made to as many as God shall call, that is, to you, to your children, and to Pagans, and their children as much as to you and your children; what argument can this afford from a benefit which their children should receive if they believed?  
But this say you is the genuine and necessary explication of the Text, for let the promise be what it can be, whether of saving graces, of outward privileges, of extraordinary gifts, it is no ways true without that limitation, as many as the Lord shall call.  
But this is but a deceiving of your Reader with an equivocation in the word call, for if you mean of inward effectnall 
Answ.  calling, of true faith wrought in the heart, and then say, what ever is meant by the promise, whether inward graoes or outward privileges, none partake of any of these things, without this inward call: I must tell you, this is one of the things you use to call dictates, bold assertions without proof, the falsehood whereof is abundantly manifested already: Do you not know and grant that outward privileges are common to elect and reprobate? But if you mean it of outward calling, than I not only assert, but have already proved their Infants enjoy this calling with them. But because you cannot deny that the Apostle here meant to fetch 
3. Exception.  an Argument taken from the benefit which should come to their children, you have found out another shift, and say, the main matter was concerning themselves to erect them, because they had said, His blood be upon us and upon our children, and this was a comfortable Argument, because they might hereby understand, that notwithstanding this imprecation or execration, they and their children might yet be saved by this Jesus whom they had crucified, in case they should believe in him.  
But I reply, first, there is nothing in the Text to evince it, 
Answ.  that all these men either uttered that curse, or were privy to it: for though Peter said they had crucified him, he meant the Scribes and Pharisees had done it, and elsewhere he says, the Jews which dwelled. at jerusalem had done it: it is most probable that many of these stranger Jew's knew nothing of it. Secondly, let it be granted that they both knew it and were parties in it, and so consequently that the application of the promise was the more seasonable to them, yet because it was the promise of the Covenant, which belonged to every Covenanter, that God in Christ would be a God to them and to their seed, and that he pressed it to them as to those who were children of the Covenant, Acts, Chap. 3. Verse 25. this Argument taken from the Covenant had been of use, though that speech had never been uttered.  
As for that which you call the witless descant I put upon my adversaries, while I say the Argument must run thus, that if the Apostle must be interpreted, (as these men would have him) to you and your children, so many of them as the Lord shall call, viz. you and your children have hitherto been an holy seed. But now if you believe in Christ yourselves, your children shall be in no better condition than the rest of the Pagan world, but if afterward any of them or any of the heathen shall believe and be baptised, their particular persons shall be taken into Covenant, but their Children still left out, this (said I) would not have been a very comfortable Argument to persuade them to come in, in relation to the good of their children. To this your answer is, that this witless descant follows not on the applying the restriction in the end of the verse, to them, their children, and all that are afar off; and that which I burden my adversaries Tenet with, of putting believers Infants out of the Covenant into the condition of Pagan's children is a Co●cysme answered before. But Sir, be it witless or witty, they must own it whose it is, and I perceive you can more easily put it off with a scoff then give it a solid answer, and it is a thorn which will not so easily be plucked out of your side▪ the strength of it is, Peter could not have used this as an Argument to persuade them to come under this administration of the Covenant, whereof Baptism was a seal, from the benefit which should come to their children if your interpretation be true, because by this their children should be in a worse condition, in relation to the Covenant, than they were before: all grant in the former they were included; you say in this latter, you know no more promise for them then for the children of 〈…〉: How then could this argument be fit to be used? tel me I pray you, suppose a man held some Farm or Office under some great man, and that in his Grant or Patent, there were some apparent privileges or benefits included concerning his posterity; If now the Lord of whom he held it, should offer him a new Grant in which his children should be expressly left out, and no more privileges for them then for mere strangers, could an Argument be taken from the benefit that should come to his Children, to persuade him to give up his former, and accept this latter Grant? I think not. And whereas you call that expression of putting of the children of believers into the same state with the children of Turks, a Coccysme which you have answered before. I pardon your scornful expression, you do but kick at that which bites you, it is a truth which you have no cause to delight to hear of; you have answered it indeed, by granting the truth of it, as the Reader may plainly see in my Answer to your 10 Section of the second Part; and to Sect. 3. of this part.  
Whereas I further said in my Sermon, except in relation to the Covenant, there was no occasion to name their children, it bade been sufficient to have said a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call. You answer, Their children indeed are named in relation to the Covenant: But there was another reason then that which I allege; not only their imprecation, Matth. 27. 25. but especially because Christ was first sent to the Jews and their children, Acts 3. 26. I Reply, but this reason which you allege affords no Argument for them now, to believe and repent from any benefit should come to their posterity by virtue of that promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.  
To close this Section, you say, The Antipadobaptists have hence a good Argument against baptising of Infants, because Poter required of such as were in Covenant repentance before baptisms. I answer, just as good an one, as because Abraham was in Covenant, and an actual believer, and justified by the faith he had in uncircumcision, and received it as a seal of the righteousness of faith; therefore all these must go before Circumcision; and because all who turned Proselytes to the Jews, must first make profession of their faith; therefore none may be circumcised but such as they are. But more of this when we consider this Argument in your Exercitation.  
Next, let us try whether your success be any better against the next Text of Scripture which I brought to prove 
To Sect. 7.  this Conclusion; viz. Rom. 11. 16. etc. where I said, The Apostles scope was to show that we Gentiles have now the same 
Rom. 11. 6. etc. vindicated.  graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had; and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out; and their taking in at the latter end of the World, shall be the same graffing in [though more gloriously] as ours is now; and it is apparent that at their first graffing in, they and their children were taken in; at their casting out they and their children were broken off; and when they shall be taken in again at the end of the world, they and their children shall be taken in together; and all this by virtue of the Covenant, Ero Deus tuus, etc. Which is the same to us and to them, we and they making up the Church of God.  
In your Examen of this Argument you still proceed in your old method; first to cast scorn upon it, as such an obscure Argument, That none but a Diver of Delos can fetch up the meaning of it: and indeed, should you not pretend difficulties, you could have no colour to bring in so many imaginary senses; thereby to darken an Argument, which is the second branch of your Artifice: As whether this engraffing be meant of the visible, or invisible Church, by faith, or profession of saith certain, by reason of election, or Covenant of grace made to them, or probable and likely, because for the most part it happens so, etc. Alas Sir, why do you thus strip yourself to dive under the water, when the sense swims upon the top: Look how the Jews were Gods people, so are the Churches of the Gentiles; look how the Jews children were graffed in, so are our children, we are taken in, in stead of them who were cast out, and become one visible kingdom of Christ with the rest of, them who kept their station; this is the plain sense of my Argument. Now if you please but to apply all your imaginary senses to the Jews and their children, and say, if they and their children were graffed in together, was it into the visible, or invisible Church? was it by faith, or the profession of faith? was it certain or probable? Do you not think your Reader would smile at the vanity of these questions?  
When you have set down your senses, next you thus proceed, the thing that is to be proved is, That all the infants of every believer are in the Covenant of Free grace in Christ, and by virtue thereof to be baptised into the Communi- of the visible Church. No Sir, the thing to be proved from this Text, is, That our infants have the same right which the infants of the Jews had, and your Arguments fight against the Infants of the Jews, as much as against the Infants of the Gentiles; for [to apply your own words spoken of believers now, to the Jews then,] Though it may be granted that the infants of the Jews were for the most part under the election and Covenant of grace, and so in the visible Church; yet it will not follow that every infant of a Jew, in as much as he is the child of a Jew, or a believer, is under the Covenant of grace, because we have Gods express declaration to the contrary, Rom. 9 6, 7, 8. and all experience proves the contrary; is not this as much against the one as the other?  
To what I said, the Jews Infants were graffed in by Circumcision; therefore ours are to be ingraffed in by Baptism. You answer, by demanding whether in good sadness I do think the Apostle here means by graffing in, baptising or Circumcision, or incision by outward Ordinances; for if that were the meaning, then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbaptizing. To which I reply, that in good sober sadness I do think that graffing in is admission into visible membership, or visible communion with the Church of Christ; and that the external seal of their visible graffing in was Circumcision, and of ours Baptism; and yet it follows not, that breaking off is only uncircumcising, or unbaptizing▪ but breaking off●●● a casting out from that visible membership whereof this Sacrament is a Symbol. But to you it seems that engraffing here, is meant of the invisible Church by election and faith: I Reply, if it be meant of the invisible Church only; and that all who are graffed in, in the Apostles sense, whether Jews or Gentiles, are only electones, I will solemnly promise you never to plead this Scripture more, for any Infants, either of Jews or Gentiles; no nor for visible Professors of either of them; provided only if you cannot make that good, you will [as indeed you must] yield that some are to be reputed visible Church-members, though not elect, whether Jews or Gentiles, and that our graffing in, is as theirs was; they and their children, we and our children; and if you please, let us a little try it out. The Text is plain, some of the branches were broken off, such branches whose natural growing in the Olive yielded them that privilege which they now partake of who are graffed in in their stead; were these broken off from the invisible Church? you dare not say so: if then the Olive from which they were broken off, be the visible Church, I have enough: and I wonder that any but an Arminian, should make any question that the Apostle speaks only of rejecting the Nation of the Jews from being the visible Church, and taking the body of the Gentiles in their stead, to be Gods visible Kingdom; in that it is meant of such an engraffing as may be broken off, which cannot be from the invisible Church. But let us see how you seek to evade this, and how you prove that it must be meant of the invisible Church: Abraham (say you) bade a a double capacity, one of a natural Father, and another the father of the faithful; in respect of the former capacity, some are called branches according to nature; others wild Olives by nature, yet graffed in by faith: and when it is said that some of the natural branches were brokin off, the meaning is not that some of the branches of the invisible Church may be broken off; but only such as were so in appearance, according as our Saviour expresses it Joh. 15. 2. But I Reply, I profess I understand not how this distinction gives you the least help, for tell me I pray you, were not these whom you call natural branches is truly in the Olive as they who being wild by nature were yet graffed in, in the stead of them who were broke off? If they were, how doth this distinction help you? You say indeed, That the Infants of believing Jews were not in the Covenant of grace, because they were their children: if by this you mean they were not members of the invisible Church, you say the truth, but nothing to the purpose. But if your meaning be, that they had not a visible membership, such an engraffing as gave them a right to outward Ordinances; you not only contradict the Scripture, but yourself, who plead this, That it was a peculiar privilege to Abraham, that his children should have such a visible standing as ours have not: plainly, the Jews were the natural branches, some of them were elect, some not, the body of them were the branches spoke of in this place; many of these were broke off, others of them kept their station; yet God's election fails not; even so is it now, the Gentiles were graffed in, that is, their visible faith gave them a visible engraffing, their invisible faith gave them (who have it) an invisible membership: yea, to me yourself seem to say as much, when pag. 63. you affirm, incision may be either into the visible or invisible Church; graffing in, may be either by faith, or profession of faith. And pag. 65. It is true that our present graffing in, is answerable to [or rather for their] casting out; that is, God would supply in his Olive tree the Church, the casting away of the jews by the calling of the Gentiles, so much the Apostle saith, ver. 17. thou being a wild Olive, were't graffed in, in ramorum defractorum locum, into the place of the branches broken off; if you mean it in this sense (say you) I grant it. And truly Sir, in these words, to my understanding, you grant not only my interpretation of this place, but even the question controverted betwixt us. First, you grant my interpretation, that it is not meant of the invisible, but the visible Church: for I know you will not say that any of the elect Jews were broken off, and the Gentiles elected and put into their place. It must therefore be meant of the visible, and of the visible Church of the New Testament; and that those Jews who kept their station, and we who are in the room of those that were broke off, do make that Olive which the Jews made before. Yea secondly, you by necessary confequence grant, that our children are taken in as theirs were, we are graffed in, in ramorum defractorum loeum; we supply in the Olive tree the Church, the casting away of the Jews. Now if we thus supply, our children supply the place of their children which were broken off; and beside, we are one with the rest of the Jews who remained in this Olive; and their remaining in the Olive, did not (I hope) deprive them of that privilege which before-times they had for their children, and therefore we must have the same with them, and a greater than they had for their children, none of us ever pleaded, though ours be clearer, and a greater measure of grace accompanying it.  
You go on, and say, when some of the natural branches were cut off, it is not meant any otherwise then our Saviour Christ means, Joh. 15. 2. Every branch in me not bearing fruit he 
Joh. 15. 2. proves the interpretation to be true.  takes away; that is, not that any branch truly in him could be fruitless, or taken away, but only those branches which were so in appearance. I reply, that this is my very meaning, that this standing as branches of the Olive, is not to be limited to the invisible, but takes in the visible also, not restrained to such as have a spiritual union with Christ by faith, but takes in also the external profession of faith, which oft times is not in truth, that which it appears to be.  
Whereas you say, the Apostles scope in the whole chapter is to answer that question; Hath God cast away his people, etc. and not to show that we have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had. I answer, I undertook not to Analize the whole Chapter, but to open the scope of that matter or argument which begins at the 16 ver. and that you cannot gainsay, but that there the Apostle makes an Argument from our graffing in in their stead. And you mind me also of my own distinction of the substance of the Covenant, and the administration of it. Sir, I thank you for remembering me of it, it is of very good use in this place, though not of that use which you bring it for, we have the same Covenant with them for the substance; which Covenant consists of the same blessings, and is appliable upon the same conditions, belongs to the same sorts of persons, but the administration of it, is clean differing from theirs. You grant, That by faith we partake of the substance of the Covenant, in respect of which, all believing Gentiles are Abraham's seed. Yea, and you may add, visible believers are his visible seed: But if you mean it (say you) of the outward administration of this engraffing by Circumcision, Baptism, etc. nothing is more false, the outward administration is utterly taken away; and to affirm that it is not, were to evacuate the blood of Christ in this particular. But Sir, this is at the best but cunning dealing, and in part, a confident false assertion; it is cunning to say by Circumcision, Baptism, etc. as if both these belonged to one administration. Indeed to affirm that engraffing into the visible Church, should now be by Circumcision, were to evacuate the death of Christ in that particular; but to say [as you ought, if you would speak plainly] that to have our initiation now by Baptism into the visible Church, as formerly by Circumcision; or to say that all outward administrations of the Covenant are now utterly taken away, [though the old one is vanished] is not only a confident, but a false assertion, and if you say not this, you apply my distinction to no purpose.  
You go on, whereas I said their taking in in the end of the world will be as ours, they and their children; you grant this is true. If it be true, that their children by being the children of believers shall be accounted to belong to the Church, you grant my Argument, if you mean not so, but think that at their last and best restauration, their children shall not enjoy that privilege which they had when they were God's people before, why do you not say so, that all the world may see that you think in their best condition they shall be deprived of that glorious privilege which they enjoyed in their nonage? and yet you grant, That they and their children shall be taken in, yea and a more full taking in of the children of the Jews, then is now of the Gentiles, according to that, Rom. 11. 26. And so all Israel shall be saved. But (say you) all this proves not, that God would have either all Infants of believers, counted his as elect persons, or in the Covenant of grace in Christ, or in the face of the visible Church admitted to Baptism. I answer, the thing to be proved was, our Infants have the same privilege with theirs▪ and that it proves abundantly; as for election, we are not to esteem all visible members, whether Infants or grown men, to be elected, God having declared the contrary, this being true in all ages of the Church, Many are called, and but few chosen. Notwithstanding, when we speak of particulars, we have the same ground of charitable hope for one as for another. As for your other expression, That this proves not that they are to be looked upon as visible members of the Church, and to be admitted to outward Ordinances; this is only to deny the Conclusion, whether this being proved, that our Infants have the same right to be reckoned to the Church of God, as well as the Infants of the Jews, be not a just ground, and as good a foundation to prove, that therefore they must be admitted to that Ordinance which is the initial seal, shall in due time appear, when I have made good the next conclusion, That Baptism succeeds in the room of circumcision to that use; in the mean time let the Reader judge.  
I further said of the Jews, they shall by virtue of God's Covenant be taken in again in the end of the world, because the root is holy, because God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob extends yet to them, and shall again blossom, and will take place, when the Nations unbelief shall be taken away, and their present national condition I shadowed out in the comparison of Nebuchadnezars dream, Dan. 4. 14. of a tree that was cut down, and the root bound with an iron chain, and yet afterward did grow again. The thing itself you deny not, nor go about to answer my argument drawn from the Jews, viz. we, as they, were taken in; they, and their children shall be at the last taken in again, as they were at the first: and therefore we and they making up the same body, are taken in upon the same ground, our children with us, as well as theirs with them; this Argument (I say) you go not about to answer, but in stead of answering, you pick quarrels against my comparison taken from Nebuehadnezzars dream. Why Sir, I never thought a Scholar would have expected a comparison should run upon four feet; nor have wrested it beyond what was intended by it, I never intended to make Nebuchadnezars dream an argument to prove, but only to illustrate, that as that tree for a while was cut down, and the root bound with an Iron chain, was kept from growing, yet in the end the chain was removed, and the tree grew again; so the nation of the Jews was for a while cast off, from being the people of God, during the time of their blindness and unbelief, but in the end the veil should be removed, and their nation taken into their former Church-standing, yea and more gloriously, and that by reason of the Covenant; But from this you seek to draw many absurdities, and to show wherein my comparison holds not; as this tree is not cut down as that was, only some branches broken off, and that to make Abraham the root; to be bound with a chain is unhandsome; and that in this allufion, I sometimes make Abraham the root, sometimes the Covenant the root, etc. all which are worthy of no answer; nothing being held out in the allusion but what I now said; nevertheless, were it pertinent to our controversy it might easily enough be showed, how in a sound sense the Covenant is the root upon which Abraham and all the rest of the branches grow, and also how by virtue of the Covenant, Abraham is also a root from which his seed grow, yea, and several believers are roots from which their posterity springs, and how in one sound sense Abraham, Isaac and jacob, and all visible believers make up this one tree this Olive, and yet in another sense they are all but branches of this Olive.  
Whereas I said in all this discourse, the holiness of the branches there spoke of, is not meant of a personal inherent holiness, but an holiness derived to them from their Ancestors, a faederal holiness. Against this you except many things. First, Mr. Goodwin expounds it otherwise: if Mr. Goodwin mean that there is no other holiness which may make men esteemed so in fancy dei according to Rom. 2. ult. I concur with him, but if he say there is no other holiness, or that the profession of holiness may not make him pass as holy in fancy visibilis Ecclesiae, when I hear him say so (as yet I never did) I shall descent from him though he be my loving friend. Secondly, say you, bear are divers things to be marked indeed, but with an obeliske: indeed Sir that brand is always ready at your hand, let us see whether you have set it justly or no in this place, and whether your impartial Reader will not take 
Derivative and inherent holiness not opsed.  it off and set it upon yourself. I oppose (say you) personal inherent holiness, to derivative holiness as inconsistent: but Reader look into my Sermon, and see whether I did so or no; I confidently deny this charge, I only showed the meaning of the word in this place to be of derivative holiness common to the whole nation, not excluding personal inherent holiness in true believers among them; and I say again, the whole nation was called holy, not personally inherent, but federally; and you acknowledge here a derivative holiness from Abraham as a spiritual father, yet I suppose you will not undertake to justify that true inherent holiness is derived from any, but from our Lord Jesus Christ, and his holy spirit. Next say you, this holiness is derived not from any Ancestors, but only from Abraham. But I beseech you in your next not only to dictate this, as in this book you do very often; but clear and prove it by some good arguments, why it does not descend from other immediate parents, who are believers, as well as originally from Abraham: for parents who are branches from Abraham their father, are yet roots to their children who spring from them; Do we not read of the root of jesse, Esay 11? though he was but a branch from Abraham, might not every parent among the Jews, at least every believing parent apply that promise made to Abraham, I will be the God of thee, and thy seed? if you think he may not, disprove the Arguments which I have brought for it, in answer to your sixth Section. I demand further, was not such a holiness derived from Abraham to his natural seed, or posterity, where all Abraham's posterity, who are called the holy seed, true believers, and inwardly holy? No (say you) other parents are not 
Believing parents are roots to their children.  roots, Abraham only is an holy root, or at the most, Abraham, Is●ac, and Jacob, in whose names the Covenant runs. To which I reply, first, this is to say and unsay; Abraham only is an holy root, yet Isaac and jacob are holy roots too. Secondly, the Apostle names none of them at all, but speaks of the fathers, which includes all their Ancestors, at least more than Abraham only. Thirdly, how often did God (as I showed before) renew that promise, I will be the God of thee and of thy seed, after Abraham, Isaac and jacob were all dead? Fourthly, yourself say, the body of believers is compared to the Olive tree, and each believer to a branch, and then, sure Abraham, Isaac and jacob only, are not the root or tree which bore the branches, but the body of believers is the tree, and so (by your own grant) it follows, believers in one sense are the tree, in another the branches. Fiftly, I add, that the body of believers, who make this Olive tree and branches, must necessarily be understood of visible professors, and not restrained or limited to true believers only, otherwise the branches could not have been broken off, as is aforesaid.  
Next you step out of your way, to reproach Mr. Thomas 
Mr. Goodwin Vindicated.  Goodwin, who (say you) endeavoured to inserre a kind of promise of deriving holiness from believers to their posterity out of the similitude of an Olive, and its branches, compared with Psal. 128. 3. etc. And then you vilify him, as a man who by spinning out similitudes and conjectures, deludes his Auditory with such things, rather than satisfy them with arguments: what his discourse was, you set not down, nor in what sense he alleged holiness to be derived from believing parents to their posterity, but why like Ishmael your sword should be thus against every man, I cannot tell? as for Mr. Goodwin (notwithstanding his difference from me in some points of Church-government) I can do no less then testify that I know him to be a Learned godly Divine, and an eminent Preacher of the Gospel of Christ, and his worth not to be blasted by your scornful speech; and for the things you allege against him, he assures me, You have set down his notions in your Book otherwise then he preached them; and that in due time he intends to publish his Sermons, and then the world shall see whether you have done him right or not.  
Lastly, to that which I asserted, That the Infants both of 
Children follow the Covenant condition of their parents.  Jews and Gentiles, for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their Parents; the Infants of godly Parents, according to the tenor of his mercy; the Infants of the wicked, according to the tenor of his justice: you upon this demand whether I do not in this symbolise with Arminius, who makes this the cause why the posterity of some people have not the gospel, because their forefathers refused it; and you bring in the learned Doctor Twisse, and Moulin disputing against him in that point. How fain would you 
Mr Tombs symbolising with Arminius his expounding Rom. 11.  say somewhat which might reproach this Argument? But may not both these things be true, that God shows mercy to whom he pleases, and hardens whom he pleases, and yet shows mercies to thousands of generations that fear him, and visit the sins of parents upon their children? may we not say truly when God cast out the nation of the Jews from being his people, that for their sins he gave the Bill of Divorce to them and to their children, that they should no longer be his people in Covenant, as they were in time past, and yet his grace remain free? I spoke expressly of outward administration of the Covenant, That when Parents are taken into Covenant, their children also with them have a visible right, and when God gives a bill of divorce from a visible Church standing, (for to true believers he never gives any) their children are cast out with them, as appears in the Jews at this day; is this to symbolise with Arminius; or doth Doctor Twisse or Moulin, or any other of our Orthodox writers gainsay this? I appeal to every learned Reader to judge; But é regione, I desire you to show how you will avoid symholizing with the Arminians, who endeavour to prove falling away from true grace and holiness, from this 11. of the Romans, because the branches were broken off, when you with them say, the graffing into the Olive here is meant of true believers graffed into the invisible Church, yet of the branches growing in, or graffed into this Olive, it is expressly said some were broken off, and others will far no better if they believe not. Bert us in his relation of the conference at the Hague, urges this very place, to prove that it is poss●ble for the Saints to fall away from grace, because we are advised to take warning by the Jews Example, who were broken off for their unbelief; I know that you think not that true believers may fall away, but how you will avoid the Argument, interpreting this place as you do, I profess I cannot tell.  
And now I leave it to every judicious Reader, whether you or I have darkened this Scripture, whether you in saying this Text, is meant of the invisible Church only, and the graffing in is by election and faith, or I who say the rejecting is of the Jews from being of the visible Church, and engraffing is meant of the taking in of the Churches of the Gentiles to be the visible Church, kingdom, and people of God in their rooms; whether (in a word) I who interpret it of such a growing in the Olive, or engraffing into it, as may endure a breaking off, and yet none fall from saving grace who once had it, or you who make such a graffing in, as that if any branches be broken off, it must necessarily follow, that branches may be rend off from the invisible Church, and fall away from inward holiness, have interpreted this Text, most agreeable to the Analogy of faith, and the Apostles scope: and to conclude, let the Reader also judge, whether this Text (notwithstanding all your endeavours) remain not still in my hands, as one of my strong holds, to defend this conclusion, That the obildron of believers new, have the same right to the Covenant with their Parents, as the children of the Jews had with their Parents.  
Now (say you) you are come to my principal hold, 1 Cor. 7. 14. I perceive at first you think there is some 
To Sect. 8. 1 Cor. 7. vindicated.  strength in it, for you have brought a huge army against it, and drawn a long line about it, raised abundance of batteries, and in a very long discourse say something almost to every sentence of mine concerning this Scripture, and after all your shot is spent, you cry Io triumphus, I have got your chief hold which you had best manned. Truly Sir you speak like 〈…〉, qui diff●avi● omnes 〈◊〉 Gurgu 〈◊〉. But the best is, all the ground is not yours that you walk over, nor every man killed that you shoot at. I have no fear that your great swelling words will give any satisfaction to your judicious Readers; we will come to what you have done, and try what strength there is in this long Section, and that I may make my answer to it as brief as is possible, I shall bring all the matter of your discourse to three heads. First, such things as wherein you and I do agree, and must necessarily agree. Secondly such things as wherein whether we agree or disagree it matters not much to the point in controversy; these two I shall but touch upon. Thirdly, such things wherein we differ, and which really concern the controversy betwixt us. And these things (God willing) we will try out hand to hand.  
First, we agree, that sanctified may have many senses, and that of those many, two only are applicable in this place, either the matrimonial sanctification, which you insist upon, viz. Chastity in the wife and husband, or lawful matrimony between them, and legitimation of the children. Or else Instrumental sanctification, in the husband and wife, and federal holiness in the children, which I insist upon. We agree also, secondly, that i● may signify by as well as in. We further agree thirdly, that the seepe and meaning of the Text is, that the Corinthians having writ for the Apostles resolution whether it were lawful for them who were converted, still to retain their Infidel wives or husbands; the Apostle here resolves that case upon the affirmative. And I will further agree with you fourthly, that these words else were your Children unclean, etc. are a medium or argument whereby the Apostle proves the former sentence, the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, etc. I yet further agree, five, that all the places which you cite out of the learned 
Chamier often cited to no purpose.  Chamier are Orthodox, and clearly prove that for which he brings them, viz. That sanctification cannot be understood of the conversion of the unbeliever, through the diligence of the believer, page 73. And that the Argument is not fetched from a contingent thing, pag. 74. And that holiness is not meant of ceremonial holiness (which sense was ascribed to Augustine) pag. 76. And that the holiness of Children here, is not that which they receive from their education, pag. 75. And I am sure you must agree with me, sixthly, that in all these testimonies you have cited out of Chamier, there is not one word against my Interpretation, or for the Justification of yours; 
And against his own judgement.  yea and I know also that you will agree with me seventhly, that the learned Chamier in a large dispute doth confute your interpretation, and vindicate my interpretation, as the only true and proper meaning of this Text, even in that very place where you quote him. And therefore I know the Reader will agree with me (whether you do or no) 
Cham. Panstrat. Cathol. Tom. 4. lib. 3. ca 10.  that you do but abuse your Author and Reader, both in making a flourish with Chamiers name nothing to the purpose, and thereby would make the Reader conceive Chamier to be of your side when he is pointblank against you. I yet further agree with you, eighthly, that some Interpreters both ancient and modern do interpret this Text as you do, and I am sure you will also agree that it were easy for me to bring ten for one, who interpret this Text as I do; though I forbear to bombast my book with them, no ways desiring that this cause should be carried by number of suffrages.  
Secondly, there are many things in this Section wherein we differ, but the cause depends nothing at all upon them; 
Beza cited by Mr. Tombs contrary to his own judgement.  first, you several times cite the learned Beza as if he were of your mind in the interpretation of this Text, to construe it of matrimonial holiness'. I confess the cause depends not upon Beza's judgement, but your reputation depends much upon making this good: That you should dare to cite an author as interpreting it for you who exprofesso interprets it against you; Beza indeed acknowledgeth this Text warrants a lawful use, but withal sets himself to prove that that's not all, but saith it's such a sanctification as I contend for, and saith, no man may interpret it otherwise then I do of federal holiness: according to the Covenant, Ero Deus tuu●, etc. And out of that very Text, doth (in his annotations upon that place) assert Infant-Baptisme. Secondiy, you think this Text was never interpreted of federal holiness until the days of Luther: the cause I confess depends not upon this, but it discovers some defect in your reading, since it is apparent that Athanasius, one of the most ancient of the Greek Fathers, and Tertullian one of 
Tertullian and Athanasius expound this Text for sederall holiness.  the most ancient of the Latin Fathers bring this Text to prove the prerogative of the Infants of believers, which certainly they could not have done if they had interpreted as you do, that their children were legitimate, nor have given them any title to the kingdom of heaven, if to their understanding it had not related to the Covenant of Grace. Thirdly, whether Mr. Blakes paralleling this place with Gal. 2. 15. (upon which you spend almost two whole pages) be good or no, or whether these places do interpret one another, is not much material to the present controversy about this Text, although it be plain, that by Jews by nature the Apostle intends the Church-priviledge of the jews in opposition to the Gentiles, as I have elsewhere showed. Fourthly, whether Bellarmine was the first who expounded holy for jegitimate, in confuting whereof you spend another page, and allege sundry Authors before him who so understood it; this is not to our business though you take occasion to show your reading in it.  
Thirdly, this therefore only remains to be tried out between us, whether this be meant of lawfulness of wedlock between man and wife, and legitimation of children, as you affirm; or of Instrumental sanctification, between husband and wife quoad hoc, and federal holiness of children, as I affirm; wherein I shall, first, make it plain that your Interpretation cannot hold; secondly, that mine must stand.  
The sense which you undertake to justify is, that it is a Matrimonial sanctification, when the Apostle saith the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, etc. the meaning i●, their marriage is lawful, and their children are not unclean, but holy; the meaning is, they are not bastards, but lawfully begotten. Against this I dispute. First, in making good 
Mr. Tombs his interpretation of this Text overthrown by eight Arguments.  the four Arguments used in my Sermon against this interpretation; the first whereof was this, uncleanness and holiness when opposed one to another, are never meant of civilly lawful or unlawful, but are always used in a sacred sense, alluding to a right of admission into or use in the tabernatle 
1 Argument vindicated.  or Temple, which were types of the visible Church, & holiness is always taken for a separation of Persons or things from common to sacred use. To this you except many things.  
First, you like not the term civil holiness, you rather would call it matrimonial holiness, because its institution is of God, not from the laws of Man. I Reply, this is a poor shift; by holy and civil we distinguish things belonging to the first and second Table. All second Table duties are civil things, though their institution be of God; civil Magistracy though instituted of God; obedience of children to their Parents, though instituted of God; and all the judicial laws given to the Jews about meum and tuum; were they not therefore civil, because they were God's institutions? Or is marriage a business more concerning Religion, than these are? is it a Sacrament? or how else, is it more holy than these other civil things?  
You except secondly, uncleanness may be taken for bastardy, in an allusion to a Tabernacle use: Bastards being numbered among the unclean. I Reply, this is spoken without any proof, for although the Lord saith, Deuteronom. 23. 2. 
Deut. 23. 2. vindicated.  That a bastard shall not come into the congregation of the Lord, it cannot be meant that bastards shall be numbered among the unclean, or having nothing to do about Tabernacle or Temple services; for there was the same law for Eunuches who were not excluded as unclean: no unclean person might eat the Passeover, might no Eunuch or Bastard eat the Passeover? Beside, when you thus construe, else were your children unclean, you make there a Bastard and unclean, to be termini convertibiles, consequently every unclean child must be a bastard. Now if any man would suppose that bastards might be reckoned amongst unclean, yet all unclean children must not be reckoned amongst bastards; all the children of the Gentiles were unclean, but they were not bastards. It is needless to enter into a further discourse about that place, Deut. 23. how or in what sense a bastard might not come into the Congregation; whether by the Congregation be meant the Sanhedrin, as some; or whether his not entering, be of bearing Office, as others; or of not marrying a wife an Israelitesse, as others, it matters not, it's sufficient they were not numbered among the unclean.  
Thirdly, you refer me to the 1 Thess. 4. 7. God hath not called us to uncleanness, but unto holiness; and desire me to tell you, whether uncleanness be not there meant of fornication, and by holiness, chastity. I answer, I prevented this in my Sermon: and showed that chastity among the Heathens, is never called sanctification; the holy Spirit only is the Spirit of sanctification, and the bodies of the Heathens are not the temples of the holy Ghost: but among believers it may be called so, because it is a part of the new creation, a part of the inward adorning of the Temples of the holy Ghost; and though the chastity of believers is only a moral virtue in respect of the object, yet in respect of the root, principle, end, it's a Christian virtue, and it's an act of pure Religion, to keep a man's self unspotted from the flesh, as well as from the world, jam. 1. 27. Besides, I now add, there is no reason that that place, 1 Thess. 4. should be restrained to fornication, 
1. Thess. 4. vindicated. Beza not interprets this Text as Mr. Tombs would seem to make him.  because many other sins are named in that place, besides fornication. Mark the words in the 3 ver. the Apostle tells them, That the will of God is their sanctification, that every one should abstain from fornication; that no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter. And then he gives this as a reason common to all the particulars, because God ha●h not called us to uncleanness, but to holiness. So that by holiness there, is meant not only chastity but justice also; and what kind of consequence were there in such an Argument; let no man go beyond his brother in bargaining, because God hath not called us to fornication, but to chastity? Whereas you allege Beza thus interpreting this Text, vers. 3. This is the will of God, even your sanctification, i. e. saith Beza, that you abstain from fornication; and upon this id est, you build much; therefore I shall consider it. Sir, id est put in by Beza, hath reference not only to that which doth immediately follow, namely, that you abstain from fornication; but to the 6 verse also, that no man go● beyond and defraud his brother: Beza saith, id est, ut abstineatis, ut ne quis opprimat & habeat quaestui, It being ordinary to have instances given in the second Table, when the duties of the first Table are included, if not principally intended; that the holy Ghost might meet with Hypocrites, who are apt to put all their holiness in outward performances. Yea, Beza in the same place in his Annotations upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, refers him to job. 17. 17. and his note upon job. 17. 17. is this, Sanctum autem dicitur, quod Deo peculiariter devotum ac consecratum est; an expression agreeable to the Hebrew notion, and therefore Beza addeth, est autem hoc vocabulum profectum ab Hebraeis: so that by Beza we are brought back to the notion of consecrating and devoting things to God. But you yet endeavour further, and turn and wind the words every way, and run over all words that are of the same Tribe or kindred, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because you cannot find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the heathen; and in the end you have 
Hen. Steph. misrecited.  found an instance in Stephanus' Thesaurus, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies castim●niam servo, [I am chaste.] But first, Stephanus speaks but doubtingly, he puts in videtur, which you leave out. Besides, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is usually meant, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Suidas; and the very instance which you from Stephanus have brought out of Demosthenes, makes directly against you: for the Priest saith, I offer sacrifice, and I am in case to do it, for I am pure from the company of man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and all other things which might pollute me. That is, I am holy according to my order, and therefore fit to do my office. These last words which give the full sense of the place, you have (not very fairly) left out of your Quotation. Yet you make another supplement out of Corinth. 7. 
1 Cor. 7. 34. misinterpreted by Mr. Tombs.  34. That she may be holy in body and spirit; and demand whether the meaning be not that she may be chaste. I answer, the plain meaning is, that she being free from worldly distractions, is at more liberty to give herself wholly to godliness, than others can, who have these worldly avocations; and in truth it is a pretty odd sense which you have invented of this place, the unmarried cares for the things of God, that she may be chaste; but she that is married cares for the things of the world how she may please her husband. I wonder what learned man concurs with you in this: I doubt in this rare interpretation you are all alone. When I added, That even 
1 Tim. 4 5. vindicated.  the meat and drink of believers, sanctified to them, serves for a religious end and use, to refresh them who are the Temples of the holy Ghost. You answer, then is seems in eating and drinking they do an act of religion; to which I need no other reply then your next words, that they are sanctified to them by the word and prayer, they receiving them after an holy manner, with faith, supplication, and thanksgiving, etc. And that this place of Timothy doth hold out more than a lawful use, is most apparent; because it is such a use of the creatures as the heathen had not, who yet had a lawful use of the creatures; and it is such a use as is appliable only to believers; and such a use as is procured by the Word and prayer: and although wicked men do not do an act of Religion in feeding the bodies of the Saints, because all their actions are unclean; yet believers have an holy use of those creatures which heathens feed them with having the Word not only to warrant the use of them, but prayer to procure God's blessing, to that end for which they eat and drink, which is to live unto God.  
My second Argument was, had this been the meaning, Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy; else had 
2 Arg. vindicated.  your children been bastards, but now they are legitimate; the Apostles answer had not been true; because then if one of the parents had not been a believer, and so by being a believer, had sanctified the unbeliever, their children must have been bastards, whereas we know children born in lawful wedlock are legitimate, though both the Parents were unbelievers. To which you answer, this privilege comes not from the faith of the believer, but from the relation of marriage; and your reason is, because the Apostle saith not, the unbeliever is sanctified by the believer; but from the husband or the wife, although one or two old Copies have the word believer, yet the rest have it not▪ and the reason cannot be conceived rightly to be any other, but that although the person meant were a believer is well as an husband or wife; yet in this passage they were considered only as husband and wife, and not as believers, to intimate that the sanctification did not come from the faith of the party, but from conjugal relation.  
I reply, this expressly crosses the Apostles confessed scope, for the question was not, whether an husband might leave his wife, or a wife her husband, the Apostle had resolved that case before, ver. 10. but whether a believing husband might leave or separate from an unbeliever; no (saith the Apostle) if the unbeliever be content to dwell together, (if not, let them go, a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such a case) Why? for the unbeliever is sanctified in or by the wife; but now in your sense, the Argument had been as good, to say, the unbeliever is sanctified in or by the unbeliever; or the believer is sanctified in or by the unbeliever, which had been nothing to the question in hand. Again, the Apostle expressly names the unbeliever in opposition to the wife or husband who is a believer; of which there had been no use, if he had intended only matrimonial sanctification, he might have said the husband is sanctified by the wife, and the wife by the husband, let them be what they will, which cannot be spoken truly, when the Scripture plainly says, Nothing is pure or holy to the unbeliever, as Beza well observes upon this place: and though the word believer be not in the Text, [yet it is necessarily employed, and therefore some Copies have it in the Margin, not only one old Copy, and a Copy of Clermont, and the Vulgar Latin so read it, but Augustine also in his book, wherein he expounds the Sermon on the Mount; and Tertullian in libro secundo ad ux●rem,] for as Beza rightly observes, the question is concerning a believer, what he is to do with an unbeliever; and when he says the unbelieving party is sanctified in or by the other party, it plainly implies the one party sanctifies the other, viz. the believer sanctifies the unbeliever, (not retro) which needed not be said of matrimonial sanctification, as you call it, for in that sense both parties were sanctified in themselves, not in or by one another, marriage being honourable among all, and the bed (the coitus) undefiled. Besides, there are words which plainly denotate it a little before, a brother or sister, which are taken for believers, ver. 12. if a brother have an unbelieving or infidel wife, ver. 15. a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such a case: And if you should say the believing party sanctifies the unbeliever, not qua believer, but by the Word and prayer I answer, this would make the Argument stronger; for it is therefore such a sanctification as heathens are not capable of.  
My Third Argument was, the Apostles argument had had no strength in it, supposing the text were to be interpreted as these 
Argument 3. vindicated.  men would have it: their doubt (say they) was, their marriage was an unlawful wedlock; and so consequently their children bastards; and they make the Apostles answer to be, were you not lawful man and wife, your children were bastards: which kind of Argument (said I) were but idem per idem. Your answer to this is such a one as I know not what to make of it; you say I do not rightly set down my Adversaries explication of the Apostle, the doubt (say you) was only, whether they might live in conjugal use; but there was no question of their children, whether they were legitimate or not; they were assured their children were not bastards, but legitimate, and this the Apostle uses as his medium, to prove they might lawfully live together. To which I Reply, take this for granted which you say, and (if I want not common sense) you plainly and fully answer yourself, for if they were out of all doubt, that their children were not bastards, than it was not possible for them to doubt whether their own marriage were lawful; take this to be his Argument, your children are legitimate, this you all grant: Ergo, your marriage is lawful, of which you doubt: Risum teneatis amici? they received the one as a supposed principle, that their children were lawfully begotten, which could not be but in a lawful wedlock, yet had not light enough to know, that their wedlock was a lawful wedlock; if they doubted not of the latter, how could they of the former?  
My Fourth Argument was according to this interpretation, the Apostles answer could no way have reached to the qui●ting of 
Argument 4  their consciences; their doubt was, whether they were not to put away their wives and children as not belonging to God, as being a seed whom God would not own among his people, and this answer could never have quieted their consciences, to tell them their marriage was lawful, and their children legitimate.  
To which you answer, this Argument is grounded on a mistake, the question was not (say you) about putting away of their Wives and children as not belonging to God, but something else.  
I Reply, but if it be not grounded upon a mistake, and that (as Beza says,) Paut is not here arguing about civil policy, but arguing a case of conscience. Whether because of the idolatry of the wife or husband, Religion did not require they should be put away, because God would not have his holy seed mingled with them, then by your own confession the Argument stands good; which whether it will not be made out, shall (God willing) by and by appear.  
These four Arguments I used before; and whether the first three be not already vindicated, let the Reader judge; the fourth comes to be made good afterward, when I come to confirm the interpretation which I made of it. I shall briefly add four other Arguments, to show that this Text cannot be interpreted as you would have it.  
First, you say, The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and sanctification you here take for chastity: which is 
5 Arg. against Mr. Tombs interpretation.  a most incongruous speech, to say that the one party makes the other chaste; if he or she were not unchaste, how are they made chaste by the husband or wife? and if they be unchaste, how doth this make them chaste? marriage is then honourable or chaste when the bed is undefiled: this Argument is only from the unseemliness of the expression.  
Secondly, my second I take from your own words, pag. 73. Where you say, The sanctification of the unbeliever here, 
6 Argument.  is such a sanctification as is parallel with that, 1 Tim. 4. 5. where the creatures are sanctified to the pure by the word and prayer; therefore there must be more meant than the Heathens are capable of; therefore another sanctification then matrimonial sanctification, for that the heathens had: if therefore this must be such a sanctification as that place in Timothy means, it must be a sanctification peculiar only to believers.  
Thirdly, yet a third Argument I take from your own words: you have endeavoured (though in vain) to show 
7 Argument.  that bastards may be called unclean, and holy may be called chaste; but you do not, and I believe you cannot produce out of the Scripture the least show of a proof, that holiness signifies legitimation; you are holy, id est, you are lawfully begotten; if you can, pray let us have it in the next: sure I am, that place, Mal. 2. 15. That man might seek a holy seed, or rather, a seed of God, will give you no help; for though 
Mal. 2. 15. expounded and vindicated.  a seed of God in that place, might be interpreted (as M. Calvin would have it) for legitimate, because (as he says) that uses to be called Divine, which is excellent, a legitimate seed is in comparison of spurious, yet this is nothing to holiness. The word in the Hebrew there used, is not a holy seed, but a seed of God, an eminent or an excellent seed, as all eminent or notable things use to be called; great Armies are called the Armies of God; great and high hills, are called the hills of God; great and tall trees, are called the trees of God: so that take a seed of God in that place for a legitimate seed, yet there is nothing to prove that holiness may signify legitimation; though for my own part (Pace tanti viri) I humbly conceive the Prophet intended, not a legitimate seed only, (as Mr. Calvin would have it) but to show what was God's chief end in the institution of marriage, viz. The continuance of a seed of God, wherein the Church is to be propagated to the end of the world; now according to your interpretation of holiness for chastity, the Apostles Argument must run thus, If your marriage were not lawful, your children would be bastards, but now they are chaste; which sense were too ridiculous which to avoid you are compelled in stead of chaste to say legitimate, without any example of such a use of the word holy.  
Lastly, yet one Argument more I propound, your sense 
● Argument.  makes the Apostles Argument wholly inconsequent, if the unbelieving party were not sanctified by the believer, (viz. matrimonially) then were your children unclean, that is, (in your sense) Bastards, which follows not; for if they were both unbelievers, yet their children were not bastards; and if they were both chaste, (yet being Infidels) their children were unclean, id est, Infidels and Pagans, so that to close this I retort your own words, page the 75. That let this be granted (that it is meant of matrimonial sanctification, ●● of necessity it must) than the uncleanness must be meant of Bastardy, and holiness of Legitimation; but I say, é centra, let this be granted, (as of necessity it must) that it is not meant of matrimonial sanctification, or lawfulness of wedlock, than uncleanness must not be meant of Bastardy, nor holiness of Legitimation, but of some other holiness, which what it is, is next to be enquired.  
Having thus plainly overthrown your interpretation, it remains that I make good my interpretation against 
The true interpretation vindicated from Mr Tombs exceptions. 1. Exception.  your exceptions, I said, their doubt seems to arise from the Law of God, which was in force in Ezraes' time, where God's people were ordered to put away their Infidel wives and children, as a polluted seed, which God would not have mingled with his own: you answer, first, You see very little agreement, between this case and that; and that the cases are very far different of two persons not under the Law marrying in unbelief, and of two persons under the Law, the one a jew by profession, the other a stranger; secondly, and that none of the phrases, except the word (holy), are used in the one place which are not used in the other; thirdly, you rather think their doubt arose from a former Epistle which he had wrote to them, mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9 wherein he commanded them not to keep company with fornicators, or Idolaters, thereupon they might doubt whether they should continue with their unbelieving yoke fellows  
I reply, first, that the cases were the very same when their scruple arose, for though they were both unbelievers when they were married, and at that time neither of them both belonged to the Church of God, yet when one of them was converted, and the other remained an Infidel, one of them was now become a Church-member, the other remained an alien, their case was the very same, and they finding their condition parallel with that in Ezra might very well apply that case to themselves, and make this their doubt. Secondly, although the phrases used in Ezra differ from those used here, that makes nothing against this collection, because phrases are used according to the different administrations, each speaking according to the received dialect belonging to the administration they lived under. Thirdly, and as to that, you say that it might arise from 1 Cor. 5. 9 I answer, should that be granted, yet my sense remains as strong as before, for if this scruple now rose, that if believers because of the unbelief or Infidel condition of the husband or wife, might not by the rule of the Gospel continue in marriage society with them, it must be from some rule of Religion, which must strike upon their conscience, and from what rule could they gather, that their marriage which before was lawful was upon their conversion turned into fornication? and if their doubt were (as yourself grant) whether it were lawful for a converted party, or a believer still to retain their Infidel wife or husband, (not of unbelievers whether they be sanctified matrimonially one to another) the doubt must necessarily arise from something in Religion, some case which was peculiar to believers, now (as Mr. Beza says truly) the doubt being in their consciences, of an unlawfulness to continue in their married condition from some thing peculiar to God's people, the Apostle should have used a most indirect argument to pacify their consciences in referring them to the civil Laws of other nations, by which their marriage is proved lawful; and to what purpose should he discourse of Bastards or the like, when their consciences were scrupled in something which begun to concern them upon their conversion, and to tell them they were sanctified in their unbelief, could never have reached the scruple arising, after they begun to be believers, because their marriage might be firm and good, while they remained unbelievers; yet the Infidel might now become impure in that relation of marriage to the other, which was converted. And therefore it remains, that it must be resolved from some rule which must reach believers, as they were the people of God, and not be common to Infidels with them; now what is that Argument which Paul here uses to satisfy them? (which must reach them as they were believers) yourself grant it is this, else were your children unclean, which is the medium, because your children are not unclean but holy, therefore the unbeliever must be granted to be sanctified to the wife or husband, this Argument must therefore necessarily infer some kind of holiness which is appliable only to the State of Religion, therefore it must be federal holiness.  
But against this you except many things. First, this could not have resolved the doubt in the case of those who by Age could 
2. Exception.  not be sanctified to this end, or by reason of accidental inability for generation, they might still depart each from other notwithstanding this reason. I answer, it follows not, this is a 
Answ.  laying down of their right, which they may claim when ever they are capable of it, this is their privilege, which remains firm though it should never come into Act, as if a freeman of a City should have right to have all his children borne freemen, that is to be numbered among his privileges, though he should never have a child, this reaches to men and women, married, and unmarried, yea even to children yet unborn: besides, the first part of it reacheth to the bed, even the coitus is not only undefiled, but sanctified. Secondly, say you, this reason would then run 
3. Exception.  thus, you may live together, for you may beget a holy seed, and so their consciences should have been resolved of their present lawful living together from a future event which was uncertain, and here (as I touched before) you bring in Chamier nothing to the purpose; I answer, it is not from a future event, but from 
Answ.  a positive real truth, if Paul's reason be framed thus, the children which believers beget upon their Infidel yokefellowes are a holy seed, therefore believers have a sanctified use of their Infidel husbands or wives, had this been a reasoning from a future contingent. As for what you here cite out of Chamier, I answer only this, I persuade myself you are by this time ashamed of your impertinent quotation, I assure myself, if you be not, your friends are. Thirdly, say you, 
4. Exception.  sanctification is here not ascribed to God a● selecting some from others to such an use, but is common to all unbelieving husbands in respect of their wives, and comes from that common relation, not special designation. I answer, this Argument is a plain setting 
Answ.  down the question in controversy, as an Argument to prove itself, and I have already proved the contrary, that it is a privilege not common to all who are married, but peculiar to believers. Fourthly, say you, according to this exposition the words following could not be true, else were your children unclean, but now they are holy, because in this form of reasoning this proposition is included, their children could not be holy without that sanctification, which (say you) is false, because children may be in Covenant, and be regenerated, though their parents had never been thus sanctified the one to the other, the children of Infidel parents may be sanctified. I reply, not while they are Infants, they are not by any birth privilege to be accounted as belonging to the Church of Christ, which is the only thing about which we are disputing, no man ever went about to prove out of this Text that none can ever be converted, whose parents are not sanctified the one unto the other.  
Next (after another impertinent bringing in of Chamier) you reason thus, take it in my sense, and it is no satisfactory 
5. Exception.  reason you may live together, for you may beget a holy seed; I answer, this is the same with your second Argument answered before; and wherein I pray you lies the weakness of it, you may live together, and have a holy use of 
Answ.  your unbelieving yokefellowes, for God esteems the seed of such to be an holy seed as truly as if both were believers, is this a slight or unsatisfying answer? nay I add further, had the Apostle gone about to prove, that a believing wife and a believing husband have not only a lawful enjoyment one of another, (as heathens have) but a sanctified, as they have of other creatures, because else their children were unclean, but now they are holy, all your exceptions would lie as strong against this last as against the former, for you might have said, this reaches only those that are of age●; secondly, this depends upon a future contingent; thirdly, this depends upon their common relation; fourthly, and children may be holy, that is, afterward regenerate though this be denied, let the Reader consider of it; You go on, and say, that in 
6. Ex●●ption.  your sense the reason is plain and satisfactory, let them live together, though one be a believer, the other an unbeliever; for notwithstanding their difference in Religion, they are husband and wife, marriage being honourable among all, and the bed undefiled; I reply, but this had been no satisfaction to their scruple, 
Answ.  their doubt was not whether their marriage were lawful while they were heathens, but whether now their conscience would not be defiled, in remaining joined to Idolaters, and the Apostles resolution must remove that, which your sense doth not; you granted, they doubted not the legitimation of their children, and therefore your sense could not have removed the scruple, as is above showed. And whereas you add the like resolution he gives verse the 17. 
7. Exception.  concerning circumcised and uncircumcised servants, they might still continue with their master, their Christian calling did not dissolve those relations. I answer in one word, this like, hath no 
Answ.  likeness at all in it, there is no parallel betwixt these two cases, he speaks not one word about believing servants continuing with unbelieving masters, but of servants in general, whether their masters were believers or unbelievers, he tells them that they might continue servants though they were Christ's free men, yet if they can fairly obtain their freedom, let them choose that rather.  
One Argument more you bring against this interpretation, 
8. Exception.  if the sanctification were meant of matrimonial sanctification, and the uncleanness of federal uncleanness, so as to exclude them out of the Covenant, whether of saving graces or Church-priviledges, than the proposition was most f●lse, because children of parents not matrimonially sanctified one to the other, were within the Covenant, as Pharez, Jepha, and others. I answer, 
Answ.  first, I desire the reader to take notice that you take the Covenant here in this place as I do for Church-priviledges. Secondly, indeed if sanctification be taken for matrimonial sanctification or lawfulness of wedlock, and uncleanness of federal sanctification, the proposition may be granted to be false, and let them who so take it, undertake the defence of it if they can, but let it be meant of that other sanctification which I have justified, the proposition is most true; I say again, all the children of those parents, the one whereof is an unbeliever, are unclean, that is, federally unclean, excluded out of the Covenant in regard of Church privileges, at least if not of saving graces, (which is a secret left to God) unless the one be sanctified in the other; this Argument I answered in my Sermon, and framed it thus, that holiness is here meant, which could not be unless one of the Parents were sanctified to the other, but federal holiness of Children may be, where Parents are not sanctified, one in or to the other, as in Bastardy, David's child by Bathsheba, etc. in which case the children were federally holy, and yet the barlot not sanctified in, or to the Adulterer or fornicator though a believer: my answer was, that the Apostles scope in this Argument is, to show that the children borne of an unbeliever would not be holy, unless the other Parent could remove that bar, but hath no force of an Argument where both the Parents are believers, which was the case of the Jews, the case of Hagar, Bathsheba, etc. All the reply you make to it page the 80. is to bestow a few scoffs upon it, that my answer is to deny the conclusion, that I show no fault either in the matter or the form of the Argument, that the scope which I mention is but a mere figment, that I do as good as say, that the objector can make no Argument out of it, and that therefore I need make no answer; And that in one place I grant the minor, than the major, and thus you most gallantly vapour upon me; I reply, were it not that some Readers are prone to think him to have the truth, who speaks most bravingly, I durst (without adding a word more) leave all Scholars to judge whether my answer deserves all this scorn; but lest you go on in your vain hosting, I shall apply my answer more particularly to this Argument which you acknowledge to be your own, and I say plainly that the major proposition is not true if taken universally, viz. That holiness of children is here meant, which could not be unless one of the Parents be sanctified in or by the other, what ever those parents be, though both of them be believers.  
This proposition (say I) is not true, because when both the Parents are believers, there is no such bar to be removed, by the one's being sanctified in the other quoad hoc, so far as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed, they being both in the Covenant, and that sinful defiling of one another's body, doth not deprive them of that privilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God, but when one of the Parents being an unbeliever or Infidel, must have their children accounted out of the pale of the Church, unless that bar be removed, to them it's true, that unless the one be sanctified in the other, (the unbeliever in, or by the believer) their children would not be holy; if therefore you make not your major so universal, but limit it as the Apostle doth, and make the Argument thus, That holiness of children is here meant, which could not be unless the one were sanctified in, or to the other, the one of the parents being an Infidel, but this was the case of Hagar, Bathsheba, Jeptha, Pharez, etc. Now your minor is false, this was not their case, neither of their Parents were unbelievers, though sinful in that act: and now I pray you, where lies the absurdity or weakness of my answer; all this I said before, only you would not see it; and thought to carry it with more advantage to you by scoffing then by solemn refuting. In the close I added, indeed if a believer should Adulterously beget a child upon a Pagan, this objection in that case deserves to be further weighed, but here it comes not within the compass of the Apostles Argument; upon this also you bestow two or three scoffs, you call it a wise remedy nothing to the purpose; and you construe it as if I said, I will not answer the objection which i● made, but if you will make it thus, and thus, than I will answer it. Truly Sir, I am persuaded, all learned men, either laugh at or pity this vanity of your disputing; in sober sadness tell me, was this the scruple of the Corinthians, or doth the Apostle here meddle with this case of believers, and Infidel harlot's? doth he not confine himself to answer cases betwixt believers, and their unbelieving wives and husbands? or do both these cases require one and the same answer? To speak plainly, I could name Divines, who are no whi● inferior to yourself, who conceive that a believer, even when he commits fornication with an Infidel, doth so far remove the bar, in the unbelieving party, as that the child is (in the believing Parents right) to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant of grace, and Church of God, but because I knew that question fell not within the Corinthians case, and was a question which the Text and controversy in hand did not tie me to give a resolution to, I purposely baulked it, not once suspecting I should have met with an adversary so uningenuous, to say no worse, who would have said, the baulking of this question had been the yielding of the cause▪ and I say again, this case of Bastards concerns not the Apostles case, who speaks not of parents' adulterers, but of husbands and wives, the one a believer, the other not, yet this advantage may be made of those Instances, that if among the Jews, the true Church of God, the children of one parent a Jew, the other a Gentile (forbidden to be married) were federally holy, as in the case of Pharez and Thamar, then may one party a believer interest their children in the same Covenant, and if Bastards among the Jews were partakers of Church privileges, much more reasonable may it seem, that the children of both chaste parents, whereof the one at least is a believer, should be federally holy, it being God's rule in this case, parius sequetur m●liorem partem. And now Sir, I leave the reader to judge, whether you have taken this which you call my chief hold, you have indeed set up your flag, but I hope your Reader will take it down again.  
Thus I have vindicated the truth of these two Conclusions, and I doubt not but I have evidenced the truth of them with satisfaction to the unprejudiced Readers, though not with that ability which some others might have done: Yourself acknowledge, that if these two Conclusions could be proved, the cause is gained; as well as lost, if these Conclusions be lost.  
My third Conclusion was this, God hath appointed and ordained 
Conclusion 3. Baptism succeeds Circumcision.  a Sacrament or Seal of initiation to be administered unto th●● who enter into Covenant with him: Circumcision for the time of that administration which was before Christ's Incarnation, Baptism since the time of his incarnation: This (say you) may be granted. But whereas I add, That our Baptism comes in the room and use of Circumcision: against this you except many things.  
First you say, this I deny. I wonder how you could grant my Conclusion to be true, and yet deny this. Nor would you deny this, if only the baptising of grown men were intended to be proved out of it; 'tis for Infant's sake you thus labour to invalidate this Argument.  
Secondly, you make a large parallel between them, wherein they are like, wherein unlike, and show how far you come up, and where you differ.  
I Reply, yourself say similitudes are weak proofs, be sure the showing of dissimilitudes is the weakest way of answering when the agreement holds in that whereto we apply it. A Lieutenant may be locum ten●ns to a King, though there be many things unlike between them. Let us make the business as short as may be: I agree with you in that speech 
Wherein Baptism and Circumcision are parallel by God himself.  which you cite out of Mr. Ball, we may stretch the parallel no wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath done it; and in this point to allege nothing but what God hath taught us, and as he hath taught us; and whatever parallel men make between them, if the Spirit of God make not the same, let it be rejected. And I say again, That the Spirit of God has made parallel in these particulars.  
First, Circumcision is the same with Baptism for the spiritual part; Circumcision was the seal of the new birth, Deut. 30. 6. so Baptism, Tit. 3. 5. Col. 2. Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 11. 11. so Baptism, Acts 8. and many other places. Circumcision was the seal of the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 17. so Baptism, it being the nature of every Sacrament.  
Secondly, Circumcision was the way of entrance and admittance into the Church, during the time of that administration, so is Baptism during the time of this administration, Matth. 28. Acts 2. and throughout the whole Story of the Acts, Circumcision was the distinguishing badge between them who were God's people, and the rest of the world; so is Baptism now, all who are not belonging to the Church, (the solemn way of entrance whereinto is acknowledged to be by Baptism) are said to be without, 1 Cor. 5. 12. Ctrcumcision was to be but once administered, nor Baptism any oftener, as I have largely proved before, in answer to your 4 Sect. Part 4. None might eat the Passeover till they were circumcised, Exod. 12. nor of any to be admitted to the Lords Supper, till they be baptised, as appears Acts 2. 41, 42. And throughout the whole Story of the New Testament, all examples are for it, not one against it, and the reason is plain, because none might partake of the Lords Supper, but such as were in visible Communion; and yourself know and grant, that Baptism is the door and entrance of our solemn admittance into visible communion, we are by Baptism (say you) according to Christ's institution exhibited members of Christ and his Church, Exercit. p. 30. These parallels you see are made by the Spirit of God, and 
Exerc. p. 30.  your exceptions against the comparisons between them, or rather your adding of more comparisons, similitudes, and dissimilitudes between them, by them to destroy these, are 
Mr. Tombs exceptions answered.  such as arise from the divers administration of the Covenant, and do indeed manifest that they belong to several administrations, but do not prove that they had not the same general state, signification and use, as Sacraments, which seal the same thing in their divers administrations; Christ to come, and Christ already come, is the cause of difference of administration, and so of Ordinances, but hinders not the succession of one ordinance into the place of another, and therefore all those differences hinder not the inference of the one from the other. As for your exceptions, That Circumcision did confirm the promise made to Abraham's natural posterity concerning their multiplying, bringing out of Egypt, the yoke of the Law of Moses, settling in Canaan, etc. I answer, if this were granted, it hurts not me, these things concerning the manner of administration of the Covenant. Secondly, how prove you this which you say? Thirdly, did circumcision confirm these things to all Abraham's natural posterity? was the posterity of Ishmael and Esau to come out of Egypt; possess Canaan, ●ee yoked with the Law? Fourthly, what is the sense of these words, Circumcision confirmed the yoke of the Law? it was indeed a part of the yoke, and obliged a person to it, Secondly, to that of women's being not circumcised, and children under eight days old, I have at large spoke to them in the first Section of this third part. Thirdly, the catechumini; though they were members, yet they were not received into visible and Sacramental communion of the Lords Supper till baptised; the case of the Israelites travelling in the wilderness was an extraordinary one. Fourthly, for that which you except against Circumcision being a distinguishing badge, because others were Gods servants who had not this badge; I answer, that of Melchisedeck, Lot, etc. was answered before: beside, may not a livery be a distinguishing mark of such a man's servant, and yet haply every servant not under the livery? the Sabbath was a sign to God's people, yet it may be you hold that all God's people till Moses did not keep a Sabbath. Fiftly, and for what you add that you 
Vnbaptized persons may not eat the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.  make question whether an unbaptized person might not eat the Lords Supper, though you confess you find no example of it, and that in 1 Cor. 10. 2. 3. 4. and 1 Cor. 12. 13. Baptising i● put before eating and drinking; I reply, this I must number among your freaks, and outleaps, and is a spice of your itch after singular opinions, and inconsistent even with your own grant, that Baptism is the way and manner of solemn admission into the Church, and that nothing i● to be done about the Sacraments, whereof we have not either institution or example, and yet here for oppositions sake you will allow men to come to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, though unbaptised, and I think it never yet was a question in the Church whether an unbaptized person might receive the Lords Supper; but say you, these and a hundred mor● cannot make ●● other than a humane invention, if the holy Ghost do not show that they agree in this particular of Baptising as well as Circumcising of Infants. I answer, but when these Arguments and parallels made by God himself, are added to the parity of Jews and Christian Infants, in being comprehended with their Parents in the Covenant which is to be sealed, it's a virtual warrant, it's not mere analogy we reason from, for we have a command to Baptise, and we have the competency of infants to receive baptism sufficiently proved elsewhere, yourself grant right to Baptism arises from the present state of a person, and therefore we apply this seal, which succeeds that seal, to our Infants which succeed their Infants, in the privilege of being faederati with their Parents, there being not the least hint in the word, that they should be left out.  
To slur this Argument from Circumcision to Baptism 
Compatison of Priests, and Ministers brought in by Mr. Tombs.  you frame a large and needless comparison between the Priests of old under the Jewish administration, and the Ministers of the Gospel now, and you demand, are Ministers therefore Priests? and show how many absurdities and dangerous consequences will follow if we give way to such kind of comparisons, hence the Papists have pleaded for an universal Bishop, and the Prelates for superiority of Ministers. 
To no purpose.   
A short answer will serve all this, you demand whether therefore Ministers be Priests, and so make simile to be idem against all sense and reason, as if I had gone about to prove Baptism to be Circumcision. Secondly, we only apply things set up by God himself, and make the parallel as God hath made it, when any can prove that God hath set up an universal Bishop, or appointed superiority of Ministers one above another, and hath made such parallels between them as you speak of, let them plead those comparisons and spare not, they had in their ministry many things which were typical of Christ, which we have nothing to do with, but in other things where the Scripture hath made a comparison, we may do it safely, and may plead from the one to the other, as that they must have a call to their office, so must we; they that serve the altar must live upon the Altar, so they who preach the Gospel are to live upon the Gospel; they must be pure who bar● the vessels of the sanctuary, and the Priests lips must preserve knowledge, so our Ministers must be of holy life, fit to teach, etc. And all this we may plead by good warrant; and whereas I added in my Sermon that our 
Why Christ was Circumcised and baptised.  Lord taught us this by his own example (miz. that Circumcision initiated into that administration, and Baptism into this) who was Circumcised as a professed member of the Jews Church, and when he set up the Christian Church, he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptism; hereupon you run into divers things, as why Christ wou●d be Circumcised, why Baptised, and in what sense Christ when he was to be baptised, said that he would be baptised that he might fulfil all righteousness, but you think it not probable, that it was any part of his meaning to be initiated into the Christian Church by baptism, the Christian Church was not yet set up, with worship & discipline distinct from the jewish, and because his Baptism was of a higher nature than our Baptism; I reply, that the Christian Church was not fully set up, and completed with all Ordinances of worship, government, officers till afterwards, is readily granted, but that it was not in fieri, in erecting and framing, and that Baptism was administered in reference to the Christian Church, and that by Baptism men were initiated into this new administration or best edition of the Church, I think no sound Divine did ever question. I grant Christ's Baptism was a transcendent one, and differs from ours in many things, and so was his Circumcision also a transcendent one, and differed from the Jews in many things; can you thence frame an Argument that he intended not by his conformity to our Ordinances, to express the same favour to us as he did to the Jews in conforming to their Ordinances, but that you should hence fetch an Argument, that because Christ was not baptised till he was thirty years old, (which was within less than thirty weeks after Baptism was made a Sacrament) is I confess a most transcendent strain of wit, yet you boast of it, as if by it you had broke one of the strings I have to my bow.  
And proceed to try, whether you cannot crack the other also, the evidence which Colos. 2 8. 9 etc. gives to prove Baptism 
Col. 2. 8, 9, 10, 11. Vindicated, to prove Baptism to succeed Circumcision.  to succeed in the room of Circumcision: but before you come to the examination of this place, you make enquiry in what sense Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision, and you first observe that in speaking exactly, Baptism was a concomitant of Circumcision, if not ancienter, that it was in use among the Jews for many years together with Circumcision, though not as a Sacrament; and for this you cite the learned Gentleman Mr. Selden, and Mr. Ainsworth on Gen. 17. and Mr. Lightfootes Elias Redivivus: I confess, you are in the 
Baptism in use in the Church of the Jews, and applied to Infants as well as grown men.  right, Baptism was a known rite in the Jewish Church long before it was made a Sacrament, and therefore when john came baptising, none of the Jews were ignorant of the use of Baptism, they never asked him what he meant by baptising, they knew well enough that it was a rite used in admitting of Proselytes or new Converts into the Church, they only wondered, why he did Baptise if he were not the Messiah. But Sir, this exception of yours is so far from being any argument against me, that it affords me a good argument for Infant-Baptisme, because the same authors, which mention this as an Ecclesiastical rite, in admission of Proselytes, do testify that the Infants of Proselytes were baptised as well as circumcised, and wheresoever Circumcision was applied, Baptism went along with it, so that the use of Baptism was the same before, viz. to be a rite of admitting grown men and Infants into the Church, only it begun to be a Sacrament of divine institution, when john was sent to Baptise into the name of Christ: and it is in this Sacrament as in the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper, the panis benedictus, and the cup were used before in the Sacrament of the Passeover, as an Ecclesiastical rite, but our Lord at the last Passeover, instituted the bread and wine to be Sacramental Elements, which before were only an Ecclesiastical rite; now seeing that Baptism which was in use before, was only turned into a Sacramental use, to succeed Circumcision, with whom before it was a concomitant, and always applied to the same persons. Have you not helped us to a good Argument, that Baptism belongs to Infants as well as grown men, especially since there is not the least hint given in the Word, that when it was thus advanced to be a Sacrament, it should not be applied to those persons to whom before it was, viz. Infants as well as grown men? the truth of this, that it 
Proved from Mr. Selden.  was so, may appear partly by Mr. Selden who testifies that the Infants of the Gentiles were made proselytes by this rite among others, both the male children and the female; so likewise Maimonides [Issurei biah, Cap. 13.) tells us by three things Israel entered into Covenant, by Circumcision, by Baptism, 
Maimonides.  and offering, and that Baptism was in the Wilderness before the giving of the Law, as it is said, And thou shalt sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let ●hem wash their garments; and in another place, when a Gentile will enter into the Covenant, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and gather himself under the wings of the Divine majesty, he must be Circumcised, Baptised, and bring an offering, if it be a female, baptism and offering; and again, a Proselyte that is circumcised and not baptised, or baptised and not circumcised, is not a Proselyte, until he be both circumcised and baptised; and again, a little Proselyte, they baptise by the appointment of the Consessus. There are also special testimonies in the Talmud, which declare, that Infants both of jews and Gentiles, were 
The Talmud.  thus admitted, the male children by circumcision and baptism, the females by baptism, etc. Many testimonies of this nature to show that Infants as well as grown men, were baptised among the Jews are to be seen in Mr. Ainsworth upon Gen. 17. vers. 12, 13. I was willing to give this little taste, that the Reader may see, that baptism ever since it was in use, was appliable to children as well as grown men. You add, even the Sacrament of Baptism was before circumcision ceased, and you instance with john's Baptism, which was a concomitant Sacrament with the Sacrament of circumcision; I answer as before, john's Baptism and Ministry, was a Praeludium 
John's Baptism initiated into the Christian Church.  to Christ, and was wholly in reference to the Christian Church, which then begun to be moulded; and though there was not a new distinct Church of Christianity set up, yet all this was preparing the materials of it, and john did not admit them by Baptism, as members to the Jewish Padagogy, which was then ready to be taken away, but into that new administration which was then in preparing, but this is no argument against baptism to succeed circumcision, as a Lord Major elect succeeds the old, though the old continue after his election for a time. Yet further, You inquire in what sense Baptism succeeds in the room and place of Circumcision, and say if by room and place, I mean, 
Mr. Tombs Exceptions.  locus communis et proprius, so Baptism being an action, hath no room or place at all properly: and if by room and place I mean the baptised and baptizers, that is true but in part, seem who were to be baptised were not to be circumcised, as women. Thirdly, if by room and place I mean the same society, that is not true, Circumcision admitted into the Jewish, baptism into the Christian Church. Fourthly, if of the Commandment upon which both are sealed, that is not true neither, Circumcision was commanded long before Baptism. Fiftly, if of the same use, that is most untrue, for the use of Circumcision obliged to keep the Law, to be a partition between jews and Gentiles, and to initiate into the jewish Church, or rather into Abraham's family. Then lastly you say, if I mean it of confirming and sealing the same Covenant, neither is that true save only in part, because their Covenant was a mixed Covenant, and although Circumcision did confirm righteousness by faith, and signified holiness of heart, so also did the Cloud, Sea, Manna, the Rock, the Deluge or Ark: and the same are also confirmed by the Lord's Supper; and therefore to say that Baptism succeeds in the room and place of Circumcision, is a position erroneous and very dangerous.  
I am prone to think that time as well as paper and Ink are very cheap with you, who thus needlessly 
Answ.  waste them; this poor quibbling about succession and room, place, etc. is too Pedantical for a grave Divine, what Reader will not at the first view see this to be my meaning, of Baptism succeeding in the room and place of Circumcision, that Baptism succeeds Circumcision as a sign substituted, in the place and stead of Circumcision, to signify and seal the same Covenant of grace which Circumcision did, Circumcicision more darkly sealing, Christ being not yet exhibited, baptism more clearly, the shadow being taken away and the substance come? & almost all your differences refer only to the several manners of administration of the Covenant, not to the Covenant itself, or thing administered, yet I shall touch upon each particular. First, your fancy of Locus 
1 Exception deserves no Answer.  proprius & communis, is too idle to require any answer. Secondly, that of the jewish women hath been sufficiently spoken to in the first Section of this third part. Thirdly, 
2 Exception answered before.  when you say, circumcision admitted into one Church, baptism into another; (I am very loath to impute to your sense which you intent not) if you mean only the several administrations, 
3 Exception answered.  the Church of the Jews being Christ's Church under one administration, the Christian Church the same Church of Christ under another administration; you speak truth, but not to purpose, my conclusion never said, Circumcision and Baptism do initiate into the same Administration of the Covenant: but if you mean, that the Church of the Jews and we are not one and the same Church, you speak pure Anabaptism indeed, and contradict the Scripture expressly, which every where makes the Church of the Jews and the Gentiles, one and the same Church though under divers administrations. I count it needless to annex any proofs, because I think you dare not deny it. Fourthly, you lay the command of circumcision was lo●g before the command of Baptism, but how 
4 Exception answered.  this follows that therefore Baptism doth not succeed in the room of Circumcision I cannot guess, the Lords day succeeds the seventh day in being God's Sabbath, but certainly the institution of it was long after the other. And five, as for the several uses mentioned by you, they all refer 
5 Exception answered.  to the manner of administration peculiar to the Jews; I have often granted there were some legal uses of Circumcision it obliging to that manner of administration, and so they were part of the Jewish pedagogy, which is wholly vanished, and therein Circumcision hath no succession, but baptism succeeds it as a Seal of the same Covenant under a better administration, as a set and constant initiating Ordinace: only I wonder that you say, Circumcision did initiate into the Church of the jews, or rather into Abraham's family; I pray you explain this, rather into Abravams' family; if by Abraham's family you mean the Church of the Jews, why say you rather into Abraham's family? if you mean any thing else, tell us what it is, and how Circumcumcision initiated Proselytes into Abraham's family any otherwise ●hen as it was the Church of the Jews Lastly, you hit upon the right thing intended, They he both seals of 
6 Excep. Answ.  the same covenant; but (say you) the covenant was not the same, except in part, which hath abundantly been confuted before, and justified to be one and the same, and the difference to lie only in the manner of administration.  
But say you, the Cloud, Sea, Manna, water of the rock, etc. signified 
7 Excep. Answ.  righteousness by faith, and holiness of hea●t, as well as baptism doth; and why then should we not say that Baptism succeeds these, as well as it doth Circumcision? I answer, these were extraordinary signs, not standing Sacraments to be used in all generations; much less were they set and standing Sacraments of initiation: And yet so far as God hath made the parallel, what hurt is there in saying baptism succeeds them? sure I am, the Apostle Peter compares baptism 
1 P●● 3. 21.  and the Ark, the like figure whereunto Baptism saves us.  
But whereas you add, And why also should not the Lords 
● Excep. Answ.  Supper succeed Circumcision as well as Baptism? I answer, what ever disparity may be made between Circumcision and Baptism, yet herein certainly they agree, and you often grant it, That both of them are initial signs; and therefore this is most wildly said of you, That the Lords Supper may he as well said to succeed Circumcision; did ever any think the Lords Supper to be an initial sign? And now let the Reader judge of that expression of yours in the close, which you so boldly use against all Divines and Churches since the Apostles time, who all concur in the same truth, (except only the Anabaptists) That to say Baptism succeeds in the room and place of Circumcision, 〈◊〉 a proposition 〈…〉, and very dangerous.  
To confirm this of Baptism succeeding Circumcision, much may be gathered out of many places in the New Testament, which hold out the things wherein they are paralleled: I used only that clear place, Col. 2. 8 to 13. whence I made it evident, Not only that we have the same thing signified by Circumcision, while we are buried with Christ in baptism, but also that the Apostle plainly set● Baptism in the same state, 
Mr. Tombs exception against Colos. 2. answered.  and makes it of the same use to us, as Circumcision was to the Jews; Christ only to them ●nd 〈◊〉 also, is the author ●f spiritual Circumcision. The Circumcision of the flesh, was the Sacrament of it to them; and now that is abolished, we have baptism to seal the same thing.  
Let us see what your exceptions are against it, First, you acknowledge with me, the Apostles scope is to show that we are complete in Christ, and therefore needed not Circumcision: And you add, his scope was not to teach them that we have another ordinance in stead of Circumcision. I reply, it is very true, he teaches them we are complete in Christ, and need not Circumcision; but it is as true, that he further enlarges this comfort, by showing them that we have a visible seal of this completeness in Christ, and so it is more evident we have no need of Circumcision.  
Secondly, say you, Aretius in his Commentary says, That 
Aretius' alleged by Mr Tombs, as if for him, who is expressly against him.  the thing itself is asserted to the Saints, without an outward symbol, which yet the adversaries incessantly urged; and for which Aretius his help, you conclude it is utterly against the Apostles whole argument, to say, that they needed not Circumcision, b●cause they had another ordinance in the room of it. But Sir, why do you thus frequently abuse your readers with the names of Learned men, inserting some one sentence of theirs into your book, and thereby insinuating to your Reader, that they are of your Opinion in the point wherein you cite them? I assure you, it concerns your Conscience, as well as your Cause, to be thus often taken tardy. The Learned Aretius in that very place where you cite him acknowledges indeed, That we are complete in Christ, without an external symbols; and that he is a perfect organ of our salvation; you needed to have cited no man for this, we all concur with you in it; the only thing controverted is, whether the Apostle intent also in this place to show, that our baptism succeeds in the room and use of Circumcision; and doth not Aretius concur in this? let himself speak: Observetur ●tiam successio Baptismi in locum Circumcisionis, quando aperte hunc vocat Circumcisionem Christi: He plainly tells us, that the Apostle calls Baptism the Circumcision of Christ. But since you have put me upon Aretius, I shall make bold to inform the Reader, that the same Aretius in his Problems, after the History of Valentine Gentilis, hath an entire Discourse to prove that Baptism succeeds 
Ancient Authors cited by Aretius to prove that Baptism succeeds Circumcision.  Circumcision, and brings this second of the Col. there also, as a main evidence; and citys many notable testimonies out of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, for the confirmation of it.  
Accepimus non illam secundum carnem circumcisionem, sed spiritualem, quam Enoch & similes custodierunt, no● tamen per baptismum 
Just in Martyr contra Tryph.  accepimus.  
Circumcisio figura erat exuviarum quae per baptismum deponuntur. 
Athan. in Luc. ●●nia mihi tradita.   
Abraham ubi Deo erediderat circumcisionem accepit pro nota ejus regenerationis quae per baptismum conficitur.  
Illic fuit circumcisio carnalis quae inservit tempori ad magnam 
Epiphan. contr. Iip●cureos.  circumcisionem, h. e. Bapt. qui circumcidit nos a peccatis & obsignat nos D●o.  
Duravit circumcisio tempore inserviens donec major circumcisio 
Idem contra Ce●●nthu●n.  accessit, h. e. lavacrum regenerationis.  
Affi●mat Christum in ecclesia sua dedisse pro circumcisione 
Aug in Epist. 1●8.  carnis, Baptismum.  
Baptismi & circumcisionis ejusdem est natura. 
In Epist. ad Dardanun.   
All these the Reader shall find in Aretius, whom you bring in, as if he concurred with you; most of these testimonies are before also alleged by me.  
Thirdly, but you go on and say, That in truth it would evacuate the Apostles argument used both here, and Hebr. 9 11. 9-13. who still proves the abolition of the ceremonies of the Law, because we are complete in Christ; not in some new ordinances added in stead of them; for if there be need of other Ordinances, (besides Christ) in stead of the old, than Christ himself hath not fullness enough, and though our Ordinances may be said to imitate theirs; yet Christ only succeeds them.  
I answer, it is very true, that whoever should plead that we have any of our compleatness in any outward Ordinances would evacuate the Apostles Argument But Sir, is there no distinction to be made betwixt our completeness in Christ, and Ordinances which by his own appointment help us to apply this completeness: do the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper, and other Christian Ordinances hinder, or argue that all our completeness in not in Christ. I add further, that Christ only succeeds all the Jewish ordinances, as the body succeeds the shadow: we plead not as the Papists do, that the Jewish Sacraments were types of ours, they were types only of Christ; but yet ours succeed them to be like signs of the Covenant of grace, and so the Apostle doth in this place.  
Fourthly, say you, I deny not but there is an analogy betwixt 
Vide Rive●. in Gen. 17.  baptism and circumcision, as there is also betwixt the Ark and Baptism; but we are not to conclude thence, that Baptism succeeds in the room and use of Noah's Ark, etc. for in the administration of an Ordinance, we are not to be ruled by bare analogy framed by ourselves, or delivered by the Spirit of God, but by the institution of God. I answer, but when those analogies framed by the Spirit of God, are agreeable to the use and end of God's institution, we are to be ruled by them; and the Apostle shows that's our case here.  
Fifthly, say you, The Apostle in this place rather resembles burial to circumcision then baptism: and so makes the analogy between circumcision and Christ's burial; and you bring in chrysostom and Theophylact concurring with you. I answer, this I wonder at, where is Circumcision compared to burial, and wherein I pray you lies the analogy between them? Besides, whoever will look into this Text, shall find that this spiritual circumcision contains both our death to sin, and rising again to newness of life, by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, both which are here fully signified in our baptism, ver. 11. & 12. consepulti sum●●; the analogy lies plain between our burial and baptism. And chrysostom whom you cite, saith plainly, we are spiritually circumcised, but when and where; and answers in Baptism.  
Sixthly, say you, Circumcision was not only a privilege to the Jews, but it was also a buriben to them, and it would be a burden, 
chrysostom cited by Mr. Tombs, is against him.  not a privilege, to have an ordinance in the room and use of it. I answer, Circumcision was a burden, as it was a painful Sacrament, and as it obliged them to that painful, costly and burdensome manner of the administration of the Covenant, which was before Christ's incarnation; but it was no burden, But a great privilege, as it was a seal of the Covenant. And in this last respect only is baptism substituted into his room and place.  
In the close of this Section, I like your farewell, though you tell me, I speak with more confidence than truth; I said 
Mr. Tombs his reason, why baptism is there named, confirms my interpretation.  there had been no reason to have named baptism, but that he meant to show baptism was now to Christians in the room of circumcision to the Jews: You say, baptism is named, because it is one of the means by which Christians come to have communion with Christ, and to be complete in him; which was the thing the Apostle intended in the 12. verse. And therefore faith is joined with it, they being the two special means whereby we have our communion with Christ, to which you add, Gal. 5. 25, 26. Rom. 6. 3, & 4. But is not this the same sense with mine, who have hitherto undertaken to justify that, though our completeness be in Christ only, who is now exhibited, and no longer to be sought in the types and shadows of the Jewish administrations, (to which manner of administrations Circumcision did oblige them;) yet Baptism is now the seal of our initiation, and a means to apply this Covenant to us, as Circumcision was to them, though the manner of their administration be wholly ceased. If I have not taken you right, make a syllogism, and make all Logic quake before your mighty consequence. Baptism is named, because it is one of the means of Christians being exempted from the Schoolmaster, and come to be ingraffed into Christ, and to be complete in him; therefore it doth not succeed in the room and place of Circumcision: nay, rather, it therefore doth. I pray you put together these words, Ye are complete in Christ, in whom ye are also circumcised, being buried with him in baptism; and see if it speak not this plainly, that baptism succeeds into the use of Circumcision: surely, it hence appears Circumcision and Baptism are nearer of kin than you would make them.  
In the close of this Section, according to your wont manner, you triumph, and tell me that you have at last waded through this conclusion, and the text, Col. 2. 12. & 10. the misunderstanding of which hath been the ignis faruis, foolish fire, which hath led men out of the way in this matter, into bags. Truly Sir, were these scorns of being led by foolish fire into bogs, &c cast upon myself only, it were nothing; but when they are thus cast in the faces of all Divines, ancient, and modern, all Harmonies and Confessions (except only a handful of upstart Anabaptists) as if they were all such simple ones, that an ignis fatuus, a fool's fire, might lead them into any bogs, I can hardly forbear to tell you it is an argument of an arrogant Spirit.  
There is also in the end of your book, a short discourse 
The descant of Mr. Tomber upon this Text at the end of his book briefly examined.  upon this Text, which I read over to see if there were any thing which might weaken my Argument, or strengthen your exceptions; but in it I find not any one sentence that hurts me, or helps you; only some of those things which you call dictates, bold assertions, some of them contrary to the plain Text of Scripture, all of them magisterially set down with out proof: as, circumcision was not a token of the Covenant to the jews children; which is contrary to the very Text, Gen. 17. That the promises of the Covenant, were not the reason that they were circumcised. Yet any Reader may see that the Covenant is there set down as the reason why they should be circumcised. That the Jews children were not therefore in covenant, because they were Abraham's natural seed, that believers children are not in covenant, because believers children; and divers other Conclusions of the same nature, which are already answered; and therefore I shall not stay the Reader any whit about them.  
Hitherto I have followed you foot by foot, because the gaining or losing the cause, depends upon these former conclusions, the sameness of the Covenant both to Jews and Centiles, the sameness of our Infants right to the Covenant with theirs; and baptism succeeding circumcision, as to the use of an initial seal to them, who are in Covenant. In that which remains, I shall more contract the matter of your large Discourse● partly, because many things in it are upon by-matters; partly, because that which is material, is but the repetition of that which hath been answered already.  
My fourth Conclusion was, That by Gods own express order, Infants as well as grown men, were in the time of the jews to be initiated and sealed with the sign of circumcision, whether Jews by nature, or Proselytes of the Gentiles, one law was for them all, if they receive the covenant, they and their children were circumcised.  
This Conclusion you grant to be true; only, because you will say somewhat to every thing: you answer, First, That it is 
4 Conclus. vindicated.  as certain that this express order of God is now repealed; very true, and you might have added, That by his order likewise, Baptism succeeds in the room of it. I added, whereas some allege, Though circumcision was to be applied to their Infants, yet 
Why Infants of Jews were circumcised.  it was not as a seal of the spiritual part of the Covenant, but as a national badge, or seal of some temporal and earthly blessings and privileges, as of the right to the land of Canaan, etc. and that Ishmael, though he was circumcised for some temporal respects, was not thereby brought under the Covenant, etc. You answer, they who thus object, speak the truth: and here you refer to your Latin Paper. I reply, to my understanding, you here speak pure Anabaptism indeed, just like the Anabaptists in Germany, who say, The Covenant which circumcision sealed, was a carnal covenant: and that when God commanded the Israelites to circumcise their children, we are not to understand that he obliged them to have their hearts circumcised, nor aimed at any thing which touched the inward man; that the condition required by God in circumcision, cannot be drawn to a spiritual business; that the circumcised by circumcision, were not bound to look for salvation by Jesus Christ: how very near are you come to these carnal conceits of the Germane Anabaptists, which have been a thousand times confuted by our Orthodox Divines? yet you bring not one shadow of a proof for what you say, only you allege, Ishmael had no part in the covenant, the cov●nant was to be establisted with Isaac, and not with Ishmael, etc. But I have made it abundantly clear, that not only Ishmael and Esau, but missions of jacob's seed, did never partake of the spiritual graces of the Covenant, yet were reckoned by circumcision to belong to the Covenant, and were obliged to seek after the spiritual part of it, and whereas you say, when Ishmael was circumcised, Abraham understood the promise was not intended for Ishmael but for Isaac, that Ishmael only was to have a share in some temporal blessings; I answer, supposing that were true, you have given a very good instance to prove that some may receive the outward sign of the Covenant, and have a visible standing in the Church, though he who administers the Seal, might by revelation know that the inward grace is wanting. Secondly, I answer, how do you prove that no part of the spiritual Covenant made with Abraham did appear to belong to Ishmael when he was circumcised, or not to Esau when he was circumcised? God indeed did then declare that Isaac was he in whose family the Covenant should continue, but not a word that Ishmael should have no part in it: prove (if you can) in your next that Ishmael and Esau were not by their circumcision bound to have their hearts circumcised, and to believe in the Messiah that was to come of Abraham's seed. And whereas you say, again and again, that no benefit of the Covenant was the proper reason why these or those were circumcised, but only God's precept: I have already cleared it out of the Text Genesis 17. that though God's command was the cause of the existence of the duty of Circumcision, yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it, and these two are well consistent together.  
Whereas I answered to that carnal objection of the Anabaptists, that nothing is plainer than that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was a sign was the Covenant of grace, you reply, first, it was a mixed Covenant, which is before taken away, in answer to your exceptions against my first conclusion, Sect. 2. Part 3. Secondly, you say, all circumcised persons were not partakers of the spiritual part, it's one thing to be under 
Mr. Tombs grants what is in controversy.  the outward administration, another thing to be under the Covenant of Grace; Sir, I thank you for this answer, you grant as much as I have been proving all this while, viz. that men may have a visible membership though they be not elected, and that there ever was and will be some such in the Church to whom the outward administration and external privileges do appertain, though they are not inwardly sanctified, and I hope you will not deny but that these are called, in that sense which our Saviour means when he says, Many are called, but few are chosen. I added Abraham received Circumcision a sign of the righteousness of faith: true, say you, Circumcision was a seal of righteousness, but not to all or only circumcised persons, but to all believers, whether jews or Gentiles though they never are or may be sealed in their own persons. I reply, first, this is but a piece of odd Divinity, that Circumcision should seal righteousness to them who never are circumcised, nor reputed so, nor capable of being circumcised, nor might lawfully be circumcised, but let that pass. 2ly Indeed none but believers have the spiritual part of Circumcision, but visible professors had a visible right to it, and were obliged to seek the spiritual grace of it, and though they who are externally called, and not elected, never come to attain the spiritual part, yet are they in foro visibilis Ecclesiae to be reputed Church members, and they have as Austin saith, veritatem sacramenti, though not fructum Sacramenti, they receive the truth of the Sacrament, though they partake not of the best part of it; And the jews (said I) received 
How the Jewe● received circumcision.  it not as a nation, but as a Church, as a people separated from the world, and taken into Covenant with God; against which you object, if I take (as) with reduplication, they received it neither as a nation, nor as a Church: for if as a nation, than every nation must have been circumcised; if as a Church, than every Church must be circumcised; they received it as appointed them from God, under that formal notion, and no other. But what poor exceptions are these? my plain meaning was, the Jews were both a civil society or Commonwealth, they were also a Church or a people in Covenant with God; Circumcision was given them in reference to their Church State, not in reference to their civil state, and was in ordine to the things of God's kingdom▪ and though the formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God, yet the Covenant of grace or their Church state was the motive to it, and the thing it related to, as is most clear out of the 17. of Genesis and many other places where their Circumcision denotates their religious standing, as hath often been showed before.  
But what is all this, say you, to the answering of the objection, which was, that Circumcision was not the Seal of the spiritual part of the Covenant of grace, to all circumcised persons, and that Circumcision was appointed to persons not under the Covenant, etc. I answer, I think it very fully answers the objection, for if it was commanded and observed, as that which was a privilege and duty belonging to the Covenant, and they used it as being in Covenant, the objection is wholly taken off. Your frequent bringing in of the manner of administration, by types, shadows, etc. hath been abundantly answered in my vindicating my first conclusion, and elsewhere. Next you much trouble yourself, how I will clear that expression of men's conformity to temporal blessings and punishments, because blessings and punishments are Gods acts and not mens: I desire you to require an account of it from them who assert it, I said, Circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the Covenant which was carried much by a way of temporal blessings and punishments, they being types of spiritual things: is this all one to conform to temporal blessings and punishments? I added, no man can show, that any were to receive Circumcision in relation to these outward things only, or to them at all, further than they were administrations of the Covenant of grace; you answer, they received Circumcision neither in relation to these outward things only no nor at all, either as they were temporal blessings or types of spiritual 
Mr. Tombs by consequence denies circumcision to be a Seal of any thing.  things, and so administrations of the Covenant of grace, but for this reason and no other, because God had so commanded; I reply, here had been the fit place for you to have made good what you have so confidently asserted heretofore; that Ishmael, Esau, and others were circumcised for some temporal respects, that Circumcision sealed the temporal or political promises, etc. but in stead of proving this, you do here as good as deny it, for if they were not circumcised, in any respect at all to their temporal blessings, how I pray you did Circumcision seal their temporal blessings? Nay further, you by consequent deny that Circumcision sealed either temporal or spiritual blessings, and consequently it was no seal at all, or a seal of nothing at all; for if they were circumcised with respect to nothing, but only because God commanded them to be circumcised, how was Circumcision any Seal to them? If a father give a child a Ring, and command him to wear it, only to show his obedience to his father's command, what doth the wearing of this Ring seal to the child? it declares indeed the child's obedience to the father, but seals nothing to the child from the father. Nor doth that which you add any whit help this, you say, You deny not that circumcised persons were by faith to look on the covenant of grace, through these administrations, but by what warrant could their faith look upon the Covenant of grace through circumcision if the command of circumcision were not in reference to the Covenant of grace? I profess I cannot understand it, nor do I think it possible for you, to reconcile this, either with the constant doctrine of the Scripture concerning the end and use of Circumcision, or with your own grant, that Circumcision was the initial Seal of the Jews Covenant with God.  
To clear it further that Circumcision was not a seal of the land of Canaan, or the temporal blessings of it, I showed the Proselytes and their children could not be circumcised in relation to Canaan, etc. because they were not capable of any inheritance there; yea, that it tied them to a greater expense of their temporal blessings by their long, frequent, and chargeable journeys to worship at jerusalem; you answer only this, all this may be granted, yet this overthrows not this proposition, that the Covenant made with Abraham had promises of temporal blessings, and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the covenant of grace: but Sir, the thing I am here proving is that Circumcision was no Seal of the land of Canaan, not that there were no temporal blessings belonging to the Covenant; I know the promises of temporal blessings belong to the Covenant of grace, as well as the promises of spiritual; godliness having the promise of this life, and of that which is to come: nor was I proving that all who were to be circumcised had part in the spiritual graces of the Covenant, my drift being only to prove, that all who were to be circumcised had a visible membership and right to be reputed as belonging to the Church, against which in this place you say just nothing. Lastly, whereas I added that Ishmael and the rest of Abraham's family, Esau and others were really taken into covenant until afterwards by apostasy they discovenanted themselves, you answer that I plainly deliver apostasy from the covenant of grace, which in others would be called Armianisme, because taking into the covenant of grace, argues election or some act which executes election: I reply, I have no doubt but that all indifferent Readers well enough understand what I meant by being taken into the Covenant of grace, even such a taking in as when the Gentiles were taken in, in ramorum defractorum locum, instead of the jews, who were broken off: yourself grant, it is one thing to be under the spiritual grace of the Covenant, and another thing to be under the outward administration; in this later sense were Ishmael, Esau, and the rest taken in, they were visible professors had an external calling, and are all visible professors elected, and is not external vocation God's act, though a common one?  
The fifth and last conclusion which I laid down in my 
5 Conclusion vindicated, our privileges nor straitened but enlarged.  Sermon was this, the privileges of believers under this last and best administration of the covenant of grace are many ways enlarged, made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the jews administration; many Scriptures speak of their enlargement, not one for the dimininishing or extenuating of them; I could hardly have imagined that you could have spent ten or eleven whole pages in excepting against this, I shall very briefly examine what you have said; first, you show your skill in the description of a privilege out of the civil Law, and I concur with you, that a privilege must be somewhat which is a benefit, and that the same thing may be a privilege at one time, which is not at another; that that may be a privilege in comparison of the heathens which is not in comparison of Christians: but what's all this to the purpose? further say you, the privileges of the covenant of grace belonging to the substance of it, are not now more enlarged or more honourable or comfortable than they were in the time of the jews; I answer, first, though this were granted it hurts not me, it's sufficient if the administration be now more comfortable to believers and their children. Secondly, if there be no more honourableness in those privileges which belong to the substance of the Covenant, how comes it to pass, that in your answers to those several texts which I and others bring to 
Our spiritual privileges how enlarged.  prove the enlargement of privileges under this last administration, you interpret them of those privileges which belong to the substance of the Covenant or the spiritual part of it? Thirdly, though I willingly acknowledge that the spiritual privileges are the same both to the Jews and Gentiles, the same under both administrations, yet seeing that under this last administration, these privileges are communicated not only with more clearness, but in greater measure and abundance, floods in stead of drops: wildernesses made like Lebanon and Sharon, I wonder you should say they are no more honourable and comfortable now then they were then; is not abundance of grace more honourable and comfortable than a little grace? But say you, in respect of the administration it is granted they are many ways enlarged and made more honourable: this will serve our turn well enough, for this was a privilege belonging to their administration, that their Infants were under it as well as themselves; yield that for ours, and the controversy is ended, we (say I) are freed from that hard and costly yoke of their way of administration: true say you, it is not only our privilege to be free from that, but it is our privilege also to have nothing in lieu of that yoke. To have nothing in lieu of them as they were shadows of the substance, which is Christ, is very right, but to say it is our privilege to have nothing in lieu of them, as they were external Ordinances to apply Christ, is to say it is our privilege to have no Ordinances to apply Christ to us, and thereby to make us complete in him, which were a most absurd thing to affirm. Whereas I added that our privileges for ourselves and our children, are at least as honourable, large, and comfortable as theirs, your answer to this is very remarkable, but whether with an obeliske or asterisk the Reader shall judge; first say you, circumcision belongs to the administration of the Covenant, not to the substance of it. I reply; it was indeed a part of their administration, and obliged them to the rest of that manner of administration, as Baptism now doth to ours, but did it not also belong to the substance? was it not a seal of the righteousness of faith, of circumcision of heart, etc. doth not the seal belong to the thing sealed? the conveyance and seal annexed to it, are no part of the purchased inheritance, 
Mr. Tombs makes it a privilege not to have Infants baptised.  but do they not belong to it? Secondly, your next is as remarkable, viz. That it's so far from being a privilege to our children to have them baptised; to have Baptism succeed in the stead of Circumeision, that it is a benefit to want it, God not having appointed it. I answer, then belike our privileges of the Covenant of grace are so far from being enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism, that it had been our privilege to have wanted Baptism if God had not appointed it; and by as good a reason at least, you might have said, that Circumcision was so far from being a privilege to the Jews and their children, that it had been a benefit for them to have wanted it, if God had not commanded it; sure, that is a strange kind of privilege, of which I may truly say, that it had been a greater benefit to them who have it, to have wanted it, if the Donor had not commanded it.  
Next, you come more particularly to examine the proofs of my Conclusion; and (say you) the thing I should prove, is one of these two, either that circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace: or that the want of circumcision, or some Ordinance in the place and use of it, is a loss of privilege of the Covenant of grace to us and our children. Sir, the thing I was to prove was this 5 Conclusion, viz. That our privileges are enlarged, not extenuated: and as for these two particulars, I have already proved, that Circumcision, though a part of their administration, did yet belong to the substance; belong to it I say, not as a part of it, but as a means of applying it. And I have also proved, that though it be a privilege to have nothing succeed circumcision, as it bound to that manner of administration; yet it is a privilege to have somewhat succeed it as a seal of the Covenant, in as much as a Covenant with a seal, is a greater benefit than a Covenant without a seal. More particularly, I said our 
Mr Tombs makes the Covenant, Heb. 8 to be the Covenant of Works, erroneously.  enlargement of privileges appears, partly, in that we have freedom, in what was burdensome to them in their manner of administration; partly, because our Covenant is established upon better promises, Heb. 8. 6. Whereupon you enter upon a Discourse of that Covenant there mentioned; and you positively assert, That it was the Covenant of works. Alas Sir, why do you run into this needless and erroneous digression? I said indeed in my Sermon, that the moral Law was added four hundred and thirty years after the Covenant was made with Abraham, not as a part of that Covenant, but as a Schoolmaster to whip them to Christ; that they finding the impossibility of keeping the Law, might more earnestly long after Christ, exhibited in those shadows of Rites and Sacrifices, etc. but to say that this Covenant mentioned in the eight of the Hebrews, was the Covenant of works, is a most erroneous doctrine; look into the Text, and you shall find that the Covenant which is there mentioned, (which God finds fault with, and calls the first Covenant; in opposition to this better Covenant) had Ordinances of divine Worship, had a Sanctuary, a Tabernacle, Priests, and High Priests, Sacrifices, and other Rites belonging to the administration of it. Sir, was this the Covenant of works? I hope you will not own it in your next. Next you say, That place, 2 Cor. 3. 10. the glory of 
2 Cor. 3. 10. misinterpreted by Mr. Tombs.  theirs, bade no glory in respect of ours: This is not meant of the Covenant of grace, but of the Covenant in Mount Sinai; therefore impertinently alleged by me. Sir, I wonder at your confidence in it; the Reader will easily discorne that the whole scope of that Chapter clearly holds forth the pre-eminence of the Ministry of the Gospel, above the Ministry of Moses his veiled Ceremonies: belike then with you, Moses Ceremonies were the Covenant of works. Next, I showed in my Sermon, that as our privileges are better than theirs, in being freed from their burdens, so we as well as they, enjoy the honour of being called a holy Nation, a peculiar people, a chosen generation, etc. Upon this you discourse at large, especially against Mr. Blake, and you undertake to prove that all these things are meant of the invisible Church. I answer very briefly, none of us ever doubted, but that the spiritual part belongs only to the invisible Church, and did so in the time of the Jews, as well as now; but yet we as well as the Jews partake of that privilege, and our visible standing gives us the honour to be so reputed, as well as theirs gave it unto them; and were all the Jews who had the honour to be called a holy Nation, really such? were they all inwardly holy, or effectually called? the like answer serves to your discourse upon Rom. 9 the Apostle speaks there of adoption as a privilege of the body of that Nation, their whole Nation had the Honour to be called the children of God, according to Deut. 14. 1. Ye are the children of the Lord your God, yet they were not all the spiritual children of God; the Reader may see more of this in the vindication of my second Conclusion, and you shall do well in your next, solidly to prove that these were not privileges which the visible Church of the Jews enjoyed (though many among them had the kernel without the shell) rather then thus to triumph in these feeble exceptions. I added, We have all these things with advantage, not only in the clearness of the administration, but in some sense, in greater extent to persons, with us there is neither male nor female. Why I add this of male or female, you say you know not, except I mean to insinuate that in the Jewish Church there was male and female, because Circumcision was only of the males, etc. I reply, I acknowledge that 
Gal. 3. 27, 28. opened.  though it be true, that among true believers, among the Jews there was neither male nor female, all equally did partake of the spiritual part of the Covenant, as well as now with us, yet for the comfortable manner of administration of it, even this distinction of male and female, is a privilege enlarged under this last and best administration, and the Apostle in that place, Gal. 3. 28. doth plainly intimate the enlargement of this privilege in this respect, and so I think the words plainly hold out, As many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ; there is neither jew nor Greek, bond nor free, made nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus; and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise. To me the Apostle here doth plainly hold out, that now under the New Testament, baptism is the visible pledge of our being Abraham's seed, as circumcision was the pledge of it under the Old Testament; & that here is the enlargement of our privilege in the New Testament, that whereas Circumcision of old was applied to one Nation, and not to others; now out of all Nations, such are called in, as are made Abraham's seed, whether Jew or Greek. And whereas of old the seal was applied only to the males, in this respect the differences of sexes is now taken away. And although it be true that the spiritual part of all this be made good only to true believers, who likewise alone have the inward baptism, yet visible professors enjoy the visible privilege.  
Next you proceed to reply to an Objection which I propounded in my Sermon, and answered, (viz.) In some thing's the Jews had greater privileges than we have; as that Abraham had the privilege to be called the Father of the faithful: that Christ should be born of his flesh; the Virgin Mary had the privilege to be the Mother of Christ; the whole Nation of the Jews had this privilege, that God will call in their seed again, after they had been cast off for unbelief many hundred years; which privileges none of the Gentiles have, or can have. And my answer was, That our question is about such privileges as belong to all who have a standing under the Covenant, which every one who is in covenant with God might expect by virtue of the covenant, whether he were a Jew or a Proselyte, not for any peculiar or personal privilege to any one man or woman, or family, or Tribe. That it no ways derogates from us that some particular person or Tribe should enjoy some peculiar privileges; but if any of the common privileges, which they all enjoyed by virtue of their Church standing should be abridged, than the privileges of the New Testament would be more restrained than those of the Old; this, said I, is against the word of God. Your answer is, That this Argument hath no weight, but only amongst Vulgar, and nonsyllogising capacities: and therefore in your Latin Paper you mention these instances of the Virgin Mary, etc. And thence would show, That the jews might have more privileges in some respect, in some things, than we, and yet our condition better than theirs by reason of some other privileges we have above them, which recompense the defect of those privileges; and therefore no good Argument can be drawn, That because God gave such a privilege to the Jews, therefore we must have such a privilege too; yea, it would be an Argument of arrogant presumption, to say, the jews had such a privilege, therefore we must have it: They had a privilege to circumcise jufants, therefore we must baptise Infants.  
I Answer, I think indeed it would take with no sober Christian thus to argue: The Jews had it, therefore we must have it. But Sir, to argue thus, God gave such a privilege to the whole Church of the Jews, that their Infants should be reputed to belong to his Church, and have the initial seal: Therefore if he have not granted to Christians, that their Infants shall also be reputed to belong to his Church, and partake of the initial seal; then his grace to believers under the New Testament is straitened as to their posterity. This Argument appears so clear to me, that I must confess myself one of those Dull ones, who know not how to deny the consequence. In the mean time I observe, that though you would make your Reader believe, that these personal privileges of Abraeham, to have Christ born of his flesh; the Virgin Mary to be the mother of Christ, etc. do press my Conclusion; yet you spoke not one word to vindicate them from my answer: And therefore I collect that by this time you see, that now under this administration, some personal privileges which a few of the Jews had over and above what belonged to the rest, may be denied us, and yet they make nothing against this Argument; That if the common privileges which every one of them had were denied us, our privileges were 
Distinction of Proselyres of the Gate, and of the Covenant, helps not Mr. Tombs.  straitened. Your other exception which you make concerning Melchisedeck, Lot, and Job, have been often answered before. That which you add concerning one kind of Proselytes among the jews, who were called Proselytes of the gate, who though they were not circumcised, were yet reckoned among the Worshippers of God, (such at were Cornelius and others) and were also within the Covenant of grace. I know not what you intent to gather from it; unless you would intimate, that they were Church-members among the Jews, although they were not circumcised; but had you said so, that the privileges and Church-membership of these Proselytes of the Gate, were as honourable as those of the Proselytes of the Covenant, your learned Readers would have smiled at you; sure there would have been no need for God to have instructed Peter by a Vision from heaven, that he should not call them (to whom he was to be sent) unclean; nor had Peter been ever put to have made his apology for going in to Cornelius and his company, if these uncircumcised Proselytes of the Gate had been reputed Church-members among the Jews. Next you grant, The jews indeed had that privilege to have their children reckoned in the outward administration, as branches of the O live by their birth, which the Gentiles have not. But if we Gentiles have it not, then are not we I pray you, straitened in that particular? And I demand further, when we are graffed in, and so naturalised with them, do we not partake of all the fatness or privileges of the Olive with them? what Scripture ever denied it? I demand yet further, did the many ten thousands of Jews who were baptised in the Apostles days, by their coming under this best administration of the Covenant, and thereby kept their former growing in the Olive with advantage; did they thereby deprive their Children of that which you say was their natural privilege? if you think so, produce your evidence to prove it; if they were not, than it seems the Jews who believed in Christ, and kept their station, had a greater privilege for their children, than the Gentiles who grow together with them, have for their children.  
I added, Let any man show out of the Scripture, where our privileges under the Gospel are cut short in any of these things, and in particular for the case in hand, concerning our Infants right to the Covenant and seal of it; once we are sure the Infant-childrens of all Covenanters were within the Covenant, and the sedle also belonged to them: and by virtue of the Covenant (which is still the same) 〈◊〉 pled their interest in it; let any show when and where this was taken away. You answer, it is unreasonable to require this at your hands, to show what you do not avouch: you go not about to expunge Infants of believers out of the Covenant of Grace; and you see no cause to believe me, who affirm that once they were within the Covenant, etc. I reply, but do not you avouch, That the Infants of the Jews had this peculiar privilege, and birthright to be under the administration of the Covenant which ours have not; which you know is the only thing controverted betwixt us: may not I boldly say, That once the Infants of all Covenanters had this privilege? may I not also exact of you to show when and where this was taken away? who though you go not about to expunge them out of the book of life, yet you expressly expunge them out of visible membership, while you say, the Jews Infants had it, and ours have it not.  
Lastly, I added, who ever will go about to deprive them of it, to cut off such a great part of the comfort of believing Parents, must produce clear testimonies before they can persuade believers to part with either of them, either right to the Covenant, or to the seal of the Covenant; because next to the glory of God, and the salvation of their own souls; their Infant's interest in the Covenant, is one of the greatest benefits believers have from the Covenant 
A great a bridgment of our privileges to have our children left out of the Covenant.  of grace, even to have their Children belong to God's family and Kingdom, and not to the Devils; Children being the greatest treasure of their Parents, and the salvation of their children's souls, the greatest treasure in their children; and therefore to exclude them out of that society or visible standing where salvation is ordinary, is so great a loss, or eclipsing of their comfort, a● whoever would make them yield to it, had need produce very strong evidence; and much more I said in my Sermon to this purpose. You answer, Here I am upon my advantage ground, in a vein of Oratory, and on a subject, of all others, aptest to move affections; to wit, Parent's tenderness to their children. I confess in this point, I stand upon a vantage ground (not in Oratory, to which I pretend not, but) in point of truth, had I only spoken words without weight, you could and would have discovered their emptiness, and scoffed at them sufficiently; you make several small exceptions which I shall briefly touch: as, First, That I touch something too near upon the Popish Opinion; as if I might be guessed to symbolise with that Opinion of the Papists, who judge all unbaptized infants to perish; which is not worth the answering. Then you demand What comfort do we give Parents, which the Antipaedobaptists do not give them as well as we; or what discomforts in truth do they give them, which we do not? I answer, the difference is very great, you leave them in the state of Infidels, we in the condition the Jews children were in while they were the people of God; we account them actually belonging to the visible kingdom of Christ, you actually to belong to the visible kingdom of the Devil; we leave them under the benefit of that promise, I will be the God of thee and of thy feed, you acknowledge no more promise for them, then for the children of Turks: it may be these things are of no account to you, but I doubt not but they will be with your unprejudiced Reader.  
I next proceeded to the main and only Objection made against this whole Argument, which is this, There is no command, 
Sect. 12. Ans. to the main Objection.  no express institution, or clear example in all the New Testament, of baptising of Infants; and in administration of Sacraments, we are not to be led by our own reason, or grounds of seeming probabilities, but by the express order of Christ, and no otherwise. You say, this is indeed the main Objection, and without answering it, all that I have said is to little purpose. But Sir, did not you formerly grant, that upon the proving of my two first Conclusions the whole cause depended? if therefore those Conclusions remain firm, there is enough already said to the purpose.  
You add, Unless this Objection be removed, the practice of baptising infants will never be acquitted from Will-worship, and that the Prelatists will show virtual commands from analogy of the Ceremonial Law of the Jews, and Traditions Ecclesiastical, as ancient as ours for Paedobaptism, for their Prelacy, Holy days, Surplice, etc. And therefore if I stand not to i● here, I must yield up my weapons. Sure you think you are here like to get some advantage, you speak so big, but by this time I have had such sufficient experience of your strength, that I much fear not your great words.  
First, for the point of Will-worship, I shall desire you to prove this Conclusion, That all things belonging to Christian worship, even in the circumstances of it, even the ages and sexes of the Persons to whom the Ordinances are to be applied, must be expressly set down in the new Testament; if you prove not this, you say nothing to the purpose, for this is our very case. I have already showed the falseness of it, in the point of the Christians Sabbath; for though the Ceremonial Worship, which was a type of Christ, be wholly abolished, yet not every thing which concerns all Worship which must have an institution, is abolished. And for the plea which the Bishops and others may pretend from the analogy of the Ceremonial Law; when you show how they will raise their Arguments (which possibly you have more skill and experience to do than I have) as plainly as I do for Infant-baptisme, you may possibly prevail with the Reader in their behalf. And when you show as much Ecclesiastical Antiquity for Prelacy, Holidays, Surplice, etc. I shall believe your Reading to be greater, than I can yet be persuaded of, that you have seen some such Monuments of Antiquity, which the Prelatical Party could never yet light upon. But I proceed with you. I first granted, That there is no express syllabicall command for baptising of Infants, no express example where Children were baptised. Sure (say you) this is a shrewd sign that I am not like to make good my ground, having yielded thus much. And why so I pray? your very next words leave me ground enough, when you say, That if it be made good by good consequence, it is sufficient: what need was there then of this idle scoff? I added, Many other points of high concernment, are not expressly laid down in the New Testament, a● forbidden degrees of marriage, Laws against Polygamy, the Law of a weekly Sabbath, etc. You answer, In mere positive Worship, it must be so, it must have either Precept or Apostolical example, equivalent to a precept found in the New Testament, else it is will-worship, and this say you is our case in hand; I answer as before, there is no absolute necessity that every circumstance of an Ordinance, or the several Sexes or ages to whom an Ordinance ought to be applied, must be thus set down in the New Testament, this is sufficiently cleared Part 2. Sect. 8. and part 3. Sect. 1. As for the forbidden degrees of marriage, you say, there is one branch mentioned and censured in the New Testament, viz. the incestuous Corinthians case, and that is, say you, a fin against a moral commandment; but how would you laugh at such a consequence in another; a man may not marry his father's wife, a thing which by the light of nature was abborred amongst the Heathens, Ergo, all the degrees of forbidden marriage in Moses Laws stand firm? The like say you against Polygamy, there is proof against it, Matth. 19 5. 9 But is this an express prohibition of it? must you not be compelled to go by a consequence to bring it in, which is all I contend for? For that of the Sabbath you refer your Reader to Sect. 8. Part 2. whither I also most willingly send him, and leave it to his impartial judgement whether the advantage lie not clearly on my side. I added, there is no express command for children of Believers, when they are grown, that they should be instructed and baptised, no express command or example where women received the Lord's Supper, good consequence I acknowledge there is, but no syllabicall or express mention of it; but say you, there is express mention of women's receiving the Sacrament, Let a man examine himself, 1 Cor. 11. 8. where the Greek word comprehends both sexes, but doth that Greek word, where ever it is used, signify both sexes? you will not offer to say it, I deliver to you what I received from the Lord, Vers. 23. that, say you, is a command to the whole Church, which consisted of women as well as men, etc. But Sir, if any man were disposed to wrangle with you, might he not in your own words do it, and say, all these expressions must be limited pro subject a materia? I grant all this is good by consequence, but not in express terms; the same say I for Infants, you grant all disciples may be baptised, for that you say there is an express command; yourself also grant, that regenerate Infants may be called disciples, I grant this a good Argument by consequence, that such Infants may be baptised; and if I have proved or can prove, that Infants of believers by their birth privilege have a right to be esteemed visible Disciples, then by your own g●ant, by a good consequence they also may be baptised; and I undertake to justify that Infants of believers are visible Disciples, as truly as regenerate Infants are invisible disciples. I add further, they who are visible Covenanters are to receive the visible sign, Ergo, Infants (who have been at large proved to be visible Covenanters) are to receive Baptism which is the visible sign of it: these things are fully cleared already, it is apparent there is as clear a command for Baptism to be the initial seal under this administration, as ever there was for Circumcision under that administration; and as good evidence that our children are to be reckoned to the Covenant, as there was for theirs, and no exception in the word put in against them. Is not here then good consequence, that therefore they are to have the Seal administered to them? suppose when Paul. said let a man examine himself, and so let him eat●, that there had been no women there then amongst them, would not this command by consequence have reached women as well as men? if this qualification was found in them that they could have examined themselves, must the command necessarily express all sexes, ages or conditions, or else not reach them? these things I mention, as consequences parallel to these which yourself infist upon. I added, we by good consequence have sufficient command and example for Infant● Baptism: to which you answer, I should have said jeer, I fetch such a 
The command of Circumcision reacheth us by analogy.  compass, that you imagine my attempt will prove but a Mouse from the Mountains' travel; I perceive you know not how you should possess your Reader with prejudice, if you should not now and then interline a confident scoff, but let's try the particulars, my first was, Abraham who received the Covenant had a command to seal his children with the initial seal, because his children were in Covenant with him. Now because what concerned the substance of the Covenant is always the same, and what concerned them then who were in Covenant as they were Covenanters, the same concerns us equally with them as we are Covenanters, what concerned them in reference only to their administration was peculiar to themselves, as that which concerns the manner of our administration is peculiar to us; it thence follows that the same command which was laid upon them in their administration in all those things which properly related to the substance or spiritual thing intended in that administration, by a just analogy and proportion, binds us as well as them, I said, this our Divines maintain against the Papists, that God's commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, and were not accidental to them, my meaning being plainly this, that all God's Commands and Institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews as touching their general nature of being Sacraments and seals of the Covenant, and as touching their use and end, do bind us in our Sacraments, because in these they are the same. To speak yet more plainly, if I can, there are in the Sacraments these two things to be distinguished, the general nature, end, and use of a Sacrament to seal the Covenant of God by some sensible sign; and secondly, the manner of administration of these signs, as they refer to Christ to be exhibited, or to Christ already exhibited. The first concerns rem ipsam, the thing itself, which I called in my Sermon the Substance; the other which concerns the peculiar way or manner of doing it in reference to Christ not yet come, or to Christ already come; that in my Sermon I called Accidental; now when I say that Gods commands about their Sacraments bind us, my meaning never was to assert, that the ritual part of their Sacraments do remain in the least particle, or that we are tied to practise any of those things, but only that there is a general and analogical nature, wherein the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament do agree; and that in these things, our Divines do argue from their Sacraments to our Sacraments; thus 
Chamier de Sacramentis, Vet. T●st. cap. 1.  Chamier, Catholici▪ docent convenire Sacramenta vetera cum novis, omnibus, iis capitibus quae sunt de Sacramenti natura; Protestants do teach that the Sacraments of the Old Testament do agree with the Sacraments of the New in all things which concern the nature of a Sacrament, and yet saith he, our very senses teach us that the external rites of their Sacraments do differ from ours; So Amesius, quaecunque de Circumcisione dicuntur & spectant 
Ames. Bellar. Ene●v●de Sacrament. in genere.  ad Sacramentalem eju● naturam quam habet in communi cum reliquis Sacramentis, illarecte applicantur ad omnia Sacramenta, and adds immediately, ratio signandiest talis in circumcisione: and you know multitudes of our Divines speak to the same purpose; their Sacraments were Seals of the Covenants, so are ours, their Sacraments had a Divine institution, so have ours, their Sacraments were not empty Sacraments no more are ours, the grace accompanying their Sacraments was not included in their Sacraments, (tanquam contentum in continente) nor in ours, their Sacraments were to be administered only to them who were accounted to be in Covenant, so are ours; they had one Sacrament which most immediately and properly, was a standing Sacrament for admission into the visible Church, so have we, now in these things do our Divines use to argue by analogy and proportion from their Sacraments to ours: this was that which I intended in my Sermon, namely, That look what duty they were tied to by their Sacraments, in seeking after the spiritual part of it, look what graces they were bound to believe to be sealed unto them in their Sacraments, the same are we tied to believe in ours; these things concern us as much as they did them; but for those things which were the accidental, or (if you like not that expression) which concern only the ritual part of their Sacraments, these do no ways oblige us; Rites and Ceremonies, which were peculiar to them, are ceased, the duties, obligations, comforts and benefits which they were led to in their administration, do all remain the same to us under our administration, when the Apostle says, 
1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. explained.  1 Cor. 10. That all our fathers did eat the same spiritual meat, and drank the same spiritual drink, our Interpreters generally do agree, that by the same spiritual meat, and the same spiritual drink is meant the same with ours; So Calvin, Beza, Chamier, and who not, because say they, Eadem fuit veterum Sacramentorum & nostrorum substantia, Their Sacraments and ours were the same in substance, yet no man is so absurd, as to think that either the Manna or the water of the Rock do remain to us: such an analogical 
Ephes. 6 1, 2. explained.  Argument as this the Apostle Paul himself uses, Ephes. 6. from the fifth Commandment which in the Jews time was backed with a particular promise of living long in the Land which the Lord their God would give them; and believers now have no promise of living in the land of Canaan, yet Paul there presses a promise to us from the general scope of that promise, Honour thy father and mother, which is the first Commandment with promise, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayst live long on the earth: I endeavour the more fully to express my sense in this particular, because after your usual manner you endeavour to make my assertion senseless, and absurd, and then come to reason against a sense of your own making, and cannot be acknowledged to be mine. Now I proceed to see what you say against this Argument, First, say you, it is no undeniable argument that this must be good, because all Protestants use it, nor did I lay the weight of this upon their number or consent, but only intimated, that it is obvious and usual; if you take away the strength of the Argument, I shall not leave upon the men. Secondly, you consent not to this, that there were no other ordinary Sacraments among the jews, than Circumcision and the Passeover; you rather concur with Mr. Cudworth, that they had almost as many Sacraments as Ceremonies; I reply, whether this be right or wrong, it is nothing to the business in hand, Mr. Cudworth denies not the lawfulness of such an Argument as reasoning from the Jews Sacraments to ours, in that sense which I have here set down, yea in that very Treatise he acknowledges the Lord's Supper to succeed the Passeover in that notion of being a feast upon a Sacrifice. Thirdly, you take a great deal of pains to put a sense upon my words which I never thought of, (viz.) That the jewish Sacraments are still in force to us, that I make some things in the jewish Sacraments to be substantial, some things to be accidental, that the accidentals I would have abolished, the substantials to remain, that I show but little skill in Logic in opposing the substance of an Act, and the Accidents of it, that I would make somethings commanded by God in the Sacraments accidental, and not to be of the same weight or obligation as other things which are substantial; and finally you bring no less than ten Arguments to prove that all the jews Ceremonies▪ Rites and Sacraments, are all abrogated, substance and circumstance, whole and part. In all your ten Arguments I fully concur with you, and in that conclusion which you confute by those Arguments, I never understood by the substance of their Sacraments, the sensible signs used in the Sacraments, but rem Sacram●nti, the spiritual part of the Sacrament, or the res signata; and my Argument was never intended to be any other than that analogical Argument which is above set down, and none of your Arguments meddle with. You proceed to those particular instances I gave, in which you might have known the meaning of my Argument if you had pleased, and spared fight with your own shadow by your ten Arguments. The first, is Circumcumcision is called a Seal of the Covenant, theno● our Divines plead, our Sacraments are Seals of the Covenant. To this you except, first, you know not where Circumcision is called the Seal of the Covenant, though you acknowledge it is called the sign of the Covenant in one place, and both the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith in another place; truly Sir, I thought that the comparing of these two Scriptures together, had been sufficient to show that Circumcision was a sealing sign. Secondly, you except, though Circumcision be called so, yet that is no Argument to call our Sacraments so, though you are willing they should be called so, and you say our Sacraments are Seals of the Covenant. I reply, lay aside but this analogical Argument, and prove if you can that our Sacraments are Seals; our Sacraments are neither called signs nor seals in the New Testament, all the world must grant indeed that they are signs, but when the Papists deny our Sacraments to be Seals of the Covenant, how will you be able to prove it, if you lay aside this Argument, Circumcision was a Seal, therefore our Sacraments are Seals, ours agreeing with their in the general nature of a Sacrament? Next I said, Circumcision might be administered but once, it being the Seal of admission: therefore Baptism being also the Seal of admission may be administered but once; you answer, denying both antecedent and consequent, you know nothing, you say, but that both Circumcision, and Baptism might be administered more than once, which I hope I have sufficiently confuted in answer to Sect. 4. Part. 2. And secondly, say you, had there been a command to circumcise but once, it would not follow that therefore a person may be baptised but once; but when this is proved that Baptism succeeds Circumcision to be the initial Seal, which yourself cannot deny, it must then follow, that a man may be baptised but once, no more than he may be circumcised but once, because where there is the same reason of a command or practise, there must be the same practice. I added, that Circumcision was to be administered upon the eighth day only, was an accidental thing, and therefore binds not, meaning that it had some peculiar relation to that manner of administration, and had nothing common either to the nature of a Sacrament in general, or to the end and use of that Sacrament as it was the Seal of admission; you answer, if reason may rule the roast, there is more reason that Circumcising on the eighth day should rather belong to the substance of the Covenant, then but once circumcising, both because it was commanded by God, and typified, as some conceive, Christ's resurrection on the eighth day. I reply, if you please but once to understand, that by the substance I understand the res signata, the spiritual part of the Sacrament, you will no longer insist upon making every thing a substantial part of the Sacrament which God hath made a part of the outward administration only; Indeed if Circumcising upon the eighth day had had any such spiritual meaning of Christ's resurrection upon the eighth day, you had spoke something to the purpose; but had I pleaded any such Type in it, as that Circumcision was to be upon the eighth day, because Jesus Christ was to rise the first day of the week, you would have laughed at me though Cyprian had joined with me, and told me as you do here, men's conceits are voine without the light of the word. My next instance was, from the Passeover, which being yearly to be repeated binds us to a repetition of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which succeeds the Passeover, it being the Sacrament of spiritual nourishment and growth, as the other was for birth and entrance; but that the Passeover was to be eaten in an evening, and upon one set evening in the year, was accidental and so binds not us. You answer, here are a heap of dictates, and you as confidently dictate the contrary, you grant that the Passeover was to be yearly repeated, but that this yearly repetition belonged to the substance of the Covenant, or that this binds us to a frequent use of the Sacrament of the Lords supper, you utterly deny, but I doubt not, that the Reader who knows that by belonging to the substance of the Covenant I meant nothing but the end and use of it, to be a standing memorial of that deliverance, and a typical representation of Jesus Christ, and our deliverance by him, will not reject this, because you magisterially deny it, That our Lords Supper comes in the room and stead of it, there is such a clear demonstration of it, from the very manner of the first Institution, and the ends and uses of it; Christ our Passeover being then to be sacrificed for us, and we in this service showing it forth; and in this parallel there is such a harmony of consent, that I intent not to lead the Reader into a digression about it. As for the maintaining of Easter and such superstitious customs, my discourse gives not so much as one hint for it; yea in my Sermon I expressly showed, That that Circumstance of once a year belonged only to the Jews administration. And I pleaded for a frequency of it, but because you love to knit knots, for others to untie, you demand, since we have so clear an Example, Acts 20. 7. of the disciples coming together the first day of the week 〈◊〉 eat the Lords Supper, and that that Action gave denomination to the whole service, and by the relation of Justin Martyr and others, this was the received practice in the primitive Churches, whether we are not tied to have 〈◊〉 Sacrament every Lord's day in the week: I answer, though I conceive no absolute tie to have it so, yet when it can be with convenience, I know no reason why it may not be so: but you making this one of your great Arguments, to prove the Institution of the Lords day, (viz.) An Apostolical example, and practise of the primitive Churches, whether you be not further engaged in this point to a Sacrament every Lord's day, I leave to yourself to consider. You demand further, since the Apostle does so expressly, and distinctly in his relation of the Institution mention the time of it, you would know of the Assembly of Divines, especially such of them, as have been earnest for sitting at the Sacrament, how we can be loose to receive it at another time; I answer, certainly the Assembly would answer you, as Cyprian did in the like case, that the time was an occasional circumstance; and that the clear examples recorded in the New Testament of the Disciples partaking of the Lords Supper at any of their Church-meetings, whether by night or by day, doth abundantly manifest it: nor can I conceive why you put this question to the Assembly, unless it be to show you are not pleased with the dispute about sitting at the Communion, it seems you still like kneeling better, for the thing itself, you either judge thus of it, that it was an occasional circumstance, and so you pick quarrels even against your own light and principles, or if you think it a binding circumstance, whence comes it that you use it not? You have yet another quarrel about that expression of mine, in caliing Baptism the seal of our extrance and new birth, and thence you would insinuate, that I deny Baptism to be a Sacrament of our nourishment and continuance, and you tell me that's but a dictate like the rest, and somewhat akin to Bellarmine and the rest of the Papists, who make the efficacy of Baptism to extend not to the remission of the sins of our whole life, but of original sin only. I answer, that Baptism is a Sacrament of our Birth and entrance I have proved, and yourself grant, that it is not of use afterward I never spoke, never thought; but as for my being akin to Bellarmine's assertion, if your assertions were no more akin to Socinus, Servetus, Martion, etc. than mine are to the Papists, it were better for you.  
My next Instance was from our Christian Sabbath; the 
The same Argument which is good by consequence for our Sabbath, is good for Infant-Baptisme.  fourth Commandment binds us for the substance, as much as ever it bound the Jews; there God once for all separated one day of seven to be sacred to himself; and all the world stood bound by virtue of that Commandment in all ages, to give unto God that one day of seven, which should be of his own choosing, though only the seventh day of the week be named in the fourth Commandment. Now (said I) God having put an end to the Saturday Sabbath, and surrogated the first day of the week in stead thereof, to be the Lords day, we need no new Commandment for keeping of the Lords day, being tied by the fourth Commandment to keep that day of seven which the Lord should choose: And though no day be mentioned in the fourth Commandment, but only the seventh from the Creation, yet our Divines think it no absurdity to reason thus, Thou shalt keep the Sabbath, thou shalt rest the seventh day, that is, thou shalt rest the seventh day from the Creation, while the Lord continues that day to be his Sabbath, and thou shalt rest the first day of the week, when the Lord chooses that to be his Sabbath; in like manner I say of the Sacrament of Baptism. To this you answer, You refer yourself to what you have before declared, Part 2. Sect. 8. And thither also I refer the Reader, where I have vindicated this answer from you. I further add, you neither there nor here deny this Argument from a consequence, to be sufficient for practise of some things in the Worship of God, which are not expressly laid down in the New Testament; only you add here, I forget the mark at which I shoot, the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the jews Sacraments. I reply, first, I might as well reckon the seventh day from the Creation, among the Jews Sacraments, as you may say the Jews had as many Sacraments as Ceremonies. Secondly, I never numbered the Sabbath amongst Sacraments, but because the Sabbath belongs to the instituted Worship of God, as well as the Sacrament, and requires its institution to be at least as clear as this about Infant-Baptisme, which touches but a circumstance of age, this Argument from the one to the other, will appear to the impartial Reader, to be too strong for you to answer.  
Next follows, the blow which will tumble down all, if yourself may be believed: Mark Reader how heavy a one it is. I said when God made the Covenant with Abraham, and promised for his part to be the God of him and his seed, what God promised to Abraham, we claim our part in it, as the children of Abraham; and what God required on Abraham's part for the substance of obedience we stand charged with as well as Abraham, to believe, to love the Lord with all our heart, to walk before God in uprightness, to instruct and bring up our Children for God, not for ourselves, nor for the Devil; to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will, to train them up under Ordinances and Institutions of Gods own appointment. All these things God commanded Abraham, and we by virtue of that Covenant (being Covenanters with Abraham) stand bound to all these duties, though there were no express reviving these Commandments in any part of the New Testament: and therefore consequently that command of God to Abraham, which bound his seed of the Jews to train up their children in that manner of Worship which was then in force, binds believers now to train up their children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force.  
To all this you answer, supposing I mean the spiritual part of the Covenant to be that which God promised to Abraham, and the persons claiming to be believers; this passage you grant to be true, because these are morell duties. Well then, the deadly blow is not yet given; I mean this which you suppose: and I mean more than this, I mean that what Abraham might claim as an invisible believer, we may claim as invisible believers; what he might claim as a visible believer or Professor, we claim the same as visible Professors; and so what he stood obliged unto as a visible believer or professor, the same are we obliged to; I mean all this, and you say nothing against it but the next passage is that which kills all. I said, and the same command which enjoined Abraham to seal his children with the seal of the Covenant, enjoins us to seal ours with the seal of the Covenant; and that command of God which expressly bound Abraham to seal his with the sign of circumcision, which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore, for the time, doth virtually bind us to seal ours with the sign of Baptism, which is the Sacrament now in force, and succeeds into the room of the other by his own appointment. Your answer is, This Consequence is inferred from 
The rest of God's commands to Abraham, teach us.  a Judaizing principle, without Scripture proving either principle or Conclusion, whereas you have brought ten Arguments out of the Scripture against it; and that the meaning of the Concluclusion must be, that we are still bound to circumcise, that our males must be circumcised at the eighth day, that by no rule of Divinity, Logic, Grammar, or Rhetoric, any man can construe this Command, Cut off the foreskin of the males upon the eighth day; that is, let a Preacher of the Gospel baptise young Infants, male or female, by as good Consequence I might say, thou art Peter, and upon this rock: Ergo, the Pope is Monarch of the Church; or, arise Peter kill and eat, Ergo, the Pope may deprive Princes. So then, the din● of your mortal blow lies in this, that you magisterially call it a Judaizing principle; that you have brought ten Arguments to prove that Moses Ceremonies & Rites do not bind Christian men, but that they are all abrogated, substance and circumstance, whole and part; that this virtual consequence from the command of Circumcision to baptism cannot be made good either by Divinity or Logic; but sure, if this be all you can say against it, the Consequent and Conclusion will easily recover of this wound. When I said but just now, That Gods Command to Abraham and the Jews, to train up their children in that manner of Worship which was then in force, binds us now to train up our children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force. You granted this rule was true, if meant of believers. I pray what difference is there betwixt this consequence and that, especially, it being clear in the Scripture, that Baptism succeeds Circumcision as the initial seal of the Covenant, and our children have the same right with theirs to be reckoned to the Covenant: if it be a good consequent, That because Abraham was bound to train up his Children in conformity to those institutions which were then in force, because their children had right to be so trained up; therefore we are bound to train up our children in conformity to the present institutions, because our children have right to be so trained up; is not this other consequence I say as good, That because God commanded Abraham to administer to his children, the seal of admission into Covenant, because his children were to be accounted to belong to that administration, we are to do the like to our children now, because they belong to this administration. I say further, because Abraham and the Jews were to train up their children to celebrate the seventh day of the week to be God's Sabbath, we therefore are bound by virtue of that Commandment to train up ours to keep the first day of the week as God's Sabbath: which consequence yourself grant to be good, though the thing be a part of instituted Worship, and no express command or example of it in the new Testament. I appeal to all Divinity & Logic, whether this consequence from the command of Circumcision to Baptism be not every way as strong & clear. As for your ten Arguments to prove the abolition of the Jewish Sacraments & ceremonies, they are all agreed to, & are brought nothing to he purpose in hand. I have already showed that this argument from the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism, and the reason, end, and use of them both stands still in force, though Circumcision itself be abolished; and I doubt not but the impartial Reader will acknowledge this argument to be as good, Circumcise your children, because your children have right to this initial seal; Ergo, by analogy let Christians baptise their children, who have the same right to the initial seal; as this, ye jews keep the Sabbath on the seventh or last day of the week, Ergo, ye Christians keep the Sabbath on the first of the week. As for your ridiculous consequences which you put upon me, of, thou art Peter, Ergo, the Pope is Monarch of the Church, etc. I answer only this, I shall desire you in your next, to deal with your Adversary by solid Arguments, rather than seek to render him ridiculous by jeers and scoffs, lest in the end you meet with some adversary who may dress you in your own kind, which I have no mind to do; whether I have not made good this command of Circumcising Infants to prove baptising of Infants, by good consequence, I leave the Reader to judge; and proceed to try your strength against the next.  
Another command by good consequence I gathered out of Mat. 28. compared with Mar. 16. 15. Gal. 3. 89. Rom. 1. 16, 17. 
Sect. 13. Mat. 28. A command for Infant Baptism by consequence.  where our Saviour bids his Disciples go and teach all Na●ions, baptising them, etc. Wherein I observed two things. First, what they were to do; viz. to teach the whole Covenant, the Covenant made with Abraham, whereof this was one branch, I will be the God of thee, and of thy seed; they were also to baptise, that is, to administer Baptism as a seal of the Covenant, to all who received the Covenant. Secondly, we have the persons to whom they were to do this, all Nations; whereas before the Church was tied to one Nation, one Nation only were disciples; now their Commission was extended to make all Nations Disciples, every Nation which should receive the faith, should be to him now, as the peculiar Nation of the jews had been in times past; now we know when that one Nation of the jews were made Disciples, and circumcised, their Children were made Disciples (made to belong to God's school) and circumcised with them, etc. To this you answer, First, that promise, I will be the God of thee and thy seed, that it should be thus interpreted, the seed of believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents, is a new Gospel, no older than Zwinglius. But I have sufficiently proved that this was good Gospel in the Apostles days, and in the times of the Fathers of the Primitive Church. Secondly, concerning the persons who were to be baptised, every Nation, or all Natitions: to this, because it is like to trouble you, you bring forth your old artifice of framing many senses, whether by every Nation, be meant believers of every Nation, than you grant the sense is good: or, whether by Nation be meant a great or eminent part of the Nation, the Governors, and chief Cities, the representative body of a Nation. Then you fly out, and talk of baptising all within the Precinct of a Parish, a conceit which you fasten upon Cyprian, and talk of necessity of baptising by officiating Priests; and bring in the Independents, nothing to the purpose, and inquire whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or [them] refer to Nations, or Disciples, in those words of our Saviour; than you vent your Criticisms against the author of Infant-Baptisme, and undertake to show that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies to teach cum effectu, or teach till they be made Scholars; and after a long Discourse upon these things, your result is, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [them] may be meant of Disciples, and Nations respectively, Disciples of Nations, or Nations who be Disciples, but not to baptise any of them till they were Disciples. But Sir, what need all these things? the meaning is plain; by Nations, I neither mean the major part of a Nation, nor representative body of a Nation, nor the King of a Nation; but whereas before, only one Nation of the Jews were God's people in Covenant, now other Nations should be taken in likewise: and whereas before their Commission to preach and baptise was restrictive, Go not to the Gentiles or Samaritans, now he enlarges their Commission to all Nations; and wherever their Ministry should be so blessed, as to have any Nation accept the Gospel, they should be his people now, as the Jews had been in times past, according to that Evangelicall promise, Esa. 19 24. In that day shall Israel he a third with Egypt and Assyria, even a blessing 
Esay 19 24. explained.  in the midst of the Land whom the Lord of Hosts shal● bless; saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my ●ands, and Israel mine inheritance. Here is the Nation of Egypt, and the Nation of Assyria taken into Covenant as well as Israel God's inheritance; and now Abraham indeed became the Father of many Nations; so that the emphasis of this Text is in the word [Nations,] in opposition to the one Nation of the Jews; that whereas the Apostles thought they were never to go to those vile nations who were esteemed as Dogs and Swine; our Lord instructed them, That now he would pluck up the partition wall, and that the rest of the Nations should be brought within the verge of his Church, and partake of the same Covenant, which the Jews had before enjoyed as their peculiar treasure (a wonder of mercy, as the Jews themselves judged, when they came first to understand it, Act. 11. 8.) and consequently when other Nations should thus by receiving and professing the Gospel come under his wing, they should enjoy the same benefit of the Covenant with the Jews, He would henceforth be the God of them and their seed.  
Against this you except many things: First, say you, than there may be a rule assigned to know when a Nation may be called a believing Nation, but there is none: And to prove this minor, you run out at large, not when a King is baptised, nor when the representative body, nor when the greatest part are believers; and further, if the children of wicked parents in a nation may be baptised, it must be either from their descent, or place of birth, or both; if by descent, it must be either from their immediate parents, or forefathers within memory, or beyond memory; if from the place of their birth, than the children of Turks born in England may be baptised; and if the children of wicked parents may claim it, it must be from some Charter, Abraham indeed had a Charter to circumcise his, how wicked soever they should prove, but other parents have none. And here again you bring in Rom. 11. to be meant of a personal privilege by faith, which hath been before confuted. I answer to all this in a word or two, there is a known rule, viz. when a whole Nation consists of visible Professors, that Nation is to be reputed a Christian Nation; and when the major part of a people may by a figurative expression be called a Nation, that major part, if they be visible Professors, may by the same figurative expression be called a Christian Nation, a holy Nation, a separated people, whether any who having been visible Professors, and afterwards prove apostates, or be excommunicate, may have their children baptised, or whether children in right of their forefathers, or remote ancestors (when their immediate Parents are cut off from the Church) may be baptised, or whether the Infants of infidels brought up by Christians, and so adopted into their Families, may be initiated into Christianity by Baptism, whether upon the ground of federal holiness or other warrant of Scripture, are questions not belonging to our present business, therefore I pass them over.  
I added, when that one Nation of the Jews were made Disciples and circumcised, their Infants were made Disciples (made to 
What it is to make disciples.  belong to God's School) and circumcised with them, when that Nation was made Disciples in abraham's joins, and circumcised, their seed was also the same when they were taken out of Egypt, and actually made Disciples, their children were also with them. You answer, First, this supposeth that Christ bid them baptise all Nations after the manner that the jews did circumcise one Nation. Secondly, that the Nation of the jews were discipled when they were circumcised. And you say to the first Supposition, there is no ground for it, the Apostle knew Christ's meaning well enough, that th●y were to preach and then to baptise; and that there was no allusion from circumcision to Baptism, as Mr. Blake conceives. But Sir, since it is apparent that here is no commission for any new Method in their work, but only an enlargement of their commission to apply their Ministry to new persons, how could they understand our Saviour's meaning to proceed any other ways to the Gentiles, then among the Jews? Now among the Jews and Proselytes, it is apparent, that children receive the initial seal with their parents, yea, and you yourself grant that their infants were baptised when they were circumcised, though baptism was not then a Sacrament; and when it was taken into the honour of being a Sacrament, there is not one word in the Scripture of restraining it from being applied to infants as in times past, the reason of the silence of the new Testament about baptising Infants, comes afterward to be considered, when your Objection from it comes to hand.  
To the second Supposition, That the jews were discipled, and their children were discipled when they were circumcised. You say, it is such a construction of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [make disciples, as you believe no Lexicon, nor any Expositor to this day, hath ever made of that wo●d, which plainly signifies ●o to teach, as that the persons taught do learn, and accordingly profess the things taught. Sir, I pretend not to be a Critic, though you do, but I have learn●, from better Critics than yourself, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a ●abbinick phrase, and from their use of it, it is best to be understood, and with them it signifies to admit Scholars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a familiar manner of speech among them for to admit Scholars, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to get or retain a Master; now this admission of Scholars was not quia erant docti, sed, ut essent; and there is this difference with them about this matter, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to admit Scholars to be taught, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to breed Scholars, or to make them learned. And if you please to consult the Learned Spanbemius, in his Dubia Evangelica, upon this very place, wherein he vindicates it from the Anabaptists, he will tell you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies not only to teach, but to make disciples; which (saith he in this place) is done by baptising and teaching; therefore (saith he) the sending forth of disciples in this place, is showed or laid down, First, from the end of their sending. Secondly, from the several acts they are to do to to attain this end. The end of their sending is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to make Disciples; the actions whereby they are to attain this end, are baptising and teaching: and he gives this good reason for this his Analysis, because if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should simply signify only to teach, there would be found a tautology in Christ's words; thus, Go teach all Nations, baptising them, teaching them. The sense therefore (saith he) of Christ's words, is this, Go ye, make disciples to me out of all Nations by baptising and teaching; and this making disciples, suo modo infantibus etiam aptari poterat; quando enim parents, etc. For when parents do give their names to Christ for themselves and their families, their whole house is discipled, their children as well as themselves. By this time I hope you may be persuaded that baptising may well be rendered discipling. And among the Jews, to become a disciple, was not by being first taught, and then initiated into a Master, but is meant of being initiated into a Master, to be taught by him; so all Israel was baptised into Moses, 1 Cor. 10. not as already instructed, but to be instructed and guided by him for the future; so joseph of Arimathea, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 27. 57 discipled in himself, entered himself into Christ's school; so the blind man to the Pharisees, john 9 will ye be his Disciples, will ye profess him, will ye be initiated into him? the very first day any one initiated themselves to learn, they were called Disciples.  
Further you say, if the Apostles had understood our Saviour's command thus, Disciple all nations baptising them, that is, admit the Infants of all nations to baptism, as the Jews did the males of that one nation to Circumcision, they might have saved themselves a great deal of labour of preaching before Baptism, and of baptising females, and would have left us some precedent of such a practice. I reply, why the baptising of Infants of Believing Parents should spare any Preachers the pains of teaching grown men, who are infidels before they are converted, doth wholly transcend my capacity, because the Infants of Proselytes were to be Circumcised with their Parents, therefore the Jews might spare the labour of preaching to grown men before they circumcised them, this is a most wild consequence; or why the virtual and analogical arguing from circumcision to baptism, should be brought as an Argument against baptising of women, hath as little reason in it; there being now under the Gospel, in reference to this Seal of admission, neither male nor female. Whereas you add, had they done it they would have left some precedent of such a practice; whether by good consequence they have not left us some evidence of it, is the question we are now debating. I added, in every nation the children make a great part of that nation, and are always included under every administration to the nation, whether promises or threatenings, privileges or burdens, mercies or judgements, unless they be excepted, whereof I gave divers instances in my Sermon; you answer, the Lord hath plainly given a caution in Scripture for the leaving out Infants in this administration, according to ordinary rule, in that he directs them to baptise Disciples upon preaching, he excludes Infants, etc. and when Christ and John baptised only such, this practice excludes others. I answer, by what rule then durst you baptise an Infant known to you to be regenerate, since they cannot be Disciples upon preaching, if you say you cannot do it by ordinary rule, show us (I pray) your extraordinary; if you answer they are Disciples, therefore they may be baptised; I answer, the Infants of believers are visible Disciples, they visibly belong to the kingdom, family, school of Christ, as I have abundantly proved already; any manifestation of Gods that persons belong to his Covenant is to yourself a sufficient ground of accounting them such, either a promise, or pouring out the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, (though they are no infallible signs of inward sanctification) or confession of faith or of repentance, are warrant sufficient for us to baptise them, now the promise of God to believing parents to be the God of them and of their seed, and his owning them as persons belonging to his Church, is as real a manifestation of it as the other signs of receiving extraordinary gifts, external profession, etc. either are or can be. And whereas you add that Christ's and John's Baptising such, and no other as made a visible profession, is exclusive to all others. I answer, first, it is no where said they baptised no others; secondly, I deny that consequence, this is not an exclusive rule, the practice and example of Christ, and John is sufficient to make an affirmative or positive rule, they baptised such, therefore we may baptise such, but it's not exclusive, that therefore we may baptise no other, and the reason is plain, they possibly might not meet with all persons and occasioons, and so their practice is a good rule, not a full rule; I shall give one instance, we read not before the tenth of the Acts that either Christ's Apostles or john the Baptist baptised any proselytes of the gate, or that they baptised any (as you say) until they made actual confession of their faith and repentance, or that there was any rule given, that the receiving the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost should without any other confession be a sufficient warrant to Baptise any, yet Peter upon the very pouring out of those gifts, without requiring any further confession either of faith or repentance, baptised Cornelius and all his company: in one word, any word or act of God declaring that such and such belong to his visible Church, is a sufficient warrant without any danger of will-worship, and this we have abundantly for the Infants of believing parents, we have therefore here nothing to do with a mixture of wine and water, salt and cream and spittle, they are impertinent to our business, and you bring them in to no purpose; all your discourse of will-worship which you thus often repeat, reaches not the point in hand in the least tittle; the Sacrament of Baptism is an ordinance of his own appointment, and by his appointment may be applied to all such as himself doth manifest to be in the number of those who belong to his visible Church, what course soever himself pleases to take to manifest it, whiles we keep within these bounds, we are therein out of the danger of will-worship. I added, it behoved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration, that they might know his mind if he had intended to leave them out, which that ever he did in word or d●ed, cannot be found in the Scripture; to this you answer, it behoved the Lord to give a precept to put them in into this new administration if he intended to have them in, which that ever he did you cannot find; I reply, but I have abundantly proved that they always had a right to be accounted as belonging to his Church, to be reputed visible members, and therefore need no new putting in: if God once bestow upon a people a Sabbath to be a sign between him and them, they may lay claim to that Sabbath upon what day of the week soever he please to appoint it: the like is to be said here, while the Lord will own any to be visible members of his Church, they have right to the administration, be it new or old, if they be capable of it, and no bar put in against them by himself. That which follows in your book, page 133. about children's being taken in with their parents, and included unless excepted, and of being under the former administration, and so under this, by parity of reason, hath been abundantly spoke already. I added, our Infants are capable of being Disciples as well as the Infants of Jews and Proselytes, you grant it to be true, and I ask no more for ours than they had for theirs, and though they be not capable of receiving actual instruction from men, yet they are capable of Gods own teaching even in their Infancy as much as the Jews Children were, which is sufficient for my purpose▪ I added, in Christ's dialect to belong to Christ, and to be a Disciple i● all one, and cleared it by some Text in the Margin, you answer only this, that though Mr. Blakepr●●●ph in this n●tion, yet it is a triumph beford victory, and that the Text cited by me spoke not of little ones in respect of age, and some of them mention not little ones at all, but what's this to the purpose, when the intent was only to prove this notion or expression that to be a Disciple and belong to Christ is all one. Lastly, I argued from Act. 15. 10. to show that Children may be called 
Acts 15. 10. explained and vindicated.  Disciples, because they upon whose necks those false teachers would have put the yoke of Circumcision, are called Disciples, and to be called Disciples, and it is apparent that they would have put it upon the Infants of believers as well as upon the believers themselves, because they would have imposed it after the manner of Moses Law, and pressed that Law still to be in force; you answer, you see no necessity from this to call Infants Disciples, and you first deny the major, that all are to be called Disciples upon whose necks they would have put that yoke. To which I answer, without any further reply I leave it to the Reader to judge, only I thank you for the reason you allege why you deny the major, because it is not said they would put it upon Disciples only: I hope you will receive the same law you give, and therefore will rest satisfied, when yourself do plead, john's and Christ's Disciples required confession of saith and fins of those whom they baptised, and when Christ bid his Apostles and Disciples first to teach, then to baptise, I shall answer, it is no where said, they baptised only such, or were to baptise only such. Secondly, you answer that this yoke of Circumcision which necessitated them to keep Moses Law to salvation was not put upon Infants, but upon brethren who were taught the necessity of it. I answer, than Paul himself was much mistaken, who said, that every one that was Circumcised was bound to keep Moses Law; and certainly Paul meant that which these false teachers alleged, even Circumcision imposed after the manner of Moses. Lastly, you make yourself merry with Mr. Blake, as if he alluding to Esa. 49. 22. of bringing sons and daughters upon their shoulders to Christ, etc. had alleged that Text nothing to the purpose; I confess I am not satisfied, that that Text is clear to the purpose, but I am fully satisfied, that you often make a noise with Texts less to the purpose, as in bringing Acts. 19 for rebaptisation, 1 Cor. 7. 34. to prove holiness to be meant of Chastity, and many others.  
My next instance was from the forementioned place, Acts. 2. whence I showed the Children of such as believe and are baptised are taken into Covenant, and therefore by good consequence 
Sect. 14. Acts 2. 39 holds forth a command for Infant Baptism by good consequence.  are to receive the Seal of the Covenant, and that that Text not only shows that they are within the Covenant, but also that a right to baptism is a consequence of being within the Covenant; Your answer is to this effect, that you have already answered this plaoe, and that it is so far from proving this, for which I allege it, that it proves the contrary; I cheerfully refer the Reader to my vindication of this place, Sect 6. Part 3. I added, we have likewise examples enough by good consequence. First, 
Examples of Infant Baptism by good consequence.  I showed that the Gospel took place by bringing in whole households as the former administration also did; you allege to the contrary several examples page 138, 139. that it was not constantly so, nor did I ever say it was so always or constantly either among Jews or Christians; you allege the thousands converted in the Acts, the City of Samaria, and others, yet no mention of the whole households; yet possibly their whole households did come in with them, the Scripture speaks nothing to the Contrary, how ever I allege it not, nor doth the cause depend upon it; I alleged many households who were baptised, Cornelius and his household, the Jailor and his household, the household of Stephanus, of Crispus, of Aristobulus, of Narcissus and several others; to all which you answer, this must be interpreted by other places, which when they express the haptizing of the household, they express also the believing or receiving of the word by the whole household, and that sometimes the house is put for the people of growth in the house; but who taught you it must be so interpreted? he that will may force such an interpretation upon himself, and it is hard to open the eyes of a prejudiced man, but I fear not, try it when you will, that you shall never find so good evidence out of the household eating the Passeover, Exod. 12. thereby to prove that women did eat the Passeover, as this proves that the Infants of the house were baptised, because according to your principles women might not be numbered amongst the Circumcised; and the Law was plain that no uncircumcised person might eat the Passeover, whereas on this hand for Infant's baptism, it is not to be doubted, but that there were some Infants amongst these households who were baptised, and no Law made against the baptising of them. And for your evasion that though is be sometimes said households were baptised, yet it is said these households received the word, though this might be pleaded concerning some of them, yet there is no evidence why you should speak it of all of them. And whereas you further allege, that a house is sometimes taken for the grown persons in that house▪ (though all the Scriptures which you mention are not fit instances) it may very well be granted, and hurts not me, unless you can prove that it must be so meant: I have better warrant to affirm concerning the Jailor's house, of whom it is said Paul preached to all those that were in his house, that either there were no Infants in that house, or that the preaching of the word to all in the house is to be limited pro subjecta m●teria to them who were capable of preaching, and yet the rest received baptism who were capable of it. And thus I have cleared and vindicated my first and great Argument, Infants are foedera ●●, therefore they must it 〈◊〉 they are in Covenant▪ therefore the initial 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 belongs unto them. I proceed to the second.  
My second Argument was to this effect▪ the Infants of believers even while they are Infants are made partakers of the inward gra●● of Baptisms as well as grown 〈◊〉 who are visible professors; 
Sect. 15. Argu. 2. Infants are capable of he grace whereof Baptism is a Seals.  therefore they may and aught to 〈◊〉 Baptisms, which is the outward sign of this inward grace. In your answer you grant the major, that all who partake of the inward grace may partake out of the outward sign, and that ●o Antipaedobaptist will deny this, but than you inquire what I mean by having the thing signified, and you suppose I do 〈◊〉 ●old that all Infants of believers have actually the inward grace signified by baptism; no indeed Sir, nor do I think that you conceive that all grown persons who are visible professors have it. In your answer to the minor proposition that Infants as well as grown men are partakers of the inward grace, according to your usual course, you inquire after a great many senses, whether I mean it of potential having it, or actual having it, whether I mean only some have it actually, others potentially; in one sense the argument hath four terms, in another form, the argument will conclude but for the baptising of some Infants; than you enter into a discourse upon the Lutherans, and about a book entitled, Baptismal regeneration of elect Infants, with which you say Doctor Fe●tley concurs, and of a book written by S. C. Entitled, A Christians plea for Infant's Baptism, which holds positions somewhat like the Lutherans, all which you profess you mention to discover what stuff the Pedobaptists do feed the people withal, you might have added, to work prejudice in your Readers, and to show your own reading, and to swell up a volume, otherwise quorsum haec? my meaning is as plain as the high way, that as Infants are to be reputed to belong to the Covenant as well as grown visible professors (which was the drift of my first Argument) so the scope of this is to show that they are in the same capacity to partake of the inward grace of the Covenant, while they are Infants, as there is of grown visible professors; and that they are not only capable of it, but many of them are actually partakers of it as well as grown men▪ and consequently that we have the same ground to look upon and judge Infants of believers to be regenerate as upon grown men by a visible profession, there being to ●s no infallible ground of certainty, but of charity, for the one no● for the other, and that their visible right to the Covenant and the many promises of God made to the seed of the faithful are as good evidences to ground this judgement upon, as the external signs which grown men can give; and therefore whereas you say, that all the Infants of believers▪ or the Infants of believers in as much they are the Infants of believers, are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptism, else the Argument will not serve for my purpose; I utterly deny, that this is the Conclusion to be proved, or that my argument is not to the purpose, unless I undertake to prove this; for I argue in the like case from grown men who are visible Professors, thus; All who are partakers of the inward grace of Baptism, may and aught to partake of the outward sign and seal, but visible Professors are partakers, etc. This minor is liable to the same exceptions that the other is, for who knows not that many visible Professors have not the invisible grace, That many are called, when but few are chosen? and yet yourself do hold, that we may de side, out of faith & assurance, that we do it according to Gods will, apply the outward sign to them, though we have nothing but charity to make us conceive the inward graces to be in them. Neither can we by the judgement of charity think that all visible Professors taken together in a lump have the inward grace; the Scripture (which is the rule of our charity) having declared the contrary, our charity only warrants us to judge of every single person, when possibly we may know no more against the one, then against the other, though we know there are some false hearted amongst them: The same is to be said for Infants; and this I proved out of the Scripture, Mark 10. To such belongs the kingdom of God; and in my Sermon I 
Mark 10. vindicated from Mr. Tombs exceptions.  vindicated this Text from the glosses which the Anabaptists would put upon it: your exceptions against it are such as these, it is possible they were not very little ones; possibly our Saviour meant not of them, but of such as they, for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these: possibly, horum & similium, of th●se and the like: possibly, they were not the children of believers: possibly, it is meant only of elect Infants, that these were elect, and should in time be called: but yet, say you, grant all, and it will not ●ence follow, that all Infants of believers have right to invisible grace; yea, it here suits better for confirmation, then for baptism; yea, that it is rather an evidence Christ would not have Infants baptised, because he ordered not th●se Infants to be baptised. But Sir, how many of these things would you have called dictates in another, assertions without proof and to how little purpose are all these things brought i●? yourself grant enough to serve my turn; you grant that the kingdom of heaven did belong to these Infants, and I intended from this instance not to prove that all Infanta of believers are made partakers of saving grace▪ but that Infants in their infantile age, are capable of inward grace, and some of them actually partakers of it; this is enough for me; and more than this cannot be said of grown men who are visible Professors. I added in my Sermon, sa one branch of a reason, that there is nothing belonging to the initiation and being of a Christian, whereof Baptism is a seal, whereof Infants are not capable, as well as grown men; as receiving the holy Ghost, union with Christ, pardon of form, regeneration, eternal life. Your answer is a scoff out of Hora●e, Amphora caepit institui, etc. I should prove, say you, that all Infants of believers are actually partakers, and in stead of this, I prove they are capable of it. Sir, this is but one part of my reason; and I undertook not to prove that all infants, but only that foam are partakers of it.  
I added, and it is further considerable, that in the working that inward grace, of which baptism is the sign and seal, all who partake of that grace, are but meers Patients; and therefore Infants are as fit subjects to have it wrought in them, as grown men; and the most grown men are in no more fitness to receive this grace, when it is given them, in respect either of faith or repentance, which they yet have, than a very little child, etc. You answer, by demanding whether I bring all this as a proof; that all infants have it, or that they are capable of it; or whether I intent it ●s a further argument, that baptism is to be given to those, who are capable of the first grace, which because Infants are as well as grown men▪ therefore they are to be baptised; but than you deny the major, for a person is not to be baptised, because he may have grace, but because he hath it. Sir, I brought it to prove that which was in hand, viz. that Infants are capable of it as well as grown men, and that some of them are partakers of it as well as grown men; and therefore their Infant-age cannot be pleaded against them, as if inward grace could not comp●tere to their present condition. And as for that you add, That baptism is to be administered, not to them who may have grace, but to them who have it. Then it seems they are all wrongly baptised who have not inward grace; and so (according to your own expression) baptism to such is as a seal set to a blank; yet you know, even the Apostles themselves baptised many who were in no better condition: and yourself afterward grant, That a Minister may defied administer this Sacrament to such as make a visible profession, though he be not assured of any inward grace. I have often proved, that a right to be reckoned to belong to the visible Church, is a sufficient warrant to administer the seal of admission. Secondly, you much trouble yourself, to find out what I mean by the first grace: whether the free favour of God, or the Covenant of grace; whether if I mean the first grace in exceution, I pitch upon justification, or regeneration, or adoption; and then inquire which is the second grace. But all this is but seeking a knot in a rush. I am persuaded all other Readers understood me to mean by the first grace, all that grace which is requifite to the being of a Christian, union with Christ, forgiveness of sin, the indwelling of the holy Ghost, as a principle of a new life; and yourself say more than once, that baptism is the sacrament of our Initiation, and that which exhibits us members both of Christ and of his Church; and therefore thus needlessly to quarrel about things wherein yourself concur with me, is too too vain. Lastly, you have somewhat to say to that of our being merely passive in our first conversion, and you tell your reader, what the Divines of great Britain said in the Synods of Dort, of some preparations going before conversion: and what Mr. Rutherford, Dr. Twisse, and Dr. Preston have delivered about this point. And after a needless showing that you have read these Authors, you grant as much as I contend for, That the taking away the be art of stone, and insusing of a principle of new life, is only God's work; and that a new heart, faith, etc. are the effects of converting grace, and that in these things we are passive: in sum, you are of my judgement in this point, that Infants are capable of new life, and some of them partakers of it: and I likewise consent with you, and those above mentioned Reverend Divines, that in God's usual way of working upon grown men, there are some preparations for conversion, before conversion itself, in which preparations men are not merely passive; but in the receiving of the principle of new life, all men are merely passive. I know you will own that expression of Augustine, Qnid agit liberum arbitrium? san●tur. I conclude this argument of baptising Infants, with a speech of Bellarmine, there is, saith he, no impediment why Infants may not be baptised; nec ex parte prohibitionis alicujus divinae, etc. neither 
Bella●. lib. 1. de Baptismo, cap. 8  from any divine prohibition, nor on the part of the Sacrament administered, nor on the part of the Minister administering, nor on the Infant's part to whom it is to be administered, nor on the Church's part in which it is administered. Paedobaptism therefore is rightly continued in the Christian Church.   

PART. IV.  
I Proceed now briefly to examine what you have said against that which you are pleased to make the fourth 
Sect. 1. Answers ●o Objections against Infant-Baptisme.  Part of my Sermon, though I know no reason of this your Analysis: Had I indeed made this an answer of all the objections which I undertook to answer, you might have called it so; but you know well enough, that I intended here only to satisfy these Objections which lie most properly against this second argument, as before I answered what was most properly objected against the first argument; however, I shall take it as I find it, and examine what strength you have added to these Objections.  
The first Objection I undertook to answer, was to this purpose, Though Infants are capable of these things, and that 
Object. 1. From Mat. 28.  they are wrought by Christ in many Infants, yet we may not baptise them, because according to Scripture pattern, both of Christ's command, Matth. 28. in his institution of baptism, and John the Baptist, Christ's Disciples and Apostles, they always taught, and made them disciples by teaching, before they baptised any. And to make this argument the more plausible, you add, It is a sin of profaning that Sacrament, when the institution is altered by subtraction or addition, and that it was pleaded by the Non-conformists, that it is Will-worship to administer the Sacraments by addition of any thing to them, but circumstances which are alike requisite to civil actions; now the persons to be baptised cannot be conceived a mere circumstance, but belongs necessarily to the administration of worship, as well as the person baptising, or the persons receiving the Lord's Supper.  
I answer, I intent not needlessly to multiply words, and therefore do grant that to apply Sacraments to persons to whom they belong not by the Lord's appointment is a profanation of them. Now that it is so in this case, you go about to prove out of this 28. Mat. Because the institution appoints only disciples of all Nations to be baptised, and Infants are not such. This you have made good (as you say) Sect. 13. Part 3. You add, Christ's order thus appoints it, which must be kept in this point, as well as in examination before the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 28. etc. and that by the institution they are to be baptised into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, that is, with invocation of the name of the Lord, which Infants cannot do; with devoting themselves to the service and adverence of God, which Infants cannot do; that presently after baptism, the baptised are to be taught to observe whatsoever Christ commanded them, which Infants are not capable of; that John Baptist and the Apostles always made profession of repentance and faith, an antecedent to Baptism, which Infants cannot make. To all this I answer, First, this of Matth. 28. is not the institution of Baptism, it was instituted long before to be the seal of the Covenant, it is only an enlargement of their Commission, whereas before they were only to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, now they were to go into all the World. You reply, If it be not the first institution of Baptism, yet it is an institution of Baptism to us Gentiles; and therefore the rule by which Ministers are to baptise, or if not, we must show another institution, else we cannot acquit it from Will-worship. I answer, all this is abundantly answered before, Sect. 13. Part 3. And I add this enlargement of their Commission is very unfitly called by you an institution of baptism unto us; their Commission at the same time was enlarged to preach to the Gentiles, will you call that an institution of Preaching? and that the method of preaching to us Gentiles must be fetched out of this place? I know you will not. For the rest of your petty reasons above alleged, they resolve several 
Answers to oath petty Arguments of Mr. Tombs out of Mat. 28.  of them into one and the same: Christ's order is (say you) teaching should go before baptising; is not that the same with this; That men must be made disciples by preaching, before they be baptised? the answer to the one doth fully satisfy the other. But your third reason is a strange one, They must be baptised into the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, that is, (say you) with invocation of the Name of the Lord: than it seems if the party baptised call upon the name of the Lord by prayer, that's all that is intended b● baptising into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost; that the name of God should be invocated at the administration of Baptism, and of Circumcision, and of every Sacrament, is most true; but that baptising into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, should be interpreted to be invocation of God's name, and so to make Baptism and Prayer all one, is strange Divinity; it is true, Paul was exhorted to pray or call upon God's name when he was to be baptised, Acts 22. 16. but doth it prove that his Baptism and Prayer was all one? it may be you mean only this, that every person who is baptised, must be able himself at the time of his baptism to pray; if that be your meaning, prove it by your next, show why more at Baptism then at Circumcision. As for your fourth, were not the Infants of the Jews devoted to God by Circumcision, though they could not actually devote themselves? To your fifth, That they were to teach them as soon as they bade baptised them; and that therefore none weet to be baptised, unless they were fit presently after their Baptism, to learn the rest of their duty. I answer, this also is sufficiently answered in Sect. 13. Part 3. and I further add, that baptised persons ought indeed to be taught all that Christ commands them, and so likewise were circumcised persons, but not presently, only as they were capable of it, and able to receive it. And as for the persons baptised by John, and Christ's disciples; I have before answered that it cannot appear that they baptised no other but such as made profession of faith and repentance; and if it were granted, it follows not, that therefore no other may be baptised, their practice is a good rule, though not a full rule, as I showed, Sect. 13. Part 3. And whereas you say, john baptised none but upon profession of repentance▪ you would have a hard task to prove it, if any man should put you to it; to prove (I say) that john did impose or require confession of sin before baptism, it is said he baptised them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to repentance; not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as stated in actual repentance; and his calling for repentance, and preaching the Baptism of repentance, show that this was the lesson they were all to learn; not that they must all manifest that they had it before he baptised them; and though some did make confession of their fins, yet you can never prove that all did it, or were tied to it. Sure I am, I meet with very learned Men who judge thus, That their confession of sins was not because confession was a necessary medium to all who should receive Baptism, but because heretofore Baptism had initiated into Judaisme, and so to Legal performances; and the men who came to be baptised of John, were such who had been educated in an opinion of Justification by works of the Law: and therefore John in calling for repentance, did but clear his Baptism from misconstruction, lest they should think it to be a Baptism obliging to legal performances, as that was of old, he would teach them that his Baptism was a Baptism of repentance and faith in Christ, and so doth but rectify those relyers upon their own righteousness, in the right doctrine of Justification, which the Gospel now began to teach, contrary to their legal conceited righteousness; and that therefore his calling for repentance and belief in him that should come after, did more show the nature of the Gospel, to which his Baptism was the introduction, than the nature of the Sacrament of Baptism itself, or the method in which it was to be administered; and with these accords the interpretation Paul made of John's baptism, Acts 19 4. and consequently that the confession required had special relation to the condition of the persons who came to be baptised, and was not necessary for all, more would be required of a heretic for his admission into the bosom of the Church, then is requisite to be required of a child. But however, I think it will be hard for you to confute this, I shall leave it to the Judicious Readers consideration, and not insist upon it, but shall readily grant that all Jews and Pagans so bo●ne and bred, were not baptised till they professed their faith and repentance, because the Jews were all to come under a new administration, and the Gentiles till then were wholly aliens from the Covenant of grace, and then their Infants came in in their Parents right. But say you, This grant that the jews who already were in Covenant, were to make confession before they were baptised, is a sufficient proof that the administration of Circumcision, is not the administration under which we now are: and that overthrows all virtual consequences from Circumcision to Baptism. I reply, who ever said that this administration is the same with theirs? it is the same Covenant, but a new administration. And as to that you say, This overthrows all virtual consequences from Circumcision to Baptism; I have so abundantly justified this before, that I shall not trouble the Reader with it again, though you repeat this so often, that I am ready to think you hope your reader will believe you in one place, if he do not in the other. You add my saying, That their Infants were to come in only in their parents right, doth overthrow my second Argument, because that is grounded upon a right which Infants had of their own, viz. participation of the grace of the Sacrament. I answer, belike then if any had pleaded thus for the Jews Infants, That to Infants, as well as grown men, God communicated the spiritual part of Circumcision, therefore they might be circumcised; you would answer, that that Argument would overthrow their right from their birth-priviledge. I rather should judge it to be a second good Argument for their Circumcision; the truth is, they are both grounds of Gods own appointing: and the second is a farther manifestation of their right to the Sacrament, God not only giving them a visible standing in his Church, because they are the seed of the faithful, but among them, who are Infants as well as among grown men doth work inward grace by his holy Spirit according to his good pleasure. Whereas you add, that you cannot yet discern but that our grounds for Paed baptism are worse than the Papists and ancients, who build it upon the necessity of baptism to salvation; I must needs tell you, your respect to the reformed Churches in this is very small, whilst you think the Papists ground of damnation of Infants not baptised is not so ill as the Protestants, who baptise them because they look upon them as within the Covenant of grace; I will not aggravate this, I hope in time you will see it and be sorry for it.  
But you glory much in the advantage you think you have got, from that which follows in my Sermon, the Heathen nations who were to be converted to Christ were yet without the Covenant of grace, and their children could have no right until themselves were brought in, and therefore no marvel though both john and Christ's Disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptised, because than no other were capable of baptism, in this (say you) I grant many things which do yield the cause: Sir, I shall not recall any one of them, make your best of your advantage. 1. Hence you collect it follows that baptising of Infants is not according to john's, and Christ's Disciples, and the Apostles practise: I answer, it no ways follows, if you take but that in which immediately follows, that their Infants came in in their parents right. 2. Hence I grant (say you) that no other were capable of Baptism, but wherein I beseech you have I granted the cause in saying their Infants were not capable of it till their Parents came in, and when they 〈◊〉 in, their children came in also by virtue of the Covenant. What need you keep such a coil in ask whether believers had then no children? or whether the Apostles had no commission? or whether we have a Commission if they had not? you go on and say, I think to salve it thus, when once themselves were instructed and baptised, than their children were capable of it by virtue of the Covenant; I do so, and what have you to say against it? why then say you they were capable in john's time and the Apostles time, and this destroys that which I said before, that then none but taught persons were capable of Baptism; but where did I say so? I said there was no express mention made of any other, I said also Infants were not capable till their Parents came in, because their Parents were to come under this new administration, but I never said, when their Parents were come in in John's time and Christ's time, that their children then were not capable of it. Yea, I have showed good grounds by consequence that the practice was otherwise. Further you say, it seems I cou●d produce no Institution in the new administration, but the Institution of Circumcision, because I say the children were capable by virtue of the Covenant, and the validity of arguing from Circumcision hath been considered before: and you further add, that the Covenant being the same at all times, as my first conclusion holds, the children of believers were as capable in John's time as after; and thus you say my words do plainly interfere; I answer, I have abundantly proved, that this ground from the Covenants being the same, and our Infants right the same with theirs to the Covenant, and our Baptism succeeding in the room and place of Circumcision, is a sufficient ground for this practice, though there be no express mention of them in this new administration; nor did I ever say that Infants of believers were not capable of it by virtue of the Covenant in John's time, so that this triumph of yours is not the fruit of my interfering, but of your own blindness or stumbling. Whereas in the close of this Section I said, if any in the Jewish Church had received Commission to go and make other City's Proselytes to them, their Commission must have run thus, go teach and circumcise, and yet it would not thence have followed, that none might be circumcised but 〈◊〉 as were first taught; you answer the Commission must have had reference in the execution of it, either to the old institution of Circumcision, Gen. 17. or to a new Institution, and then it would have been told plainly what and whom they were to circumcise. I reply, supposing it had gone according to the institution, Gen. 17. which (as you say) was to circumcise males at eight day's old not taught, I hope you will not say they might circumcise the males of any at eight days old, although their Parents were not taught, which is the case that I put, you cannot (I perceive) deny this case to be parallel, only this arguing from Circumcision to Baptism you cannot away with; but Sir, this reasoning is justified to be good, rumpuntur ut ilia.  
The second objection I thus expressed, it is expressly said 
Sect. 2. Object. 1. Infants are unbelievers, ergo, not to be baptised.  that he that believes and is baptised shall be saved, faith in Christ is the condition upon which men may be baptised, and no other unbelievers may not be baptised; children are unbelievers, therefore they may not be baptised; they say the negative is included under the affirmative, believing is the affirmative, unbelieving is the negative, therefore where believers are commanded to be baptised, unbelievers are forbidden to be baptised. This Argument I said the Anabaptists do very much glory in; my answer to it was to this effect; that if this Argument have any 
Answ.  strength at all against the baptising, it hath much more strength against the salvation of Infants, because it is expressly said both affirmatively and negatively, he that believeth shall be saved, but be that believes not shall be damned; whereas though it be said affirmatively he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, it is not said he that is not baptised shall not be saved, look by what distinction they will maintain the salvation of Infants against this Argument, by the same will I more clearly justify the baptism of Infants against this argument. I add now further, if they take believers in a contradistinction to Infidels, than I say Infants of believers are believers, as well as the children of Infidels are Infidels; if they take believers in a more restrained sense for positive and actual faith, than I deny that this is a necessary condition required to be found and manifested in every one who is to be baptised, as I have at large proved before, and yourself cannot deny. To this Argument your answer is only this, that you own not the Argument, only thus far you own it, viz. that a profession of faith is a pre-requisite to Baptism, and so it was accounted in the days of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine, etc.  
But I reply, though you dare not: own this Argument, yet it stands upon the same ground that the rest of your arguments do, and upon the same grounds that many of your expressions do, such as this, That men are not to be baptised, because they may have grace, but because they have it. But now you will not stick to this, That to have true faith, is a pre-requisite to Baptism; you are contented with an outward confession of it only, and that a visible profession gives right to a visible membership, and consequently that a visible membership gives a right to Baptism, which is the thing I have been contending for all this while. As for what you add, That in the days of justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, and so forward, this confession before baptism was continued: it is true, it was continued for those that had been Pagans and Infidels, that they should make such a confession before Baptism; and it is as true, that in their days Infants of Christians were baptised.  
3. I said it was objected, That though Infants are capable o● 
Sect. 3. Object. 3. We know not what Infants have grace, ergo we may not baptise any.  the inward grace, and that God doth effectually work in some of them, yet that is no sufficient warrant for us to baptise all of them; if we knew in what Infants the Lord did so work, we might baptise those Infants, but that we cannot know by any ordinary way of knowledge, therefore we may not baptise any of them, but wait to see, when and in whom God will work the thing signified, and then apply the sign to them. You answer, this is granted, that 
Answ.  if by revelation it could be known, such as have this inward grace might be baptised; and that those who are thus entitled are not through want of an institution to be excluded. To my understanding this over throws all which you have hitherto contended for; for than if we can prove that Infants are such, as to whom this Sacrament belongs, by your own grant they are not to be excluded for want of an institution; now I have proved that Infants of believers are such as to whom the Sacrament doth belong: yea, and yourself grant, that true faith is not a needful pre-requisite to the administration of Baptism. Besides, I desire before I leav● this passage to know of you, how you will reconcile this with that which you spoke, pag. 162. That there is a plain Text requiring confession before Baptism, though not before Circumcision. I hope you do not think a regenerate bab● can make a confession of its faith; surely these two things do much differ, God's inward revealing that he hath sanctified a child, and the childs own profession or confession; God revealed that Saul was hid behind the stuff, but this was not Saul's own confession; God revealed to the Prophet Ahijah, that the disguised woman was Jeroboams wife, but that was not her own confession. My answer to this objection was, That our knowledge that God hath effectually wrought the thing signified, is not the condition upon which we are to apply the seal, he never required that we should know that they are certainly converted whom we admit to Baptism, we are indeed to know that they have in them the condition which must warrant us to administer the sign, not that which makes them possessed of the thing signified, fallible conjectures are not to be our rule in admistring Sacraments either to Infants or grown men, but a known rule of the Word, out of which we must be able to make up such a judgement, that our administration may be of faith, as well as out of charity. To all this you assent, and consequently that there is nothing needful according to the Word, but a visible right; and than what is become of all your pleading, That because we cannot know that all infants of believers have the inward grace, we may not therefore baptise them? this hold you have now quitted; and when once you have proved that they have not a visible right to be reckoned and accounted to belong to the visible Church, I promise you to quit all mine.  
Whereas I added, That I doubted whether in case Peter, or Paul could by the Spirit of revelation have known that Ananias, or Alexander, would have proved no better than hypocrites, wh●ther they either would or ought to have refused them from baptism, whiles they made that public profession, upon which others were admitted, who in the event proved no better than those were. You think they would and ought, because the end of such an extraordinary revelation, would be to warn them not to admit such persons. I answer, the cause depends not upon it, whether your conjecture or mine be rightest in this particular; and I confess, should such an extraordinary revelation be made purposely to warn them not to admit such persons, that would be equivalent to a prohibition; but might not such a thing be revealed for other ends? Christ knew that Judas would prove a devil, yet he admitted him not only to baptism, but Apostleship; and since yourself do grant that we have a warrant de fide, out of faith, and not out of charity only, to admit men into visible communion by baptism, upon an external confession only; I cannot understand why my private knowledge upon a particular revelation of a man's inward condition, should be a sufficient bar against proceeding according to the ordinary rule; if I were infallibly assured that some glorious professor were no better than an hypocrite, were that sufficient warrant to deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to him, so long as his life was unblamable before the Church?  
Lastly, I added, That in this the rule to direct our knowledge, is as plain for Infants as for grown men, the rule having been always this, that grown men who were strangers from the Covenant of God, Pagans, or Heathens should upon their being instructed, and upon profession of their faith, and promise to walk according to the rule of the Gospel, be received and added to the Church, and made partakers of the Sacrament of admission, and their Infants to come in with them, both sorts upon their admission to be charitably hoped of, until they give signs to the contrary, charity being bound from thinking evil of them, not bound to conclude certainly of any of them. Your only exception against this is, wondering that I dare say, the rule to direct our knowledge, is as plain for Infants as for grown men. I answer, truly Sir, by as plain, I intended only the truth of the rule, that it may be as truly known as the other, though possibly not so clearly. I deny not but I had spoken more fitly in saying the rule is plain for Infants as well as for grown men; and that I have proved abundantly.  
My fourth Objection was, That all who enter into Covenant 
Sect. 4. Object. 4. Infant's cannot Covenant, or promise for themselves.  must stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his; they must indent with God to perform the believers part of the Covevenant, as well as God doth to perform his part: My answer was, The Infants of Jews were as much tied, as the Infants of believers under the Gospel, every one who was circumcised was bound to keep the Law, yet they knew not what it meant, nor could have 
Answ.  the same use of it with their Parents and others of discretion. You own not this Objection, nor say any thing against my answer; only you except, That through my whole book, I suppose there is the same reason of the mixed Covenant made with Abraham, and that it is the same with the pure Covenant of the Gospel, and of every believer as of Abraham, and of Baptisms as of Circumcision. I do so, and have justified these thing to be true against your exceptions. You add also, God commanded the one, but no where commanded the other; which whether he have or no by good consequence, I leave the Reader to judge, by what is already spoken.  
I added in my Sermon, God seals to them presently, i. e. conditionally, as I have before showed, and when they come to years of discretion, they stand obliged to the performance of it in their own persons; in the mean time Jesus Christ who is the surety of the Covenant; and the surety of all the Covenanters, is pleased to be their surety: & this I illustrated from things done amongst men, thus, when several parties stand obliged in the same bond, they may seal at several times, and yet be in force afterward together, or even a child sealing in infancy, may agnize, and recognize that sealing, when they come to years of discretion, if then they will renounce it, as done when they understood not, they may free themselves, if they please, if they find the former act a burden to them, so said I is it here, God is pleased to seal to infants while they are such, and accepts of such as seal on their parts, as they are able to give in their infant-age, expecting a further ratification on their part, when they are come to riper years; in the mean● time affording them the privilege of being reckoned unto his kingdom and family rather than the devils, if when they are grown men, they refuse to stand to this Covenant, there is no hurt done on God's part, let them serve another God, and take their lot for the time to come. To this you answer, First, this is only the spinning out the simile of a seal; which whether it be to the purpose or no, I as willingly as yourself, leave it to the Reader to judge. Secondly, you say, it is very inconsiderate boldness in me●, to make every baptised person a Covenanter, for whom Jesus Christ is a surety; when as the Scripture makes Christ the surety only for his redeemed ones. I answer, it is very true that Jesus Christ is the surety only of the elect, so far as to perform all the conditions of the Covenant in them; but he is also the surety of all visible Professors, aliquo modo, upon their condition of performing the Covenant; look in what respect yourself will acknowledge Christ undertakes for visible Professors, as they are visible Professors, the same will serve my turn, and I shall ask no more.  
The fifth Objection was, that no benefit comes by such a sealing as this is. My answer was, The same which came to the infants 
Sect. 5. Object. 5. No benefit comes of Infant-Baptisme.  of the Jews, who received the seal in their infancy. You answer, First, you allow not that expression, That God seals to every one that is baptised, he seals only to believers, to whom be undertakes to make good his promise of writing his law in their heart, etc. And here again you charge me with symbolising with the Arminians, who make the Covenant of grace common to elect and reprobates, and left to every ●ans liberty to free themselves if they please, and so nullify all. I pass by your scoffs, of my frivolous supposing of Chimaeras, and other such good language; you have pretty well enured me also to receive the reproach of Arminianism. As to the thing itself, I answer, was not Circumcision God's sign and seal? which by his own appointment was applied to all the Jews and Proselytes and their children, did it engage God absolutely to every one of them to write his law in their heart, etc. And are not the Sacraments signa conditionalia, conditional signs and seals? and did any Orthodox Divine before yourself charge this to be Arminianism, to say that the Gospel runs upon conditions? I confess it is Arminianism to say any thing is conditional to GOD, this I never asserted, but that the Gospel is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith, will pass for orthodox doctrine, when you and I are dead and rotten.  
You add that you do not well understand that God required of the Jews Infants to seal in their Infancy; I reply, but I hope you understand, that the Jews Infants were sealed in their Infancy, and by this they received not only a privilege to be accounted as belonging to God's family, but it also obliged them to the several duties of the Covenant, as they grew up to be capable of performing them. I added, secondly, God hath other ends and uses of applying the Seal of the Covenant to them who are in Covenant with him, than their present gain, it is an homage, worship, and honour to himself, and it behoves us in that respect to fulfil all righteousness; when Christ was baptised and circumcised he was as unfit for the ordinance through his perfection, as children through their imperfection, being as much above them as Children are below them: your answer is, Baptism is God's worship, Paedobaptism a will-worship; Christ's Baptism was of a transcondens nature, children are unfit for this ordinance, not because of their imperfection, but through defect of God's appointment; had God appointed it, there were no doubt to be made of their fitness; all this hath been considered and weighed again and again, and I desire not to burden the Reader needlessly. I added thirdly, the benefit and fruit of it at the present is great, both to the parents and to the children, to the parents whilst God doth thereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church, and under his wing, whilst all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the Prince, and in the kingdom of darkness, and consequently while others have no hope of their children's spiritual welfare, until they be called out of that condition, these need not have any doubt of their children's welfare if they die in their Infancy, nor if they live until they show signs to the contrary, God having both reckoned them unto his people, and given them all the means of salvation, which an Infant's age is capable of. You answer. First, all this passage is but dictates. Secondly, you say if I mean the unbaptized children of believers, do belong to the kingdom of the devil, it is a harsh and uncharitable speech. Sir, I am glad to hear you give that censure upon your own judgement, it is your judgement that all Infants even of Believers as well as Pagans though they may potentially belong to the kingdom of Christ, yet actually they belong to the Kingdom of the devil; but for myself, I meant only the children of Infidels, I do not think that believing Anabaptists do through their ignorance or error put their children out of this privilege. You demand further, What comfort do I give more to believing parents that have their children baptised, then belongs to them, though their children were not baptised. I answer, if it be not through the parent's fault that their children be unbaptised, but only by the providence of God, they may have the same comfort, yet I conceive it a greater enlargement of comfort to enjoy the visible Seal, an ordinance which they are capable of, and which God uses to bless according to his good pleasure; but I say when parents do therefore not baptise upon this principle, that their children do not belong to the Church of Christ, no more than the children of Turks and Pagans, and consequently are without that pale, where ordinarily salvation is only to be had, it is easy to say that their comfort cannot be so much as others: yourself do grant that this which I plead for is a comfortable condition if it could be made out, page 82. Whereas I added they need not make any doubt of their children's welfare, if they die in their Infancy, etc. You answer, I speak like one who holds that Baptism doth confer grace ex opere operato: But why so? when I ground it upon the Covenant, upon their capacity both of the Seal and the inward grace, and yet leave all to be done by God, who hath mercy upon whom he will have mercy; I said not that they may de fide be assured of their salvation, but that they need not have any doubt, the same which may be said of grown visible professors. I added, here is also much privilege and benefit to children when as (beside what inward secres work God is pleased to work in them) they being members of the Church of Christ have their share in the communion of Saints, are remembered at the throne of grace, every day by those that pray for the welfare of the Church, and particularly in those prayers which are made for his blessing upon his ordinances; here first you desire to know what I mean by a secret work which God is pleased to work in them; whether any thing, ex opere operato, or baptismal regeneration, I answer, I meant only this, that God is at liberty, and may when her pleases let his grace accompany his ordinance: as for their being members of the visible Church, you deny they are so, and I have proved them to be so. Lastly, I added, it is no small privilege to have that Seal bestowed on them in their Infancy which they may afterward plead when they are grown, and came to fulfil the condition; you answer, when, where and how Baptism should be pleaded, you do not well conceive, it is not Baptism that will yield a plea of any force either in the Court of earth or the Court of heaven, but the promise of God and the condition of faith in Christ, and you never knew any Saint that pleaded his Infant Baptism, in such cases, as the Apostles plea lies for Rom. 8. 31, 32. I answer, as it is a plea for visible professors all their days, so it is a plea for Infants, when they grow up upon the same condition, and though the promise and faith in Christ be our best plea, yet Baptism the Seal is no mean one, and you who say, that of old the influence of comfort from baptism was very great, I hope did not intend to limit it to the present time of its receiving, but extended it to all cases, which may fall within the compass of those things for which Baptism was appointed to be a Seal, and as long as it remains a Seal, and why you should speak against the pleading of Infant Baptism, when they come to fulfil the condition and to have the answer of a good conscience toward God, (in which case the Apostle said Baptism saves us) I cannot tell, unless you think with the Anabaptists that Infant Baptism is a nullity, which if you do, I pray you let us know it in your next.  
The last objection was to this purpose, If Infants being capable 
Object. 6. Then also Infants may receive the Lords Supper.  of the spiritual part will entitle them to the outward sig●●, why then do we not also admit them to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which is the Seal of the Covenant of grace, as well as the Sacrament of Baptism; and the rather because the Infants of the Jews did eat the Passeover as well as they were circumcised? My answer was to this effect, Infants in their infant-age are capable of the grace of Baptism, that we are sure of, not sure that they are capable of the grace signed and sealed in the Lord's Supper, we know they may be initiated into the Church, while they are Babes, not that they receive nourishment and augmentation. And I further add, there was express order that Infants should be admitted to the initial sign, not that they should be admitted to the other. To this you answer, This Argument is good ad homines against them who argue that to whom the Covenant belongs, to them the Seal belongs, and you say, this argument is confirmed by the practice and opinion of the ancients, who gave the Lord's Supper to Infants for 600. years as well as baptism. I reply, my Argument runs thus; To whom belongs the Covenant, to them belongs the initial Seal of the Covenant, not every Seal of the Covenant, and though the Lords supper be a Seal of the Covenant, and succeed the Passeover as a Seal of that Covenant, yet neither the Passeover, nor the Lord's Supper were appointed to be initial Seals; and though Baptism, which is the initial Seal, serves to confirm the rest of the benefits of the Covenant, as the baptised grow capable of them, or are made partakers of them, yet the prime and main use of it is to be a Seal of initiation and reception into Covenant. As for what you add of the ancients giving the Lords Supper to Infants for 600. years, I have before answered to it, that it cannot be proved to be so general a practice as the baptising of Infants was among them, nor was it pleaded by any such Arguments, as they pleaded for Infant Baptism; Indeed in the African Churches about Cyprians and Augustine's time, the Lords Supper was given to Infants, but I can find no such general practice of it as you would insinuate. Howbeit, I am glad that upon this occasion you acknowledge, that for the first 600. year's Infants were baptised among the ancients, though I know not how this will agree with that which you have so fidently asserted before, that it was hardly known in the Church for the first 300. years. Whereas I added, that though baptism and the Lords Supper are both of them Seals of the new Covenant, yet it is with some difference; the first is for birth and entrance, the other is for food and growth; you answer, this is a paradox to you, because if I make the entrance at the remission of sins, justification, etc. the Lords Supper which seals Christ's death, seals the entrance into the Covenant, and Baptism seals as well the pardon of other sins as of original sin; and therefore this difference which I put of the one being a Seal for entrance, the other for growth, is a difference which the Scripture makes not. I reply, if this be a paradox, yourself have very often owned this paradox, in calling both Circumcision and Baptism the Seals of our admission, and that by Baptism we are exhibited to be members of Christ and his Church: which you yet never said the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was appointed to be. And as for what you now add that the Lords Supper sealing the death of Christ doth therefore seal our entrance; I answer, it follows not, it seals indeed the whole Covenant in its due place and order, as our food is a witness that we are alive, and is a means to preserve our life, but yet it must be supposed that we are first made alive before we are capable of the benefit of our food. And whereas you jerk at that phrase of the Lords Supper sealing the growth and augmentation of the Covenant, as an unfit expression; truly, I thought every child would have understood, that by nourishment and augmentation I meant nothing but the nourishment and growth of those graces of the Covenant, which the Covenant promiseth, and all are tied to seek after. As to that of the Jews Infants eating the Passeover, I answered, there is no such thing mentioned in the books of God: It is said indeed that the several families were to eat the Lamb, and if the family were too little to eat a Lamb, several families were to join together, and that when their children should ask them the meaning of it, they were to instruct them about it, but not a word of institution appointing them to eat it, nor any example witnessing that they did eat it: You answer, All the males were appointed three times a year to appear before the Lord, one of which was the Passeover, and at that time there was no other food to be eaten, but unleavened bread and the Pascall Supper; and you observe out of Ainsworth that every child that could hold his father by the hand, and could go up from Jerusalem gates to the mountain of the Temple, his father was bound to carry him up, to the end he might catechise him in the Commandments, and they who went up were bound to keep the feast. I answer, were the Jews bound to carry all their Babes up with them to Jerusalem, or any of them, before they had understanding in those rites and mysteries? and was there no food among them all that time, but the Sacramental food? were the unclean and uncircumcised in their families to fast all that time? produce any Scripture that witnesseth these; you indeed quote two or three broken testimonies out of the Rabbins, who lived some hundred years after Christ, but not one text of Scripture, and yet even your Rabbins say no more than I am willing to grant, that when they could understand the service, they might partake of it; nor doth the Gospel prohibit such young ones to partake of the Lords Supper, who are able to discern the Lords body. I observe also that when a testimony out of a Jewish Rabbi seems to make any thing on your side, you draw more confident conclusions from it, and fetch consequences further than you will allow me to do out of the holy Scriptures.  
The application of my Sermon you pass over, as 
Sect. 7. Of the comparison between Hazaels' cruelty to Infants and the principles of Anabaptists.  not being argumentative; only in the first use you again fall upon the comparison which I made betwixt Hazaels' slaying the Infants of Israel, and the principles of the Anabaptists, in putting the children of believers out of the Covenant of grace, and this you aggravate to the utmost, calling it a false accusation, a fruit of passion, not of holy zeal: this also you fell upon in the very beginning of your treatise, where I answered, I compared not their intentions with his, but the fruit of their principles, casting all believers children, as much out of the Covenant of grace as they do the children of Turks and Pagans; and this I am sure they do, and yourself join with them, who acknowledge no more promise for the children of believers, then for the children of Turks, and leave them to have their actual standing in the visible kingdom of the Devil. This I said in a spiritual sense was more heavy to the bowels of Christian parents, then to see their Infants slain before their face, while in the mean time they might look upon their Infants so dying, to be within the pale of the Church, where salvation is ordinarily to be found; this I leave the Reader to judge of. Whereas you add that this follows not upon the doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme that Infants are thus excluded, and that if to be within the Covenant of grace, be rightly expounded, you exclude them from the Covenant of grace no more than I do; of the truth of this, without any needless repetition, I leave the Reader to judge by what hath been disputed betwixt you and me; if they find this assertion of yours to be true, I give them leave to charge me with the same rashness, false accusations, and passions, which here you power upon me; if not, I am sure they will lay it all at your door.  
I now come to your Epilogue, wherein you intimate, first, that you presume you have said so much against my Sermon, 
Sect. 8. Answer to the Epilogue.  that you hope I see cause to consider more exactly of this business than I had done before, that I am not now so confident as I was, that this is God's truth: I answer, as in the presence of the same great God to whom you and I both must give an account, I have seriously weighed what you have written, or any other who have come to my hands, with a full resolution not to shut my eyes against what light he would cause to shine upon me, and upon my most diligent study, accompanied with my weak, yet sincere and earnest prayers, I am more confirmed in it, and the more I have studied, the clearer it appears unto me. Secondly, you say you have endeavoured to examine every thing of weight delivered in my Sermon, and what you could remember of Mr. Thomas goodwin's, and what Mr. Blake, or any other have written about this thing; and I likewise have seriously weighed and not passed over any thing of weight in this your Examen. Thirdly, you say you chose out my Sermon, because I am in print styled the Antefignanus, the Ensign-bearer; a title which I neither deserve nor desire. Fourthly, you motion that all we who have appeared in public in this cause would join our strength together in a reply to this your Examen, that you might see the whole strength embattled, that you might not be put to the reading of every Pamphlet. Truly Sir, this smells a little too rankly, thus confidently to challenge all men, not contented with Goliath to say, Give me a man, that I might fight with him, but to defy a whole host, argues a little too much selfe-confidence. But for your satisfaction, here is my book, you may try your strength against it, and though I find my impaired health and multitude of employments is like to be an apology for me, from drawing this saw any longer, nor indeed is it needful, there being no end of writing, all knowing that there is no controversy of faith, wherein learned and prejudiced men have not been able to write book after book against the truth, especially when they choose such a way of disputing as you have chosen; However, I fear not but it will endure your uttermost opposition, and if my book alone be looked upon, as too poor a business, you see there are already two or three other books extant already, against you, and I am informed two pieces at least come out of New-England upon the same subject, yourself being therein concerned (for even thither have some sent your writings, and sufficiently in them, showed your scorn of Mr. Thomas Goodwin, Mr. Vines, and myself, as our friends do from thence write unto us) you may take us all together, and then we may go for a pretty Army, and when you have done all you can, I doubt not but some will be found who will have leisure as well as ability to cope with you; I only desire you in your next not to go on in this way of making wrangling exceptions, and seeking to slur and blind what is written by your Antagonist, but by solid and clear arguments, see if you can refute that which is asserted, and let your Reader also know as well what you would have, as what you would not have, and open your judgement to the full in this controversy, and show whether you take Infant-baptism to be valid, or a nullity, and if you think it not a nullity, show your grounds for it, why all this should be true, which you have thus far contended for, That Infants are no more to be accounted belonging to the Church of Christ then Pagans, and yet their baptism should be valid, whether if any man should baptise a Turk or a jew when he should be asleep, or by violence or any ways against his own consent, this baptism were not a nullity, and I know not what difference you make between the one and the other.  
If on the other side, you do think it a nullity, then manifest how any at all can now be baptised, unless you will think that they may baptise others who are unbaptised themselves; for my own part, I seriously profess, that supposing Infant-baptisme a nullity, I cannot understand how any in the world should this day be lawfully baptised, unless it can be made good that a person unbaptised himself may be a lawful Minister of baptism to others: for certainly until the Anabaptists arose in Germany, all the baptised world were baptised while they were Infants; and consequently the first Anabaptist was baptised by an unbaptized person, and so in conclusion we must all turn Seekers, and be content without baptism, till Christ give some extraordinary Commission from Heaven unto some men to be Apostles in this business.  
Fifthly, you express the straits you are like to be brought into by the loss of your small stipend, as a consequent of this your Opinion. Sir, I am persuaded this is made up abundantly in that Honourable Society where now you exercise your Ministry; and I beseech the Lord so to inform you in his truth in this particular, and to guide your Spirit, that you may no longer be a stumbling-block to others, nor others prove stumbling-blocks to you, that those good parts which God hath bestowed upon you, may for the time to come be employed in the most serviceable way, that both your work and wages may be with and from the Lord.  
Sixthly and lastly, you declare your willingness, either to have conference with me, to consult about a way of a brotherly debating of this point, or to receive other answer within the space of a month. What past betwixt yourself and me in Conference, I have given the Reader an account of in the beginning of my Book; and in truth, I verily thought you would quietly have kept your Opinion as private to yourself, which was the true reason why I meddled with your Book no sooner; as soon as it was published, I took myself bound in conscience to take it into Examination, and give this public account of it; since which time God hath been pleased to visit me with sickness and infirmity of body, so that for a month or six weeks I could very little attend upon this task, and many other employments have compelled me to go through it, horis successivis, not being able to attend it many whole days without much interruption. Such as it is you now have it with you, and I make bold to say again, I am verily persuaded it is God's truth which I maintain against you, and I fear not my account of this Work in the great day; save only I must ever acknowledge and bewail those frailties and infirmities which cleave to whatever I put my hand unto.    

A Brief EXAMINATION OF Mr. TOMBS his Exercitation about INFANT-BAPTISM.  
YOur Exercitation might very well have been spared in this place, for any great advantage it is like to bring to your cause, but I am very glad it is extant, because all Learned men will by it plainly discern how mean and poor your Arguments are, when you come positively to assert, they will now find that true which I said in the beginning, that your faculty is far better in darkening, slurring, and plundering the Arguments of your Adversary, then in making good your own. You have here impanelled a whole Jury, and would fain persuade a verdict of twelve men to stand upon record on your side, as having found Infant-Baptisme guilty of the crimes which you have laid to its charge: I shall very briefly examine what every one of them have said, and only run them over, partly, because there are lately extant two learned Treatises against it, written by Doctor Homes, and Master Geree, the first of them was published when my Book was almost half Printed, the other since; but chiefly because almost every sentence in this your Exercitation which hath any strength is by yourself brought into your other Treatise, which you call the Examen of my Sermon, and there is already fully answered.  
Of your twelve Arguments, the first is not properly to be called an Argument against Infant-Baptisme, but is rather an answer to several Arguments pretended to be brought for Infant-Baptisme; and upon this you bestow at least two third parts of your Exercitation, twice as much I nke and Paper upon the foreman of the Jury, as you do upon the other eleven.  
Under the head of this first Argument, you have brought in no less than fourteen Arguments (as you call them) for the lawfulness of Infant-Baptisme, and then you undertake to answer them; yourself say truly of many of them, they make a number without strength; and therefore as you have made a conquest of them, do with your prisoners what you please, for I count them not worth the redeeming; only this I say, we have six or seven of your twelve, which I think all the world, and yourself also, will grant to be taken Prisoners by us, if you please we will exchange them for the other, and then in the exchange we shall lose nothing, being assured yours are as weak and simple as it is possible for those to be which you have taken; and for the rest of the arguments brought for Paedobaptism, you have propounded them for▪ your own advantage, so set them down as to make them best capable of the specious answers you bring unto them; but I like not that an enemy should have the ordering of the Forces which he means to fight against, you must give us leave to choose our own weapons, and Marshal our own Forces, and then you may try your skill and valour against them. Doctor Homes hath made his Annotations upon all the arguments which you have produced according to your own method Mr. Geree hath chosen out only those arguments which carry most evidence, and not troubled himself to examine every thing; for my part, I humbly conceive that Infant-baptisme is not to be fetched from any one of these grounds singly, but is built upon the identity of the Covenant, Infants right to the Covenant, and the initial seal; and consequently though one Text may be a sufficient medium or Argument to prove some one or two of them, yet to make the evidence full, these ground● must not be separated one from another, but necessary recourse must be had to them all; and if all your Arguments do overthrow any one of them, either the Covenants being the same in substance, or infants right to the Covenant, or the Lords appointing an initial seal to be administered to all who are reputed belonging to the Covenant, I shall readily yield the cause, as I have often told you. All the trouble I shall put the Reader to, about this your first Argument, 
Arg. 1. Answ.  or rather your answer to Arguments, shall be to point him to such places in my book, where you have already pressed the same things, and I have given an answer to them.  
The first Argument from Gen. 17. hath been examined, Part 3. Sect. 1, 2. and elsewhere.  
The second argument taken from Baptism succeeding into the room of Circumcision, and Coloss. 2. 11, 12, etc. is examined Part 3. Sect. 9  
The third argument from the privileges of believers under the New Testament, is examined, Part 3. Sect. 11. 7.  
The fourth argument from Acts 2. ●8. is fully examined, Part 3. Sect. 6.  
The fifth argument from 1 Cor. 7. 14. is examined, Part 3. Sect. 8.  
The sixth argument from Mark 10. 14. Matth. 19 etc. which also you put into several shapes, is examined, Part 3. Sect. 15.  
The seventh argument from Acts 16. and several other places which speak of baptising of households, is examined Part 3. Sect 14. And in these several places you have pressed whatever is of any seeming weight in this your Exercitation, and added many other things which the reader shall find to be examined in the places which I have pointed to, besides in several other places of my Book, where you have again and again repeated many of the same things.  
The other seven arguments (as you call them) I look not upon as arguments, and therefore will not meddle with them▪ some of the Scriptures mentioned in them, as, Exod. 20. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9 etc. so far as they have any use in this controversy, are also considered of here, and there in my Book, as the Reader may observe.  
Your second Argument against Infant Baptism is fetched from Mat. 28. 19 That which agrees not with the Lords institution 
Arg. 2.  of Baptism, that is deservedly doubtful; But the rite of Infant-baptisme agrees not with the Lords institution of Baptism, Ergo. This argument hath received its full examination, Part 3. Sect. 13. and Part 4. Sect. 1. whither I refer the 
Answ.  Reader, as not willing to trouble him with needless repetition of the same things.  
Your third Argument is taken from the practice of the Apostles, and John the Baptist, and runs thus, That tenet and 
Arg. 3.  practice which being put, Baptism cannot be administered as John Baptist and the Apostles did administer it, agrees not with the practice of John Baptist and the Apostles; But the tenet and practice of Infant-Baptisme being put, Baptism cannot be administered as Jo. Baptist, and the Apostles administered i●; Ergo etc. This you go about to prove, because John and the Apostles baptised none but such as confessed sins, they required shows of faith and repentance in all whom they baptised.  
This Argument relates wholly to matter of fact, wherein you put yourself to prove a negative; and therefore the argument 
Answ.  can prove nothing, unless you can produce some one place at least out of the Scripture wherein it is said no Infant was baptised by them, or no other than such as you have mentioned; but what you have here said about it is fully considered, Part. 3. Sect. 13. especially Part 4. Sect. 1.  
These three Arguments, which alone deserve to be called (if yet the first may be so called) are fully examined in the places abovementioned; the rest of your arguments are so wholly inconsequent, that I wonder you should think them worthy or fit to face an Assembly of Divines, and expect that they should join their strength together to frame an answer to them; when as I verily think they may all be routed by the running pen of an ordinary Clerk in a few hours.  
Your fourth is taken from the next age after the Apostles, and stands thus in your book, Because Infant-baptisme 
Arg. 4.  cannot be proved that it was enforce or use in the next age after the Apostles; Ergo, the tenet and practice of it is doubtful. The major (you say) is manifest of itself; for the minor you allege Vives, and Strabo; and (say you, it is confirmed by examining of places brought to that purpose, & by continuing questions to the parties baptised in ages following, and other tokens from Counsels, and Ecclesiastical writers.  
I answer, First, to your Major, which you say is manifest of its self, I judge to be most false, and a most dangerous 
Answ.  position: is every tenet and practice doubtful, which cannot be proved by historical evidence to have been received and practised in that age, whereof we have so few Records? the procession of the holy Ghost, the propagation of original sin, and many other Tenets, I believe you will neither find mentioned in that age nor the next; How would you have laughed at such a conclusion set down by another? And secondly, for your Minor, I answer 1. There were no Counsels at all assembled in that age next to the Apostles. And 2. as for Ecclesiastical Writers, I wish you would name them; I believe you will find very few Writers of credit in that age, whose legitimate works are transmitted to posterity. Thirdly, how do Vives and Strabo know what was done in the ages next the Apostles, when the eldest of them lived almost 800 years after that age? the authority and skill of these two men hath been sufficiently spoken to, Part 1. Sect. 2. Fourthly, I wonder how the questions propounded in ages following to the baptised, do prove that Infant-Baptisme was not in use in the age next after the Apostles.  
Your fifth argument runs thus, That which in succeeding 
Arg. 5.  ages in which it was in use, was in force first as a Tradition not written. Secondly, out of imitation of Jewish circumcision. Thirdly, without universal practice. Fourthly, together with the error of giving Infants the Lords Supper, and with many other humane inventions under the name of Apostolical Traditions, that is deservedly doubtful. But such was Infant-Baptisme in those ages, Ergo, etc. I answer, first, by denying your Major, the observation of the Lords day hath been by some accounted a Tradition, others have said it is Jewish to keep any Sabbath at all, because Sabbath days were a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ, what will you thence conclude against our Christian Sabbath? And for what you say about the practice of it that it was not universal, I desire you to remember, that argumentum ductum a non facto ad non jus est absurdissimum; may we plead thus, such and such a thing was not generally observed, Ergo it was not a duty? the boys in the Schools would stamp and hiss at such an inference; from the days of josova, to the days of Nehemiab, the children of Israel had not kept the feast of Tabernacles 
Nehem. 8. 17.  in Booths or Tents, which was about a thousand years; was it therefore not their duty to have done it? Dr. Hoylin in his History of the Sabbath, urgeth this very argument against the Lord's day, in such and such Father's days many did not observe the Lords day, many did tipple and dance upon the Lord's day; ergo the Lords day was not generally observed, and if it were not generally observed in those days, Ergo we are not bound to observe it. This kind of arguing is almost as wild as that which the Schools call, a baculo ad angulum, my staff stands in the corner, Ergo it will rain tomorrow morning.  
Your last Exception under this fourth argument is yet more strange, There were many other things went under the name of Traditions, which were mere humane inventions, Ergo Infant-baptism, which went under the name of a Tradition is also a humane invention. Shall I show the natural face of this argument in a glass; such and such men who went under the name of honest men were knaves; Ergo all that go ●nder the name of honest men are knaves. It is true, many things went in those days under the name of Traditions, which were but humane inventions, and it is as true that many points of faith, and other divine institutions went in the same ages under the name of Traditions, as I have made apparent, Part 1. Sect. 2. You see what a poor argument this would prove although your minor were true, though the things were as you set them down; but I have abundantly proved the contrary: I have showed the Ancients received it as a Divine Institution, and upon such arguments as we do, though some of them pressed some corrupt grounds which we reject: and as for the universality of the practice of it both in the Greek and Latin Churches I have abundantly cleared it from all Objections you make against it: and you out of all your reading have not been able to produce one of the ancients, who either beld it unlawful, or denied that it was in use from the Apostles days. One or two indeed you bring who advised the deferring Infant-Baptism, as they did also the baptism of grown men; and some examples you produce of the children of Christians not baptised (as you think) in their Infancy; to all which I have spoken at large, Part. 1. sect. 2. And as for what you allege of their giving the Lords Supper unto Infants, I have denied, and shall do still, till you bring some evidence for it, that there was any such universal practice, indeed in the African Churches that error did obtain in the days of Cyprian and Austin, but I find no such general practice of it; however the Argument follows not, That it was their error to give Infants the Lords Supper; Ergo it was their error to baptise Infants.  
Your sixth Argument runs thus; that which hath occasioned 
Arg. 6.  many humane inventions, partly by which Infant-Baptisme itself may be underpropt, partly the defect in the policy of the Church supplied; that is deservedly douhtfull; But the matter i● so in the business of Infant-Baptisme: and here you bring in witnesses in Baptism, Episcopal confirmation, the reformed union by examination, confession, before receiving the Lords Supper, Church-Covenant before the admission of Church-members into Church-fellowship, etc.  
I answer briefly, if by occasioned you mean that Infant-Baptisme 
Answ.  hath exnaturâ rei given occasion to these things, I deny your minor, Infant-Baptisme is no more an occasion of these things in the Christian Church, then circumcising of Infants was an occasion of the like in the Jewish Church; Infant-Baptisme may very well stand, and doth very well stand in many reformed Churches without such witnesses, without confirmation, or any other examination, confession, etc. before the Lords Supper, or other Church-discipline, than such as might be in use to men though they were not baptised in their Infancy: but if by occasioned you mean not 〈◊〉 da●a, but 〈◊〉 temer● a●●●pta, that the corrupt mind of man hath thence taken occasion for other errors and mistakes; if you mean that which hath thus ●●casioned many humane inventions is doubtful, than I deny your major: there is scarce any common place in the body of Divinity but hath occasioned humane inventions, the Lords Supper hath occasioned kneeling at the Sacrament; and that hath occasioned suspension, excommunication, separation; what will you thence conclude against the Lord's Supper? Ergo, the Lords Supper is a humane invention?  
Your seventh, eighth, and ninth Arguments are but so many branches or rather so many repetitions of your sixth 
Arg. 7, 8, & 9  Argument, possibly you have thus divided them that you might make up a whole Jury. And the self same answer serves them as was given to the other; I will conclude as 
Answ.  strongly against you, out of your own premises thus; Antipaedobaptisme hath occasioned many errors, many abuses and faults in discipline, divine worship, and conversation of men, together with many unnecessary disputes, fostering contention only: Ergo, Antipaedobaptisme is what you please to all Infant-baptisme: I leave out that passage only in the major of your ninth Argument, viz. which cannot be determined by any certain rule, because therein you do very heartily beg the question.  
Your tenth argument is framed thus; That in the midst of the darkness of Popery, the same men who opposed invocation 
Arg. 10.  of Saints, Prayer for the dead, adoration of the cross, and such like, opposed also the baptising of Infants, and here you bring in Bernard his 66▪ Sermon upon the Canticles, and his 140. Epistla against Henry the Heretic (as you call him) and Cluniacinsis against Peter de Bruis and Henry; also a passage out of Ostander, accusing the Albingenses ●s consenting with the Anabaptist●. To which I answer, first, I deny the consequence, because they opposed invocation of Saints, prayer 
Answ.  for the dead, etc. and also opposed Infant-Baptisme; Ergo, the last is an error as well as the first: for the same men have opposed Popery and the Sabbath, the same men have denied Prelacy and the blessed Trinity: Is it not possible for the same man to oppose a multitude of cursed errors, and yet to oppose some one blessed truth? Secondly, I also deny your minor; they who thus opposed invocation of Saints, etc. did not oppose baptism of Infants: Bermgarius, the Waldenses, Albingenses, Wickluites, Hussites, and others are indeed slandered by some of their adversaries, as if they denied Infant-baptisme, but are cleared out of their own confessions; as I have made abundantly manifest, Part 2. Sect. 2. What under the head of this tenth Argument you mention out of Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen hath been fully considered of, Part 1. Sect. ●.  
Your eleventh Argument runs thus; The asserters of Infant-baptisme 
Arg. 11.  little agree among themselves upon what foundation to build Infant-baptisme: some from universality of divine grace, some from necessity of Baptism to salvation, some from the promise of the sureties, some from the faith of the Infants, some from the faith of the next parents, Ergo, What? what conclusion can you make from this: 
Answ.  The Antipaedobaptists reject the Baptism of Infants upon several grounds: some because Infants have no sin, some because they have no more to do with the Covenant of grace, than the Infants of Turks; some because Infants are not capable of grace, some because they are unbelievers, some because we cannot know whether they have grace or no, will you therefore say Antipaedobaptisme is to be rejected? So for the Lords day, foam plead it upon one ground, others reject that ground, and plead it upon another, have therefore none of them hit upon a right ground? the like may be said of many other points both of faith and practise in Christianity; the utmost that can be collected from men's different grounds in pleading for such or such a truth is, that God hath not left that truth so clear as possible he hath done others wherein there is a greater consent: but to collect that therefore the opinion is to be rejected, is a strange consequence. I add farther that almost all, both ancient and modern, do agree in the argument from Circumcision to Baptism, which necessarily implies our Covenant to be the same with theirs, our Infants right to be the same with theirs, and our Sacrament of Baptism to be the same with theirs of Circumcision as to the use of an initial Seal.  
Your twelfth and last Argument which brings up your rear, which you call a weighty reason, runs thus: Because Infant-Baptisme 
Arg. 12.  seems to take away one, perhaps the primary end of Baptism, viz. that it should be a sign that the baptised show himself a Disciple, and confess the faith in which he hath been instructed, and this you prove from john the Baptist and other passages in the New Testament, which put Baptism for Doctrine, from the form of Christ's institution, and by the use of Baptism in the initiating of Proselytes, and hence you collect that Baptism doth not only confirm a benefit, but signifies also a profession made. To which I answer: This Argument how weighty soever it be, is but a branch taken from your second argument out of Mat. 28. and from your third argument from the practice of John and Christ's Apostles, and is but a Crambe of what you have often pressed before, and hath received its full answer, Part 3. Sect. 13. and Part 4. Sect 1. and I add further, that even that which yourself here sets down, gives a full answer to your own Argument, for you say that a Sacrament is not only a visible sign of an invisible grace, ●r appointed to signify only a divine benefit, but it likewise serves to signify his duty who receives the Sacrament: It signifies a profession made, as well as confirms a benefit; for doth it not thence necessarily follow that the Infants of the Jews made by their Circumcision a profession, as well as received the sign of a benefit? and that therefore the Baptising of Infants doth not frustrate that end of initiating them to be Disciples or Professors? And that which you add of the use of Baptism in the initiating of Proselytes into the profession of Judaisme, is as full to the purpose as can be to prove what I affirm: for we know from all the Authors who write about it, that Infants as well as grown men were initiated into the profession of Judaisme by the rite of Baptism.  
In the last place you shut up your Exercitation with a discourse about the Devils indenting with witches to renounce their Baptism, as if some would thence argue that Infant-Baptisme is good, because the Devil would have them renounce it: but you, who it seems know the Devil's mind in it, say the true reason why he requires witches to renounce their Baptism, is not because the Baptism is good in respect of the administration of it, but because the faith mentioned in the form ●f Baptism is good; for my own part, I am so little acquainted with the Devil's practice in it, and see so little strength of Argument for or against Infant-Baptisme from the trading betwixt the Devil and the witch, that I intent not to meddle with this Argument 〈◊〉 from h●ll, I rest contented with those which I find in the ●●●ke of God.  
FINIS.   

A Table of Authors cited or vindicated, and other material things cited in this Treatise.  

A  
ABraham, th● Covenant with him no more mixed then with us, p. 97. Proselytes were his seed, 100 So were civil Justiciaries reputed, p. 101, 104.  
Adeodatus why not baptised in his infancy, p. 48.  
Alipius why not baptised in his insan●y, Ainsworth, p. 171.  
Albigenses●o ●o An aboptists, p. 64.  
An abaptists not like the Non-conformists, p. 72. Their ancient errors newly sprung up against, p. 73. Opposed Magistracy, p. 75. P●● no difference between Infants of Christians and Turks, p. 86, 87.  
Aretius' vindicated, p. 175. Proves Baptism to succeed Circumcision by the An●ionts, p. 176.  
Athanasius mentions Infant-baptisme, p. 20.  
Augustin● vindicated, p. 43. etc. Why 〈◊〉 baptised in his infancy, p. 46, 47.   

B  
Ball vindicated, p. 6.  
Baltazzar Lydius, p. 64.  
Baptism called a new 〈◊〉 by th● Scripture; and the Ancients, p. 1●. Anci●ntty deferred, p. 22. Salvation may be obtained without it, p. 52, 5● Whether it may be repeated, p. 67, 68 Succeeds Circumcision, p. 164. ●●rallelled with it, p. 145. In use among the jews, and applied to Infants as well as ●● men, 170. How it may be pleaded, p. 239.  
Beza cited against his own judgement, p. 147, 150.  
Bal●●mon 〈◊〉, p. 31, 32.  
Bayne vindicated, p. 101, 102▪  
Berengarius no Anabaptist, p. 65.   

C  
Catechumeni, p. 50.  
chrysostom not baptised in hi●●●fancy, p. 27. vindicated, p 177.  
Circumcision; women not capable of it, p. 93. Seals the spiritual part of the Covenant, p. 98. Baptism s●●ceeds if, p. 164. ●ar a●●●led with baptism, p. 145. Why Christ 〈…〉 circumcised and baptised, p. 168. Why Jew's infants circumcised, p. 1ST. How the Jews received it, p. 1ST.  
Christianity how is may be called ●● birthright, p. 119.  
Chamler often cited to 〈◊〉 purpose 〈◊〉. Against hi● own● judgement, p. 144.  
Constantine M. why not baptised in his infanty, p. 25.  
Cotton vindicated, p. 114. 〈…〉 Mr. Rutherford reconciled, p. 123.  
Cyprian vindicated, p. 38. etc.  
Covenant and Seal connected together, p. 89. What is meant by being in the Covenant, p. 89. Covenant of grace always 〈◊〉 and the same, p. 97. Infants taken into the Covenant with their Parents, p. 105. Men may be under is several ways, p. 106. Privileges of them who are under the external Covenant, p. 108. Anexternall right to it proved, p. 140. The promise in it not peculiar to Abraham p. 127.   

D  
Disciples, What it is to make Disciples, p. 212, 213, 214, etc.   

E  
Epiphanitis mentions infant-baptisme, p. 21, 45.   

F  
S●e● of Flesh what, p. 104.   

G  
Goodwin vindicated, p. 143.  
Grotius not to be relied on about infant-baptisme, p. 29. Misreports the Greek Church, p. 32, 33, 34.  
Gospel how conditional, p. 236.   

H  
Hacket his Story, p. 72.  
Henricus Stephanus mis-retited, p. 151.  
Holiness derivative and inherent not ●pposed, p. 142. Fedrall holiness assented by the Ancients, p. 148.   

I  
Infants taken into covenant with their Parents, 105. of believers left by Mr. Tombs to be under the Devil's kingdom, p. 112. Why Jewish Infants circumoised, p. 180. Whether Infants may be said to be believers, p. 231. Ought to be baptised though we know not that they have grace, p. 232. How their Baptism is commanded in Matth. 28. p. 207. Capable of the grace whereof Baptism is a sign, p. 219, 224, 226.  
Infant-baptisme, Antiquity of it vindicated, p 7, etc. p. 44, 45. Episcopacy not so ancient as it, p 8. Why some Ancients speak not of it, p. 19 Athanasius, p 20. And by Epiphanius, p. 21, 45. Not dispre●ed because of questions put to the party that was to be baptised, p. 21. etc. Grotins not to be relied upon in it, p. 29. The Greek Church received it, p. 32. Asserted by Tertullian, p. 35. And Cyprian, p. 38, 39 etc. By Augustine, p, 43. etc. By Fulgentius, p 50 How it is called a Tradition, p. 44. Why not mentioned in Counsels before that of Carthage, p. 49. Still acknowledged in the Church, p. 63. The rejecting of it not the way to Reformation, p. 76. Examples of it by consequence, p. 218. Not a Will worship, p. 195, 225. Benefits of Infant-baptisme, 236. No occasion of humane inventions, etc. 253.  
John Baptist initiated to the Christian Church, p. 171.  
Irenaus●ind ●ind indicated, p. 10, 11, 12.  
Justine Martyr vindicated, 9, 10.   

L  
Ludovicus Vives examined, p. 37, 38.  
Lordsday, p. 80, 81, 82. Proved by consequence from the Sabbath, p. 205. Comparison between evidence for it, & Paedobaptism, p. 81, 82.  
Lord's Supper not eaten by unbaptized persons, p. 167. not by Infants, p. 240.   

N  
Nazianzen vindicated, p. ●8. not baptised in his Infant, p. 26.  
Nation when it is to be reputed Christian, p. 211.  
Neocaesarean Council vindicated, p. 30, 31.   

O  
Origen vindicated, p. 15, 16, 17.   

P  
Parents believing are roots of their children. p. 142.  
Passeover, our Sacrament comes in stead of it, p. 203.  
Privileges ours, not straitened, but enlarged, p. 185. A great abridgement of them to have our children left out of the Covenant, p. 193.  
Photius Patriarch, p. 33.   

Q.  
Questions put to the baptised disprove not baptism, p. ●1. ●ay they prove it, p. 52.   

R  
Rogers vindicated, p. 5.   

S  
Selden, p. 170.  
Strabo examined, p. 37.  
Sacrament what it seals absolutely, and conditionally, 117. How they are Seals, p. 201. our rule in administering them, p. 233. how we may argue from Jew's Sacraments to ours, p. 198. 201.   

T  
Tombs his way of reasoning, p. 3. 105. 125. 134. Unjustly charges the Assembly, p. 79. thinks some may be saved out of the communion of the visible Church, p. 88 He joins with 〈…〉 Circumcision to be a seal of any thing, p. 183. makes it a privilege not to have Infants baptised, p. 187. He makes the Covenant Heb 8. to be the Covenant of works, p. 188. Misinterprets the 2 Cor. 3. 10. p. 188. Leaves all Infants of believers to be under the Devil's 〈◊〉, p. 112. Symboliz●th 〈◊〉 Arminius, p. 144. compares Priest▪ and Ministers to 〈◊〉 purpose, p. 108. 〈◊〉 his own● opinion ●●●nfants condition, p. 238.  
Tortullia● speak● for Infant-Baptism, p. 35.  
Talmud, p. 171.   

V  
Vines vindicated, p. 73.  
Usher de successione Chr. Eccles. p. 64. 65.  
Vo●●●i 〈◊〉 p. 68, 69.   

W  
Waldenses, p. 64. no Anabaptists, p. 65.  
History of Waldenses, p. 64.  
Women not capable of Circumcision, p. 93. how Circumcised in the men, p. 94. if they had not been esteemed as circumcised they could not have eaten the Passeover, 96.    

Errata.  
PAge 1. 10. Line 11. read, you will not do, p. 144. l. 34 for where r. were p 145. l. 35. r. thrasi. p. 157. l. 23. deal not, p. 164. l. 22. ● sequitur, p. 166. l. 5. r. 〈◊〉. p. 167. l 6. r. Catechumeni, p. 173 l. 3. r. impure to you a sense, p. 175. l. 〈…〉, ● 176. l. 13. 1. 〈◊〉, 1. 16. r. tempore, p. 178. l. 38. r. fa●●●u●, p. 191. l. 33. for That r. But, p 199. l. 1. dol● comma after omnibus, p. 213. l. 1. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 213. l. 5. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 222. l. 7. ● as for ●a. p. 226 l. 19 〈◊〉 Baptism and prayer all one, r. baptising into the name of the Father, S●nne and holy Ghost, and prayer all one, l. 22. for, his Baptism and prayer was all one▪ read, that Ananid● his baptising Paul into the name of Christ, or into the name of the Father, Some and holy Ghost, and Paul's calling upon the name of the Lord, was all one.