Two TREATISES AND AN APPENDIX TO THEM CONCERNING infant-baptism. The former Treatise being an Exercitation presented to the chairman of a Committee of the Assembly of DIVINES. The later an Examen of the Sermon of Mr Stephen Martial, about infant-baptism, in a Letter sent to him.  
By JOHN tombs. B. D.  Prov. 23. 23. Buy the truth, and sell it not. Acts 8. 36, 37, 38. And the Eunuch said, See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptised? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, thou Mayst, or it is lawful. And he answered, and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptised him. Bernard. Serm. 66. in Cantica. Irrident nos quia baptizamus infantes, quòd oramus pro mortuis, quòd sanctorum suffragia postulamus. Joan. Lodovic. Vives Comment in Augustin. tom. 5. de civit. Dei. lib. 1. cap. 27. Nemo olim sacro admovebatur baptisterio, nisi adulta jam aetate, & cum idem ipse & sciret quid sibi mystica illa vellet aqua, & se ablui illa peteret, nec semel peteret. Cujus rei imaginem adhuc in nostris infantium baptismis videmus. Nam rogatur etiam, num infans eo die natus, vel pridie, velitne baptizari, idque ter: pro quo susceptores respondent, velle. Audio in quibusdam Italiae urbibus morem veteren magna ex parte adhuc conservari. 
LONDON, Printed for George Whittington, and are to be sold at the sign of the Blackmore in bishopsgate-street. December 15. 1645.   

THe Author of this Examen being (as I hear) a godly man, and of the Presbyterian judgement, though I am not of opinion with him (notwithstanding any thing I have here read) viz. That Infants are not the subject of baptism; yet the end of his writing, as I conceive, being the provoking of others to write, that so his arguments being answered, himself and those that are of his mind may receive satisfaction, I permit it to pass the press: Not doubting but since now (according to the desire of many) it is known where the chief strength of the Catapaedobaptists lies, some will be found out in due time to encounter with it.  
John Bachiler.   


The Contents of the first TREATISE.  

Pag. 1. sect. 1. THe first argument for infant-baptism from the interest in the promise, Gen. 17. 7. examined.  
Pag. 5. sect. 2. The second argument for infant-baptism, from the succession of baptism to Circumcision, examined.  
Pag. 8. sect. 3. The third argument from the parity of grace in the New Testament to that in the Old, examined.  
Pag. 9 sect. 4. The argument from Acts. 2. 38, 39 for infant-baptism, examined.  
Pag. 10. sect. 5. The argument from 1 Cor. 7. 14. for infant-baptism, examined.  
Pag. 16. sect. 6. The arguments from Matth. 19 15. for infant-baptism, examined.  
Pag. 20. sect. 7. The argument from Acts 16. 15. &c. for infant-baptism, examined.  
sect. 8. The argument from general promises for infant-baptism, examined.  
sect. 9 The argument from Isai. 49. 22. for infant-baptism, examined.  
sect. 10. The argument from 1 Cor. 10. 2. for infant-baptism, examined.  
Pag. 21. sect. 11. The argument from Ephes. 5. 26. for infant-baptism, examined.  
sect. 12. The argument from 1 Pet. 2. 9 for infant-baptism, examined.  
sect. 13. The argument from the Churches failing, if infant-baptism, be not lawful, examined.  
Pag. 22. sect. 14. The argument from Heb. 6. 2. for infant-baptism, examined.  
Pag. 23. sect. 15. The argument from the institution of Christ, Matth. 28. 19 against infant-baptism confirmed.  
Pag. 26. sect. 16. The argument from John Baptist and the Apostles practise against infant-baptism, confirmed.  
Pag. 27. sect. 17. The argument from the practice in the age next the Apostles against infant-baptism, confirmed.  
Pag. 28. sect. 18. The argument from the wrong original of infant-baptism, confirmed against it.  
Pag. 29. sect. 19 The argument against infant-baptism, from human inventions, occasioned by it, confirmed.  
Pag. 30. sect. 20. The argument against infant-baptism, from the errors occasioned by it, confirmed.  
sect. 21. The argument against infant-baptism from many abuses caused by it, confirmed.  
Pag. 31. sect. 22. The argument from unnecessary disputes caused by it against infant-baptism, confirmed.  
sect. 23. The argument against infant-baptism, from the opposition to it in the midst of Popery, confirmed.  
Pag. 33. sect. 24. The argument against infant-baptism, from assertors difference about the ground of it, confirmed.  
sect. 25. The argument against infant-baptism, from it's voiding the chief end of baptism, confirmed.    

The Contents of the second Treatise.  

Part. 1. Concerning the antiquity of infant-baptism.  
Pag. 1. sect. 1. The Prologue of the occasion and end of this writing.  
Pag. 3. sect. 2. Of the stating the question, partition of the Treatise, sum of the answer to the testimonies of antiquity for infant-baptism.  
Pag. 4. sect. 3. Of the pretended testimony of Justin Martyr.  
Pag. 5. sect. 4. Of Irenaeus his testimony.  
Pag. 7. sect. 5. Of the supposed testimony of Origen.  
Pag. 8. sect. 6. Of the testimonies of Gregory Nazianzen, and the Greek Church.  
Pag. 10. sect. 7. Of the testimony of Cyprian.  
Pag. 12. sect. 8. Of the testimony of Augustine.  
Pag. 17. sect. 9 Of the testimonies of Jerome, and Ambrose.  
sect. 10. Of the validity of proof by these testimonies, and of the evidences that infant-baptism is an innovation.   

Part. 2. Concerning the prejudices against Antipaedobaptists, from their miscarriages.  
Pag. 19 sect. 1. Of the fitness of placing the ●●●●ation of miscarriages of opposers of paedobaptism.  
Pag. 20. sect. 2. Of the opposers of infant-baptism afore Baltazar.  
Pag. 22. sect. 3. Of Baltazar Pacimontanus.  
Pag. 23. sect. 4. Of rebaptising.  
sect. 5. Of the Anabaptists in Germany, and Antiprelatists in England.  
Pag. 25. sect. 6. Of Anabaptists opposing Magistracy.  
Pag. 26. sect. 7. Of the hindering of reformation by Anabaptism.  
Pag. 27. sect. 8. The Antipaedobaptists principle overthrows not the Lord's day, the Paedobaptists principle reduceth Judaism, and Popish Ceremonies, and adds to the Gospel.  
Pag. 31. sect. 9 Of the evil of separating from the ministry and Communion of Christians, by reason of this opinion.  
Pag. 32. sect. 10. Of the condition into which the opinion of antipaedobaptism puts the infants of believers, of original sin, salvation out of the Church and Covenant of grace.   

Part. 3. Concerning the arguments from Scripture for infant-baptism.  
Pag. 35. sect. 1. Of the Connexion between the Covenant and the seal.  
Pag. 39 sect. 2. Of the first conclusion concerning the identity of the Covenant of grace, for substance to Jews and Gentiles.  
Pag. 40. sect. 3. Of the meaning of the second Conclusion.  
Pag. 48. sect. 4. That the Covenant of grace is not made to believers and their seed.  
Pag. 54. sect. 5. It is not in God's Church like other kingdoms.  
Pag. 56. sect. 6. Of the texts, which are Acts 2. 38, 39 Luk. 19 9  
Pag. 62. sect. 7. Of the text, Rom. 11. 16.  
Pag. 69. sect. 8. Of the text, 1 Cor. 7. 14.  
Pag. 83. sect. 9 Of the succession of baptism, into the place, room and use of Circumcision.  
Pag. 95. sect. 10. Of the notion under which and the reason for which persons were circumcised, showing that all persons that were circumcised were not in the Covenant of grace.  
Pag. 99 sect. 11. Of the privileges of believers under the Gospel, and whether the want of infant-baptism, be want of a privilege of the Covenant of grace, which the Jews had.  
Pag. 110. sect. 12. That the Command to circumcise male infants, is not virtually a Command to baptize Infants.  
Pag. 122. sect. 13. That Matth. 28. 19 is not a Command to baptize infants, but contrary to it.  
Pag. 137. sect. 14. Of examples in Scripture of baptising infants, particularly of baptising households.  
Pag. 142. sect. 15. Of an infant's capacity of inward grace, the text, Matth. 19 14 and of the inconsequence of paedobaptism thereon.   

Part. 4. Concerning the objections against infant-baptism.  
Pag. 151. sect. 1. Of the first objection from institution, Matth. 28. 19 and the practice of John Baptist, and the Apostles.  
Pag. 156. sect. 2. Of the second objection, and therein of the condition prerequisite to baptism.  
Pag. 157. sect. 3. Of the third so called objection, and therein of the knowledge requisite concerning the person to be baptised.  
Pag. 161. sect. 4. Of the fourth objection, and therein of the stipulation as baptism.  
Pag. 163. sect. 5. Of the fifth objection, and therein of the benefit that comes by infant-baptism.  
Pag. 167. sect. 6. Of the sixth objection, and therein of infant-Communion by virtue of their being in the Covenant, and the Lord's Supper succeeding the Passeover.  
Pag. 170. sect. 7. Of the first use, and the Anabaptiss supposed bloods sentence.  
Pag. 170. sect. 8. The Epilogue, containing some expressions and motions of the Author.   

The Content of the Appendix.  
Pag. 173. That Colos. 2. 11, 12. proves not infant-baptism.     

ERRATA.  
TReatise 1. Pag. 7. line 24. rationals, read rationale, p. 9 l. 3. 17. r. 7. p. 10. l 20. Minor, r. Major. p. 16. l. 4. put such back. r. put back such p. 22. l. 30. dele () p. 28. margin r. 18. p. 29. l. 24. baptism, r. baptism, may be supplied p. 34. l. 16. as well, r. as well as.  
Treatise 2. p. 4. l. 29. lived anno, r. lived about anno p. 10. l. 7. differing, r. differing. p. 20. their, r. them, p. 22. l 13. 40th r. cth p. 23. l. 2. 1622 r. 1522. l. 36. Arian, r. Aerian p 32 l. 25. character, r. charter. p. 40. l. 32. sectare, r sect p. 48. in the margin, sminati, r. seminati. l. 34 words, r. word. p. 52. l. 5. 8. r. 6. p. 58. l. 23. thee, r. be. p. 61. in the margin, 36. r. 39 p. 63 l. 6. inusible, r. invisible l. 18. visible, r. invisible, p. (78.) l. 15. believers, r. unbelievers. p. 93. l. 21. Anology, r. Analogy in some other thing p 97. l 24. sort of, r sort deal of p. 107. l. 28. second, r. first. p 111. l. 3, 1. 1. r. 2. p. 114. l. 38. opposition, r. opposition p. 117. l. 5. which now r. which is now. p. 117. l. 39 10. r. 20. p. 116. l. 29. due. r. the l 37. vented, r. vented a conceit p. 127. l 21. a rule, r a title p. 132 in the margin, Baley, r. Bailiff p. 133. l. 12 17 r. 18. l. 15. 12 r. 11. p. 135, l. 5. doth here, r. doth not here. p. 136. l. 13. 26. r. 28. p. 139. l. 33. 2. r. p. 142. l. 36. this r. the p. 163. l. 8. l. 4. r. 48.   

AN EXERCITATION ABOUT infant-baptism; Presented in certain Papers, to the chairman of a COMMITTEE of the ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES, Selected to consider of that ARGUMENT, in the years, 1643, and 1644. With some few Emendations, Additions, and an Answer to one new Objection. Translated out of Latin, by the Author.  
Published according to Order.  
LONDON, Printed by M. S. for George Whittington, 1646.   

AN EXERCITATION CONCERNING infant-baptism.  
THe present Tenent, 
§. 1. The first Argument for infant-baptism, examined from the interest in the promise, Gen. 17. 7.  according to which infant-baptism is practised, is, that the Infants born of a Believer, are universally to be baptised.  
This Doctrine and Practice conformable, is made doubtful to me, by these Arguments.  
Arg. 1. That which hath no testimony of Scripture for it, is doubtful.  
But this Doctrine of infant-baptism, hath no testimony of Scripture for it; Ergo, it is doubtful.  
The Minor is proved by examining the places that are brought for it, which are these: Gen. 17. 7, &c. Acts 2. 38, 39 1 Cor. 7. 14. Mark. 10. 14. 16. Acts 16. 15. 32. 1 Cor. 1. 16. The Argument from Gen. 17. 7, &c. is almost the first and last in this business; and therefore is the more accurately to be examined; but it hath so many shapes, that I may here take up that Speech, With what knot shall I hold shape-changing Proteus? But in the issue, it falls into one or other of these forms:  
The first thus; To whom the Gospel-covenant agrees, to them the sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees also. But to the Infants of Believers the Gospel-covenant agrees; therefore to them the sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees, and consequently baptism. The Minor is proved from Gen. 17. 7. where God promiseth to Abraham, I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee.  
I answer, That we may meet with this Argument, divers things are to be examined, which are taken for granted:  
First, Whether the Gospel-covenant, and the Covenant made with Abraham be the same: Secondly, what seed of Abraham it is, of which it is said, I will be a God to thee and to thy seed: Thirdly, whether there be the same reason of circumcision and of baptism in signing the Gospel-covenant: Fourthly, whether these terms be convertible [Federate, and to be signed].  
Of these, I say; 1. The Covenant made with Abraham, is not a pure Gospel-covenant, but mixed, which I prove;  
The Covenant takes its denomination from the promises; but the promises are mixed, some evangelical, belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth, some are domestic, or civil promises, specially respecting the House of Abraham, and policy of Israel; Ergo.  
That was evangelical which we read, Gen. 17. 5. I have made thee a father of many nations; and that which we find, Gen. 15. 5. so shall thy seed be; in which it is promised, that there shall be of the Nations innumerable that shall be Abraham's children by believing, Rom. 4. 17, 18. It was evangelical, which we find, Gen. 12. 3. & Gen. 18. 18. and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed; for in these is promised blessing to Believers, of whom Abraham is father, Gal. 3. 8, 9 and by Christ, who is the seed of Abraham, Gal. 3. 16. Acts 3. 25.  
Domestic and civil promises were many; of the multiplying the seed of Abraham, the birth of Isaac; of the continuation of the Covenant with Isaac; of the coming of Christ out of Isaac; the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and deliverance thence; of possessing the Land of Canaan, Gen. 15. 13. 18. Gen. 17. 7, 8. 15. 16. Act. 7. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. and many other places.  
Yea, it is to be noted, that those promises which were evangelical, according to the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost, do point at the privileges of Abraham's House, in the outward face of the words; whence it may be well doubted, whether this Covenant made with Abraham, may be called simply evangelical, and so pertain to Believers, as such, although there be evangelical promises in that Covenant, pertaining to all Believers, as Believers. There were annexed to the Covenant on Mount Sinai, sacrifices pointing at the sacrifice of Christ, and yet we call not that Covenant simply evangelical, but in some respect.  
Secondly, The seed of Abraham is many ways so called: First, Christ is called the seed of Abraham, by excellency, Gal. 3. 16. Secondly, all the Elect, Rom. 9 7. all Believers, Rom. 4. 11, 12. 16. 17, 18. are called the seed of Abraham, that is, the spiritual seed. Thirdly, there was a natural seed of Abraham, to whom the inheritance did accrue; this was Isaac, Gen. 21. 12. Fourthly, a natural seed, whether lawful, as the sons of Keturah, or base, as Ishmael, to whom the inheritance belonged not, Gen. 15. 5. But nowhere do I find, that the Infants of Believers of the Gentiles are called Abraham's seed, of the three former kinds of Abraham's seed, the promise recited, is meant, but in a different manner thus: that God promiseth, he will be a God to Christ, imparting in him blessing to all nations of the earth, to the spiritual seed of Abraham in evangelical benefits, to the natural seed inheriting, in domestic and political benefits.  
3. That the promise of the Gospel, or Gospel-covenant, was the same in all ages, in respect of the thing promised, and condition of the covenant, which we may call the substantial and essential part of that covenant, to wit, Christ, Faith, Sanctification, Remission of sins, eternal life; yet this evangelical covenant had divers forms in which these things were signified, and various sanctions, by which it was confirmed: To Adam, the promise was made under the name of the seed of the woman, bruising the head of the Serpent; to Enoch, Noah, in other forms; otherwise to Abraham, under the name of his seed, in whom all nations should be blessed; otherwise to Moses, under the obscure shadows of the Law; otherwise to David, under the name of a successor in the kingdom; otherwise in the New Testament, in plain words, 2 Cor. 3. 6. Heb. 8. 10. It had likewise divers sanctions. The promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of circumcision, and by the birth of Isaac; to Moses by the Paschall Lamb, and the sprinkling of blood on the book, the rain of Mannah, and other signs; to David by an oath; in the New Testament, by Christ's blood, 1 Cor. 11. 25. Therefore circumcision signified and confirmed the promise of the Gospel, according to the form and sanction of the covenant with Abraham, baptism signifies and confirms the same promise according to the form, sanction and accomplishment of the new Testament: Now these forms and sanctions differ many ways, as much as concerns our present purpose in these: First, circumcision confirmed not only evangelical promises, but also political; and if we may believe Mr. Cameron, in his Theses of the threefold Covenant of God, Thesi. 78. Circumcision did primarily separate the seed of Abraham from other nations, sealed unto them the earthly promise; Secondarily, it did signify sanctification: But baptism signifies only evangelical benefits. Secondly, circumcision did confirm the promise concerning Christ to come out of Isaac; baptism assures Christ to be already come, to have been dead, and to have risen again, Thirdly, circumcision belonged to the Church, constituted in the House of Abraham, baptism to the Church gathered out of all nations; whence I gather, that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptism, in signing the evangelical covenant; nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like manner of administering the other.  
4. That some there were circumcised, to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong; of Ishmael, God had said, that his covenant was not to be established with him, but with Isaac; and yet he was circumcised, Gen. 17. 20, 21. 25. Rom. 9 7, 8, 9 Gal. 4. 29, 30. the same may be said of Esau: All that were in Abraham's house, whether strangers, or born in his house, were circumcised, Gen. 17. 12, 13. of whom nevertheless, it may be doubted, whether any promises of the covenant made with Abraham, did belong to them; there were other persons, to whom all, or most of the promises in the covenant pertained, that were not circumcised; this may be affirmed of the Females, coming from Abraham, the Infants dying before the eighth day, of just men, living out of Abraham's house, as Melchisedech, Lot, Job. If any say, that the females were circumcised in the circumcision of the Males, he saith it without proof; and by like, perhaps greater, reason it may be said, that the children of Believers are baptised in the persons of their parents, and therefore are not to be baptised in their own persons. But it is manifest that the Jews comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham, and circumcised, were nevertheless not admitted to baptism by John Baptist, and Christ's Disciples, till they professed repentance, and faith in Christ. Hence I gather, first, that the right to evangelical promises, was not the adequate reason of crrcumcising these or those, but God's precept, as is expressed, Gen. 17. 23. Gen. 21. 4. Secondly, that those terms are not convertible, [federate and to be signed].  
Whereupon I answer to the Argument: First, either by denying the Major, if it be universally taken, otherwise it concludes nothing: or by granting it with this limitation; it is true of that sign of the covenant which agrees universally in respect of form and sanction, to them that receive the Gospel, but it is not true of that sign of the covenant, which is of a particular form or sanctior of which sort is circumcision.  
Secondly, I answer by denying the Minor, universally taken, the reason is, because those children only of believing Gentiles, are Abraham's children, who are his spiritual seed, according to the election of grace by faith, which are not known to us, but by profession, or special Revelation.  
THe second Argument is thus formed: 
§. 2. The second Argument for Infant baptism from the succession of baptism to circumcision, examined.   
To whom circumcision did agree, to them baptism doth agree, but to infant's Circumcision did agree, therefore also baptism.  
The Major is thus proved: If the baptism of Christ succeed into the place of circumcision, than baptism belongs to them that circumcision belonged to; but the Antecedent is true, therefore also the Consequent. The Minor is proved to be true, because, Colos. 2. 11, 12. it is said the Colossians were circumcised, because they were buried with Christ in baptism.  
For Answer: This Argument supposeth baptism to succeed in the place of Circumcision, which may be understood many ways.  
1. So as that the sense be, that those persons be to be baptised, which heretofore by God's command were to be circumcised, and in this sense the Argument must proceed, if it conclude to the purpose; but in this sense it is false, for no females were to be circumcised, which yet are to be baptised, Acts 16. 14, 15. and Believers out of Abraham's house, as Lot, Melchisedech, Job, were not to be circumcised, but believing Gentiles are universally to be baptised.  
2. It may be so understood, as if the rite of baptism than began, when the rite of circumcision did, or was of right to end; but this is not to be said: For John Baptist and the Disciples of Christ baptised, Joh. 4. 1, 2. before circumcision of right ceased, and they who first were circumcised, were after baptised, being converted to the faith, as is manifest concerning Paul, Phil. 3. 5. Acts 9 18.  
3. It may be understood, as if baptism did succeed into the place of circumcision, in respect of its signification, which is true in some things: First, it is true that both signified the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4. 11. Rom. 6. 3. Gal. 3. 27. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Secondly, it is true, both signified sanctification of the heart, and this is all that may be concluded out of the place alleged, Col. 2. 11, 12. to which I think meet to add; that if the Text be looked into, that place speaks not of any circumcision, but of Christ's circumcision in whom we are complete, and by whose circumcision we are said to put off the body of the sins of the flesh; nor doth the Text say, we are circumcised, because we are baptised; but we are complete in Christ, because we are circumcised in him, and buried with him in baptism, in which, or in whom, ye are also risen together, through the faith of the operation of God that raised him from the dead.  
In some things baptism doth not succeed into the place of Circumcision, in respect of signification: For, first Circumcision did signify Christ to come of Isaac, according to the flesh, Gen. 17. 10. 21. but baptism doth not signify this, but points at the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Secondly, Circumcision was a sign that the Israelites were a people separated from all nations, Rom. 3. 1. but baptism signifieth, that all are one in Christ, Gal. 3. 28. Thirdly, Circumcision signified that Moses Law was to be observed, Gal. 5. 3. but baptism doth signify that Moses his Law is made void, and the Doctrine of Christ to be retained, Acts 10. 37. Fourthly, Circumcision did sign the promise of the Land of Canaan, baptism eternal life by Christ.  
From hence I answer to the Argument: First, by denying the Major of the fore syllogism. Secondly, to the conditional syllogism, by denying the Consequence of the Major, if the Antecedent be understood of succession, in the third sense, in respect of some signification granted; but if the succession be understood in the first, second, or third sense, in respect of other significations, the Minor is denied; the proof from Col. 2. 11, 12. is already answered.  
And indeed, if this Argument be not warily, and restrainedly understood, an egg is laid, out of which manifest Judaism may be hatched, but if it be taken restrainedly, no more follows thence, but that baptism and Circumcision in some things, signify the same, which is more plainly said of Noah's flood, 1 Pet. 3. 21. of the red Sea, and the cloud that guided, 1 Cor. 10. 2. and yet we say not that baptism succeeded into their place, much less do we infer any rite to be instituted in their stead, respecting the same persons; yea verily it is to be seriously thought on.  
1. That by such Arguments drawn from Analogies, not conceived by the holy Spirit, but drawn out of our wit, a new kind of instituting Rites, to wit, from Analogies, is brought in, besides our Lord's Precepts and the Apostles examples.  
2. This being once laid, by like manner of argumentation, it will be lawful to bring into the Christian Church, under other names and forms, the whole burden of Jewish Rites; yea, almost, out of what you will, to conclude what you will; for who shall put a bound to men's wits feigning analogy, when they go beyond the Lord's Precepts, and the Apostles examples? It is well known, that the divine appointment of tithes to be paid, and many other things, in the writings of Divines, are asserted by this kind of Argument, besides the rule of the Lord's Precept and the Apostles example.  
3. Hereby will the opinion of Papists be confirmed, who affirm from 1 Cor. 10. 11. the Sacraments of the Jews, to be types of the Sacraments of Christians, which is rejected by Divines that dispute against Bellarmine.  
4. This manner of arguing will countenance the Arguments of the Papists for an universal Bishop, because there was an High Priest amongst the Jews; for sacrificing Priests, because the Jews had such; for a linen garment at mass, because there was such among the Jews; for holy water, purification of women, Easter, Pentecost, and many more such ceremonies, for which the Papist do in like manner argue, as appears out of Durandus Rationals, and other Interpreters of Rituals among the Papists; yea, what hindereth, but we may give children the Lord's Supper, if we argue this way, sith Samuel, Jesus Christ under age, were partakers of the Passeover, and of right, all the males were to appear thrice in the year, before the Lord; and therefore it is certain they did eat the Passeover; and it shall be after showed, that the place, 1 Cor. 11. 28. will not avoid this inconvenience, if the Text, Matth. 28. 19 may be shifted off, as paedobaptists use to do. Lest any man take this for a light suggestion, I will add, that grave, godly and learned men, have often warned, that we are to take heed, that we do not rashly frame arguments from analogy: among others in their late writings, in the English tongue, John Paget, in his Defence of Church-government, part. 1. chap. 3. pag. 8. and elsewhere, John Ball in his Reply to the Answer of the New-England Elders, unto the 9 Positions, Posit. 2. pag. 14.  
Lastly, it is to be considered again and again, how by these Argumentations, consciences may be freed from the danger of will-worship and polluting so remarkable an Ordinance of Christ as baptism is, specially this care lies on them, who by Prayers, Sermons, Writings, Covenants and Oaths, do deter Christians from human inventions, in God's worship diligently, and as is to be hoped sincerely.  
THe third Argument is thus framed. 
§. 3. The third Argument from the parity of grace in the new Testament to that in the old examined.   
If baptism be not granted to the Infants of Believers, than the grace of God will be more restrained in the new Testament then in the old: but this is not to be affirmed; therefore baptism is to be granted to Infants of Believers.  
Answ. 1. If this Argument be of any weight, it will prove that the grace of God is straitened, because we give not the Lord's Supper to children, to whom the Passeover was given, as appears by that which was above said.  
2. The grace of God is not tied to Sacraments, neither do Sacraments give grace by the work done, and therefore grace is not restrained, though Sacraments be never granted, grace is not denied to an excommunicated person, who is inhibited the Lord's Supper, the Grace of God is free, whether we understand it of the divine affection, or the effects of it; nor can be made larger or narrower by our act.  
3. Yet it is not absurd to say, that in respect of some privileges, the Grace of God is more contracted in the new Testament then in the old: For instance, no family hath now the privilege that was granted to Abraham's family, that out of it Christ should be born; no man besides Abraham is called The father of the faithful; no woman besides one, The mother of Christ; nevertheless, simply the grace of God is said to be larger in the new Testament, by reason of the revelation of the Gospel imparted to all nations, the more abundant communication of the holy Spirit, and more plain manifestation of the mystery of the Gospel: I would have it weighed, whether those phrases of the Apostle, Rom. 11. 21. as the natural branches, ver. 24. The wild Olive by nature, were't graffed contrary to nature. These which be natural branches, do not sufficiently imply, that the Jews children by their birth had a privilege beyond the Gentiles children.  
Thereupon I answer to the Argument: First, by denying the consequence of the Major, for the reason given: Secondly, by denying the Minor, if it be understood of straightening the grace of God, in respect of some privilege, although the Assumption may be granted, if understood of the straightening God's grace simply.  
The sum of the Answer to the Arguments, drawn from Gen. 17. 17. is this: The Sacraments are not to be administered according to rules taken from our reasonings, but God's appointment. Rightly doth Mr. Ball forenamed, in the Book forenamed, Posit. 3. & 4. pag. 38. say, But in whatsoever Circumcision and baptism, do agree or differ, we must look to the institution, and neither stretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it, for he is the institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure; and it is our part to learn of him, both to whom, how, and for what end the Sacraments are to be administered, how they agree, and wherein they differ, in all which we must affirm nothing, but what God hath taught us, and as he hath taught us.  
THe Argument from Acts 2. 
§. 4. The Argument from Act. 2. 38, 39 for infant-baptism examined.  38, 39 may be thus formed: To whom the promise is made, they may be baptised; but to the Infants of Believers the promise is made, therefore they may be baptised.  
The Minor is proved from the words of verse. 39 for the promise is made to you and to your children.  
That an Answer may be fitted to this Argument:  
1. It is to be observed, that the promise made, is the sending of Jesus Christ, and blessing by him, as it is expounded, Acts 3. 25, 26. Acts 13. 32, 33. Rom. 15. 8, 9  
2. That the Text saith, the promise was made to them he spoke to, and their children, then to them that are afar off, who, whether they be Gentiles, who are said to be afar of, Ephes. 2. 12. or Jews, in future ages and generations, as Beza thinks, are limited by the words closing the verse, as many as the Lord our God shall call, which limitation plainly enough shows the promise to appertain to them not simply as Jews, but as called of God, which is more expressly affirmed, Acts 3. 26. To you, God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquity: or as Beza, Every one of you turning yourselves from your iniquities; therefore the promise here is not said to be made but with condition of calling, and faith, which may be confirmed abundantly from Rom. 4. 13, 14. 16. Gal. 3. 9 14. 22.  
3. That Peter, vers. 38. doth exhort to repentance and baptism together, and in the first place persuades to Repentance, than baptism, which shows Repentance to be in order before baptism.  
4. That mention is made of the promise, not as of itself, yielding right to baptism without Repentance, but as a motive, inciting together, to Repentance and baptism. Whereupon it is answered:  
1. That the Major is to be limited, to whom the promise is made, they may be baptised, to wit, when they are called, and have showed signs of repentance; If it be taken without limitation, it is to be denied.  
2. By denying the Minor, if it be universally taken of all Infants of Believers, of whose baptism the question is; as for the Text, it speaks not expressly of Infants, but of children indefinitely; nor of the children of the Gentiles at all, (of whom we are) but of the children of the Jews, and therefore, if that promise be extended to Infants, which doth not appear, the promise is to be expounded so, as to note something peculiar to the Jews Infants.  
THe Argument from the place, 
§. 5. The Argument from 1 Cor. 7. 14. for infant-baptism, examined.  1 Cor. 7. 14. may be thus formed: They who are holy with covenant-holiness, may be baptised: But the Infants of a Believer are holy, with a covenant-holiness; for it is said in the Text, but now they are holy; therefore they may be baptised. I answer:  
1. The Minor is not true, universally understood, as is manifest from Rom. 11. 16. where it is said, If the first fruits be holy, so is the lump: if the root be holy, so are the branches. The sense is, that Abraham is the first fruits, and holy root; the elect Israelites are the branches and lump; so that it follows, that the elect of the Israelites not yet called, are holy in respect of the Covenant, and are not yet therefore to be baptised; for although they may be said to be holy in regard of the Covenant, of old entered into with Abraham, and the gracious respect of God to them, to be manifested in opportune time, yet in their present state, before calling, they denying Christ, neither Infants nor grown men are to be baptised, unless we would have the branches broken off to be graffed into the Church; and therefore, although the sense were in the place of 1 Cor. 7. 14. your children are holy with covenant-holiness, by reason of God's gracious favour to be manifested in due time, yet it will not follow, that they are to be baptised, who have not yet yielded any shows of divine grace.  
2. The Minor is not proved from the place alleged: For it doth not speak of federal holiness, but of holiness, that I may so call it, matrimonial, so that the sense is, your children are holy, that is, legitimate. Whether any in the ages before, the age last past, expounded it, of federal holiness, as they call it, I am not yet certain: as for the exposition of that place, of that holiness, I called matrimonial, of it the place is expounded by Aquinas, in his Commentary upon the place, and perhaps by others, whom I have not yet had time to look into, but I think best to set down the words of Joachimus Camerarius, about this matter, in his Commentary on the new Testament, lately printed at Cambridge; [for the unbelieving husband hath been sanctified] an usual change of the Tense, that is, is sanctified, in the lawful use of marriage, for without this (he saith) it would be, that their children should be unclean, that is, infamous, and not legitimate, who so are holy, that is, during the marriage are without all blot of ignominy: Moreover, Melancthon in his Commentary on the place, Therefore Paul answers, that the marriages are not to be pulled asunder, for their unlike opinions of God, if the impious person do not cast away the other; and for comfort he adds as a reason, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, of which Speech divers interpretations are made, but the true and natural is this, as elsewhere, he saith, Meat is sanctified, for that which is holy in use, that is granted to Believers from God, so here he speaks the use of marriage to be holy, and to be granted of God, [else were] the interpretation of the Sept. so speaks unclean, it calls unclean that which is prohibited; as we say swine's flesh was unclean by the Law of Moses, that is, prohibited, or a woman brought to bed, is unclean, that is, whose touching is forbidden. The connexion of the Argument is this: If the use of marriage should not please God, your children would be bastards, and so unclean; but your children are not bastards, therefore the use of marriage pleaseth God: How bastards were unclean in a peculiar manner, the Law shows, Deut. 23. Let not a bastard enter into the Congregation of the Lord, to the tenth generation, that is, Let him be admitted to no function in the Church; therefore this is the most plain meaning, children are not bastards, nor to be kept away, as the Law of Moses kept them away; therefore also the use of marriage pleaseth God. Musculus Comment. on 1 Cor. 7. 14. hath these words; [is sanctified] this expresseth the reason of that which he saith, Let him not put her away; perhaps, the more unskilful Christians thought such dwelling together to be unclean and unlawful; and they did fear, lest they should be made one body with the yokefellow that was an Idolater, as he that is joined to an Harlot, is made one body with the Harlot, and so of the members of Christ, should make them members of an Idolater, which hath more sin than if they should make them the members of an Harlot; for this cause, he saith, for the unbeliever is sanctified, &c. that is, for the unbelieving husband in the wife, that is, in the conjunction of the wife, which is by marriage, even long ago hath been cleansed by virtue of marriage; so that his conjunction and copulation, hath nothing unclean: so in like manner also, the unbelieving wife, by reason of lawful wedlock, in which she is joined to the man, even long ago is cleansed, that the believer is not defiled, if she live together with him; for the word holiness here, is taken for the cleanness of the marriage-bed which he hath by the tradition of God, therefore he saith, else your children should be unclean, but now they are holy; he should have said, but now they are clean, if to be holy, and clean, in this place were not the same.  
Therefore the most plain understanding of this place is, first, in that we understand not the word holiness, of that holiness which is by the covenant of God, or the Spirit of faith, by which Believers are sanctified, as a people of God, but of the holiness of the conjugal bed, otherwise it will bring forth a troublesome dispute, how an unbelieving husband may be said to be sanctified. Then, that we attribute this sanctification that is cleanness, not to the faith of the believing yokefellow, but to the marriage, by reason of the appointment of God; with Jerome, who saith, because by God's appointment, marriage is holy; and Ambrose, who hath it thus, the children are holy, because they are born of lawful marriage; therefore, that in the wife and in the husband, is not to be read with the addition of Believer, as the old Interpreter hath it, but simply, as the Greek hath it; if any thing be to be added, it is better to be added, the lawful wife or husband, that we may understand, that the unbelieving husband is cleansed in his lawful wife, that is, by virtue of their lawful marriage, is not unclean, but clean, as far as appertains to the law of cohabitation of marriage, although he be impure so far as appertains to the commerce of Religion, of which the word of Deacons in the Church was, Let the profane depart, the holy draw near. [else your children] Ambrose so expounds this particle [else] that is, if thou the believing husband shouldst put away thy unbelieving wife, and marry another, your children should be unclean, because you should be made Adulterers, but [now] that is, if thou retain thy unbelieving wife, they are holy, because they are born of a lawful marriage. But it is more plain, that we understand the Apostle, to have respect to the sanctimony of marriage, even of them who without the faith of Christ, are conjoined in marriage, as if he had said, unless marriage were holy and clean, even between unbelievers, what other thing would follow, then that all the children of Infidels are bastards, and unclean? but far be it from us to say so; they are holy, for they are born of lawful marriage. Ambrose looks to that which he said, Let him not put her away; the other Exposition to that which he said, the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife. I have sometimes abused the present place against the error of Anabaptists, keeping back Infants of Christians from baptism, thinking that speech, but now are they holy, to be the same, as, they are the people of God, by reason of the believing parents; but although it be sure in itself, that the children of believers, are both holy, and pertaining to the people of God, by reason of the participation of the Covenant, and so are partakers of baptism, as the sign of the Covenant, yet the present place makes nothing to this cause, in which the sanctimony of the Covenant and people is not meddled with; but the cleanness of lawful marriage even of Infidels: for not only to children, to whom perhaps, the holiness of a believing parent, may so appertain, that for it they may be partakers of the Covenant, but also to unbelieving husbands and wives is sanctimony ascribed, although they oppose the Christian faith; nor is any other holiness or cleanness of children meddled with, then that which agrees also to unbelieving parents, for to them, no other agrees, than that which is by lawful marriage. There's other testimonies out of Scripture, from whence the Anabaptists may be convinced of error; so that there is no need to use this place against them. Thus far Camerarius, Melancthon, Musculus.  
Perhaps some one will object, that nowhere is holy, the same with legitimate: to which I answer, That holiness is put for Chastity, is manifested from 1 Thes. 4. 3. 4. 7. and the word [sanctified] in this place, what doth it found else, than [is lawfully coupled] and [is sanctified] 1 Tim. 4. 5. what else doth it signify, than [is lawfully used]? at which place Beza hath these words, Therefore meats are said to be sanctified, which we use lawfully, and with God's good leave; he alludes to legal purifications, and the difference between clean and unclean meats: And why may not by a like allusion, unclean, be put for Bastards, and holy for legitimate? for the Bastard is among the unclean, Deut. 23. 2. To which I may add what John Calvin hath on Mal. 2. 15. Wherefore hath God made one? to wit, seeking a seed of God; a seed of God is here taken for legitimate, as the Hebrews do name that divine whatsoever doth excel, yea, they call that divine which is pure from any fault and spot: therefore he sought a seed of God, that is, appointed marriage; from whence should be born a legitimate and clean offspring. Secretly therefore doth the Prophet here show, that they are all bastards, that shall be born by polygamy, because they neither can, nor aught to be counted legitimate sons, but they who are begotten according to God's institution, but where the husband violates the faith given to the wife, and takes to himself another, as he perverts the order of marriage, so also he cannot be a lawful father. Thus Calvin, and in like manner Cameron praelect. in Mat. 19 5. interprets that Text.  
Lastly, if the words of the Text be weighed, this will seem the only and genuine sense; for the question which the Apostle resolves was, whether the conjunction was to be retained of the believing yokefellow, with the unbelieving? The reason of doubting was, because that conjunction seems impure, by reason of the impurity of the unbelieving yokefellow; the Apostle answers, not so: For the unbelieving husband hath been sanctified in the wife. To draw out the sense of this place, it is to be noted, that [the unbelieving husband] sounds the same, as if he had said, [the husband, though he be an unbeliever]; for the scope requires that this be the sense, the Husband, though he be an unbeliever, yet is sanctified in the wife.  
2. That it is not said, in the believing wife, nor in the believing husband (though I deny not Beza observed some such thing in the Clermont copy, and elsewhere): For the copies do not so read, and it seems the Apostle of purpose so spoke, that the reason of Sanctification may be intimated to be taken, not from the faith of the yokefellow, but conjugal relation.  
3. [{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}] is not rightly rendered, [by] in the vulgar and our English translation, as if the sense were, that the faith of the wife, were the cause of sanctifying the unbelieving husband, for this sense cannot be fastened to this place; for no man will say, the faith of the unbelieving wife, sanctifies the unbelieving husband federally; so that the unbelieving husband should be capable of baptism by his wife's faith, (which yet, by the good leave of such men be it said, doth as well follow from this place, as that the son is federally holy, and capable of baptism, for the faith of the parent) neither can it be said, that the parent is sanctified with spiritual sanctification by the faith of the wife; for how ever it be determined that faith is the cause of inward sanctification, yet it is certain that the faith of one is not the cause of the sanctification of another, I mean, the next and effectual cause. Nor doth this sense pertain hither, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, that is, is renewed in the spirit of his mind, by the diligence of his wife, instructing him in the faith, as she is said to save, vers. 16. For this sanctification being put, the children may remain impure, and not holy; the contrary whereof is here asserted: and this sanctification is contingent, it may be, or it may not be, as is manifest from verse. 16. For how knowest thou? But in this place the sanctification is certain and necessary, else it should not take away the doubt, about the retaining the conjunction; nor doth the sense pertain hither, the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, that is, the wife, because she hath faith, hath used the unbelieving husband without all scruple of conscience; for the contrary was the occasion of this Discourse; nor doth this belong a whit to the impurity or holiness of the children; therefore more rightly [{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}] is rendered in Latin in the Dative, 
Mat. 17. 12.  [to the wife] for the particle {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, is often so used, as Gal. 1. 16. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 
Acts 7. 44.  to me, 2 Pet. 1. 5. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, to faith, Acts 4. 12. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, to men; and 1 Cor. 7. 15. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, is rendered by Beza unto peace: the sense than is, that the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife, that is, is not coupled as an unclean fornicator, but as a lawful husband, and that copulation is holy, that is, remains chaste, the unbeliever remaining a husband; for an unbeliever is a husband, and therefore the use of him is chaste, [else] the Apostle proves what he had said, of the sanctification of the unbelieving husband, to the wife, and the order being turned, by an argument from an absurdity, which may be reduced unto this form:  
If the unbelieving husband be not sanctified to the wife, and the order turned, than your children should be unclean; but your children are not unclean, but holy; Ergo. [{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, else] plainly shows, that absurdity would follow, if this were not granted, that the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, otherwise certainly, as Beza renders it, your children are unclean, that is, your children which you have have hitherto begotten, should be unclean, that is, bastards, but now they are holy: [but now] Beza rightly notes it, is not an Adverb of time, but a Conjunction, that is wont to be used in the Assumptions of Arguments, and the sense is, [but now] that is, but for as much as the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife, that is, in respect of the use of the wife, your children are holy, that is, lawfully begotten and born; but if it be granted the sanctification is understood of lawful and chaste use, (which is necessarily to be yielded) and yet the uncleanness and holiness be understood of that which they call federal, than this will follow, that the children born of wives superadded to the first, incestuous, concubines and harlots are not within the Covenant, neither to be circumcised nor baptised, whereas not only Ishmael by Abraham, but also many sons of Jacob, the sons of Judah, Pharez and Zarah by Thamar, were circumcised; nor doth custom or canon put such back children from Baptism; but in very deed, this cannot be the sense, for only holiness, which I call matrimonial, of the children, followeth from matrimonial lawful copulation, which is here asserted, and only uncleanness opposite to legitimation, follows illegitimate, and polluted copulation, and of these alone there was doubt amongst the Corinthian Christians, and therefore the Apostles resolution.  
Nor yet, as Beza infers, if this sense be put, should the Apostle draw an argument from civil Laws, to pacify conscience, but he using his apostolical authority, resolves the doubts in this Chapter, and teacheth, that according to God's Law, and Christ's Precept, the marriage is not dissolved by the infidelity of either yokefellow, but that they may lawfully dwell together, and couple, according to God's institution of Marriage. As for that which Beza saith, No man hath ever said truly, that marriage is holy between two unbelievers, and that their children are holy, sith their meats are unclean to them, as being to be sanctified by the Word, and giving of thanks; it is true, if we speak of the sanctification of the heart, but it is manifest from that which is before said, that the Apostle speaks of the sanctification and sanctity, that is in chastity, and legitimation, and in respect of it Beza grants the marriage of Infidels not to be accounted before God for fornication; for marriage is honourable among all, even unbelievers, and the bed undefiled, but Whoremongers and Adulerers God will judge, Heb. 13. 4. but honour and holiness sound the same, 1 Thes. 4. 4.  
THe Argument from Mat. 
§. 6. The Arguments from Mat. 19 15. for infant-baptism exmined.  19 15. Mar. 10. 14. 16. Luke 18. 15, 16, 17. may be formed in divers manners: First thus; they are to be baptised, whom Christ commands to be brought to him, being moved with indignation towards his disciples, that repelled them.  
But Christ commands Infants to be brought to him. Ergo. That this Argument may be examined, it is to be considered:  
1. Who they were that brought these children.  
2. What little children they were that were brought.  
3. Upon what motives.  
4. To what end.  
5. What time.  
6. In what place they brought them.  
7. For what cause the Apostles did repel them.  
8. For what cause Christ being angry with the Apostles, come-  
In many of these, we have scarce any thing beside conjectures, which we may follow, neither have I leisure or books to look into all things which Commentators have discoursed concerning these heads.  
As for the first, it it is supposed that the bringers were either parents, or other believers, who at least wished well to the little children; which is probable from the end for which they brought them, to wit, that he might bless them, and pray for them, for this showed faith and love.  
As for the second, it is probable they were children of Jews, because this was done in the coasts of Judea, Mat. 19 1. Mar. 10. 1. But whether the parents of the children believed in Christ or otherwise, is not manifest.  
As for the third, concerning the motive, there is little certain, whether it were upon the sight, or hearing of that which Christ did, Mat. 18. 2. or from a custom among the Jews, of seeking the blessing of Prophets and holy men, for their little ones, as Rebecca for Jacob, Joseph for his sons; or from the fame of things done upon the prayers of Christ; or an instinct from God, that occasion might be given of teaching the things that Christ taught upon this matter; or some other motive.  
As for the fourth, the end is expressed by Matthew, that he might put on hands and pray; by Mark and Luke, tha the might touch them, which tends to impart a blessing.  
As for the fifth, Matthew points at the time, by the particle [then] and both Mark and Matthew, put it after the dissertation, with the Pharisees concerning divorce, and the answer to the Disciples exception, which Mark testifies was made in the house; Luke puts it after the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee, but he is wont to relate things out of their right place. But what the holy Spirit doth intimate, by noting the time precisely, I guess not, unless perhaps he would have it noted, that an occasion was opportunely ministered, of amplifying the argument concerning making a man's self an Eunuch for the kingdom of heaven, though this reason doth not very much like me.  
As for the sixth, the place is intimated, Mat. 19 1. Mar. 10. 1. in the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan, in Matthew; By the farther side of Jordan, in Mark; about which it availeth not to our present purpose to inquire.  
As for the seventh, the reason of repelling, is not known, but by conjecture, it is probable this bringing of little children, was troublesome to them, either because it did interrupt Christ's Speech about marriage, and fitness to the Kingdom of heaven, or because they sought rest in the house, or because they did think this bringing would be in vain.  
As for the eighth, Christ without doubt, was angry with the Disciple, because they hindered the occasion of doing good to men, whereas Christ went about doing good, Act. 10. 38. And in this business the faith of the bringers was to be cherished, and the power of blessing in Christ was to be manifested, & the excellent doctrine to be delivered, concerning little children's being capable of the kingdom of heaven, of the quality of them who receive the kingdom of heaven; but whether Christ would that this fact should remain, as a perpetual rule for baptising the Infants of Believers, is yet a question. It seems, scarce probable it should be so.  
1. Because baptism of Infants, being merely positive, so obscure and doubtful an institution, is without example and reason.  
2. Because we find no practice or hint in Scripture, which may expound this fact to this sense.  
3. Because, if he had given a command to the Apostles of baptising Infants, he had rather said, bring the little children to me, then suffer them to be brought to me.  
4. He had declared whose Infants he would have baptised, and not have spoken so indefinitely, it is certain, before the command, Mat. 28. 19, 20. There is no Precept extant, concerning baptising Gentiles, much less concerning baptising the Infants of the Gentiles.  
5. The words, suffer & forbid not, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, these little children, as Beza reads, show that Christ's words are meant only of those children.  
6. If this fact pertain to baptism, than we must say, that Christ baptised, the contrary whereof is said, Joh. 4. 2. As for that which is objected, that three evangelists rehearse this fact, that thence a perpetual rule may be drawn, of bringing Infants to Christ by an outward Ordinance, which is not done but by baptism, it is weak: For,  
1. Three evangelists rehearse the bringing of the palsy man to Christ, the access of the leprous person to Christ, and many other things, from which yet no perpetual rule is formed.  
2. If any rule be hence to be formed, that is to be perpetually observed, this relation will serve more fitly to establish episcopal confirmation, by laying on hands, and praying, then presbyterial baptism.  
Secondly, we must distinguish, concerning bringing to Christ; there is a bringing to Christ, by local admotion, there is another bringing to Christ by spiritual instruction; this bringing to Christ, is the cause of baptism, not the other: for many were brought by the command of Christ, to Christ, as the blind son of Timaeus, and others, of whose baptism, or conversion we read not; for not all that were corporally healed by Christ, were also spiritually healed, as we are to say of the nine Lepers. Malchus and others.  
3. The Argument supposeth they may be baptised, whom Christ commands to be brought, but neither is this true of spiritual bringing; for not those whom he commands to be brought spiritually, are to be baptised, but those whom he hath brought; as for that which is said, they are repelled from Christ, that are repelled from baptism, it is a light thing, for baptism doth not bring men to Christ, unless the persons be first in Christ; neither is therefore any man repelled from Christ, because he is not baptised, but when he is kept back, being fit for baptism.  
To the Argument therefore answer is made, by denying the Major universally taken.  
Secondly, the Argument is thus formed:  
Arg. Those whom Christ embraced, laid his hands on, blessed, may be baptised; But Christ embraced Infants, &c. Ergo.  
Answ. I answer, this argument supposeth these acts of Christ, to have been all one, as if he had baptised, but this is said without proof, in very deed, that act of blessing was more than baptism, and yet it had not the same reason with baptism; it is manifest out of Joh. 4. 2. that baptism was an act of ministry, which Christ did not exercise by himself, but his Disciples, but that blessing was an act, by which he obtained some singular gift from God by prayers for those Infants, upon whom he had laid his hands; nor is this benefit said to be bestowed on them for the faith of their parents, but out of singular favour which Christ bestowed upon many, as Lazarus, with his sisters, John the Apostle and others, therefore the Major Proposition is to be denied; for there is no connexion between this act, which is extraordinary, and the act of ordinary ministry, which is to be fulfilled according to the Lord's prescription.  
The third Argument is thus formed.  
Arg. They may be baptised, whose is the kingdom of heaven; but of Infants is the kingdom of heaven; Ergo.  
Answ. I answer, the Major Proposition is true, if it be understood of those whose is the kingdom of heaven, when it appears that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, otherwise it is not true. Secondly, it is not said in the Text [of Infants is the kingdom of heaven] but, of such is the kingdom of heaven; and Christ expounds what he means, Mar. 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. to wit, of them who in humility of mind, are like little children, as it is Mat. 18. 3, 4. but if [of such] be to be expounded, as Beza would, Annot. in Mat. 19 14. of these and the like, as above, 18. it is not proved from thence, that the kingdom of heaven pertains to all Infants of Believers, but to them whom he then blessed, and to those persons who either are so blessed, or are converted and humble as little children.  
Whence it is answered; first by denying the Major, if it be expounded universally and unrestrainedly: secondly, by denying the Minor, as it is put indefinitely, for the reasons above put.  
THe Argument from the place, 
§. 7. The Argument from Acts 15. 16. &c. for infant-baptism examined.  Act. 16. 15. 32. 33. Act. 18. 8. 1 Cor. 1. 16. is thus formed: If the Apostle baptised whole households, than Infants; but the Apostle baptised whole households, Ergo.  
Answ. This Argument rests on a slight conjecture, that there were Infants in those houses, and that those Infants were baptised, whereas the words of the Text evince not these things, yea, those things which are said, Acts 16. 32. He spoke the Word of the Lord to him, and to all in his house; and vers. 33. He rejoiced, believing God with all his house. Act. 18. 8. Crispus believed the Lord with his whole house, do plainly prove, that under the name of the whole house, are understood those only that heard the Word of God and believed. Whence it is answered by denying the consequence of the Major Proposition.  
Some other arguments occur, which make a number without strength.  
FIrst, 
§. 8. The Argument from general promises for infant-baptism examined.  it is argued from general promises, made to the godly and their seed, Exod. 20. 6. Psal. 112. 2, &c. Whence it is gathered, that God makes a difference betwixt the children of the godly and the wicked, that he promiseth blessing to those, not to these, therefore the children of the godly are to be baptised, not the other.  
Answ. The promises recited, are first general and indefinite; secondly, for the most part concerning corporal good things; thirdly, with the exception of free election; fourthly, to be understood with the employed condition of faith and repentance, and so they serve not to this purpose.  
SEcondly, 
§ 9 The Argument from Isa. 49. 22. for infant-baptism examined.  from Isai. 49. 22. it is foretold that Gentiles should bring their sons in their arms, and their daughters on their shoulders, therefore the Prophet foresaw in spirit, the baptism of the little ones of the Gentiles.  
Answ. First, little ones might be brought for other ends than baptism, as Mat. 19 15.  
Secondly, I will use the words of Francis Junius in his Annot. on the place, All these things are said Allegorically, of the spiritual amplification of the kingdom of Christ, as the Prophets are wont, they are fulfilled in the persuasions in which the Gentiles exhorted their children to embrace Christ.  
THirdly, 
§. 10. The Argument from 1 Cor. 10. 2. for infant-baptism ex  from 1 Cor. 10. 2. All our fathers were baptised, therefore also Infants.  
I answer, first, if this verse prove that Infants were baptised, the verses following will prove that they received the Lord's Supper.  
2. The sense is not that they were formally baptised, with the rite of baptism, begun by John Baptist, and ordained by Christ; but that by a like representation, the sea and the cloud signified salvation to them by Christ as baptism doth to us, and that they were in a like condition, as if they had been baptised.  
FOurthly, 
§. 11. The Argument from Eph. 5. 26. for infant-baptism examined.  from Ephes. 5. 26. where it is said, that Christ cleansed the Church with the washing of water through the Word, therefore Infants either belong not to the Church, and so are excluded from the benefit of Christ's death, or they are to be baptised.  
Answ. If this Argument be of force, the thief crucified with Christ, and repenting on the cross, Infants, Catechumeni, Martyrs, and others, dying before baptism, are excluded out of the Church, and from the benefit of Christ's death; we are therefore to say, that either the Church is taken for the more famous part of the Church, or that purification is to be understood of that, which is for the most part.  
FIfthly, 
§. 12. The Argument from 1 Pet. 2. 9 for infant-baptism examined.  from 1 Pet. 2. 9 Believers are called a chosen generation, a holy nation, which things are said of the Israelites, Exo. 19 5, 6. therefore Believers of the nations obtain the same birth-privileges, which the Israelites had, and therefore their children are within the Covenant, and to be baptised as the children of the Israelites were to be circumcised.  
Answ. 1. If this Argument proceed, it will follow, that there is some national-church among the Gentiles, as of old among the Jews, which is not to be granted, which I would have understood in this sense, there is now no such national-church, as amongst the Israelites, so as that a person should be accounted a member of a church, in that he is an Englishman, Scot, Dutchman, &c. In this speech I oppose not them which affirm the outward government of the Church should be subject to national Synods. 2. Exod. 19 5, 6. God speaks not of a privilege flowing from birth, but obedience. 3. The Epistle was written to the dispersed Jews, and therefore the Argument lies liable to exception, when it is drawn from that which is said of the Jews, as if it were said of the Gentiles. 4. But letting these things pass, the sense is, ye which believe, as it is vers. 7. whom God hath called out of darkness, are a holy nation, whether Jews or Gentiles, by spiritual regeneration, as Believers are called a family or kindred, Ephes. 3. 15. the household of faith, Gal. 6. 10. the house of God, 1 Tim. 3. 15. a people, 1 Pet. 2. 10. wherefore in this family, kindred, house, people, are only Believers, whom not carnal birth, but spiritual causeth to be reckoned in that number.  
SIxthly, 
§. 13. The Argument churches failing, if infant-baptism be not lawful examined.  the Church of God fails not, but we must say, the Church of God hath failed, if baptism of Infants be not lawful, Ergo.  
Answ. 1. The Church of God may consist without baptism, as in the crucified converted thief, &c. Secondly, neither perhaps, is it necessary to be said, that the baptism of Infants, because not lawful, is therefore awl. Thirdly, there was in the Church baptism of persons grown, in all ages. Ludov. Vives in his Comment. upon Aug. de Civit. Dei. lib. 1. cap. 27. hath these words, No man of old was brought unto 
* Sacro baptisterio admovebatur.  the place of holy baptism unless he were of grown age already, and when the same person knew what that mystical water meant, and desired to be washed in it, and that more than once, an Image of which thing we see yet, in our baptism of Infants; for as yet the Infant, though born the same day, or the day before, is asked, whether he would be baptised, and that thrice; for whom the sureties answer, that he would. I hear in some cities in Italy, that the old custom, for a great part is yet preserved.  
SEventhly, 
§. 14. The Argument from Heb. 6 2. for infant-baptism examined.  Heb. 6. 2. the Apostle speaks of the doctrine of baptisms, and laying on of hands; now this is not likely to be understood of laying on of hands in healing sick persons, or bestowing the Holy Ghost, for these were extraordinary or miraculous, and therefore not to be put in the number of the principles of the oracles of God, the foundation, milk for babes, nor of imposition of hands for ordination to special function in the church, for that, though ordinary, yet not likely to be put among the principles, the foundation, milk for babes, therefore it remains, that it was the laying on of hands on children formerly baptised in infancy, which though corruptly made a Sacrament by Papists, and superstitiously abused, yet being freed from the abuse were very useful, as being an apostolical ordinance, from this Text, and manifests that there was infant-baptism in the Apostles days, which is confirmed, because it is coupled with baptism, and therefore seems to be a consequent upon it.  
Answ. 1. There is great incertainty, what this imposition of hands mentioned, Heb. 6. 2. served for, the reason to prove that it could not be either for healing, or giving the Holy Ghost, because they were miraculous or extraordinary, is not cogent; for though they were by more than ordinary power, yet were they frequent in those times, and might well be put among the elements to be in those days first learned: nor is the reason cogent to prove it could not be the imposition of hands in ordination, for special function in the Church; for it is more likely that it should be meant, which it is certain was still in use, and to continue to be used, and therefore it was needful to be taught younglings, as well as the doctrine of baptisms: then laying on of hands for confirmation of baptism, of which there is no certainty (though pretended examples) in Scripture, be brought to give some colour to it; nor is imposition of hands in ordination unfitly coupled to baptism, both being ordinances for initiation, the one into the pro-  
2. But if it were supposed that this imposition of hands, meant Heb. 6. 2. were on the baptised; yet this proves not the baptism of Infants in the Apostles days, unless it could be proved that it was used after the baptism of Infants only, for a confirmation either of the baptism, or baptised. Or the contrary, it is apparent out of Tertul. de corona militis, c. 3. that in the primitive times the baptisied did make his confession at baptism, sub manu antistitis, that is, the Minister laying hands on him. And to save labour in reciting testimonies, Chamier may be seen, who in his Pans. Catholica, tom. 4. l. 4. c. 11. sec. 14. at large proves out of the Ancients, that the imposition of hands, which after was made a distinct Sacrament, called Confirmation, was either a part or appendix of baptism: and many passages he citys to show, that it was when the baptised was to confess the faith, and to renounce Satan: And if Hierom, tom. 2. in his Dialogue against the Luciferians, do assert that use of Imposition of hands from Scripture, yet he allegeth not Heb. 6. 2. for it, but the examples of giving the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands, in the Acts of the Apostles.  
THe second Argument followeth:  
That which agreeth not with the Lord's institution of baptism, 
Arg. 2.  that is deservedly doubtful. 
§. 15. The argument from the institution of Christ, Mat. 28. 19 against infant-baptism, confirmed.   
But the rite of infant-baptism agrees not with the Lord's institution of baptism, Ergo.  
The Major is proved, because Institution is the rule of exhibiting worship to God.  
The Minor is proved from the words of Insti●ution, Mat. 28. 19 Going therefore, disciple ye all nations, baptising them.  
Whence I gather thus:  
That rite agrees not with the Lord's institution of baptism, according to which they are baptised, whom the Lord appointed not to be baptised.  
But after the rite of infant-baptism, they are baptised whom the Lord appointed not to be baptised, Ergo.  
The Major is manifest of itself.  
The Minor is proved: The Lord appointed not Infants to be baptised, Ergo. The Antecedent is proved;  
Those, and no other, the Lord appointed to be baptised, who have been made disciples.  
But this cannot be said of Infants. Ergo.  
The argument is confirmed from John 4. 2. where it is said that Jesus made more disciples, then, that he baptised: first it is said that he made disciples, then baptised.  
Some one perhaps will say that baptism of Infants is elsewhere instituted, although not here.  
To which is answered, Let he that can, bring forth that institution, and the doubt will be loosed.  
But infants may be disciples, for they may be sanctified by the Spirit?  
Answ. It is true, Infants may be sanctified by the Spirit of God, purged by the blood of Christ, saved by the grace of God, my mind abhors from the doctrine of them that assert, that Infants not baptised, necessarily perish, or are deprived of the kingdom of God, nor do I doubt, but that the Elect Infants dying in infancy are sanctified, yea if it should be made known to us that they are sanctified, I should not doubt that they are to be baptised, remembering the saying of Peter, Act. 10. 47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptised, who have received the Holy Ghost as we?  
Then you will say [make disciples] in that place, may be so expounded, as that it may include infants?  
Answ. It follows not; but this only follows, that in ease extraordinary, we may depart from the ordinary rule: But the ordinary rule is, make disciples, that is, by preaching the gospel, make disciples, as appears from Mark. 16. 15. and baptize them, to wit, whom you have made disciples, and in the ordinary course of ministry, we must follow the ordinary rule.  
Perhaps some one will except, that Christ teacheth that such disciples should be baptised, but that the speech is not exclusive.  
Refut. But it is meet he remember, who shall thus except, if institution be the rule of worship, it is necessary that he that shall administer the worship, bind himself to the rule, otherwise he will devise will-worship, and arrogate the Lord's authority to himself: Surely the Apostle in the business of the Lord's Supper, insinuates this, when being about to correct the aberrations of the Corinthians, concerning the Lord's Supper he brings forth these words, 1 Cor. 11. 23. For I have received of the Lord, that which I also have delivered unto you.  
Besides as Christ Mat. 19 4. 8. argues from the institution of Marriage, against Divorce for a light cause, and polygamy, because it is said, Two, not more than two shall be one flesh; so in like manner it may be here argued, Christ said baptising them, and not others, therefore these and not others are to be baptised.  
But as for him who gathers from this place, infants are to be baptised, because Christ commands all Nations to be baptised, verily he is faulty. 1. In casting away that restriction that Christ hath put.  
2. By determining that all men whatsoever are to be baptised, so that this is not a privilege of believers and their children, but common with them, to all Infidels and their children.  
And in very deed, however assertors of infant-baptism, crack of a privilege of believers and their offespring, not only the usual practice of baptising any little children offered, but also sayings prove, that men have gone far, not only from Christ's institution, but also from the principles, upon which, men at this day are busy to establish infant-baptism. I shall prove this by some instances. In the 59 Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus, from which Augustine is wont in his disputations against the Pelagians, to take his proof for infant-baptism, and to which Writers attribute much, although that I may say no worse, without cause, this reason is put, why it was not assented to Bishop Fidus, who thought that an Infant was not to be baptised, afore the eighth day, according to the Law of ancient Circumcision, We all rather judged, that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to none, that is born of men.  
By the answer of Augustine to Bonifacius, Tom. 2. Epist. 23. Enquiring concerning the truth of Sureties, in affirming the unknown faith of little ones, and promising for them, it will appear to the Reader, that the baptism of any little ones offered to baptism, is defended by him, Although they were not brought, that they might be regenerated to eternal Life, by spiritual grace, but because they think by this remedy (I use the words of Augustine) to retain or receive temporal health: John Gerhard, Loc. Theolog. Tom. 4. de Baptis. Cap. 7. Sect. 4. defends the practice of the Ancients baptising the Children of unbelievers: And the words of Mr. Samuel Rutherford, Scot, in his book lately put forth in the English tongue, entitled A peaceable and temperate plea, c. 12. arg. 7. seems to me to propend too much to this opinion, The words are these, If then the Jews in Paul's time were holy by Covenant, howbeit for the present the Sons were branches broken off, for unbelief, much more seeing God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles, and is become a God to us and to our seed, the seed must be holy, with holiness of the chosen nation, and holiness external of the Covenant, notwithstanding the Father and Mother were as wicked as the Jews, who slow the Lord of glory.  
And the grave confutation of Brownists, by Rathband, Part. 3. Pag. 50. Fourthly, Children may be lawfully admitted to baptism, though both their Parents be profane, if those who are instead of Parents to them do require baptism for them, and give their promise to the Church for their religious Education, seeing they may lawfully be accounted within God's Covenant, if any of their Ancestors in any Generation were faithful. Exod. 20. 5.  
Lastly, if this Argument be not of force, Christ commandeth first to Disciple, and then to baptize those that are Discipuled; to exclude Infants from baptism; neither will the argument be of force, from 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, to exclude infants from the Lord's Supper, for by the like clusion this argument may be rejected by saying, that the speech of the Apostle is not exclusive, and is to be understood of receiving the Lord's Supper by persons grown only, yea, verily, neither will the argument be of force from the institution of the Supper, Mat. 26. 26, 27. therefore only believers are to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. If any reply. But the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. & 11. hath declared, that the institution is exclusive, the same may be said of the institution of Baptism, from the following Argument.  
THE third Argument is taken from the practice of the Apostles and John Baptist, 
Arg. 3.  which is the best interpreter of our Lord's institution, 
§ 16. The argument from John Baptist and the Apostles practise against Insant-baptism confirmed.  from whence the Argument is thus formed:  
That tenet and 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-baptism being put; Baptism cannot be administered, as John Baptist and the Apostles administered it, Ergo.  
The Major is of itself manifest.  
The Minor is proved; Before the baptism of John even the Jews did confess sins, the Apostles before baptism did require shows of faith and repentance, but this cannot be done in the baptism of Infants: The Major is proved by looking on these places, Mat. 3. 6. Luk. 3. 10. Act. 2. 38. Act. 8. 12, 13. and ver. 37. when the Eunuch had said to Philip, What letteth me to be baptised? Philip answered, If thou believest with thy whole heart thou Mayst; he implies the defect of faith to be an impediment of baptism, Act. 9 18. Act. 20. 47. Act. 11. 17. 18. Act. 16. 15, 31, 32, 33. Act. 18. 8. Act. 19 5. Act. 22. 16.  
This Argument is confirmed, for if it be rightly argued from 1 Cor. 11. 28 That the Lord's Supper is not to be granted to Infants, because self-examination is pre-required, by like reason we may say baptism is not to be yielded to infants, because repentance and faith are pre-required, Act. 2. 38. Act. 8. 37. and that of those who are descended from Abraham, and to whom the promise was.  
THE fourth Argument is taken from the practice of the next 
Arg. 4.  Age after the Apostles. 
§. 17. The argument from the practice in the Age next the Apostles against Infant-baptism confirmed.   
That tenet and practice is doubtful of which it cannot be proved that it was in force or use, in the next Age after the Apostles.  
But it cannot be proved that the tenet or practice of infant-baptism was in force or use in the Age next after the Apostles, Ergo.  
The Major is of itself manifest.  
The Minor is proved by the testimony of Lodovicus Vives above recited, to which Vossius in thesibus Historico Theologicis, of infant-baptism, joins the testimony of Walafridus Strabo, and by the examining of places brought to that purpose, and by the continuation of questions propounded to the baptised in Ages following, and other tokens from Councils and ecclesiastical writers, which in historical business are wont to beget credit.  
The words of Walafridus Strabo, who lived about the year 840. in his book de rebus Ecclesiasticis, Chap. 26. are these, We are also to note, that in the first times the grace of baptism was wont only to be given to them, who by integrity both of body and mind were already come to this, that they could know and understand what profit is to be obtained in baptism, what is to be confessed and believed, what lastly, is to be observed of them that are born again in Christ.  
THe fifth Argument: 
Arg. 4.   
That which in succeeding Ages, 
§. 17. The argument from the wrong original of Infant-baptism, confirmed against it.  in which it was in use, was in force, 1. as a Tradition not written; 2. Out of imitation of Jewish Circumcision; 3. Without universal practice; 4. Together with the error of giving Infants the Lord's supper, and many other human inventions, under the name of apostolical traditions; That is deservedly doubtful.  
But in some ages after the first from the Apostles, the tenet and practice of infant-baptism was in use, 1. as a tradition not written, as appears from Origen, Hom. on Rom. 6. Of which book nevertheless let me add the censure of Erasmus on the Homilies of Origen upon Leviticus, But he that reads this work, and the enarration of the Epistle to the Romans is uncertain whether he read Origen or Ruffinus. And the testimony fetched from these books for infant-baptism, is so much the more to be suspected, because Augustine, Hierom, &c. rely (so far as yet is manifest to me) on no other testimony, then of Cyprian and his fellow-Bishops in the council, of which mention is made Epist. 59 ad Fidum.  
Secondly, out of imitation of Jewish circumcision, as the doubt of Fidus, in the 59 Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus, intimates, though there were also other reasons of infant-baptism; as the opinion of the necessity of baptism to salvation, and the greediness to increase the number of Christians, and perhaps the imitation of heathenish lustration of little ones; and some other.  
Thirdly, without universal practice: for it is manifest that Constantine, although born of Helena his mother, a Christian, was not baptised till aged, as Eusebius in the life of Constantine written by him. The same is manifest from the book of Confessions of Augustine, concerning Augustine hmself, whose mother Monica was a Christian. The things which may be drawn out of Theodoret, Augustine, and others, concerning Theodosius, Alipius, Adeodatus, and many others (although my books, and notes out of them are wanting to me, by reason of the injury of the times) unless I be deceived will evince that (though in the Churches of those times, little ones were baptised, yet) many were not baptised, whose baptism its likely the Church would sooner have dispatched, if the opinion of Baptism that now obtains, had then obtained.  
Fourthly, together with the error of giving the Lord's supper to Infants, as is manifest out of the book of Cyprian de lapsis, and others. And that many other Inventions of men under the name of apostolical tradition, out of a wrong liking of Judaism, did then prevail, as the Paschall solemnity, &c. is so obvious to him that reads Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, that no man will need proof, Ergo.  
And in very deed, as of old, because the rite of infant-baptism seemed to be of so great moment against the Pelagian heresy, and for the authority of the council under Cyprian, the council of Milevis, Augustine, Hierom, and others, rather than from any solid argument out of Scripture, in former ages, infant-baptism prevailed; so in this last age, some modern men seem to embrace this tenet of Infant-baptism, out of horror of mind, lest they should go headlong into the pernicious errors of former Anabaptists, and their mad furies, or lest they should seem to desert the leading men of the Reformed Churches, or move troubles in the Church; rather then from perspicuous foundation in the Scriptures. Which they will think that I have not said as one that dreams, who shall read what Robert Lord Brook hath in the end of his Treatise concerning episcopacy, Daniel Rogers in his treatise of baptism, and others elsewhere.  
THe sixth Argument follows: 
Arg. 6.   
That which hath occasioned many human inventions, 
§. 19 The argument against infant-baptism, from human inventions occasioned by it confirmed.  partly by which infant-baptism itself may be under-propped, partly the defect in the policy of the Church, which in very deed is to be supplied by the lawful use of baptism, Of that it is deservedly doubtful whether it be not in itself weak and insufficient for its proper work.  
But the matter is so in the business of infant-baptism,  
Ergo.  
The Minor is proved by instances: they are,  
1. The use of sureties in baptism, which is an human invention, for a shadowy supplement, and I had almost said sporting, of that profession of faith which at first was made by the baptised in his own person.  
2. Episcopal confirmation, in which the Bishop lays hands or anoints the catechised, that baptism, or the baptised may be confirmed, and they made capable of the Lord's supper.  
3. The reformed union, by examination, confession, subscription, of the received doctrine in the Church, before the communion of the Eucharist, of which Parker of Eccles. policy, l. 3. c. 16.  
4. The Church-covenant, as they call it, afore the admission of members into Church-fellowship, of which the New-England Elders in the little book in English, called Church-Covenant, which in very deed are devised to supply the place of baptism; for by baptism, according to Christ's institution, a person is exhibited a member of Christ and the Church, 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27. Ephes. 4. 5.  
THe seventh Argument: 
Arg. 7.   
That which hath occasioned many errors, 
§. 21. The argument against Infant-baptism, from the Errors occasioned by it, confirmed.  that is deservedly doubtful, whether it be right.  
But the practice of infant-baptism hath occasioned either the birth or fostering of many errors, Ergo.  
It is proved by instances:  
1. That baptism confers grace by the work done.  
2. That baptism is Regeneration.  
3. That Infants dying, are saved by the faith of their parents, faith of sureties, of the Church receiving into her lap: which is to be ascribed alone to the grace of God by Christ.  
4. That some regenerate persons may utterly fall from grace.  
THe eighth Argument: 
Arg. 8.   
That which hath caused many abuses and faults in Discipline, 
§. 20. The argument against Infant-baptism, from many abuses caused by it, confirmed.  and Divine worship, and Conversation of men, that is deservedly doubtful.  
But infant-baptism is such, Ergo.  
It is proved by enumeration.  
1. Private baptism.  
2. Baptism by women.  
3. Baptism of Infants not yet brought into light.  
4. Baptism of Infants of uncertain progeny, whom we call children of the earth and world.  
5. They are baptised in the name of the Lord, who know not the Lord, nor have ever consented, or perhaps will consent to the confession of the name of our Lord.  
6. It hath brought in the admission of ignorant and profane men into the communion of the Church, and to the Lord's supper: for who can deny rightly, the right of the Church to the baptised?  
7. It perverts the order of discipline, that first a man be baptised and after among the catechised.  
8. The Sacrament of baptism is turned into a mere Ceremony, yea into a profane meeting to feast together.  
9 Men forget baptism, as if they were never baptised, so that it hath the force of a carnal rite, not of a spiritual Institution.  
10. It takes away, or at least diminisheth zoale, and industry in knowing the Gospel.  
THE ninth Argument. 
Arg. 9   
That is deservedly doubtful, 
§. 22. The argument from unnecessary disputes caused by it against infant-baptism, confirmed.  that yieldeth occasion to many unnecessary disputes, f●stering only contention, and which cannot be determined by any certain rule.  
But the tenet or rite of infant-baptism is such,  
Ergo.  
It is proved by instances.  
1. Of baptising the Infants of Excommunicated persons.  
2. Of baptising the Infants of Apostates.  
3. Of baptising the Infants of such Parents as are not members in a gathered Church.  
4. Of baptising the Infants of those, whose Ancestors were believers, the next Parents remaining in unbelief; These things show that men have departed from the Rule, when they know not where to stay.  
THE tenth reason of doubting is, 
Arg. 10.   
That in the midst of the darkness under the Papacythe same men opposed infant-baptism, 
§ 23. The argument against Infant-baptism from the opposition to it in the midst of Popery, confirmed.  who opposed invocation of Saints, prayer for the dead, adoration of the cross, and such like; This is manifest out of the 66. Sermon of Bernard, on the Canticles, where of the heretics (as he calls them) who he said boasted themselves to be Successors of the Apostles, and name themselves Apostolic, he hath these words, They deride us, because we baptize Infants, because we pray for the dead, because we ask the suffrages of the Saints, and in his 140. Epistle to Hildefonsus, Earl of Saint Giles, he complains of Henricus the heretic, formerly a monk, that He took away holy-days, Sacraments, Churches, Priests, that the life of Christ is stopped to the little ones of Christians, while the grace of baptism is denied, and they are not suffered to draw near to salvation.  
From the Epistle of Peter abbot. Cluniacensis, to three Bishops of France, against Peter de Bruis, and Henricus, holding errors, digested into five heads.  
1. That little ones are not to be baptised.  
2. That Churches or Altars ought not to be made.  
3. That the cross of our Lord is not to be adored or worshipped, but rather to be broken and trodden under feet.  
4. That the mass is nothing, nor aught to be celebrated.  
5. That the good deeds of the living, nothing profit the dead; That we are not to chant to God. He saith, that the heresy of the Petrobrusians was received in the Cities of Gallia Narbonensis.  
And from Lucas Osiander his Epitome of the ecclesiastical History, Cent. 13. l. 1. c. 4. at the year 1207. where he accuseth the Albigenses as consenting with the Anabaptiss.  
To which I add, That in the ages near the Apostles, Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen dissuade the baptism of Infants, unless the danger of death happen. The words of Tertullian are in his book of baptism, c. 18. Therefore for the condition and disposition, also age of each person, the delaying of baptism is more profitable: Yet chiefly about little ones; for what need that the Sureties be also cast on danger, who themselves may by mortality be wanting to their promises, and be deceived by the coming forth of an evil disposition. The Lord saith indeed, Do not prohibit them to come to me; let them come when they are grown, let them come when they learn, let them be taught when they come, let them be made Christians when they can know Christ. Why doth innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? shall it be done more warily in things secular, that to whom earthly substance is not committed, divine should? Let them know how to ask safety, that thou Mayst know to give to him that asketh.  
Gregory Nazianzen, in his 40. Oration of holy baptism:  
For which we are to use all diligence, that we miss not the common grace. Some one will say, let these things be concerning them that seek baptism: but what may you say concerning them that are yet babes, and neither perceive loss, nor grace? shall we also baptize them? Yes by all means, if any danger urge; for it is better that they be sanctified without perceiving it, then to go away unsealed or unaccomplished. And the reason of this, to us, is Circumcision on the eighth day, being a certain typical seal, & offered to them that had not yet the use of reason; as also the anointing of the posts, which by things without feeling preserved the first born. But for others, I give my opinion that they stay three years, or a little within this, or beyond it, when they may be able to hear and answer some mystical points, if they cannot understand perfectly, yet being thus stamped, they shall sanctify both souls and bodies with the great mystery of consecration.  
THe eleventh reason of doubting, 
Arg. 11.  is, Because the Assertors of infant-baptism little agree among themselves, 
§. 24 The Argument against Infant-baptism, from assertors difference about the ground of it, confirmed.  upon what foundation they may build infant-baptism. Cyprian and others of the Ancients draw it from the universality of divine grace, and the necessity of baptism to salvation. Augustine, Bernard, and others, bring the faith of the Church as the reason of baptising Infants: Others, among whom is the catechism in the English liturgy, put as the reason of infant-baptism, the promise of the Sureties, in the place of the faith and repentance of the baptised. The Lutherans, the faith of the Infant; others, the holiness of a believing Nation; others, the faith of the next parent; others, the faith of the next parent in covenant in a gathered Church. This difference of the maintainers of Infant-Baptism, deservedly causeth doubt concerning the thing itself.  
THE last, 
Arg. 12.  and that a weighty reason of doubting is, because infant-baptism seems to take away one, perhaps the primary end of Baptism; for many things argue that it was one end of Baptism, that it should be a sign that the baptised shows himself a disciple, and confesseth the faith in which he hath been instructed.  
1. The requiring of confession by John Baptist and the Apostles, was wont to be before baptism, Luk. 3. 10. Act. 8. 35. Act. 16. 31.  
2. The frequent manner of speaking in the new Testament, which puts Baptism for Doctrine, Act. 10. 37. Act. 19 3. shows this. Beza in his Annot. on Act. 19 3. The answer is most apposite, in which they signify that they professed in Baptism the doctrine propounded by John, and confirmed by use of baptism with which they had been baptised, whereby they had acknowledged Christ but very slenderly.  
3. The form of Christ's institution, Mat. 28. 19 compared with the phrase as it is used 1 Cor. 1. 13. Or, were you baptised into the name of Paul? implies the same. On which place Beza,  
The third reason is taken from the form and end of baptism, in which we give our name to Christ, being called upon, with the Father and Holy Spirit.  
4. That which is said, Joh. 4. 2. He made and baptised more disciples. And Mat. 28. 19 Going, make disciples in all nations, baptising them; Intimate this. And if, as some affirm, Baptism was in use with the Jews, in the initiating of proselytes into the profession of Judaism; this opinion is the more confirmed. But in infant-baptism the matter is so carried, that baptism serves to confirm a benefit, not to signify a profession made: and so one, perhaps the chief end of baptism is voided. And here I think it is to be minded, that the usual description of a Sacrament, and such as are like to it, That it is a visible sign of invisible grace; hath occasioned the misunderstanding of both Sacraments, as if they signed a divine benefit, not our duty, to which in the first place the Institution had respect.  
It seems to some, that infant-baptism should be good, because the Devil requires Witches to renounce it. Which reason, if aught worth, might as well prove baptism of any Infants, baptism by a Midwife, good; because these the Devil requires them to renounce, as well that which is of the Infants of believers, by a lawful Minister. But the true reason why he requires the baptism of Witches to be renounced by them, is not because the baptism is good in respect of the administration of it, but because the Faith mentioned in the form of baptism, is good; and they that renounce not their baptism, do show their adherence to that faith in some sort, which cannot stand with an explicit covenant with the Devil. Nor is the assuming of baptism in ripe years by those who were washed in infancy, a renouncing of baptism, as some in their gross ignorance conceit; but indeed a firmer avouching of baptism according to Christ's mind.  
This more likely might, be inferred from the Devils practise in requiring. Witches to renounce their baptism; That the profession of Faith is the main business in baptism, which should be before baptism, if it were rightly administered after the first pattern.  
FINIS.