THE CAUSE OF INFANTS MAINTAINED, Against such as would defraud them of their Interest in the Church or Kingdom of God, OR, A REPLY TO Mr. THOMAS GRANTHAM; Wherein both the Vanity of his Introductive Argument with all its Absurds, and not only the Inconcludingness of, but also the Prevarications, Fallacies, and Falshoods contained in his Answers, are plainly discovered: So, as that all his Attempts against Infant-Baptism greatly fail of Evidencing its Original not to be from ZION.  
Written for the undeceiving of all such as thought and cried up his said Answers thereabout as unanswerable: And for satisfaction to all others that are doubtful about the points here in controversy.  
By I. HORN, sometimes Minister of Lin Allhallows in Norfolk.  Mic. 2.9. A parvulis ejus aufertis decorum meum in seculum. Jun.& Tremel. From their Children( {αβγδ}, their little Children) have they taken away my Glory for ever. Mat. 18.10, 14. Take heed( saith our Lord and saviour) that ye despise not one of these little ones: For I say unto you that in Heaven their Angels do always behold the face of my Father that is in Heaven. And it is not the will of your Father that one of these little ones perish. Mark 19.14. And Mark 10.15. Jesus said, suffer the little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little Child, shall not enter thereinto. Dignum est,& ad Dei spectat benignitatem, ut quibus fidem aetas denegat propriam, gratia prodesse concedat alienam. Nec enim omnipotentis justitia propriam, putat ab his exigendam fidem, quos novit propriam nullam habere culpam. Porrò alienâ opus est fide, cum sine sorde non nascuntur aliena. Bern. Epist. 77. 
LONDON, Printed for BEN. SOUTHWOOD, at the Star, next to Serjeants-Inn in Chancery-Lane. 1675.   

The Epistle to the Reader.  
Christian and Candid Reader,  
What I have done in this ensuing Discourse, I leave to thy, sober and serious Consideration and impartial Judgement. Thou mayst not expect from me more to be said for the subject of it than it will bear. It must be confessed that one plain express command in Terminis to Baptize Infants, or one express instance of the Apostles Baptizing them, would put the matter far more out of doubt and dispute than all that can be said beside, at least to vulgar understandings; but yet the want of such an evidence is no sufficient ground with persons of deeper Judgement, to conclude either the unlawfulness of the thing in itself, or its not being practised by the Apostles in their times. That's not always a right and good way of querying; Where do you red such a thing to be expressed; or find such a thing to have been practised in the Scripture-records? nor a good way of reasoning and concluding; We red not or find not such a thing to have been practised, therefore it was not practised; or we find not such a thing expressly asserted, therefore it is not to be believed. At such a rate, we know the Sadducees might in former times have condemned the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the dead, as a fond and Scriptureless conceit, no-where delivered by God unto Moses, nor taught by him in his Law, which was the great standard of their Religion, both as to faith and worship. Nay, they might have found divers expressions in the other Scriptures seeming to deny it, as those in Job 7.9, 10, 11. Oh, remember that my life is wind, that my eyes shall no more see good—. Thine eyes are upon me and I am not. As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more: and the like in chap. 10.20, 21. and 14.7, 10, 11, 12. There is hope of a three if it be cut down— but man dieth and wasteth away, yea he giveth up the Ghost, and where is he? as the waters fall from the Sea, and the Flood decayeth and drieth up; so man lieth down and riseth not till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake nor be raised out of their sleep: yet our Saviour we know who was of deeper Judgement, could& did find the Doctrine of the Resurrection in the writings of Moses, though the word Resurrection or rising again from the dead was not therein expressed; and he bids us search the Scriptures; as signifying that they are as deep mines in the bowels of which there lie hide and enclosed more truths than do appear upon their surface, John 5.39. There the Holy men could find those Testimonies concerning him, that the wise Disputers of this world see not. Now if so weighty Articles of the Faith, and that had so great an influence upon Religion and a good-life as the Resurrection, and Jesus being the Christ, were so darkly expressed, how much more may such matters of far less moment, as the Baptizing Infants, be left under such more obscure intimations, seeing also there are divers other things of the like nature and practise,( as the Apostles being themselves outwardly Baptized, and Womens being admitted or admittable to the Lords Supper, &c.) as little expressly therein mentioned? as thou mayst see in the following Discourse. I confess it is a point that I have had doubts and dissatisfactions in, which occasioned the more inquiry thereinto, and search thereabout, and produced that Treatise that I formerly wrote thereupon, which Thomas Grantham a little be spattered with his Pen in one of the Books that came into his hands in a page. or two with some unproved reviling charges; but neither He nor any body else that I have heard attempted to answer it: as also my said Search and Inquiry hath helped me to see the inconcludingness of all the Arguments opposed against it, and what holds forth fair grounds for it; as,  
1. That God did expressly take Infants into his Church, Kingdom and Covenant, and the seal of it, Gen. 17.12, 14. Deut. 29.10, 11. with Rom. 4.11.  
2. That Christ hath no-where signified by himself or the Apostles, that it is the mind of God under the Gospel-state since his coming in the flesh to exclude them: Nay but,  
3. Christ hath positively determined and asserted that the Kingdom of God is still of such; yea, the Kingdom in such a sense as persons may be hindered or suffered by men to come to partake of its Blessings in outward Acts of Ministration ordered therein, Matth. 19.13, 14, 15.  
4. Christ hath taken away the difference of Male and Female in him, or in the Profession and privileges of his Doctrine and worship which was before under Moses his Institution, Gal. 3.26, 27, 28.  
5. The Commission given by Christ for Baptizing is in such large expressions, as may sufficiently reach to and include them, Matth. 28.19.  
As also 6thly, Do the grounds alleged by the Apostles in exhorting thereunto, in Act. 2.38, 39, and 3.25, 26.  
And 7thly, That saying of our Saviour in John 3.3, 5. Except any one( {αβγδ}) be born again of water and of the Spirit, &c. usually alleged by the Primitive Fathers, and Writers of the Christian Church, for the necessity of receiving water-Baptism, and made use of by Th. Gr. too in urging his way of Baptizing upon persons( as by what hath been noted from some of his followers may be evidenced, though in his Answers to me, he saith I am beside the true Scope of our Saviour therein) is delivered in terms large enough to include Infants; and to necessitate their Baptism to their admission into Gods Church or Kingdom.  
And 8thly, Whole Housholds are mentioned to have been Baptized by the Apostles or their Order, wherein the actual Faith or Believing of none of them, but the Heads thereof are mentioned, nor any intimations are left by them of their distinguishing or rather separating between the Infants and adult Persons that possibly may be found in Housholds, Acts 16.  
As also that 9thly, The Children of Christians or Believers, are determined to be holy, 1 Cor. 7.19.  
And 10thly, Instructions are given to and concerning them in the Apostles writings, as to or concerning members of the Churches, wrote to Ephes. 6.1, 4, 5. Col. 3.20, 21. And to all these add,  
11thly. The practise and approvement of the Christian Church, in and from the very early times of them as their writings manifest, not above one Writer of any note, or two at the most, in those times that I have red of, excepting there-against, and they not absolutely denying its lawfulness, but rather persuading to delay it; which things are partly hinted at briefly, and partly more largely spoken to in the following Treatise, all or most of them. And if all these put together will not counterbalance the want of express mention thereof, or the requiring of some such acts and exercises by adult persons,( that were also formerly in the actual profession of other ways, as of Heathenism or judaisme,) whereof Infants are incapable in their Infant-state and condition, then I confess we must give it up for an error; otherwise there is no sufficient cause for so doing. Indeed the mode and manner of doing it, especially in hotter Countreys, and on persons converted from other Religions, is observable to have been in Antiquity usually by immersion, or dipping at least of the head into the water, except in case of Infirmity; but we having no express Precept for it, nor Prohibition of other forms, and other forms also being in the Scripture-use of the word Baptize clearly included under its signification, the Baptizing in such forms also cannot I conceive be charged as a transgression, which is not except against some Law: which things also thou wilt find made evident in this following Reply to Tho. Grantham; which I shall leave to thy perusal when I have onely added this one Admonition, to take heed of the Leaven of the Pharisees; which stood partly in their being hot and zealous about trifles, or at most the outsides and lesser matters of the Law, so as to neglect and overlock the main inside things thereof, tithing Mint and anise, and Cummin, but passing over Faith, and Judgement, and the Love of God. So shall we do if spending our parts and times about the outside forms of doing or receiving Gods Ordinances, we put the stress of our Religion there, and make out-cries against persons, and disturb the Churches of Christ thereabout; and in the mean time neglect that inward and heart-purity, Faith and Love, and the like, that God principally looks at, and Christ mainly designed by his undertakings and performances, for, and about us. Let me then say this to thee Reader: Let thy Body be dipped into the water never so deep, and be washed therein never so thoroughly, yea though upon profession that thou believest and will be obedient to Christ; yet if Pride and Arrogancy, Self-love, Covetousness, Ambition, Strife, Vain-glory, and such-like defilements be not purged out of, but prevail upon, and possess thy Soul, thy outward Baptism by plunging into the water, will not render thee clean enough for fellowship with God and Christ in his Heavenly Kingdom; and on the other side the grace of God being so received and obeied by thee, as to renew thee in the spirit of thy mind, and to cleanse thy heart and conversation from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, pride and self-love, and ambition, and uncleanness, and covetousness, and the like, and to fill thee with faith in Christ, love to God and his People, and the souls of men, and with the fruits of righteousness by Jesus Christ, though thy Body was but sprinkled in Infancy with a little water into that holy Name of Christ, the mode of thy outward Baptism shall be no let nor hindrance unto thy admission into the Heavenly Kingdom. Instead then of being hot and zealous about, and accounting thyself a right member of Christ and his Church, because of( and all other unbaptised persons, and in a manner Heathens, that have not) such an external mode or way of Baptism; make it thy great business with the holy men of God, to cleanse thy heart from wickedness, and not to let such evil and wrong thoughts lodge within thee as may hinder thy Salvation, following the command of the Lord to Jerusalem in Jer. 4.14. and the like Exhortations in 2 Cor. 7.1. Jam. 4.8. and the practise of good men that have so busied themselves, as in Psal. 73.13. and 26.4, 5, 6. with 24.4, 5. and no question is to be made of thy well-doing: And so the Lord bless this Advice and the following Treatise to thee.  
Written by thy Servant in the Gospel, to his Measure and Capacity, I, H.   

The Cause of Infants maintained, against such as would defraud them of their Interest in Gods Church or Kingdom: Or, a REPLY to Mr. THOMAS GRANTHAM's Answers, About INFANT BAPTISM.  
Mr. GRANTHAM,  
HAving perused your Answers to my Letter, about the Original of Infant-Baptism( occasioned by your undue and unhandsome return to me for the little Book I out of courtesy gave you) through the merciful helpfulness of God, I have given them this ensuing Reply.  
And first to your Epistle; wherein, whereas you say of my said Letter, That it much amused the minds of my Admirers, as if some new Oracles had dropped from Heaven; and that made you think yourself concerned to show the fallaciousness of my Discourse:  
I reply: That I know no such Admirers that I have; for though it becomes those that speak to speak as the Oracles of God, 1 Pet. 4.11. Yet I hope none are so vain, as in this cast of your rhetoric you represent them, as to admire me in any thing I do; but if I do any thing well, to give the glory to God: if any do otherwise, they are such as do not well know me, and therefore think highlier of me than I do of myself. But I suppose you are as far out in that saying, as you are in charging my Discourse with Fallaciousness; and that, were you put to the proof thereof, you would fail as much therein, as you have done in making good this Charge.  
Whereas you say; You marvel that men of learning and piety should so strive to uphold a rottering error, which many, both learned and unlearned, have bewailed upon their death-bed:  
To that I reply: That you may be sure those men have not judged it to be a tottering error; and that did, you not overween your own self, judging yourself wifer than in truth you are, the Consideration of the Learning and Piety of many in all ages, that have approved and practised Infant-Baptism, would have made you suspect it to be a piece of 〈…〉 peremptorily to condemn it, having no one Scripture-expression to conclude against it. And were you as strong as you take yourself to be, surely you would by this time have quiter overthrown it, if it be an error that doth already totter, which I perceive not that you have yet done; but that your large Harangues of words( as you speak of others) do as little to overthrow this Opinion and practise, as many others that have endeavoured against other Gospel-Truths. All that some over-forward Servants would pull up as tares, will not be found so in the time of the Harvest: nor may all things that you condemn as tottering errors possibly be so adjudged by the more knowing Angels, whom the Son of Man, the Lord of the field, will sand forth to cleanse it in the end of the World. For which cause it may be you would do more wisely and soberly, and find more thank from the said Lord, in that day, if following his advice or command, you did let both grow together till then, Mat. 13.28, 29, 30, 41. As for many both learned and unlearned bewailing this as an error on their death-bed; Might I take that for a truth upon the bare credit of your saying it, yet it is no good or sufficient proof of its being an error; for suppose it be so( which yet I do not as constrained by the evidence of the thing, as you say falsely of me in another case and place) yet I believe that among both Papists and mahometans, could you make strict search, you might find divers upon their death-beds bewail their neglects of some of their superstitious Observations, which yet would not be a good Argument to conclude for their goodness, nor against the contrary practices. And I have heard of some Persons of note, that having lived Protestants all their lives, yet have turned Papists upon their death-beds: yet I will not for all that conclude that the Papists are in a righter way than the Protestants; or that the Protestant Doctrines then renounced by them are tottering errors. It's an easy thing for false Teachers that are subtle, to trouble the minds of men by their specious Arguments and sophistick Disputes so far, as to so shake them, as that they may not settle again so long as they live; and yet their dying under such such shakings, is no good evidence of the goodness or rightness of their Doctrines. Such topics then are but {αβγδ}, absurd and unsound foundations to bear up such conclusions, however specious they may seem to unwary judgments.  
That I found at Shremby that my supposed Baptism would neither defend itself nor me, in the management thereof, is not well asserted by you; and it appears the less true, because it hath left me yet some Admirers it seems in those parts. The truth is, whatever you suggest that I found not myself weakened at all in my esteem of the Lawfulness of Infant-Baptism by that Dispute, but I was after it more strengthened and free for it; For I found no evidence of truth or strength in your Evasions of that one Argument drawn from the Commission to baptize all the Gentiles, in Discipling them, that I then proposed, to make me think the worse of it: But I have managed it against you since, and yet do manage it in this Reply. Indeed I found not my Lungs so good as yours: nor can I expect from the clearest truths, that they should cure me of bodily Infirmities, and make me able to talk above my strength: No, nor that they should make me so quick, as to silence wrangling Wits from making exceptions. Though I came to that Discourse, having had no thoughts of any such thing when I came into the Country, and without inclination to dispute about that point whereunto I had not of late years before exercised myself; whereas I hear you make it your great continual subject: only I was overpersuaded to it by my friends, that might more over-ween my abilities than consider my infirmities, especially in my Breast, which they have known me long to labour under,& which will not permit me to long contentious Discourses without very much pain and trouble to myself, which makes me less fit for vocal Disputes: yet I know not, nor remember, that any of your exceptions or evasions put me to such a silence, as my Question did you when I asked you what John did to Jesus in his Act of baptizing him; though wearied out partly with about ten miles riding that morning, and further with your previous Wrangle about your knowing no such thing as Infant-Baptism practised; and not being suffered to show your mistakes as you dropped them: but being by your large Discourses both more overburdened as to my memory, and put upon longer Answers or Replies, I found not myself able without much prejudice and hazard to my body, to propose any more Arguments thereabout; and no wise man would upbraid another with his bodily Infirmities.  
That I desired a day or two to discourse the matter with you in a friendly way, I do not remember; nor indeed do I judge myself fit for personal vocal Contests by reason of my aforesaid Infirmity; much less with persons ambitious of victory and applause, and ready to strengthen themselves, and upbraid me, because I cannot hold out to talk so long and so much as they can. I have ever rather preferred this way of arguing by the Pen: and if I cannot this way convince you, nor you me, neither can I think it may be done by Discourse: Though if providence cast me upon discourse with you, I shall not decline it so far as my Infirmities will permit. And let this suffice to your Epistle, come we next to your  

INTRODUCTION.  
And what is the design of your Introduction? Surely you put that there as a Monument or trophy of some noble Victory or renowned Conquest, that you got over some of your Antagonists though you tell us not who; it being an Argument which you say, you lately had occasion to prosecute upon this Question; Whether Infant-Baptism be from Heaven, or of Men? Which, you say, is upon the matter the same that now depends between me and you. An Argument branched out into three Syllogisms, besides twelve Instances of the parallel pleas for Infant-Baptism, with what might be made; for baptizing professed Believers asleep or dead. This you have set at the Door or Entrance of your Answers to me, I suppose to knock me down at my very entrance, that I might not be able to proceed. I may imagine it to be Hercules with his knotty Club, and the representation of his twelve Labours or famous Exploits; Or Sampson's Jaw-bone of an Ass( with two or three Fangs, and twelve great Teeth in it) with which he slay a thousand Philistines; as you, it may be, think to knock down herewith a thousand Poedobaptists: Or shall I take it for great goliath, with his Staff like a Weavers Beam? What then shall I poor puny do, to bear off its Blows! or rather, how shall the tottering error stand under and against a whole Dozen of its Knocks? I shall not cry out succurrite Amici, help Friends; or else you will never admire me more: But I shall endeavour to go against it in the Name of the Lord, and in the Furniture of his Holy Scriptures; and if that afford no help against it, let it prevail. I shall see if I can find some smooth Stones of those Brooks, that may hit the Defyer of our Hosts on his Forehead, and secure ourselves against his big Blows.  
Your mighty Argument runs thus: That Baptism that is absurd, or against reason, is not from Heaven; but the Baptism of Infants is such, &c. The Minor( you say) was denied, and so you go on to prove that, leaving the Forehead, that is, your mayor, naked. Against which therefore I shall direct my ston first( for I deny both) under a Distinction, viz. That that which is absurd or contrary to Reason, is twofold: that is, either that that is absurd in mans eyes, and contrary to his Reason; or, that that is absurd in the sight of God, or contrary to his Wisdom. Taking absurd in the former sense, I deny the mayor; taking it in the latter sense, I deny the Minor. This Distinction, or what is equivalent with it, we have from Heaven in 1 Cor. 1.25. and 3.19. And so to the mayor I say, That that is absurd in the sight of Man and contrary to his Reason, maybe of God and from Heaven: Things that are foolishness with Men, may be good in Gods Sight; and things rational with Men, may be foolishness with God. The {αβγδ}, the foolishness of Preaching, was from Heaven; for it pleased God by it to save them that believe, 1 Cor. 1.21. even by what such wise Disputers of this World as you are, and that thought themselves as able to determine what is against Reason, and what is with it, counted absurd, as much as you can do Infant-Baptism. So the Apostle tells us there is {αβγδ} the foolishness of God: It is foolishness, absurd, and contrary to Mans Reason;& yet it is for all that {αβγδ} of God: and {αβγδ}, wiser than Men. And so this Infant-Baptism may be a wiser Baptism in the Sight of God than you can discern, though you judge it to be foolishness, as the wise Grecians did the preaching of the across, and the leading men to trust in one whom the Jews had crucified. red and mind well Mark 10.15. Luk 18.17.  
Think you not that the Wise Grecians could find as many absurds in the preaching to men a Crucified Saviour, and exhorting them to trust in him, as you can find in Infant-Baptism? Yes, yes. If you red Origen against Celsus the Philosopher, you may find that Celsus derided the Gospel as much as you do Infant-Baptism; and had you lived then, this kind of arguing would have made you, it's probable, as earnest against Christianity, as now you are against Infant-Baptism, had you learned thereto. What made Sarah laugh at God's saying she should have a Child at her Age, but that she thought it absurd and contrary to Reason? Or Naaman to turn away in such a Rage from the Prophet, bidding him wash in Jordan, but the like thought? yet those things were of God. And how many Absurdities found the Sadducces in the Doctrine of the Resurrection? How contrary to their Reason was it that the dead should rise again? as appears by what they suggested to our Saviour, Mat. 22.24, 25, &c. and it's absurd in the eyes of many men now, and contrary to their Reason: shall we conclude therefore that it is not of God? The {αβγδ} is {αβγδ}, the wisdom, thought, or reason, of the Flesh is enmity against God, and is not subject to the Law of God, nor indeed can be, Rom. 8.7. Must not then the Law of God be contrary to it? things wonderful or impossible in mens eyes, may yet be otherwise in Gods, Zech. 8.5, 6. Mat. 19.26. So then this ston makes the whole Argument to stagger& fall, until it can be proved that all things absurd and contrary to Reason, are also absurd in the Sight of God: and if the mayor be invalid, then all the other Argumentations fall to the ground, being no props to it, but to the Minor. And if either Proposition be false, the Conclusion will not follow. That Baptism that is absurd in mans eyes and contrary to his Reason, may be of God. If the mayor be taken in that sense, viz. That that Baptism that is absurd in Gods Sight is not from Heaven, then I deny the Minor; and you have not proved it: For your second Syllogism, and all that depends thereon, do not conclude Infant-Baptism to be absurd to God, or in his Sight: For your Second Syllogism runs thus:  
If it be absurd or against reason to Baptize Persons asleep or dead, then it is to baptize Infants; but it is absurd to Baptize Persons asleep or dead: Therefore it is absurd to baptize Infants. All which may be granted, as absurd signifies contrary to mans Reason, and yet proves not at all that it is so in God's Sight: But taking absurd for what is foolishness to God, and contrary to his Wisdom, both mayor and Minor may be denied. The mayor, because to Baptize the dead or persons asleep, may be foolishness to God; and yet it may not be so to baptize Infants: Or it may be denied that any of them are absurd or foolishness to God. But the Consequence of the mayor being denied, you essayed to make it good thus.  
If the chief Grounds for the Baptizing Infants will as well justify the Baptizing Persons when they be asleep or dead, then the consequence is right; but so it is, you say: And explain your meaning to be only of Persons fore-instructed in the Faith, and that had believed the Gospel in general to be the Way of Life, and yet were Unbaptized. Now this is also vicious in both Propositions. The mayor, for it will also exclude the Baptism of living Believers; for the chief grounds for baptizing them is found in such, though asleep or dead before baptized; as they have repented, believed, professed Faith, are in Covenant with God, &c. And so it might as well be concluded that it's absurd to baptize them also: For no man will say that their being Persons alive or awake, are of the chief grounds of their being baptized; for then all men alive and awake, have some of the chief Grounds of Baptism in being so: And death or sleep doth not make them cease to be Believers, when they die in the Faith, or sleep in the Faith; much less makes it them to be out of Christ: And if it will exclude Believers too from Baptism, as well as Infants, to what purpose serves it with all its twelve Instances. But besides, that we may show considerable differences between Believers unbaptised asleep or dead, and Infants to be baptized being alive, that will hinder them from being equally absurd even in mans sight. As, between an unbaptised Believer asleep, and a living Infant, in this, that the one may be easily awaked and be in a posture to understand what is done; and it's meet that in subjects capable of understanding, the subject should be in the best disposition they are at present capable of; otherwise you may as well baptize a professed Believer as rationally asleep as awake: But an Infant cannot so soon or easily be brought to a capacity to understand.  
Again, with reference to death, though all the Pleas for Infant-Baptism mentioned by him, may be found in a sort in persons that have believed being dead: Yea, and what is mainly pleaded for living Believers too, as we said above, yet there are considerable differences between living Infants, and unbaptised Believers dead. I shall set down briefly his Parallels, and show what exceptions there are against them, or differences between them; making the Consequence of his mayor in the third Syllogism also invalid. The Heads of what he propounds are these: 

1. They are alike in Covenant with God, or his Covenant belongs to them.  
2. They equally need admission into Gods Kingdom by being born of water, John 3.3.  
3. The unbaptised Believers may as well as Infants be accounted among Disciples. And;  
4. The Kingdom of God may be said to be of them, as well as of the Infants.  
5. They may be said to be holy as well as they, yea and rather than Infants.  
6. They may be alike Gentiles: Or,  
7. Have been touched by Christ to impart some blessing to them: Or, be  
8. Of the Church: Or,  
9. Of the Family: Or,  
10. Not forbidden to be baptized the one more than the other; nay the dead are rather said in Scripture to have been baptized, in that the Apostle speaks of some baptized for the dead, but never of Infants baptized.  
11. They are redeemed by Christ too: And,  
12. Cannot ponere obicem, put a Bar, or make opposition against their Baptism.    
All which will agree to living Believers too, and such as have actually repented and professed Faith, and are chief grounds divers of them, of their Baptism too: yea, in the twelfth and last, they have the advantage of living Believers, for they possibly may ponere obicem too, or put a Bar against their being baptized, so as the dead unbaptised Believers cannot: And so his Argument will conclude against them too as well as against Infants. But yet, as there is one Difference between living and dead Believers, in that the one understands what's done to him, and not the other; which yet is not by itself a chief ground of their being baptized; for that also may be found in Unbelievers that they understand what is done to them, and to what end, or may be made so to understand it: So there are divers considerable Differences between unbaptised Believers d ead and living Infants, as well as living Believers. As to say:  
1. There is not the whole Person to act upon in the deceased Believer as in the living Infant; and it's more rational to seal up a small Purse with a Jewel in it, though less, for the use of any Person, than to seal up a bigger for his use, when the Jewel though greater is gone, whether that Jewel gone be in his hands for whom it was to be sealed up, or otherwise stolen and lost. There is in the dead Believer but the Carcase of him that is in Covenant, in the Kingdom, Church, Family, &c. but there is the whole Man in the Living Infant; and a living Dog is better than a dead Lion, Eccles. 9.4. Any wise Man will make more account of, and take more care of a little Cask full of Wine, than of a greater when broken and the Wine spilled out.  
2. Nor is it so rational to act out of time as in it; to seek to enter a Place when the Doors are shut and locked up not to be opened again, and when the Doors are newly opened. Death shuts the Door against all admission into Gods Kingdom, as to any door whereof the Keys are betrusted with men; but they use to be open in Infancy, as appears in Gen. 17.12. Deut. 29.10, 11. Mat. 19.13, 14. And I know of no order from the master of the House now in Infancy, to keep them shut against them.  
3. Nor is it so rational to do what we find few or no wise men to have done, as to do what we find many good and wise men to have done. We find sixty six Bishops at one Synod judging it meet to baptize Infants, and they in the early times of the Church; besides, many and many in all Ages since: But we find not any two or three to have so judged and determined for baptizing Believers either asleep or dead. And we are counseled to walk in the ways of good Men, and to keep the Path of the Righteous, rather than to walk in paths where we find none such to have gone, Prov. 2.20. Nay and much more,  
4. It is not so rational to admit into the Church of God, such as we never find God to have taken in or admitted by any Ordinance of his Appointing, as to take in such as we find him to have ordered to be taken in: but we never find God to have admitted, or to have given order to men to admit any person after they were dead, not admitted and taken in by the some Ordinance before, as we find him to have admitted Infants thereunto.  
But whereas he saith, There is more in Scripture for baptizing the Dead, than for baptizing Infants as to express mention thereof; I shall particularly note two things to that.  
1. That the Apostle saith not, that there were any dead persons baptized. The words in 1 Cor. 15.29. are not {αβγδ} but {αβγδ}; not, what shall the dead that are baptized do, but what shall they do that are baptized for the Dead: Or, as Pasor would have it, supper Scpulchra, over the Graves. But I understand it otherwise, as it may appear by Tertullian, rather that some being solicitous of the Souls of their deceased Friends were baptized for them; as he saith, Annuâ die, Calend. Sc. Februarii; once a year, on the Calends of February: which they conjectured to have been the day of Christ's Baptism: yet it was not, as Mr Grant. saith, like the Godfathers acting now for Infants: For neither was the dead baptized then( as he mistakes himself) but others for them; nor are the Godfathers or Sureties baptized for the Infant now, but the Infant for itself; though they undertake to see to the Christian Education of it afterwards. But  
2. If he say the dead were baptized there by Proxies, inasmuch as those that were baptized, were baptized for, or instead of them. And if he will have the terms in his Syllogisms understood in such an extent, when he speaks of dead Believers baptized, then I shall turn his Argument against himself, and deny the Minor of his Second Syllogism, viz. That it's absurd to baptize the dead, and put him to prove it: For I pray let it be minded, that the Apostle doth not in the least say or signify in his mentioning it; That either God or he did judge it to be absurd, except in case the dead should not arise; otherwise he puts no more absurd upon it, than he doth upon their own standing in Jeopardy every hour, or his fighting with Beasts at Ephesus. If he object that the Apostle saying, What shall they do that are baptized for the Dead? speaking of it as other mens Acts or doings, not his or his Brethrens, implies that it was not the approved practise of him or any approved Believers. I answer, That it will not follow thence, no more than that he disallowed them that were fallen asleep in Christ, because he saith not there We, but They: Then they that are fallen asleep in Christ are perished, v. 18. Or, that he disallowed as evil and absurd those that had wives, or that wept, or rejoiced, or bought or used this World: Because in 1 Cor. 7.29. he saith not, it remaineth that we that have wives be as if we had none, or we that weep as though we wept not, &c. but in the third Person as of others distinct from themselves: Let them that have wives be as if they had none, and they that weep as though they wept not, and they that rejoice as if they rejoiced not, and they that buy as if they possessed not, and they that use this World as not abusing it. He signifies indeed that he did not so, or that divers others did not so, but shows no dislike of, nor suggests any thing against such as did so, as if they did absurdly and faultily therein. If he say, but the laying aside that custom shows it to have been absurd: He will as well condemn their feasts of love and kiss of charity, which( as to the former thereof) he faith is yet used; for it is certain they also have of a long time been disused, and so some other things then in use in the Apostles time, as that in 1 Cor. 14.26. When ye come together, every one hath a Psalm, hath a Doctrine, hath a Tongue, &c. Now if that practise of Baptizing for the dead be interpnted as if the dead were Baptized, and that appears not to have been disallowed of God, or of the Apostle as absurd, it quiter overthrows also the Minor of his second Syllogism; and so again makes all his Argument voided, and such as may be turned upon himself: but it is not absurd with God to Baptize the dead; ergò, neither is it so much less to baptize living Infants: Though I might add also that;  
5. He mentions something as chief grounds of Baptism of Infants that none mention as he lays them down; as simply, That they are not forbidden, or that they cannot ponere obicem or make resistance, no, nor what he falsely fathers upon me in his seventh, viz. That Christs touching the Infants in Matth. 19. to pass a blessing on them entitles Infants to Baptism: For I said no such thing, but his touching them in such a way as with imposition of hands and prayer to bless them, and withal declaring that the Kingdom of God is of such, signified, that his Church-state appertains also to them, and that they( by Mr. Gr. own way of arguing) have then right to Baptism, because that goes before the laying on of hands, in Heb. 6.2. though yet Mr. Gr. in essaying to prove that Christ so touched some dead persons to pass over a blessing to them, fails egregiously; for he did neither so, and with such circumstances, touch the damsel in Luk. 8.54. nor much less the young man, in Luk. 7.14. whose Coffin or Beir onely he touched, and not himself; so that all his parallels, or( as the Printer more rightly by a mistake) his parable is exceeding lame.  
6. I have said enough, to show the vanity of this Argument; But yet that He and his admirers may see how they are deceived with Fallacies, I shall view how he concludes it, and so to this Objection of his own propounding; That by this way of reasoning he would prove the Circumcision of Infants to have been absurd; He answers not at all: And indeed not at all, or to no good purpose; for, saith he, Gods command to do it, takes away all absurdity, which is a mere prevarication from the business? for his question at the first was, Whether Infant-Baptism is from Heaven or of Men. The sense of which is, Whether it was commanded or ordered of God, or had God for its author; his answer is, no, and his reason was, because it is absurd and contrary to reason. So that it was the absurdity in the thing itself, as considered apart from Gods commanding, or not commanding, that was the Medium made use of to prove that God might not, nor did command such a thing: now he himself confesseth, consider the thing in itself, and compare it with Circumcision of Infants, as considerable in itself, and the same or like absurdity might he argued against that; for they also were as incapable to know the Covenant, or were no more in Covenant with God before Circumcision than dead Proselytes dying when ready to be circumcised and the like; and yet notwithstanding such absurdities to human reason God commanded circumcision of Infants, and it was from Heaven, and the absurdities according to his way and rate of arguing in the thing itself hindered it not; and so by consequence it follows that none of the absurdities he pretends to find in Infants-Baptism( were they such as he indeed imagines but fails in his proofs of) are a sufficient medium to prove that this may not also be from Heaven, that is, be commanded and approved of God: yea, suppose Infant-Baptism not commanded of God or approved by him, yet seeing the absurdities in it cannot be the reason of Gods not commanding it,( for he grants that as absurd things in themselves have been commanded, as Circumcision of Infants; yea, and that had God commanded baptizing the Dead, which is the Absurd he compares it with, he might have done it, and then it had been no absurd thing) it follows that the supposed Absurdities in it, can be no good evidence that it is not commanded of him, or that it is not from Heaven; and so he hath tripped up the heels of his own Argument by that concession. It's only his Command that takes away the absurdity; not any absurdity in it that hinders it from being, or evidenceth it not to be his Command. His Beginning was to prove from its absurdity, that it is not of God; and his Conclusion is, that it is therefore to be looked upon as absurd, because God did not command it: As the Poet saith, 
Amphoram  
Instituit, current rotâ tandem urceus exit.  
A doughty Argument he did intend,  
But nought at all comes of it in the End.   
He had as good or better have said at the first, God hath no-where commanded it, and therefore it is not of God; and so have spared all his needless proofless Argument, in which he hath done just as if some Sadducee of old had undertaken to prove, that the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead is not from Heaven, or no-where delivered of God in Moses Law or Writings; because of the many Absurdities that would follow upon it; and then being put to it by some that would show it to be no more absurd, than the Creating of the World out of nothing, or hanging the Earth upon nothing, should say, It's true; but God hath revealed that in the Law of Moses, but he hath said nothing of the Resurrection of the Dead there, not a Syllable of that; nor was there ever one Instance given in all the World, that the Body of any Man dead and rotten, was ever raised again; and therefore, though the Creation was, yet the Doctrine of the Resurrection cannot be of God, nor can be any thing revealed by him in the Writings of Moses.  
Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici.  
Oh Friends, who are admitted to this sight,  
Lift up your Voice, and laugh with all your might.  
For here you have verified that other Verse.  
Parturiunt Montes, natúsque est ridiculus Mus.  
The Mountains lift and heave as if some house  
broke forth from thence, and lo! a silly Mouse.  
Well, our passage now is open, the Monster at the Door is down, and we may go in, and perhaps by a good Judgement find Infant-Baptism ordered and warranted of God in the Holy Scriptures; as Christ found the Doctrine of the Resurrection there, though the Great Absurdists the Sadducees could not find one word to that purpose in the Writings of Moses. And therefore, though it had been well done of Mr. Grant.( and I wish he had done so well) to have let what he hath said in this Argument have served the turn for showing the Insufficiency of my Book: he having herein he thinks worthily counter-argued the most important matters of it: For then I should not have needed to have spent any more time or labour thereabout. Yet seeing he hath conceited and  told his Readers, that He hath discovered great and dangerous mistakes therein, I shall, God willing and enabling me, see what he answers to it, for I suspect his Honesty: And so pass we to   

The Reply to Mr. Grantham's Answers to my Letter, or little Book.  
IN his Entrance into which he endeavours first to make good his Second Title-Charge, viz. That I mistook about the occasion of my Writing; because He did not say in his Letter to me, that Infant-Baptism had its Original from Rome.  
Reply. The matter is not great whether he said so or no, so long as I did not charge him with saying so. He said, What gave me sufficient occasion to writ as I did: For he said: Rome would not well be deserted, while we run to her in the West rather than to Jerusalem in the East, for direction about the Sacred Ordinance of Baptism. From whence I collected, that he therein implyed that men run to Rome for Infant-Baptism, and that it is condemned by what came from Jerusalem: No mistake I suppose in that. To which I added of my own, That I was dissatisfied therein, finding nothing against, but rather for Infant-Baptism in what came from Jerusalem; and that I thought I might say, that he could not prove that Infant-Baptism had its Original at, or from Rome; or was any invention or introduction of theirs: but rather I judged that it had its Original at or from Jerusalem; which was my Proposition occasioned by his saying as above, and therein opposing Rome to the right Original place of Gods Law and Ordinances, Isa. 2.3. The Opposition wherein must be less apt, if he look not upon Rome as the Original or Fountain, whence what he conceives to swerve from Gods Ordinance issued. I could not rationally think, that he did charge us in these Nations that have renounced the Church of Rome even in Baptismal Additions and Corruptions also,( as of Salt, Cream, Spittle, &c.) in that his saying, with practising any thing therein merely in conformity to Rome's present practise; but that he rather intended in that Opposition to impeach the original of what we practise therein, as if Rome and not Jerusalem was the right Mother and Parent of it. Had he name England or Genevah, instead of Rome; or opposed Rome to Germany, or Holland, there had been less cause to think that he spake of its Original: But Rome being looked upon by us Protestants as the Mother of Harlots, and of the Abominations of the Earth, and he opposing Jerusalem in the East thereto; I thought I might well propound the Thesis, or matter that I would discourse of, as occasioned thereby, in such terms as I did. He had no cause then here to fault me, but himself rather, as the true and causeless Quibler, upon my Book, called Run from Rome: But I am glad that he disclaims Rome from being owned by him as the Original of Infant-Baptism; for then I hope we are unjustly charged by him for running to Rome for it,& there is the more hope that he may be induced to own its descent to have been from Jerusalem. I hope he will not be offended at me again, if I say, That in directing us to Jerusalem for Direction about that Sacred Ordinance, he meant that that was the right Original Place of its right practise, and not that he thinks the Baptism now to be practised is best to be found there now, as in its present State, it is possessed by mahometans.  
He tells me, that He is persuaded that had not Rome, England, or other Nations received Infant-baptism, I would never have thought of it from any thing that the holy Scriptures speak concerning the ordinance of Baptism.  
Reply. That may be, and yet we not run to Rome for it; or derive it, or our practise of it thence: it may be from Jerusalem for all that, for neither do I think that he would ever have thought of Womens admission to the Lords Supper from any thing the Scripture speaks concerning it, had no Nations under the Christian profession for these sixteen hundred years ever practised such a thing, and yet it follows not that we run to Rome for that I should it's likely rather have suspected my own judgement, had I apprehended the Scriptures to favour such a thing, than to have condemned the practise of the Churches of Christ for so long a time, and argued them to have been guilty either of so great blindness as not to see, or of so great unfaithfulness as not to take notice of, and practise such a thing if seen by them: But when 〈…〉 ●●●ctised, and reputed by them as an Apostolical Institution, and that it hath been ever since continued in the Churches of Christ, and find also that the Scriptures favour and approve it as, or more, plainly than the admission of Women to the Lords Supper, and that nothing brought thence by the Opposers of it doth by any fair inference conclude against and condemn it; I think I do better to judge charitably of the Ancient Christians, and of those sixty and six Bishops of Africa in Saint Cyprian's time, and of all those other holy men in all ages, not onely since, but also before, that allowed it,( as before Cyprian's time, Origen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clemens Romanus, Dionysius, &c. and since then Ambrose, Austin, Jerome, Chrysostome, and I know not how many more, none of note then condemning it, except one Tertullian who also greatly erred in other things: nay, nor did he absolutely condemn it neither, but onely persuaded to a delay of it as better; for in his book De Anima he also approves it) than without good and clear demonstration to condemn them of error, and to join with some fewer persons of a lesser standing, and guilty of sad and dreadful miscarriages and confusions. I think we should in some cases inquire of the former Ages, and prepare ourselves to the search of their Fathers, Job 8.8. and be wary of removing the ancient land-marks which our Fathers have set, Prov. 22.18. and 23.10. except we can plainly see that some have removed them from where they were set at first, without good authority for their so doing. I think the Protestant Churches in their Reforming, did well to have a Charitable respect to the first Primitive Times; especially while the Church labouring under Persecution, to bring forth Christ in the Knowledge and Government of him in the World, was like a Woman clothed with the Sun, and having the Moon under her Feet, and a Crown of twelve Stars on her Head. Though I aclowledge that some corrupt Doctrines and Practices did creep in very early, as appears by the Scriptures themselves; but that this was one of them I do not find: were I clearly convinced that it was, I should speak no more for it. As for his Conclusion then, that my Discourse was Foundationless, and grounded on a gross mistake of his Words, because from his faulting Men, as running to Rome in the West rather than to Jerusalem in the East, I undertook to prove Infant-Baptism rather to be a Babe of Zion, than a Brat of Babylon; I leave it to impartial Men to consider the Truth of it, and judge as they see cause: especially if also they consider, that it's manifest that he denied its Original to be from Zion; and that my Discourse was mainly taken up with endeavouring to assert that, and not one whole Leaf of it was spent in disproving its Original to be from Rome, but as the Evincing of the other destroys that.  
He tells me, that He need go no further than my Book, to show that Confusion did attend the Introduction of Infant-Baptism. For Tertullian doth certainly dispute against it,( though he will also refer me to Mr. Danvers Treatise of Baptism) &c. But I do not find him making this good out of my Book:( though if that show it sufficiently, I shall not need to seek it in Mr. Danvers too) Tertullian's Disputing against that Subject, as unfit for that Ministration, is no sufficient Evidence of any Confusion attending its Introduction; for neither proves it that it was but then Introducing( seeing he used no such Argument against it as that it was some late Innovation) no more than his Disputing against, or dissuading Second Marriages, proves that they also were first Introduced in his time. We find Infant-Baptism owned and approved by those that lived more than half a hundred years before his time, as by those whom we mentioned before; as also by Hyginus. And if the Disputing against a Point by one Learned Man of many( and that too by no very sound Arguments) be an Evidence of Confusion attending it, what Point of Christianity hath not been attended with Confusion? then I am sure not the denial of Infant Baptism, for many have disputed and do still against that: and if the propounding a Question or Apprehension of some one man or more to Cyprian, or, the Debating it in a Synod; as whether Baptism might be lawfully administered before the Eighth Day be a sufficient indication of Confusion, then no man may propound a Question about any thing, especially to be debated in an Assembly of Bishops, for fear of being an author of Confusion: Do no body ever propound Questions among you Antipaedobaptists, or do you never Argue and Debate of no thing in your Assemblies? or, if so, doth that argue you guilty of Confusions? That some eminent Christians contended with St. Cyprian and others about the Baptism, and Rebaptizing of heretics, I have red; but that there was any contention with him by any such about the time of Baptizing Infants I find not: But it's pitty Mr. Gr. was not then born and made Chairman in that Synod of Sixty Six Bishops; for he thinks he could have ordered them better than they ordered themselves, and would have pronounced that the time of Baptism, is the time of Conversion. But I fear me that time( though more discernible in those that turned from judaisme or Paganism to Christianity, yet) among persons brought up from their Infancy in Christian Instruction, would be as hidden to the Baptizers, or more than any other time, that Grotius saith is undetermined; no certain time would that way, I fear, be set for the Administration of Baptism, but it might occasion more Confusion. Can you tell me, I pray, at what hour, or day, the young ones that belong to your Companies are first converted? or, when they are first sit for receiving Baptism upon that store that you can Baptize them just on that day? I fear, not. He tells me, I cannot resolve myself on what day, month, or year, Infants ought to be Baptized: But I believe I may, much sooner than he can tell me what time the most that he Baptizeth were first converted: for I can tell him they may and ought to be Baptized when they are called or offered thereunto, be it on what day or month soever. But from the Premises he infers, that If this be not Confusion for one to say, They ought not to be Baptized before the eighth Day, another that they ought: a third can assign no day:& a fourth, that they ought not to be Baptized at all, he knows not what is. But I pray, Sir, did you find this in my Book that you said you need go no further than that to show the Confusion that attendeth it? I trow not: but an agreeing Determination of the whole Synod with St. Cyprian that they might be Baptized before without Sin. I know no body differs about any of these things, except you that deny Infant-Baptism, from them that assert it. Nor that the Scripture determines it any more than it doth on what day, month or year children should have hands laid on them as Christ laid his on some with Prayers and Blessings; so that here he doth but make Men of clouts, and then fight with them. But if you, Sir, cannot tell what is confusion if that be not: I will mind you what is, Even that that was acted at Munster about the Introduction of your way of anabaptism in Germany about Ann. 1533. when there were such strange pranks played, and so much mischief done, and so many lost their lives in the conclusion. I suppose you have heard of John of Leyden, otherwise called John Buckhold, that made himself a King, and was for plurality of Wives, and kept the Bishop by force out of his Town, and many such-like doings of him and his party at Munster: if not, upon a little enquiry you may inform yourselves of them; and therein what Confusion is. But beside that, are there not some Antipaedo-Baptists that are for Dipping? others that content themselves with Sprinkling? some that are General Baptists, others Particularists, as they are distinguished from the Doctrines held by them? some for no Baptism at all, as the Quakers, who are also generally or very many of them against christian? some for the Saturday-Sabbath? others for the Lord's-day Observation? some for the Feast of Love, others not? some for extreme unction, or anointing the sick with oil, others not? some only for could water, others allow it to be warmed? Yea, many of them are for divers Jewish rites and Observations( as those that live about Wickin and Burwell, in Cambridgeshire, and some others) others not. Are not here Confusions more than a few then among you? yea more and greater than among any other Sect or Party almost, so that you might be ashamed to talk of Confusions: but herein Clodius accusat maechum, Catalina Cethegum:  
As the Poet saith: that is, 
One Faulty Party doth another charge,  
In that wherein their own Guilt is more large.   
May I not well say here then, as our Saviour said some would say to him? Medice cura teipsum, physician heal thyself: or to that Party, as our Saviour saith in another place, Hypocritae, eijcite primùm trabem ex Oculis vestris, &c. Ye Hypocrites, first cast out the beam out of your own eyes, and then ye may see the better to pull the Mote out of your brethrens?  
He asks, Why should Cyprian and his Sixty Six Bishops determine for themselves and theirs, that the time should be any time before the Eighth day, if none gave Occasion for such a Decree by their Opposition?  
Reply. Surely this is but a slender proof, that divers eminent Christians contended with him about the time when Baptism should be administered. For neither do I find that they determined what the time should be, but only that it might lawfully be any time before the eighth Day; notwithstanding that Circumcision under the Law was not administered sooner: Nor doth their so determining prove any opposition, much less by divers eminent Christians to the contrary. Some might scruple it and propound their Doubts, or Arguments for such an Opinion, without either contention or confusion. If Contests about a practise argues it to be unlawful or guilty of causing Confusion, what might be said then about the apostles practising Baptism upon the Gentiles without Circumcision? Was that a bad practise, and guilty of Confusion, because it occasioned great Contests from and with the False Apostles, which were not laid down but by the Determination of a Council, Act. 15.? But a Council of sixty-six Bishops in such early times will not suffice unruly Spirits.  
He considers how I deal with Tertullian; and that is honestlyer I am sure than he either deals with him or with me: For he saith, His Arguments I mostly omit to mention, and what I do set down I greatly mistake. I pray, Reader, mind here, and judge between us: I shewed that it was practised in his time, and that upon authority of Christ's Injunction, commanding little Children to be suffered to come to him; and shewed the weakness of his Arguings against it, as so practised. So that I pretended not to set down all his Arguments against it; but only what he objected against the Authority or Allegation of that Scripture for it: and thou shalt judge, whether I mentioned them all or not, and whether I rightly took or mistook them. To that purpose I will set down all that he saith upon that subject.  
Thus then he writes: Pro cujusque personae conditione, &c. According to the Different Condition, Disposition, and Age of every person, the delaying of Baptism( mark that he saith not the denial of it) is more profitable,( which agrees not with Mr. Grant. taking the day of Conversion) especially about Infants: For what need is there that Sureties should be put in danger, who through mortality may fail of their Promises, or through the growth of an evil Nature be deceived.[ That's one Argument respecting the Sureties, but not at all the Scripture-saying alleged for it, which follows] Indeed the Lord saith, Forbid them not to come to me.[ There is the Scripture alleged for it. To which he answers] Let them come therefore when they grow up; let them come when they learn; when they are taught whither they should come. Let them be made Christians, when they can know Christ. Why doth an innocent Age hast to the Remission of Sins? There are his Answers to that Saying of our Saviour; and all these I mentioned, and shewed his Impertinency in. Besides which, he adds further; That men will deal more warily in secular or worldly Matters. Should Divine Substance be betrusted with one to whom earthly things may not be committed? Let them know to ask Salvation, that thou mayest seem to give to him that asks. After which he passeth from them to persuade unmarried Persons, as well Virgins as Widows, as being subject to temptation, to delay their Baptism; and tells us, that Easter and Whitson-tide use to be the Solemn Times for administering it, &c. Now it being upon his Arguments against it, as practised upon the authority of that Saying of our Saviour, that I expressly challenged him, and I mentioning all that had reference to that Saying, and omitting only what relates not thereto; judge whether I was faulty in omitting what I did, or if he be not therein a false Accuser: though it's not hard to show also the Weakness of his other Arguments; for the failure by the Death of the Sureties, the Living Church-Members may supply. Nor are the Sureties chargeable, in case they doing their diligence in taking care of their Education in the Christian Doctrine and practise they will not be ruled; no more than the Jewish Parents were in like case, though that was beyond my business: and we know God did commit Divine Treasures to such, so far as the admission into his Kingdom and Covenant may be so called; though I think in neither case is it proper so to speak. And that Men do admit Infants to earthly Estates is usual: nor is there any precept from God that persons should first ask Baptism before it be administered. But examine we the Truth also of his other Expression, viz. That I greatly mistook what I set down; which he would thus make good.  
He saith, Tertullian was not against Prayer to God for Infants, and therefore not against any thing for which they were brought to Christ; but he opposeth their being brought under pretence of being made Christians by Baptism.  
To which I say, That Tertullian hath no one word to that purpose, as if Christ spake of their coming only to him to be prayed for: nor denies the Scripture to be rightly applied to their coming to Christ, or to his Church for Baptism. He saith not, Let them come to be prayed for, but not to be baptized; his utter Silence as to any such thing intimates his consent, that it was pertinently alleged to their being made Christians, only he would have them come more leisurely, and not make such hast: Let them come when they grow up; he retains the same veniant, or let them come; and signifies nothing of any mistake in the end of it by those that alleged it, but he would not have them festinare, make such hast, but take a longer time for it: which I say is a horrible Misconstruction of our Saviour's Saying; as if they should stay till they were grown up before they come to him, or be admitted into his Kingdom; and was rather that which the Apostles would have had, for which Christ was displeased with them. If Mr. Grant. was ever thoroughly baptized, however deep he was dipped in the Water, I am greatly mistaken in him: had his Heart been made clean by it, it would not have suggested so much deceit and falsehood to his Pen.  
That we may not conclude that Infants are to be Baptized, because they were brought to Christ to be Touched and Prayed for, is {αβγδ}, Nihil ad rhombum, or, Nothing to the purpose: For who only argues it from Christs Touching and Praying for them? or, That all Christ Touched and Prayed for may be Baptized without any more to do? or, all that the Ministers may Pray for? Doth not Th. Grantham speak herein against his Conscience? For do I or any body argue that because Christ Touched and Prayed for Infants, therefore they may be Baptized? He knows I did not, but that I also urged the way of Touching them, viz. By Laying on of Hands, and Declaring that of such is the Kingdom of God: But Mr. Gr. methinks is loathe to touch at that Laying on of Hands when he speaks hereof, and therefore usually calls it a Touching, as if it had been but an Ordinary Touching, as in healing Bodily Diseases; whereas we find both in Matthew and Mark, That he Laid his Hands on them and blessed them, so as we never find he did to any else. Now though the Laying on of Hands is also a Touching, yet every Touching is not a Laying on of Hands: But of this more afterward. It's true, that we do not find that the Persons that brought these Infants to Christ did believe that Jesus was the Christ: Nor that Christ, nor any other by his Order did Baptize them: Nor that they that brought them were Baptized: No more do we red, That Divers Persons perceiving many to receive benefit by Christs Prayer and Touching, therefore brought Infants to him that he might Touch them and Pray, as he saith. That's as much said without book as any of the rest, nay and more too; for we never find any mention made of Christs joining Prayer with his Touching in his Healing any: nor is it likely that these persons brought them for any such benefit, for we never find his disciples rebuking any for bringing any old or young to him to be touched for healing; but it's likely that they that brought these Infants believed Jesus to be the Christ, and that they were baptized, for we both red that all the people( generally) were baptized of John: see else Matth. 3.5, 6, 7. &c. Luke 3.21. and that John instructed them when he baptized them that they should believe on him that came after him, even on Christ Jesus, to whom he also pointed them and bare Testimony, John 1.6, 7.26, 27, 29. Act. 19.5. And we find that there was a great apprehension among many that he was the Christ: as appears by their frequent calling him the Son of David, Matth. 9.27. and 20.30, 31. and 21.9. Mark 10.47, 48. And crying Hosanna to him and calling him the King of Israel, and doing honours to him, Matth. 21.8, 9. Luk. 19.36, 37, 38. Joh. 12.12, 13. Yea, even strangers from Israel so owned him, as in Mat. 15.22. John 4. 2●, 42. Nor is Mr. Grantham honest to make this deduction as any of ours herefrom, viz: That Christ baptized no Infants, no not those that he took in his arms and blessed: neither appointed he any other to do it that we red of: Ergo, Infants are to be baptized. He knows in his own conscience that this prodigious consequence, as he calls it, is no honest deduction, nor sounds any thing like to that which both I and others have made from the place; and therefore he cannot fairly conclude from the premises, therefore Infants may not be Baptized.  
He asks, if I believe that the {αβγδ}, John 3.3. implies the necessity of Infant-Baptism, and tells me if I do I run to Rome indeed. Rep. I deny his consequence; for without going to Rome, I find Tertullian prove the necessity of Baptism thence in his book de Baptismo, wherein having repeated the commission for baptizing in Matth. 28.19. he adds, Huic legi collata definitio illa, Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu— obstrinxit fidem ad necessitatem baptismi, that is; That definition added to the Commission, namely, that Saying, Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, hath tied up Faith to a necessity of Baptism; yea, and more fully and absolutely before that, so as to necessitate Infant-Baptism;( in case of death in Infancy at least) he saith, Praescribitur nomini competere salutem sine baptismo ex illa maximè pronunciatione Dominicâ, qui ait nisi natus ex aquâ quis erit non habet vitam. It is determined that none can be saved without Baptism, especially by that saying of our Lord, Except One be born of water he hath not life, which was also the general concurrent judgement, so far as I find of the ancient Christians before Rome was in so great request. Though I quoted it from Tertullian only as making against his own reasonings; when he said, why doth an innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? for therein is implyed that mankind generally need a new-birth, whatever Innocency is naturally in them to give them admission into Gods Kingdom. And so far indeed I do hold, that men( Infants or others) cannot( at least in an ordinary way) be members of the Kingdom of God, as it signifies the Christian Church, without Baptism; though as to eternal Salvation in the great judgement, I do not with Rome hold it necessary thereto, so as to put that upon others acts for Infants. His charging me then to be beside the true scope of the Text, and asserting that Christ speaks not to, or of, Infants in that place, any more than in Luke 13.3. are bold, and proofless sayings that he gives no demonstration of the truth of, nor declares he what is in his account the right scope of the place; his judgement in which may likely be as far from truth, as it is that there is a Nisi quis in Luke 13.3. which is a manifest untruth, for it is not, Except any one repent he shall, but, Except ye Repent, ye shall all likewise perish.  
Cyprians Decree we spake enough to before, and Hyginus prudence, in taking care that the children of the Church might not relapse to an Idolatrous education or course of life, will open no such gap to innovations upon pretext of prudence as shall need any man to shut it if well and prudently managed. Prudence is certainly a virtue to be exercised in the Church of God, and of great benefit where rightly exercised, as it is and must be necessary in judging of things expedient for the furtherance of the Faith or Preservation of persons in it, and of what is decent and becoming Gods Worship. The Prudent Man foresees evils, and hides himself, or seeks to prevent their falling upon himself or others; and so be it the courses taken in such cases entrench not upon Gods Laws and Commandments, but tend to the furtherance of men therein, they are to be commended and not condemned: though is is true, things well done, and brought in, may be abused, and some may pretend to order things Prudently, when they indeed do not. Certainly neither the setting up of the Altar by the two Tribes and an half at Jordan, upon the account it was set up; nor Joash's causing a Chest to be made for receiving the Collections of the People for the repairing of the Temple, Josh. 22.12, 13, 26, 27. 2 Chron. 24.8, 9. nor any other such-like Prudential Constitutions, for the good and benefit of the Churches are to be faulted, although not expressly commanded of God; and is not the Dedication of Infants to him by Prayers as soon as they be born, of that Nature, which he saith they practise?  
But in p. 3. coming nearer to our business, Mr. Gr. grants that Infants were for some time before Christ took flesh admitted of God to outward Ordinances, as both Circumcision and Passeover, and other rites of the Law. Rep. That they were admitted to the Passeover before they could go up in their Fathers hands to Jerusalem, I find not. Circumcision it is evident they were admitted to very young, but he shows us not any Law of God or Order of Christ for excluding them from all Gods Ordinances since the coming of Christ in the Flesh, as are now instituted in the Church: but he saith, whether they were admitted by Circumcision may admit of consideration, and therefore he demands, Whether Abraham and Isaac were not in Covenant before Circumcised, Rom. 4.10.11.13. Rep. Though Abraham was no Infant when circumcised, and therefore the mention of him is not so pertinent, yet we may say, that the Covenant of God with him to be the God of him and his seed, was not sealed to him before Circumcision, though it was propounded to him before; and Men are not properly said to be under a bond or Covenant formally till the Bond or Covenant be sealed, though such a thing may be propounded and offered to a man before: and so we may say of Isaac and the Infants born in his house, bought with his money, and of the proselytes and the Infants of proselytes; and the uncircumcised man-child might be said to break Gods Covenant( or make it voided, as {αβγδ}, irritum fecit may be rendered) because by not keeping or having the condition to be performed by or in him, he also was without the seal of it, and it was as it were a blank to him; indeed Circumcision was not put upon the females, nor yet were they uncircumcised because not preputiate, they had no praeputium or foreskin of their flesh to be cut off. I suppose it sufficed to them that they were the daughters of the circumcised, as seems to be implyed in calling other women of other nations the daughters of the uncircumcised, judge. 14.3, 4. 2 Sam. 1.20. Or else were usually baptized or washed, as possibly may be implyed in that comparison of Jerusalem to a female Infant in Ezek. 16.4, 9. However the males were faederati, or in Covenant only conditionally before they were signati or sealed, but absolutely and properly when sealed; so that I know of no advantage he had here, to insist on what he speaks of, all Infants included in a Covenant made concerning Mankind in Christ from the beginning of the world to Abraham, is no Scripture-language. I find no such Covenant mentioned, and therefore no need of any seal for it; only I red that God made a Covenant with Noah and his Sons, and all flesh absolute and unconditional, and gave no seal to be set upon them, there being no distinction to be made between one and other therein; only the Rainbow was and is a sign or token of it, Gen. 9.8, 9, 10, 12. If Mr. Gr. find any other Covenant mentioned before that, let him produce it, or any Covenant said to be made in Christ but that with Abraham and his seed, Gal. 3.15, 16. I find a promise intimately signified in Gods threatening the Serpent, that the seed of the woman should bruise his head, but that is not called a Covenant. Covenants& Promises are distinct, Rom. 9.4. Every Covenant indeed is a Promise, or hath Promises in it, but every Promise is not a Covenant; and therefore his talk of a Covenant that ceased not with Circumcision, and of its reaching Infants now as much as ever, is all Scriptureless Language. The Mercy of God is indeed through Christ freely over all, but not so as to take all into Covenant otherwise then as the Gospel is received, and its blessings are covenanted to be vouchsafed to those that are by it brought into the Church or Kingdom of Christ. God may through Christ show mercy as he pleaseth to others, but onely the Children of the Kingdom are under his Covenant and its Blessings: He that hath the Son hath Life, and he that hath not the Son hath not Life, 1 John 5.12. Yet I assert not that all or any Uncircumcised Male-Infants were damned, though I verily believe they were losers, and deprived of something considerable; because it's said, The Uncircumcised Man-child hath broken my Covenant, he shall be cut off from his people, Gen. 17.14. And so I conceive it is with Infants not brought into Gods Church or Kingdom, they fall short of some benefits they might have, and that thence might proceed our Saviours so great indignation against his Disciples for hindering their coming to him,& asserting their interest in his Kingdom as the ground of their right to the blessing therein.  
He asks, Why I talk so much of the Seal, and not of the Seals in the Plural? To which I say; That he might quickly have satisfied himself thereabout, had he soberly minded what I said: For it's evident that I spake only of Circumcision, which is also called the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4.11. And I learned in my Accidence, that it is the Singular Number that speaks but of one, as Lapis, a ston: And so I deny not Infants the Seal; for the Supper of the Lord is no-where called a Seal that I know of, nor made any-where to answer to Circumcision as Baptism is. Coll, 2.11, 12. He bids, Let me show him that Infants are any-where excluded the Lords Table, and he will easily show me, that by the same Rule they are not to be brought to Baptism: A Match. I think 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a Man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, &c. and so oft as ye do this, do it in remembrance of me, ver. 24, 25. If that do not, I know not what else doth: But that St. Augustine's Judgement, and the practise of the Church in his time, in admitting them thereto might be right. Now let him show me any such general Rule or Advice reaching to all Persons to be baptized, and not only occasionally addressed to these or those Persons in a grown State, and under ignorance of, and alienation from the Church formerly: one such Saying, as Let a man confess his Sins, and profess Faith, and let him be Baptized; and I shall either be of his Mind, and yield myself to be baptized again by him or some of his Friends; or else shall think that Infants may partake of the Supper also, notwithstanding that in 1 Cor. 11.28. alleged to exclude them.  
That Deut. 29. is against me in any respect I deny: for I only quoted that to show that Infants in former times were admitted into Gods Church, Kingdom, and Covenant; and that it proves. And though Moses made that Covenant also with them that were absent, yet they did not then enter into that Covenant, as those there present with their little ones did, ver. 10, 11, 12. only the Covenant was established with them to be entred into, and observed by them in their times and places: And so it doth not enforce that persons unborn might be in Covenant without any sign or act on their part to enter them into it, or pass it over to them; but only that it was established with them, for them to enter into, and observe in their times and places: for the Covenant they were engaged to was no other than that which required Circumcision, and the Observation of all other Laws given them by Moses, respectively as they were or should be the capable Subjects of them; without which they broke or made voided Gods Oath and Covenant, and deprived themselves of all the Benefits thereof, And so the Promise and Covenant that is now the ground of Baptism, and of the Observation of all the Christian Doctrine and Ordinances, is such as is tendered to, and submission thereto required of, all persons far and near, and to all Ages to the end of the World, as that in which God promises life& happiness to men in listening to,& obeying it, and threatens curse and misery to the refusers of it, like that in Jer. 11.2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Compare Act. 2.38, 39. with Act. 3.25. and Mat. 28.19, 20. yea Christ himself is given, and in the Gospel is preached as a Covenant to that purpose, and all are required in all Ages to close with him, Isa. 42.6, and 49.8. and 55.1, 2, 3, 4. and 56.1, 2, 6, 7. But persons are actually admitted into it by Baptism.  
Mr. Grant. grants, That Children are of the Kingdom, but denies, that I say true in saying that they, are to have Christ's Grace and Blessing passed over to them by external acts ordained in the Church.  
Reply. If Children are of the Kingdom, as it signifies the Christian Church, State, and the Government of Christ therein, how are they of it if they never enter into it? That which is born of the Flesh is flesh; and if they may neither be born of Water nor of the Spirit:( as he denies them both the Water of Baptism, and the Water of Instruction in the Word, and saith they are uncapable of the Holy Spirit) how then can they enter it so as to be of it, I would fain know? seeing our Saviour saith, Except any one be born of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, John 3.3. Or how will he make it out by the Scriptures, that Children out of the Church, the Infants of Turks and Infidels, are ever said to be of the Kingdom of God? That they may have Christ's Grace and Blessing made over to them by External Acts ordained in his Church, is evident from Christ's Actings upon them; yea, and that they brought them in pursuance of an Ordinance of God given to, and practised in, his Church, is evident too: For they brought them that he might lay his Hands upon them and pray. Mat. 19.13. And he did lay his Hands on them and prayed and blessed them. Mat. 19.15. Mark 10.16.& those 〈…〉 ised in the Church for obtaining grace& blessings for, and conveying them to men. Prayer is so, 1 Thes. 5.17. Ephes. 6, 17, 18. And Blessing is so, Numb. 6.23, 24. and the laying on of Hands is so Heb 6.2. and that they who brought the Children were of the Church of Israel, there is no question: yea, and that they were Believers on Christ too is very probable, as we noted before. So that I appear not too bold hitherto in my Assertions.  
He grants that {αβγδ} is such in nature and kind, only excepts against me if by {αβγδ} in Mat. 18.5. I think not Infant to be meant.  
Reply. Surely by such there too is meant such in nature and kind as that Child was which Christ set in the midst of them, whether an Infant or not; and that was the thing I brought it for. Nor doth his adding, that He that shall receive such a little one in his Name receiveth him, evince that it might not be an Infant; for it is no such absurd matter as he supposes, to say, that he that receives an Infant into the Church by Baptism, doing it in Christ's Name& upon his Account, receives him: For surely he is received in all things wherein his Name is received and esteemed by us; He and his Name are so near a-kin. And it's not any receiving a Child, but only that in which we receive him in his Name and with respect thereto, that he saith we receive him; and so every one that baptizes an Infant into his Name, upon the Account of him, or in love to his Name therein, truly receives him; though the Baptized in a sense also receive Christ of the Baptizer. Yea, so tender and loving is Christ also to poor Infants, that he reckons kindnesses done to them in his Name and upon his Account, as if they were done to himself; even as he that gives to the Poor, is said to lend to the Lord, Prov. 19.17. And our Saviour will say in the day of judgement, Inasmuch as ye have done, or not done, kindnesses to one of the least of these my Brethren, ye have done or not done them unto me, Mat. 25.40, 45. and among those Kindnesses is mentioned {αβγδ}, I was a Stranger,& ye took me in, or gathered me to you. And the Word is the same that is used of the Servants, gathering in to the Church of God, in Mat. 22.10. And the same of which the Word Synagogue is derived; and so may be very well extended also to a gathering, or taking into fellowship or conjunction in the Church of God, or Christian Assembly. As also the Word {αβγδ} used for the coming together of Christians in the Church of God, is thence derived. And surely, Infants shall be found, some of them at least, among those that shall be at Christ's Right Hand in that great day; and may very well be among those that he shall call the least of his Brethren, who is not ashamed to call us Brethren: and therefore it belioves us to take heed we despise not one of them, and be found among them to whom he will say, I was a Stranger, and ye took me not in, or gathered not me to be one among you, in that ye took not in such and such little ones, but deprived them of a place in my Church or kingdom.  
He grants too, That they are of the Church as they are of the number of the Saved, but not so as to be concerned in the Duties of the Church, to participate with them in the Ordinances; That is, I suppose he means, they that are Infants of Christians, are as much of the Church as the Infants of Turks and Infidels, which I think are Strangers to the Common-wealth of Israel, and from the Covenants of Promise, and are no-where that I know of, reckoned of the Church or Kingdom of God: But that our Saviour admitted those Infants, and signified that he would have such not sorbid to be admitted to the Ordinances of his Church, as to some of them, we have before shewed; for such is Prayer, Blessing, and laying on of Hands, which follows Baptism now, and formerly was after Circumcision, and not exercised, that we find upon uncircumcised Persons. But our Saviour saith not only, that such are of the Kingdom or Church, but that the Kingdom of God is of such, as appertaining in some measure in its privileges and Blessings to them; as it was in the Church of Israel;( whom we are bid to behold, 1 Cor. 10.18.) the Church or Kingdom of God belonged to them also, and they were Children of it, Mat. 8.12. and 21.43. though they could not partake of every Ordinance in it, they might receive Circumcision& be made of one body with them, before they could eat the Passeover, or go up to appear before the Lord at Jerusalem; and they might share in their Prayers, Blessings, and Imposition of Hands therewith before they could pray, or bless, or lay hands on others, or understand what was done to them therein. And our Lord Jesus declares his mind here, that they should be admitted to come to him in such ways for his Blessing, as they are capable of coming to him in, without any distinction of Male and Female, as was made in Circumcision: there being neither Male nor Female in Christ Jesus as to admission into his Church, or right to his Blessing. So that that {αβγδ}, such, will much make against the Antipaedobaptists; especially, seeing it is {αβγδ} of such is the Kingdom of God: for it mainly pleads them guilty of denying them the Kingdom of God, as it signifies the Christian Church-State, by denying them the Ordinance of Admission thereinto: as also such-like inferences as they draw from the Scriptures against Infant-Baptism, applied to, and drawn from, other passages thereof, would exclude them also from the Glorious Kingdom; as I afterward undeniably evidenced, as appears in due place.  
He grants, That Christ did frequently take occasion to instruct his Disciples upon questions put to him;( yea, say I, and upon other occasions where no question was put to him as here) but he adds, That we know this by the Instructions he gave them: but that in Mat. 19. he taught them to bring Infants into his Church by Baptism, is a most vain Presumption; and that I might as well presume that he taught them other things, concerning their Admission to the Lord's Table, and prove it as soon as any man can prove the other.  
Reply. We may know by the Instructions that he gave to his Disciples:  
1. That he would have Infants come, that is, be brought to him: and where can that be to receive Blessing by external Acts, but in his Church? where two or three are gathered together in his Name.  
2. That his Kingdom is of such, which Kingdom, as they may be suffered to come to Christ in it, or be hindered from it by men, is certainly his Church Congregate, and having his rule in it; and that is of such, even in nature and kind also, as he hath granted. Infants of Turks or Infidels are no-where said or signified, while under their Institution, to be of Gods Church or Kingdom, no nor can he show that any unbaptised persons are accounted of the Church or Kingdom of Christ, as now ordered by him; and so it's no vain presumption to infer thence, that he instructed them to admit Infants into his Church by Baptism: wiser men than Mr. Gr. have thought otherwise of it, with respect to whom it becomes him to speak more soberly of such an apprehension.  
3. We have this instruction too by his actions of Prayers and Blessing, and Laying on of his Hands, that it is his mind they should have his Blessing derived or conveyed to them by external acts of Ordinance, as we have shewed already: if he can prove thence too, that he would have them admitted to the Lords Supper too, I will give him leave; but then I dare say he will prove they must be admitted first to Baptism, and so his Proof will not hurt us. That the Apostles meant then to forbid infants at that time to be brought to the Church, I said not; but that they forbade them to come to Christ, for that which was for them in the Church, I may say, and it is evident; and that their action had in it an intimation that they judged them not meet subjects for such acts of Christs Church or Kingdom, as our Saviours reproof and instruction thereupon plainly implies.  
But let us hear what Mr. Gr. will have to be the reason of the disciples forbidding them: He tells us, He truly thinks thus, that seeing their Master much busied they thought it not meet to add to his cumber,( as he corrects it) by bringing them to him to divert him from his business in hand to pray particularly for them. Oh shameful shuffle! is there any thing looks like such a thing, either in the Evangelists relations of what went before; or in their action, or his answer to them? had that been it, they would rather have bid them stay till their Master was more at leisure,& would that have been worthy of such indignation from him against them? will he intimately fault our Lord to extenuate the fault of the Disciples? or red we of any extraordinary business he had in hand then, that the Praying for them might cumber him? which of the Evangelists hints any such thing? or speaks our Saviour any word to that purpose, as if he could take time well enough for it? No, no, his very anger, reproof and instructions all signify that it was some mean, low, unworthy thoughts of Infants, and their unfitness for such acts of his Ministration, that was the great matter faulty in them; they shewed somewhat of that pride in conceit of their own fitness rather, and despising such little ones for their unfitness, as he was immediately before faulting in the Pharisees according to St. Lukes relation of it; and therefore he tells them that of such is the Kingdom of God, and so earnestly asserts by way of intimation their worthy receipt of it, saying, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that who soever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little Child, ( that is, as a little child receives it, as I shewed in my Letter and other Book) shall not enter thereinto. Can we better know the disease than by the remedy prescribed or course taken to cure it? Their fault was in the main, and on the matter the very same with Mr. Grantham's and his Friends, that is, they thought them not meet Subjects for such sacred Acts, that they could not rightly and worthily receive the Kingdom in such administrations, that they that brought them for such administrations did as absurdly as if they had brought persons asleep, or dead to him: for them: to correct such thoughts in them, and prevent them in others, Christ instructed them and us in such manner as he did. I appeal to all sober persons, yea, and to Mr. Gr.'s own Conscience, whether there be not great Evidence in Christs answers, of the truth of what I say, at least, whether it be not far more probable than his frigid Conjecture, which he leaves therefore to judgement, as having nothing to say for it.  
But whereas he Stranges that not so much as one instance can be given of any one Infant Baptized in all the Churches planted by the Apostles, nor any hint of any such thing: Rep. I ask, why is that more strange than that Infants having been Members of the Church of God, there should not be one clause in the sayings of Christ, or writings of the Apostles, to signify that Christ would have them left out of his Church, if indeed he would have it so; nay, but that he gave such clear hints to the contrary, as in the Infants so treated by him? or then that there is no instance of any one Infant refused, when they Baptized whole Housholds? or any such Argument used by the Apostles against the necessity of Circumcision, as that it would bring Infants into the Christian Church, who ought not to be brought in? when he gives me a good reason why none of those things are expressly mentioned I may give him some good reason of the silence in the other. That there were Children in the Churches, planted by the Apostles, there are divers Hints, as where they are said to be holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. And where the Apostles give instructions to them to obey their Parents, which is fit for the least Infant that begins to understand any thing: and the Apostle seems to writ to them as Members of the Churches, he writes to, as well as servants and other persons. The Apostle Peter indeed in his Epistles, though he exhorts Servants,& Wives, and Husbands, gives none to Children; shall we conclude therefore from his silence therein that there were no Children among all those Christians that he wrote to? I trow not: But I answered this objection in my Book, to which answer we may see he gives the go by in some part, when we come at it. It is true, That in Act. 8. We red of Men and Women Baptized, and it's not said, and Children, as it might easily have been added; but it's as true that we find the Disciples are said to come together to break Bread, but it's not said Men and Women; as it might as easily have been added: nor that Women went into the Water, and came up out of the Water, as it is said of some others; though had it been so, it might have been easily added of them also, as well as of some others, Men and Women may comprehend both sexes of all ages, and it's no more added old men than Infants. Surely in Joshua 8.25, 26. and in judge. 9.49, 51. Men and women are only expressed when there is no ground to imagine but that children also were included, and so it might be in Act. 8. Though whether Infan s might be baptized while Circumcision was practised as the initiating Ordinance into the Church of God in these places where it was practised( as doubtless it was in Samaria) may be doubted; because I think till then the Christian Church was not so distinct from the Church of the Jews, but only looked upon as a more reformed part or different sect of them, till the Gentiles being called they were member'd into it without Circumcision.  
At length he comes to my argument drawn from his directing us to Heb. 6.2. Wherein laying on of hands follows Baptism, as much as Baptism doth Repentance,& Faith,& yet Christ practised that upon the Infants; but he thinks to wave that, by saying, That I either forget or know not how to distinguish between the touching for particular favours for any sort of persons used by Christ, and the laying on of hands practised by the Apostles for the promised Spirit peculiar to the Church. To which I Reply; 1. That had the Evangelists only said that the Infants were brought to Christ to be touched, and that he touched them only, this might have been of some use; but it appears that Christs action was not a bare touch, but expressly {αβγδ} a laying on of hands; which is the very same with that in Heb. 6.2. Nor doth Heb. 6.2. limit that laying on of hands to such things as he mentions the Apostles to have practised it for, but it's indefinitely and without limitation expressed. 2. May not we by a juster distinction evade the force of their Argument taken from Baptisms being set after Repentance and Faith, to limit it to persons actually exercising or professing them? I trow we may, thus: That the Apostles by baptisms there that are mentioned after Repentance and Faith, means not baptism with water, for that's but one Baptism; but the Apostle saith, Baptisms, and so means those wherewith Christ baptizeth, namely Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and Baptism with Fire or Afflictions, and those indeed follow after Repentance and Faith, but not Baptism with water always, for that was unto repentance, that men might repent, not, or not onely and always, after it, Mat. 3.11. and with instruction that they should believe on Christ, and so was not bound up only to those who had first believed, Act. 19.5. Nay, indeed the Apostle saith not neither baptisms simply, but the {αβγδ}, the teaching or doctrine of baptisms: and indeed the teaching or declaring the Doctrine of them might be after their preaching repentance and faith, yea doubtless was always so, for else they could not know the ground or reason of either of them for themselves or theirs; but that enforces not at all that the practise of them must be onely upon those that had first repented and believed; laying on of hands we see was practised by Christ himself upon Infants, and some of Christs Disciples had Baptism( if they were generally Baptized) whom he knew from the beginning believed not, John 6.64, 66.  
But by the way, He will convince me and all Pedobaptists that we are unfaithful to our own Argument, because we do not impose hands upon Infants: Asking, Can we find ground to Baptize them here, and not to lay on hands on them? and therefore he concludes, that We argue against our own conscience, or sin in not doing what our conscience tells us we ought to do. To which I say that it's eccentric to the argument in hand: Nor is it true that no Paedo-Baptists are for laying on of hands upon Infants, or children; for I think the Bishops refuse not to lay on their hands on them, and He knows that it was not for every Preacher or Baptizer to lay on hands in the Primitive times; for then needed not Peter and John have been sent to do it to those whom Philip had Baptized, Act. 8. So that perhaps it may not be clear to some of us that we have Authority to lay on hands if to Baptize. Nor, I suppose, can Mr. Grantham say that ever we refused to lay on hands on any Infant brought to us for it, and we find not that Christ did it to any but when they were brought to him; so that this also vanishes.  
But in prosecution of his former answer, he saith, The laying on of hands in Act. 8. Heb. 6.2. was for the promised Spirit according to the prophesy of Joel, or the establishing graces thereof, to wit, Love, Power, and a sound mind, according to 2 Tim. 1.6, 7. but that in Matth. 19. not so; but for some other blessings. Rep. as to that in Act. 8. I will grant what he saith, but that the mention of laying on of hands in Heb. 6.2. is limited to the giving of the Spirit, or its stablishing Graces, I deny, and expect his proof for it; for I find not the Apostle there to give any intimation of such a limiting of it, as also I deny what he saith upon Matth. 19. both his propositions are proofless, and therefore his answer as the conclusion from them is unsound. We find laying on of hands practised in dedicating persons unto God; as in Num. 8.10. and in blessing, as in Gen. 48.14. And so it was by our Saviour; and how far that blessing might extend no man living except Christ himself I suppose knows: they might also have something of the Holy Ghost conveyed unto them for ought any body can tell to the contrary; for though Christ was not then glorified, nor the Holy Ghost given then, as afterward; yet the Holy Ghost was given in a gracious way before, for the Apostles had it with them, John 14.17. Yea, and John the Baptist was filled with him while an Infant even from his mothers womb, without degrading the Apostles, or without giving to him( much-less while in his infancy,) the precedency in the first-fruits of the Spirit, Luk. 1.15. What capacities Infants have to make use of, or rather to be used and wrought upon by the holy Ghost, or what capacity John had thereunto I know not; but I believe what I find recorded for all that, and therefore reckon not much of what Mr. Gr. can say to the contrary. But to make good what he saith about the laying on of hands in Matth. 10. he saith, that Laying on of hands there being rendered by touching; it clearly shows, that it was for such blessings as others had received by the touch of his holy Hands, distinct from the gifts before recited. To which I reply, that the Laying on of hands in Matth. 19. is not extenuated by its being called a touch, but rather the touch-is amplified by its being called a Laying on of his hands; for as we noted before, though every Laying on of hands is a touch and may be so called: yet every touch is not a Laying on of Hands, nor may be so called. He did not only touch them with his Hand, with one hand, as often he did in Healing; as may be seen in Mat. 8.3, 15. and 9.25. Mark 1.3, 31. and 5.41. and 7.32. and 9.27. luke. 5.13. and 8.54. no, nor is it said, He laid on his Hands on them and healed them, as sometimes he did, though more rarely: but he laid his Hands on them and blessed them. And therefore I wonder, that s●●ne from the word Touch, though manifest by other places to have been by Laying on his Hands,( though that Phrase of Laying on his Hands, I find that Th. Grant. in his speaking hereabout, cares not much to touch at) he should so boldly and groundlessly affirm, That it was either at such a time, or on the occasion of his Touching others, when there is no mention of his Healing them, or of their need of healing, either before, or in, or after, his touching them; nor any mention of healing any by touching them near that Action; nor of his touching any with prayer and blessing them, but these only; nor of his blessing any else so solemnly, except his Disciples in luke. 24.50. on whom it's true that he did not lay his Hands, and I was ware of it too, but only lifted them up; though I did not so warily express that Difference as I might have done: but so as I gave some occasion to think that I meant, or said, that he blessed them also with laying on of his Hands; though I did not either so say or mean. But let those things be minded that I have said, in which this Action of our Saviour toward these Infants was not to be paralleled with any other mention of Christ's Touching any else, both in respect of his Actions accompanying it, and his Instructions following it: and it will be sufficient to evince that it was no such ordinary Touch as Mr. Grant. would have it to be: and so that my retorting his Argument from Heb. 6.2. upon himself( as if it directed only to baptize real or professed Believers, and excluded Infants, because baptisms follows after repentance and faith) was pertinent; though in truth I apprehended also contrary to his fancy, that every of those six things there mentioned( if we take Baptisms as he would seem to take it for Baptism with Water) is of larger extent, the following than that which goes before; as to say, there are more that may be said to believe or have faith towards God, than who have repentance from dead works: For those Righteous ones that need no repentance, luke. 15.7. whether Men or Angels have, and have need, of faith towards God. Again, Those that neither repented nor believed, at least such as we cannot prove that they did, have been baptized; for all the People were baptized of John, luke. 3.21. but that all the People either repented from their dead Works, or had faith in God, I am sure he cannot find. And if those Infants brought to Christ were not baptized, then the laying on of hands extended to persons not baptized; as also it might in some that were healed. And I am sure, more shall be raised from the dead, than either repented, or believed, or had Baptisms or Laying on of hands; for all shall be raised: and yet more shall incur the Eternal judgement, than shall be raised from the dead: as both the Angels, 1 Cor. 6.3. 2. Pet. 2.4. judas 6. and those Saints that shall be only changed, 1 Cor. 15.51, 52. 1 Thes. 4.15, 16.  
I said by way of Parenthesis, that we red not of the Baptism of Christ's Apostles that Christ blessed, any more than of the Baptism of those Infants: to prove the contrary, he quotes Joh. 1.35. and v. 4.( I suppose it should have been 40.) Act. 1.4, 5. 1 Pet. 3.21. but in none of those places find I one word of the apostles being baptized in Water, of which was the Discourse. Joh. 1.35, 40. tells us; That one of them was John's Disciple before he was Christ's; namely, Andrew: and that he might be, and not baptized, if, as Mr. Grant. after implies, {αβγδ}, to make a Disciple was one thing, and to Baptize another following matter: For then between those two possibly Christ's Acquaintance and Call might intervene. Act. 1.4, 5. saith not that John baptized the Apostles: the Words are not, John indeed baptized you with Water, but leaving out the Word you, it's only said of him, John indeed baptized with Water: so that our Lord omitting that Word[ you] it may rather be made use of to the contrary. Nor will Peter's Saying, Baptism doth now save us, evince it: because he adds, not the putting away the filth of the Flesh,( which may agree to the Baptism by Water) but the answer of a good Conscience through the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead;& that, I think, John could not baptize them with. For neither was the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead known to, or preached and bapzed into, by John; for had it, surely it would not have been so strange a thing, as it was to the Apostles so long after John was dead; as it was, luke. 18.34. Nor did John's Baptism I think reach the Conscience, but Christ's by the Holy Ghost, Heb. 9.14.& with that without question the Apostles were baptized, whether with John's or not. But it was not my business, to deny that the Apostles were baptized with Water, but to show that we find no more express mention of it in the Scriptures, than we do of the Baptism of those, or any other Infants; against which all his Proofs are inconcludent: but enough to that.  
Come we nextly to the Commission in Mat. 28.19. which he saith, will never prove that Infant-Baptism had its Original at Jerusalem; if it do, he never saw the like: and why? Because, saith he, the Persons there appointed to be baptized were to be taught, or to have the Gospel preached to every Creature of them.  
Reply. Well, suppose it be so, the Persons to be taught( or discipled rather) are all Nations, and every Creature of them, are to have the Gospel preached to them; and if Infants be not some of every Creature of the Nations, I never see the like: Yea, and some such Creatures too, for whom there is Gospel. Had Mr. Grant. learned that one Lesson, to become a Fool, that he might be made wise, as those who think themselves wise, are counseled, 1 Cor. 3.18. he would not reason after this sort; and when Christ bids preach the Gospel to every Creature, exclude so many Creatures as all Infants, as if they were not Creatures. Had he learned to receive the Kingdom of God as a little Child, he would not upon such a Reason exclude so many little Infants from it: For here is nothing put upon the Nations as to discipling, teaching, or preaching, but upon the Apostles and Disciples only; and they could preach and teach the Word of the Lord, to all, in any house, Children and others; whether they at present could understand it or not. The soolishness of Preaching committed to the Apostles, and practised by them, might have as absurd things in the sight of Men in it as that: might it not seem as, or more, absurd for God, to bid the Prophet prophesy to the Mountains of Israel, and to the Hills, and valleys, and Rivers; as we find he did in Ezek. 36.1, 4, 6.? When Zachary at the Circumcision of the Baptist, blessed God, he spake to the Child expressly, and said; Thou Child shalt be called the Prophet of the highest, for thou shalt go before the Face of the Lord to prepare his Way, &c. luke. 1.76. Did not Zachary teach or preach glad tidings there expressly to the Child, whether it understood then what was said to it or no, matters not; I am sure his Speech was directed to it: Yea, and he  told it what Gospel it should preach too in the following words in its due time; and could not the Apostles speak to Infants think we as well as Zachary could to that Infant? And when the Disciples were to go into any house, they were ordered to preach peace to it: Into whatsoever house ye enter, said Christ to them,( wherein is included whether there be Infants in it or not. And it's strange if they never entred into any house wherein there were some Infant or Infants) say, Peace be to this House. Now by House is meant familiarly the household, and so it is there, and not the Walls: And Peace in the Scripture-Language, includes all good and blessing from God, and is the Sum and Substance of the Gospel; which is therefore called the Gospel of Peace, and the preaching of Peace by Jesus Christ, Ephes. 6.15. Act. 10.36. as in Isa. 52.7. How beautiful upon the Mountains are the Feet of them that bring glad tidings, that publish peace? That was the Sum of the Word sent of God to the Children of Israel; and that was afterward sent to the Gentiles. Christ came( saith the Apostle, Ephes. 2.17.) and preached peace to you that were afar off, and to them that were nigh. See also Zech. 9.10. And it would be strange to think that only Infants, to whom Christ shewed so great respect, should be excluded that Salutation, Preaching, or Proclamation of Peace to the House. Here then is a preaching Peace, the sum of the Gospel, sufficiently warranted to Infants also; and surely it might come upon them too as soon as any in the House, that entertained the Salutation or Preaching thereof, according to their capacity of receiving it; they being made Patterns to others, for receiving the Kingdom. God sent his Word to the Children of Israel, Shall we exclude the Infants of Israel, from being Children of Israel? Surely David preached to Infants also, and to every Creature, when he called upon all Creatures, to praise the Lord: and among them, said, Both Young-Men and Maidens, Old Men and Children; let them praise the Name of the Lord, for his Name alone is Excellent, his Glory is above the Earth and Heavens, Psal. 148.12, 13. See Sir, how that holy man preached to, and taught little children, Infants and every creature, though you think it foolish and absurd to preach to and instruct them; but the foolishness of God is wiser than your, or any mans wisdom, and in it there are many such absurd things to carnal Reason; there's a preaching not onely to Infants, but to persons unborn too, even to a people to be born have Gods holy Servants declared his righteousness, which is the great matter of the Gospel-Revelation, Psal. 22.30, 31. with Rom. 1.16, 17. Yea, his pow●● which the Gospel is there also said to be) to every one that is to come, Psal 71.18. see also Psal. 78.4, 5, 6, 7. and that also spoken of as an established Ordinance of God: thus the Prophets ministered to the Apostles, and to us in these last ages, 1 Pet. 1.12. and the Apostles to the ages after them, Eph. 2.7. and God spake in Bethel, to or with us, saith the Prophet, Hos. 12.4. I preach to, or teach you now by my Pen( yea, perhaps many that are now Infants, or unborn) though you now hear not being it may be many miles distant: but go we on.  
He adds, that upon their being Baptized they are to be taught, &c. Rep. What taught before, and taught after too? well be it so, but how means he upon their being Baptized? our Saviour saith not, so soon as they are Baptized, teach them all things, though in persons capable of receiving, they may be teaching them then. Nor, I suppose, could Paul and Silas teach the jailor, and his household in that night they were Baptized, all things to be observed by them, Act. 16. That is to follow after as to the personal teaching them at convenient distances as the Baptized may be able and capable to receive, and so the Apostles have taught all men even children too their duties which they are to learn and to observe as they grow capable. As the Jewish parents were to teach their children also after they were circumcised, though at that time not capable of learning, Deut. 6.7. and. 11.9. Psal. 78.4, 5, 6. But yet this also signifies that Infants are to be Baptized before they are to be taught their duties, as to any particular personal Teaching them; because the Teaching of them follows after Baptism, and is not before it.  
He adds, Though {αβγδ} do signify, Disciple &c. yet being truly rendered by Docete, it is such a manner of Discipling as is exclusive of Infants. Rep. That's not so; for neither is {αβγδ} so truly rendered by Docete, Teach ye, because it confounds it with {αβγδ}, Teaching after added; whereas in itself, in the Greek text, it's very different both in word and in sense, and makes them that so pled for it guilty of what Tho. grand. would falsely impose upon me, that is to say, of casting an aspersion upon Christ himself, and upon the holy Ghost, as if they did tautologize, as he saith, in saying Teach all nations, Teaching them. I make as clear a distinction between {αβγδ}, Disciple ye, and what follows as is in this saying, Go Proselyte ye the Nations, circunctsing their males, and teaching them to observe the laws of Moses; for as there the word Proselyte is the general comprehensive word for the whole business to be done, and takes in a preparative work to the other two, that is, the bringing in the Nations by persuasion to yield up themselves and theirs to the Lord and his laws, and the other two are the distinct ways of completing the work of Proselyting: such is exactly the difference that I put between {αβγδ} Disciple ye, and the other acts. Nor yet would it exclude Infants if such a Teaching be included in it, as tends to make men Disciples,( as indeed there is, that is,) a preaching the Gospel and persuading persons to be reconciled to God, and come into his Church, or Kingdom; no more than such Proselyting the Nations by instructing them into, and teaching them the knowledge of the true God did exclude Infants from being Proselyted and brought under Circumcision: nay indeed, as they could not well be circumcised and proselyted without some such previous instruction to their Parents, no more can Infants now( ordinarily) be discipled, &c. Baptizing them without some such previous teaching or rather preaching to& instructing the Parents that are aliens from the Church, going before it to make them willing& ready to yield them up to Baptism and what it obliges to. But whereas he saith, {αβγδ} is best expounded by our Saviour's own way of making Disciples, John 4.1. {αβγδ}, which was not by Baptizing, neither is that right; seeing the way he bids his Disciples {αβγδ} or to Disciple is, {αβγδ}, Baptizing: and if that making Disciples that is by Baptizing, be best expounded by making Disciples and not Baptizing, I am much mistaken. Nor yet do I make any thing against Christs own practise, for Christs practise and his Disciples are two distinct things; nor speaks our Saviour a word to his Disciples of his own practise in his commission to them, except that he saith he will be with them therein, but onely what his Disciples were to practise, though yet our Saviour did by his Disciples what he bade them do in making Disciples as to Baptizing them too, John 4.1, 2.  
Whereas he saith, God did not command his Apostles to do what he knew was impossible for them to do, as he knew all Nations would not be Baptized, but the greatest part would reject the Gospel, and Baptism, as a part thereof. Neither doth he here argue rightly. For, 1. Did not Christ command his Apostles to be perfect, as their heavenly Father is perfect, Mat. 5.48. and keep his commandments, as he had kept his Fathers commandments, John 15.9, 10. and love one another, as Christ hath loved us. John 13.34. though he knew they would not, nor could come up to that height and perfection in this life? Yea, 2. Doth not he suo se gladio, wound himself in so arguing? for by the same reason they could preach the Gospel to every creature, or else God did not bid them do so. Yea, 3. And if {αβγδ} to Disciple all Nations, or all the Gentiles, was to make them Disciples as Christ did make Disciples( as he said before it was best expounded by that) must not God put them upon the same impossibility as in bidding them Disciple them all Baptizing them? For did not: he know also that all Nations, or all the Gentiles, would not be so made Disciples, as well as he knew the greatest part would reject the Gospel and Baptism? and yet its evident that he did bid them {αβγδ}, Disciple all the Nations, or Gentiles, Baptizing them- &c. Knows not Mr. Gr. the graciousness of God, and the manner of the Scripture speaking that he accepts the faithful endeavours of his Servants, as if they performed all that he bids them? and interprets mens attempts and endeavours for good or bad, as if they were accomplishments; though possibly they do not, nor can accomplish what they endeavour? Thus when God bid Abraham go and offer up his Son, he is said to have offered him up, though God put by the Execution of his intention therein, Heb. 11.17. And the poor Woman that cast in but two Mites into the Treasury, was said to have cast in more than all they that cast in greater Sums; because of the greater freedom of her Heart, though her Hand was short, Mark 12.41, 43. Thus the false Prophets are said to cause Gods People to forget his Name, and to be vain: and Jesabel, to seduce Christ's Servants, though their attempts might possibly not take place in them: and many the like. And so God will without question accept of the faithful endeavours of the Apostles, to disciple all the Nations or Gentiles, baptizing them, and reward them as if they had actually and eventually done it: and the resusals of the Nations, or of any parts of them, or Persons therein, shall be charged only upon themselves. And therefore he might rationally and righteously enough enjoin his Apostles such a Work. But 6. Is it so indeed, that Baptism is a part of the Gospel? then surely it's as largely to be extended as the Gospel, except men will keep back part of the whole, as Ananias and Sapphira did of the Price: and then he that is to preach the Gospel to every Creature, is to tender Baptism to Persons not before baptized with it, and give it where the Gospel, and it therewith and as a part thereof, will be received. And so as the Gospel, I am sure, concerns and takes in Children, Baptism, that is a part of it, must concern and take them in also; and if so, I pray, Sir, do not withhold it from them: For I am sure they are included within the Limits of the {αβγδ} the All Nations, or All Gentiles, to every Creature of which the Gospel is to be preached.  
But whereas he saith, I would have {αβγδ}& {αβγδ} the same Act, he doth not say rightly of me: for though I say both {αβγδ}& {αβγδ}, Baptizing and Teaching are comprehended under the Limits of {αβγδ} or Discipling; yet there is the like difference between them, as between Proselyting and circunctsing, and Teaching, to observe the Laws of Moses; or as between the more General, and more Special, the end and the way or means in part, or the like. Every act or way of Discipling is not the whole of it; and therefore Baptizing is not the whole of Discipling, no more than circunctsing was the whole of Proselyting. Nay, as in Proselyting men might proseylte or endeavour to make Proselytes, where yet they refusing, would not be circumcised; or possibly he that did endeavour the former, might not be in a capacity to perform the latter. So may a Man Disciple as to his act or endeavour of it, where yet he cannot baptize whom he endeavours to make a Disciple of, or in such a sense is discipling of: as either the parties refusing to be discipled, or his distance of place from him, if willing, will hinder his baptizing him; and yet baptizing is an Act of Discipling Discipling too: As should I writ an Epistle to some Turks, earnestly persuading them to embrace the Christian Faith, and submit themselves, and theirs to Christ; I might therein do a Discipling Work towards or upon them, though I could not be in any capacity at such a distance to baptize them, further than in case there were any that I could order to do it for any of them, I might be said to do it by them.  
Whereas he saith, Though the Infants of Gentiles be Gentiles, yet sure neither the Parents, nor Infants, as Gentiles, only are fit subjects for Baptism, and therefore he saith my Allegation is srivolous.  
I reply; That they are both Parents& Infants fit subjects for discipling,& the Discipling them, is as a preparative Act to other acts of it; a bringing them in to receive the Kingdom of God, and to be baptized unto Christ as an admission thereinto. Gentiles, as Gentiles, one and other, may have the Kingdom of God, and his Peace by Jesus Christ preached to, and proclaimed among them, that they and theirs, one and other, might come into and receive it; and whoever yield themselves and theirs unto it, are to be entertained: even Infants also may receive the Kingdom of God that in the Gospel is preached, and ought not to be hindered or kept out from, but brought into it, luke. 18.16, 17. A man may as easily Disciple a Family, baptizing them all as formerly Proselyte a Family, circunctsing all the Males therein: there is nothing at all in the Text in Mat. 28.19, 20. to put a Bar thereto, but a clear reaching of it to them; they not being, by Mr. Grantham's own Confession to be charged with rejecting the Gospel,( whereof Baptism he saith is a part) and therefore to be reputed as Receivers thereof, where submitted by their Parents to Christ therein.  
He grants, That {αβγδ} doth sometime include Infants, but not always; not when it is said, He suffered all Nations to walk in their own Ways; and all Nations have drunk of the wine of her Fornication, and were angry, &c. and therefore he excepts them too in Mat. 28.19. Mark 16.15. because not capable of being taught, &c.  
Reply 1. The Words {αβγδ} are not in Mark 16.15. though there is what is of as large extent. 2. Where actings and doings of Nations or Persons are mentioned, there, as to those Actions and Doings of them, there is reason to except them, because they cannot act or do such things; and yet that God permitted not Infants according to their capacities, to walk in the Ways of the Heathen Nations, as to the being dedicated to, and brought up under the Institutions of their Idols, I cannot find. No, nor that the Infants of Rome do not drink of the Wine of her Fornications, even in their Infant-Baptism, with the mixtures of Oil, and Cream, and Spittle, and such things; and I fear me, Mr. Grant. thinks the like of our Infants in England, because they are baptized. However, I think they may be said to walk in a Way in such a reputed sense, as in which our Saviour calls their being brought to him, their coming to him, luke. 18.16. But supposing them usually excluded in such actions of Nations, yet it follows not that they are so in places in which no such actions of them are mentioned: as in Mat. 28.19. Mark 16.15. there is no action of the Nations mentioned, but only Passives; a being discipled, Baptized, preached to; and therefore they are no more excluded there, than they are in his other Quotation from Act. 14.17. when it follows, That God left not himself without witness to all Nations, in that he gave us Rain from Heaven, and fruitful Seasons filling our Hearts with Food and Gladness. We disciple them when we instruct the Parents, and bring them to yield them with themselves unto Christ and his Kingdom; yea our faithful Endeavours so to do, is accepted of God as our Discipling them, as we noted above: and so they may as easily be discipled now, as proselyted or made Comers to the Jewish Church before, as the Word Proselyte signifies. And therefore to his demanding of me( with a see our great vanity) how many Infants I have taught, according to Mat. 28.19. or preached to, according to Mark 16.15. And his bold Assertion, that he dare say I never made an Infant a Disciple in all my Life: I retort, That it is true what is written in Prov. 14.16. For I dare tell him, that I have discipled as many Infants, as I have brought Parents by my instructing them to yield up themselves and Infants to God by Jesus Christ, to be baptized into his Name, and be educated under the Instructions, Observations, and Blessings of his Church and Kingdom: though it's impossible for me to tell him, how many they are and have been. Yea, and to reckon, as the Scripture doth, though he may judge it still more absurd, as Levi was said to pay tithes in Abraham's loins; I may be reckoned to have discipled so many as any of my Ancestors also may have been Instruments of endeavouring to bring, or actually bringing into the Christian Church. Yea, I am now in this very Writing, discipling or endeavouring to disciple so many Infants as are in the Families of all the Anabaptists, to whom this Book may, or shall come; for I am endeavouring that they may be brought also into Christ's Church or Kingdom by Baptism. Yea, and Mr. Grant. himself hath discipled in part so many Infants, as he hath dedicated when new-born to God by Jesus Christ; though in not also Baptizing them, he hath not observed Christ's Commission as he might and ought to have done: for his Commission is to disciple, baptizing them, they being where he is in capacity to baptize them; and for preaching to them, as in Mark 16.15. I have preached to as many Infants as I have red that Scripture among at any time: Young-men and Maidens, Old men and Children: Let them praise the Name of the Lord, for his Name alone is excellent, his Glory is above the Earth and Heaven. He also exalieth the Horn of his People( that is, Jesus Christ) the Praise of all his Saints, &c. Psal. 148.11, 12, 13, 14. Yea, and as I have preached the Gospel to the Parents of that they might inform them of it as they became capable; even as I am now instructing the Anabaptists in these things, though they are not able to hear and receive these Instructions till what I now writ to, and for them shall arrive at them& their cognizance: Yet my act of writing& printing to& for them, is an act of instructing or confuting them: if he shall say, I may as well be said to baptize their Infants, in persuading their Parents, as to Disciple them therein: I say nay, for as it was with the Jews, that they might be said to proselyte others, while they persuaded them by any means to become Proselytes; but yet, they could not be said to circumcise them further than they acted that upon the several Persons of them, or ordered others to do it: so is it here, my Acts of Instructing may have influence upon them at a distance, but not so, as to baptize them without another intervening Action of application of Water by some-body upon them.  
He grants, That Paul witnessed both to small and great, but it was saying none other things than Moses and the Prophets did say should come to pass.  
Reply. True; but those things that Moses and the Prophets did say should come to pass, were things that concerned Infants also, and not Adult Persons only; as that Christ should suffer, and rise from the dead, and show light to the Gentiles, &c. though, as I said before of all Nations where matters of action are mentioned as done by the Nations, Infants may not be included usually, yet in passive expressions they may and often are: So I say also of the Words small and great; and therefore his Allegation of Act. 8.10. That all Samaria, from the least to the greatest, gave heed to Simon, is nothing to the business to disprove the extent of the same words, where no such Actions are spoken of, or to show that my mistakes are either small or great, as he is pleased thereupon to quibble.  
That {αβγδ} Nations, doth not always include Infants, nor {αβγδ} Man, always include Women, is not at all here to any purpose, unless he could show better ground for excluding Infants here, than any he can produce. Nor do I meo meipsum— harm myself, if I say, Infants are not included in the Word Disciples, in Act. 20.7. because they cannot examine themselves; it being said in 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this Bread, &c. though it is said of some persons baptized, that they were butted with Christ, and dead to the rudiments of the World: For it is not so said, Let a man be dead with Christ to the rudiments of the World before he be baptized, as it is said, Let a man examine himself and so let him eat; and therefore the places are not parallel in what he brings them for: And yet how Infants may be said to be dead with Christ to sin, and therefore shall not be buried before they be dead if baptized, we shall show afterwards towards the close of this Reply where he mentions it again.  
He charges me with saying, that The first way of Discipling according to Mat. 28. is by Baptizing; but that was not my expression, but thus, That the way of Discipling there expressed as to the former part of it, the Baptizing them, is possible enough to be acted upon Infants,& that baptizing is the former part of the way of Discipling there expressed, and distinguished from the after act of Teaching them to observe, &c. is plain in the Text; but that it is the first thing signified in the word Disciple ye, or the first way of performing the thing therein commanded, I said not, nor believe, and so he greatly mistakes me, and speaks falsely of me; as also he doth in saying, that I spake in what I there said contrary to what I have often urged both in discourse and writing, as also in saying I made Teaching and Baptizing to be but one Act, the later to be explanatory of the former; and that I grossly pervert the Text, wherein Teaching is the first Act. Surely he hath learned to practise that Machiavelian principle, Calumniare audacter, haerebit aliquid, to slander confidently, because something haply may cleave: I never make Teaching and Baptizing but one Act in any writing, or discourse that I know of; I appeal to my printed Discourse about Infant's Baptism for the truth hereof, and challenge him to show me any such thing in any writing if he can: I do not use to render {αβγδ} by the word Teaching, but Discipling; and how should I then make Teaching and Baptizing one Act, the latter explanatory of the former, when I make Teaching to follow Baptizing, and Baptizing and Teaching to be both included in Discipling as to the way of it, and in part explanatory of it; though I grant also something preparatory to both in it as it takes in Preaching or proclaiming the Gospel and instructing thereinto which is usually distinguished from Teaching. So that I neither contradict myself, nor pervert the Text, but in plain terms he perverts and speaks wrongly of me: perhaps in some writing I have spoken of Baptizing, as capable of taking into its signification, a dropping the word upon men, and so a Baptizing them with the water in the word by way of Instruction as going before Baptism with water in adult persons, and making way for their bringing also their Infants with them into Gods Church and Kingdom, but even in such an explication I have neither made Baptizing with water the same, or all the same Act with Discipling, though somewhat of what is included in it; No, nor taking Baptizing in that larger sense, have I made it the same with Discipling, though one, or rather two ways of performing it, as taking in both Word and Water: but I have also ever added the Teaching to observe all things too to be comprehended in the general work of Discipling. Yea, and it's evident that I cannot think Discipling and Baptizing to be but one Act, for I have said also, that the Apostles might be said in what they did in their days 1600 years since to have Discipled us, even all this Nation; for they did what in them lay, in observing their Master's Commission to do it; and our being Disciples now so far as we be so, is the fruit of their labours then, without which it's probable we had never been so; though I do not think, or ever imagined, or said that we were capable of the name of Disciples till( nor yet are further than) their Word or Doctrine hath had some effect upon us d to bring us into,& make us of the Church of Christ; and so far as it hath had that effect upon us, we are thereby become Disciples; though not by their preaching only, but also by the intermediate carrying on of their Work by the several Instruments thereof in their Successive times. We may now be called the Children of the Apostles in a sense, as well as those Churches planted immediately by them, in, and through, Christ Jesus, 1 Cor. 4.15. John 17.20. as the Jews that lived long after the decease of the Prophets, yet were called their Children, Act. 3.25. And when we through the Gospel received and owned by any of our Parents, were dedicated to the Christian Name and Religion, and baptized unto Christ, we began to be discipled, and to be Disciples, and might well in a degree be so called: though yet there is a great deal more required of us to the being perfect Disciples, or Disciples indeed, being grown up to the years of discretion, as there is, and was also, of those who were actual Believers before they were baptized; even a continuance in Christ's Words, with a forsaking and hating all for Christ's sake, that might hinder our following after him, taking up our across, Joh. 8.32. luke. 14.25, 26, 27, 33. Yea, some called in the Scriptures Christ's Disciples, yet were never his Disciples indeed, as that Phrase is used Joh. 6.66. with Joh. 8.32. So that in all this it appears, that I put great distinction between Discipling and Baptizing, though Baptizing be not so separated from it, but that it is included in its circumference. Nor said I then any thing that might intimate, that Infants are Disciples merely by the preparation made for it by the Apostles: but they become so in a degree when upon those foundations they have laid, they become dedicated to Christ, and are taken into his Kingdom by Baptism; at least they are in the way of becoming Disciples: for it's only the Acts of Discipling by others( as the Apostles) that are mentioned in the Commission, and not who are already actually discipled, or may have the Name of Disciples given them. So that, whether Infants be or may be called Disciples or not, is nothing to the purpose, either for or against their Baptism; if they be but under, and receiving the Acts of Discipling, it's as much as the Text speaks of; though I gave some reasons and instances by which I was, and am induced to think the Name of Disciples may also be, and is, in the Scriptures applied to them. But how he deals with those Scriptures I quoted, dividing what I put together, and making me to infer other things from them than I suggested or thought of, he may be ashamed to reflect upon: For I did not at all imply, That the Persons faulting the Blind Man; Joh. 9. were then Infants. He knows in his Conscience, that I did not say or signify any such thing; and therefore I added, That they were begun to be made Moses's Disciples by Circumcision; and I trow they were but Infants then, and I judged so: I said, that their being his Disciples might commence from thence, because it is said in Gal. 5.2, 3. That Circumcision engageth the Receivers of it to the Law of Moses: and I think they that were brought under the Obligation of Moses's Doctrine and Laws, might be said best from thence to be Discipled to him. So that it's apparent also, that I meant no such thing as to signify, That the Circumcised Infants in the Jewish Church, only were the Disciples and Debtors to the whole Law.  
I know that the Apostle there in Gal. 5.2, 3, 4. spake only of Christians, and saith only of them, that Christ should profit them nothing, because they were fallen from Grace. Nor did I say a word of it in my quoting of it to any such purpose, as to involve Infants in what is there said; but only to, show, that Circumcision engaged the Receivers of it to the Law of Moses, and so, that they who called themselves Moses's Disciples might be so esteemed from thence; and that was all I quoted it for there: though yet I add here, that even the Infants of them Christians by being circumcised, were put into a false way, even to be brought up under the Observations of the Law, from which Christ came to set them and all men free; both as to the Mosaical Institutions and way of Worship, and as to the being bound to keep the whole Law, for obtaining Righteousness and Life: and so they were even in Infancy put into the way to be abolished from Christ, and deprive themselves of his Grace and of the Profit Christ came to bring unto them, by being made under the Law and its Curse, to free them therefrom; even as the Infants of mahometans now are put into the way of rejecting Christ as they grow up, and as the Infants of the Jews of old by being circumcised were taken into Covenant with God, and under his Blessing; though now since Christ is come, and hath fulfilled the Law and redeemed us from it, they that yet are circumcised do therein intimately deny that Christ is come in the Flesh, and that life and righteousness are to be had in believing on him. Nor yet gave I any cause or ground for him to father upon me that cruelty of supposing Infants circumcised by the false Apostles, to have no profit by Christ; though it's being a more force put upon them, not only without, but against authority from Heaven, might not excuse them from danger and damage thereby: For so in case Abraham or any of his Children had neglected to circumcise their Males, they therein( I cannot say put a force upon them, but I may say, they) did fraudulently with-hold from them, what they should have done to them, and that without any act or consent of the Children in it, both without, and against authority from Heaven: and yet God, I trow, without cruelty, did impute it to the Infant as if it had broken his Covenant, and pronounced that he should be cut off from his People: and was there not therein an intimate cutting them off from Christ, and the choice Benefits of the Covenant made with them in him, seeing he was in and among that People to bless them, and do them good in a special sort? Heb. 11.26. 1 Cor. 10.4, 9. and if so; were not the Infants then injured by their not being circumcised before they espoused those Acts, and so before infancy was gone? Gen. 17.14. and if they might be so injured then by not being circumcised, what hinders but Christ being now come, and having disannulled that Way, and brought in a new and living way of Grace to us, the Infants of Christians may now be as much injured by being circumcised, as those of the Jews were before by being uncircumcised, and that also before they espouse those Acts, and so before their Infancy is gone? Will there be any more cruelty in supposing this, than in supposing that? So that, as I did not at all wrest the Scriptures I quoted beyond their proper Scope, nor did then think of including the poor Infants in the loss which false Christians did bring on themselves in quoting that of Gal. 5. but he perverted and confounded my Quotations beyond my scope and intention: so yet what I have now observed may admonish and warn these Men, to take heed how they wrong little Infants: for they may, it appears, wrong them much by putting them, or keeping them out of the way of Gods Grace and Blessing; and methinks it is a sad Omen of Christs Displeasure against them,( though they will not take notice of it) that so many of them, even with us in England, are left to such strong delusions, as to Judaize more than any party under the Christian Profession. That the false Apostles circunctsing Infants put no yoke upon them, is said without proof or consonancy to Truth; seeing they did circumcise them that they might be brought up under the Law that they were zealous of; and was that no yoke upon them? It's true they might not feel it while Infants, but it was upon them though; and they were in the way to draw under it, and to meet with and feel the mischiefs of it in their future Education: yea it's likely the Galatians and false Apostles felt not the burden and weight of it neither, but thought they should be made perfect by it: the Harvest-time is the time to receive and eat the fruits of Mens doings.  
He saith, My own Instances of Act. 20.30. Tit. 1.11. may well convince me; for who can think that Infants were in danger, as such, to be drawn away by the false Apostles?  
Reply. Who can think it, any body that understands? Indeed if the false Apostles had only and immediately the Infants to deal withal, the matter had been nothing; supposing them not to be under their own tuition, but circunctsing them with their Parents or Educators, who can think but that they were in danger to be, or rather were actually, drawn or carried away with them? Who can think but that if a man draw a piece of Wood, to which is fastened some other matters, but that those other matters will be drawn away also, though they move not with a distinct motion of their own, but only in the motion of the Wood they are fastened to? Are not the Infants of Turks in more danger think we, by being so, than if they belonged to good Christians? could I draw these Men into the Church of England, should I not draw their Infants into it with them? I suppose I should. So that I may better conclude, that thus we see Infants may be drawn away also, and that they are therefore to be accounted among Disciples, where their Parents are such; and that the Name of Christians given to the Disciples at Antioch might very well and rationally reach their Infants also, than he to the contrary; and that they were not in danger though whole houses were subverted. He might as well say when a whole House is blown down, some little Chambers in it stand firm: or that when a three is blown up by the Roots, yet the lesser Twigs are in no danger of withering. Oh! But, he saith, the danger is only when they are grown, and then they cease to be Infants, and so it's nihil ad rhombum, not to the purpose.  
Reply. Yes, it's much to the purpose for all that; for the Seeds are sown in their Infancy, though they spring not up presently: the dependence they have upon their Parents, and the benefits they receive from the Womb and from the Breasts, beget an affection to them, and engage them unto them as they grow up; so as their Parents being in a bad way, they the readilyer and more unavoidably suck in their evil Principles; and a Child trained up