FIRST, you say, Where our Saviour commanded all Nations to be bap­tized, he meant, not any Infants for four reasons;

• 1. Because they are not then ca­pable of teaching.
• 2. All Nations many times do not include Children in Scrip­ture.
• [Page 2]3. Because Infidels, Turks, and Children of Unbelie­vers are a great part of all Nations.
• 4. Because [...] is referred to Disciples. To the first I answer three things.
  • 1. It is no absurdity to preach the Gospel to an Infant, Luke 1.70. and so on.
  • 2. The Apostles were to teach all that was command­ed, and that could not be done in short time, but after­ward by degrees as the party baptized was able to re­ceive.
  • 3. The Apostles teaching can no more keep back In­fants from baptisme, then Abrahams teaching, Gen. 18. v. 19. could keep back the Infants from Circumcision, Gen. 17: v. 12. To the second I answer, yee cite some Scrip­tures of all Nations, but therin you are no Noble Beraean, as you would make men believe in the beginning of your Epistle, for you give us not one place set down where to find the Scriptures. Secondly, You bring us Scriptures for what Infants cannot, to prove that they should not have that which according to Scripture they can have; And wheras you say, Infants cannot blesse, why is it then said in the 8. Psalme, Out of the mouthes of Babes and Suck­lings thou wilt perfect praise, and in the [...]48 Ps. Praise him all people, old men and babes. Thirdly, J will bring you pla­ces of Scripture, where Children are to be reckoned a­mongst all Nations, which bring them into Baptisme, more then your Scriptures of all Nations can keep them out; As [...]en. 12. v. 13. Where the Lord promiseth to blesse all the Families of the Earth, and their Children are included, and this promise of the blessing brings them into Baptisme, more then your Scriptures can hold them out, and withall, this place pronounceth a curse against you Anabaptists, for they that curse Abrahams Gospel [Page]way, in setting the token of Gods Gospel-Covenant of grace upon Infants, they curse Abraham, and God hath threatned to curse such; so yee Anabaptists are a Gene­ration lying under the wrath, and curse, and vengeance of God.

The other places of Scripture comprehending Infants amongst all men, and Nations are, Heb. 2. v. 9. Where it is said, Christ tasted death for every one, and consquently for Infants. and 1 John 2. v. 2. Where Christ is a propitiation for the whole World, Infants are understood, and Rom. 5: 18. Which place you grant to be meant of Infants, where it is said, That the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life, and yet yee will not admit Infants into the Ordi­nance of their first entry into any grace. Thirdly, Where you say, Turks, Insidels, and their Children may as well be baptized as Professors Children; it is false, for the Infants of Believers are the blessed of the Lord, Isa. 65. v. 23. They are Gods Children from the Womb, Ezek. 16. v. 20, 21. They are in Covenant with God, Gen: 17. And to them belongs the Kingdome of Heaven: This is never said of Turks and Infidels; and the Infants of Gods people were by God admitted unto the possession of the like Or­dinance to Baptisme, which God calls the Token of his Covenant, Gen. 17. Paul calls it the Seal of the Righteousnesse of faith, Rom. 4. and much profitable every way, Rom. 3. and Infants continued in the possession hereof for many hun­dred years, and the Lord never put them aside from this long possession, no more then he did the aged, and ther­fore of necessity, when he commands all Nations to be baptized, he commands Infants to be baptized. Lastly, in Matth. 28. you say, [...] must be referred to Disciples: Sometimes you speak of Children eight daies old, in the Cradle; you can no more then one of them find me in [Page 4]the Greek Text a Substantive of the Maseuline Gender to agree with [...]; but what do J talk of the Greek Text, when you shew your ignorance so grosse, as if you had never learned your Accidents, putting a Nomina­tive Casein the Singular Number, for the Accusative in the Plurall, [...] for [...], and a Noune of your owne devising that was never heard of for a Verb, as many times sequitor for sequitur, and somtimes a Verb for a Noun, as Baptizo for baptasmus, or a Noun again for a Verb, as Aspersia for aspergo.

Secondly, J proved Infants were Disciples, from Isa. 54. v. 13. Where the Lord promises that Infants shall be taught of God, you answer, that they are not Disciples, who do not learn if they were taught: Herein you and Mr. Tombs, and the rest are [...]earfully out, for John 6. v 60.66. it i [...] said, many Disciples said of Christs Doctrine, This is a hard saying, who can heare it? And they went a­way from him and would walk no more with him: Here then be Disciples, and yet they did not learn; you would fain make simple people believe that the Moon is made of green Cheese, but the Cheese munger hath never a Taster to make us find it so. Then you bring in Jerem. 32 v. 33. Where it is said, [...]od taught [...]he [...], but they refused to receive instruction: But had not both they and their Infants the Token of Gods Covenant? And did ever any of the Pro­phets speak against it as a sin? And is there not most gracious promises made to the same people in the same Chapter? As that he would never depart from them to do them good, and that he would put his fear in their hearts that they should never depart from him, and that he would plant them assuredly with his whole heart, and with his whole Soul, and yet them you bring in as no Disciples.

[Page 5]In your sixth page you say, Infan [...] in the Cradle are not taught of men, therfore not of God; As if Gods pow­er sailed in inward teaching, when mans faile in out­ward.

Secondly, You say, if they were all taught of God, then they should be all saved.

Answ. So you confesse with me, that they are saved if they dye in their Infancy, but if after their Infancy they should live and prove bad, yet in the time of their Infan­cy we are to judge charitably, and so you are fain to do with them whom yee dip, who afterward prove stark naught. Therfore where the Lord promiseth that all shall be taught, Infants must be understood, otherwise yee shall leave out a great many of all the Children, for many dye in their Infancy, and are never afterward taught; therfore their teaching must be in their Infancy, or else never, and if so, how shall the promise be true, All shall be taught: But say you in the seventh Page, Why do you teach them to be converted when they come to age. We answer, The work of Conversion is the work of a mans whole life. After Peter had been converted, Christ said to him, When thou art hereafter converted, strengthen thy Brethren Turn your selves and live, is a Text that may be preached to the best Convert so long as he lives; but then if men become naught (say you) After they have been taught of God. There will be a falling a way from Grace. We answer, When we say, Infants are taught of God, we mean the elect Infants, who are all taught of God sooner or latter; but because we cannot search into God secrets absolutely to determine who are elect, and who not, we are charitably to judge the best of all the In­fants of Gods people, and if any afterward prove bad, it is but a mistake in our Judgment, and no change in Gods [Page 6]Election, and yet according to that outward judgment we are to proceed; for when in John 15. v. 2. our Saviour saith, Every branch in him that bringeth not forth good fruit is out down and cast in the sire: He speaks of Branches that appear so to the judgment of men, and yet he calls them Branches in him, so we may call Infants Disciples taught of God, though we have no certainty of every ones particular Election, but a generall ground from the promise for our charitable judgment of all.

In the eighth page you say, J speak indiffinitely leaving out the word All, J thought you had known that Indisini­tum aequipelet Ʋniversali.

2. You say, Deut. 11. v. 1.2. The Lord spoke not out­wardly to the Children of Israel; What then, cannot he therfore teach Infants inwardly, inspiring them with the seeds of spiritual saving truth and life? how came the Bap­tisi to leap for joy in his Mothers Womb at the salutati­on of Mary: And though the Lord spoke not to the Chil­dren, yet the Infants had a right to the token of the Cove­nant that then was: And

3. Yee confess that Infants are made righteous by Jesus Christ, and yet formerly you said that in the Command Baptize all Nati [...]ns, such Infants that are made righteous by Jesus Christ, are no more comprehended then Turks or infidels. You are a sweet youth. In the ninth page, that which you call a fiction of my brain without one word in all the Bible; to wit, that Infants are inwardly and effe­ctually taught or else there is no hope of their Salvation. You confessed in the seventh page, that to be inwardly and effectually taught, was to be really and truly rege­nerated Then I prove what you say cannot be found in the Bible: Except an Infant be born again he cannot enter in­to the Kingdome of Heaven, John 3. v. 5. But except an In­fant [Page 7]be taught effectually of God he cannot be born a­gain, for you confessed the new birth to be all one with this teaching, page seventh: Therfore except an Infant be effectually taught he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven, neither of Grace nor Glory, for we must judge him so if he be in the outward Kingdome of Grace, and he must be truly so a Child of God, taught of God, if he be either truly in grace here, or glory hereafter. If Christ blessed the Infants, prayed for them, and laid his hands on them, then were they in some measure capable of his blessing and prayer, and the benefit of the laying on of his hands, which could no wise be without regeneration and being taught of God, for without it no entry into Hea­ven, neither of grace nor glory to any purpose.

Secondly, I will shew it by a Golden Scripture Chain. There is no Salvation but by Christ, Act. 4. v. 12. but there is no coming to Christ but by the Fathers drawing, John 6 v. 44. But there is no drawing of the Father with­out this teaching, verse 45. Therfore without this teach­ing to Infants no Salvation, Vertue is said to be copu­lative; so is Grace, so is this, having one Link of the Chain you bring all to you.

Again in the ninth page, you acknowledge from Matth. 19. v. 14. That they were Infants of whom Christ said, the Kingdome of Heaven was. This is more then ever I knew an. Anabaptist confesse, yet the more base you to say, that such have no more right to the command of Baptisme then Turks: Where in the tenth page, you say there is eternall life for Infants, without the knowledge of God in Christ, it is as much as if you said, Infants have eter­nal life without eternal life, for Christ saith, This knowledge is eternall life. Secondly, you say there, that Infants that know not the right hand from the left cannot know [Page 8]Christ.Cal. Instit. l. 4.16. sect. 19. [...]r non Deus in­santibus in pre­sens exigua scintilla [...]gaiti­onis [...]? A [...]b. saith o [...] the Baptist, Habuit intelli­gendi s [...]nsum qui exult [...]n [...] habuit affe­ctum. J answer, We are to believe the pro­mises of God though we do not apprehend them by sense, as you seemost of the Arti­cles of our faith; We beleive them all by faith, though they be far above our sense. The blind man that knew not white from black, yet knew Christ to be the Messeas, the Son of David, willing to have mercy on him, and able miraculously to cure him: The young Prophets that knew not poyson from Pot-hearbs, when they put a Goord in the Pot, yet they knew much of the Mysteries of Hea­ven, and they knew the very day when Elias should he taken from Earth to Heaven.

In the eleventh page you say, they that know God will trust in him, and indeed this saying is convertible, for they that trust in God do know him, but Infants trust in him therfore know him, Psal. [...]2. And wheras you say, there appears as much knowledge of God in a Turks Child as in a Christians, it is false, for they have not both the like promise; and the profession of the Parents is a sufficient distinguishing note, and especially the Text we are handling manifesteth more in our Children then in Turks.

That which you speak of Armenianisme, I have an­swered already in answering to your seventh page. Next you bring in Heb. 11. where it is said, Without saith it is impossible to please God, here I make an argument against your self. All they that please God have saith, but Infants please God therfore, &c.

In the twelfth page you bring in James 2. v. 17. where he saith, Faith without works is dead, that place is meant of them that are of age, in whom faith should appear not [Page 9]only in the budd and flowers of Profession, but in the Fruit of good works; yet this makes nothing against Chil­dren, in whom faith may be in the seed and root. If a Tree have neither leaves, nor blossoms, nor fruit in Spring, Summer, nor Harvest, then it is dead, and yet it may be a good Tree though nothing appear in the first of January. The rest that you have in the twelfth page, is nothing upon the matter but what you said, and J have answered before.

In the thirteenth page you cry out of my miserable blindnesse, and that J miserably abuse the Scriptures, Isa. 65.20. J am sure you are a miserable bold fellow, and they are miserable blind that follow you for their Guide: If you say, that Infants should live a hundred years before they dye a naturall death, you make the Scripture false, for Infants do not live so long, if you mean their Estate in glory, that is likewise false, for there they do not dye, therfore my sense of the place is better agreeable both to Truth and Text, which speaks both of death and life, and in that sense many such Infants I bap­tize: But for you Anabaptists, you live so long old Dis­ciples many of you, till yee become more fit for the wa­ter to be drowned then to be dipped. Yee come in im­pertinently with the Midwives sprinkling on the face. Amphora caepit institui currente rota cur Ʋrseus exit.

In the fourteenth page my Master Ives brings in his Non sequitor, and in that page you say, Acts 8.37. God hath prescribed believing there to be the time of baptizing, it is false: And they that gladly received the word, Act. 2.41. they did not thrust out Infants that should be saved, vers. 47. from being added to the Church by Baptisme, wherin God hath not prescribed any day as in Circumci­sion, to the which Moses and the Israelites were then tyed, [Page 10]though the Infants had a right to the token from their birth, by vertue of the Covenant, and if there had been no command at all, yet the Covenant brought Infants to Circumcision, Gen. 17. and still gives them a right to Bap­tisme: And though Females were not circumcised, yet I can give you many Scriptures where Women are reckoned amongst the Circumcised. The word Cir­cumcision includes all the people of Gods Children, and Women, as Rom. 3.30. Rom: 4.8, 9.12. Rom. 15.8. Gal. 3.8.9.12. Eph. 2.11. Tit. 1.10. And in Sa­maria both men and women were baptised Hitherto then it appears that I have not built neither Hay and Stub­ble, but Truth as Gold, and Pearls upon, Isa. 54.. Now you say you will prove my Arguments to be Clouds without water, and yet the first is such, that all the Ana­baptists in England cannot answer, and so are the rest that follow, let us then try an issue.

God saith, Great shall the Childrens Peace be whom he tea­ches. You say page sixteen, like a base fellow, that God makes but a bare promise, but is not so good as his word; and where the Text speaks of conferring of peace, you speak of preaching of peace to Infants, the rest that fol­lowes in that page you have it answered in the answer to the seventh page. Wheras you say, the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God: Where the Apostle seems to speak so, he means the flesh only; But in your sense it is false, for many Saints, and holy Kings and Pro­phets came of Abraham, his Children of the flesh, and yet they were also the precious Children, and we are to look upon all the Children of Gods people as such in their In­fancy.

In the seventeenth page, J perceive the Knavery of He­titicks, they will seem to slight that most which doth in­deed [Page 11]pinch them hard, so he calls my reason lighter then If God do not promise effectuall teaching to Chil­dren, then the promise Isa. 54. is much one with the threatning, Isa. 6. which of all the judgments of the world, is one of the saddest. Though teaching be a mercy as it is tendred to a people, yet it proves a judgment as it is a­bused.

In the eighteenth page, my place from John 6. v. 44, 45. is so strong for me against you, and your answer so short, weak, and unworthy, that it doth not deserve a reply.

In the nineteenth place, the Prophet Jeremias SHALL, hath reference to our Gospel represent, wherin that times now w^ch before was to come, you are an unworthy man therfore to pronounce a curse, for that against me. You fal foul upon my teaching at Giles Cripple gate, and charge them all with folly that pay me a farthing for preaching. J have many loving friends here, and Sir if you had no more for your Cheese, then J have of the Parish for prea­ching, you would make but a poor Trade of it: You in­deed would have all the Ministers of England to beg or starve at your doors, The mercies of the wicked are cruell; yet the Apostle hath ordained that they that preach the Gospel should live by it; our Saviour saith, The labourer is worthy of his wages, and they that labour in the word and doctrine, are worthy of double honour. Wheras you speak of going to America, better men have gone and do go thither, and are like to do God more service there a­mong the Savages then you in London amongst the Ana­baptists. But how comes this railing against my preach­ing in London, because Heb. 8. v. 11. it is said, They shall not teach every man his Neighbour, therfore J should not teach; nay, rather you should not teach who have no Gospel or­dination, but like Theeves and Robbers, ye come not in at [Page 12]the door but as it were through Walls, and over Hedges. The Negative is not absolute but Comparative, for it is men shall not be so much taught of men as of God, and so it is unpertinently brought in against me, you could hit better upon this distinction of Negatives in my house, though you came untowardly to it; for when our neigh­bour Heath told you that Paul was not sent to Baptize but to Preach, you Answered, he was not so much sent to to Baptize; but before that, you said a man should not Preach except he be sent, but he may Baptize, said you, without Commission, why then do you require a com­mission for Baptizing of Infants, and why do you Preach and are not sent? Let me aske you, how can such as you go to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, sith the Lord hath forbid such to come to the Passover, Exod. 12. v. 48. Where if he that circumcised not his child might not eat of the Passover, then he that doth not Baptize his child must not eat of the Lords Supper. And if Abraham must not suffer them to live with him that did not Circumcise their Infants, Gen. 17. v, 13. Then Christians if they have a lawfull power in their hands, should not suffer Ana­baptists to live with them because they refuse to Baptize their Infants. And if the soule was cut off that was not Circumcised, Gen. 17. v. 14. And God sought to kill Moses for the neglect of Circumcision., Exod. 4. v. 24. how much more then damnably dangerous is the willfull neglect of Baptisme.

In the twentieth page I Said, Psal. 22. v. 9. that children trust in God. Ye Answer hereto the words (when I was) are unnecssarily put in, yet otherwise ye cannot make sense of it. And ye say David in his infancy, and so con­sequently Christ whom the Psalm. chiefly concernes, did not more hope in God from the mothers breast then [Page 13]unbelievers children; and you say the whole Creation is subjected in hope then by you, the hope of Christ, of David, and the children of Gods people is all one with the hope of a Snake or a Toad, O base blalphemy. Lastly, Tremelius that knows the Originall better then you Tran­slates the Hebrew word Confidere, which is to trust, and more then the ordinary hope of the creature.

And to the one and twentieth page, I Answer, the hu­mility of children is Gods inspired Grace which goeth with his inward and effectuall teaching, which is more then the innocency of Doves, or wisdome of Serpents, for Matth. 18. v. 4. they that are so humble are said to be the greatest in the Kingdome of heaven, but it is not so with the Doves innocency, or Serpents wisdom; a man may have the Doves innocency, to do no man wrong, yet go to hell because he doth no man good, Matt. 25. and a man may have the Serpents wisdome and be dam­ned, and want that wisdome as children do and be saved; but this humility is such, Matth. 18. v 3 that there is no heaven without it, and the greatest happiness of heaven comes by it, v. 4.

In the two and twentieth page, I Answer, conferre Esay 54. v. 13. with 1 Thes. 4. v. 9, 10. In the first you finde Gods teachings of all his peoples children, in the latter, that this teaching is effectuall, therefore it will follow, that childrens teaching being the teaching of God is ef­fectuall.

To the three and twentieth page I Answer, though some be not called till the last hour, yet we must judge the best of them, according to their outward Church priviledges and faederall rights.

To the four and twentieth page I answer, Profession was as much required of Abraham and the Israelites, and [Page 14]yet that did not debarre Infants from Circumcision, nor can it now from Baptisme.

2. You come with a fallicie in the word (name) for in the Kings name, may be in the Kings Authority, and to shew favour in God or Christs Name, is for God or Christs sake, but any man sees that to give to a Prophet, in the name of a Prophet, and to a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, and to a child in the name of a Disciple, is to give to them as to Prophets and righteous men as to Disciples.

To the five and twenty page I answer I do keep me to Infants of Professors, and such were they, Matth. 4.10. for Christ was not sent but to the lost sheepe of Israel, who pro­fessed themselves the people of God, and whose chil­dren had received the token of the Covenant of God.

To the twenty sixth page I Answer, the unprofitable servant was able to worke and would not, but the chil­dren cannot, yet God calls them his servants.

2. If unprofitable servants be not servants, why are they called servants? and if not servants, then none of Christs Disciples are servants, for when we have done all we can, we are unprofitable servants, the best of us ye have up with your non sequitor, sequetor againe.

Againe, you cite the Text which I bring (you say) falsely, to wit, Levit. 21. for 25. v. 41, 42. where any man of the world may see that Infants are understood, what­ever you say, for they were not to be left behind as bond-slaves, you are fearefully out in saying that such were never at such age servants as appears by Eccles. 2.7. where Salomon had them that were born servants in his house, if born servants then so in the cradle. Now I come to the 15. of the Acts, where Peter calls Infants Disciples, v. 10. where you say, the yoke upon the neck of the Disciples is as a [Page 15]taxe upon the Clergie, as it will not follow (say you) all the Clergy are taxed, therefore all that are taxed are Clergy men, so then your Disciples that can answer for themselves are your Clergy men, for whom only the Apostle pleads, say you; then if believers In­fants be they that have this taxe upon them, which is the yoke of Circumcision, and if the Apostle speake no­thing for them as being none of your Clergy Disciples, then it will follow that believers Infants must still be Circumcised, vvhy then do not you circumcise your children for they are none of the Clergy Disciples, for vvhose freedome only you vvould have the Apostle plead. Then ye give a touch to the Doctrine that vvas taught the Brethren, as if that had been the only yoke vvhich is apparantly false, for it is cleare when the A­postles opposed Circumcision, they opposed not only the false Doctrine of it, but also the continuance of the pra­ctise of Circumcision it selfe: And you say you can read, Read then the first verse of the Chapter, vvhere you find Circumcision after the manner of Moses, and all know that vvas the Circumcision of Infants; this the Apostle calls a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples. Therefore Infants are disciples; or thus, they for whose freedome Peter pleads, ver. 10. are disciples; But Peter pleads for In­fants therefore they are disciples; I prove Peter pleads for them, because he pleads for the same for whom Paul pleads; but Paul pleads for the children, Acts 21. v. 21. therefore Peter also here pleads for them

In the twenty eight page, What I speake of Infants ignorance, I speake concessione fiduciaria, [...], you know my meaning, for you Sir are no praevarica­or, but a Clergyy Disciple, and may commence Doctor when ye will.

[Page 16]2. I say the command of Infants Circumcsion includes them in the command of Baptisme, for if by Gods Cove­nant and command they were in the long possession of an Ordinance ae­quivolent to Baptisme, and never afterward put from Baptisme, they must needs be included in the Command, and so the question is not begged, he that beggs at your door shall find poor reliefe. Againe, the faith of Parents professing suffices to bring in the children.

In the twenty ninth page, I say that Babes sprinkled feele the vvater as truly as Peter felt the washing, and vvhen Christ washed, Christ said, Peter, knew not vvhat he did, yea, he knew no more the end and use of it at that time then an Infant; yea, he opposed it more then an In­fant could have done, for at the first he would not suffer Christ to do it, yet then said Christ it must be done; and it vvas sufficient that Peter might know it thereafter, and so it is with Infants Baptisme: and whereas you say, that Peter was ignorant but of a circumstance, ye are farre out, for Christ said that he was ignorant of the worke: which Christ wrought, and you say he was ignorant of the end and use of it, and is the work, the end, and the use nothing but a circumstance; and why do you deny children being ignorant of such a circumstance.

In the thirtieth page, you come impertinently in with baptizing of Bells and going a Pilgrimage, and Cir­cumcising the sixt or fourth day, and giving the Sacra­ment of Bread and Wine to Infants, saying that such things are not forbidden: For I Answer, though such things were never forbidden in Scripture, yet the like was ne­ver commanded but for children as Baptisme is not for­bidden them, so the like Ordinance was commanded them.

[Page 17]In the one and thirtieth page, You say the Eunuch be­lieved, therefore Infants should not be Baptised, what poor stuffe here is? I shall Answer the 16. of Marke here­after. Againe, I say the excluding of not understanding disciples puts not children more aside from Baptism then 2 Thes. 3. v. 10. The excluding of them that do not worke puts children aside from the Breast: And then in the two and thirtieth page you say, If children will not worke they must not eate. I wonder what great will any In­fant hath to worke and yet if need be ought to be re­lieved of the Churches charity, and there lieth as great a charge upon Parents to Baptize their children as to feed them.

In the thirtieth third page, Ye say, when all Nations shall be separated good from bad, you say Infants are not understood there, because it cannot be said to them, When I was hungry ye feed me, &c. then by your Opinion they are not to be separated from the Goates, but must go to hell with them, and yet you said before they were all saved. That which you talke of knowing right hand and left is answered already, ye make a wofull Text of that 25. of Matth. against Infants, as ye begin to apply it, for they neither feed, nor visit, nor cloth more then the Goates; but the truth of the Text is, the Infants are reckoned with the Parents, what the Parants do, it is as if the Infants had done it. When the wicked world was drowned, the Parent and the Infants were drowned, so when Sodom was burnt, and so when Pharoah and his hoast were drowned; and when Israel was saved, they and their little ones were saved.

I come to the thirty fourth page, where ye deny my whole argument, And I say, that he who denies what that Argument containes, be he who he will, had never [Page 18]the fear of God in his heart, for he that fears God dare not deny Infants Baptism, knowing that God had given them a right to a priviledge of an Ordinance aequivalent, and though he take away the Ordinance, yet he never took away the priviledges, whereof this is one, that they should have some token of his Covenant and we know none now for first admission but Baptisme.

2. They that had a right to Circumcision have a right to Baptisme, that follows it, for the people of God are not put aside from keeping our Sunday for the Saboath day, because the Saturday which they were to keep be­fore is taken away; and the Apostle saith, Ephess. 6. v. 2, 3. the fifth Command is a command with Promise of a blessing in the Land where ever obedient children lives, though now the Land of Canaan which in the Comand was promised be in the Turks Possession, even so the taking away of Circumcision puts children rather in the possession of Baptisme then takes it from them; what ye write of Duke, Hamilton, and the like shewes your vanity, whereas you speake of umbelieving Jews they are not to be compared to beleeving Christians, for in the Romanes God hath cut them and their children off from being his branches in the Olive.

I am now come to your absurdities in the thirty sixt p. in one place you speak of a discent from Abraham, where any one but a Blockhead may know that the word comes from d [...]scendo, and not from discendo; Circumcision was a yoak in the cutting off the flesh, and tying people to a keeping of the whole Law, but the advantage of it, for Infants is still continued in Baptisme, though the Prin­tiship of Circumcision be gone, yet the advantage re­maines. Ye give a stout hallenge to me and to all the world to shew one Text, threatning Parents for not [Page 19]Baptizing their Infants. I have shewed you that the Lord met Moses to kill him for not Circumcising his In­fant, Exo. 4. v. 24. And Gen. 17. the Lord commands to cut off the uncircumcised Infants, And our Saviour saith, Ioh. 3. v. 5. Except we be borne againe of water, we cannot en­ter into heaven; and Heb. 2. v. 23. The Apostle saith, That we cannot escape if we neglect so great salvation, and Heb. 10. v. 28, 29. He that despised Moses Law died with­out mercy, of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy who hath troden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he is sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace, as now Anabaptists do, in neglicting, slighting, mocking and opposing In­fants Baptisme; and Paul saith, 2 Thes. 16. v. 8. That Christ shall appeare in flaming fire, taking vengeance of such as you that do not obey the Gospel of our Lord, And our Saviour was much displeased for keeping Infants from him.

In the thirty seven page, I say, whereas our Saviour saith, That the Pharisees were of their Father the Devil, and they that offered up their children to the devill, Psal. 106. v. 37. were no better; and they in Ezek. 16. v. 20. were such, yet God call their children his, and they had his token which Rom. 3. v. 3. advantaged much every vvay, and now ye will have children have no token ad­vantagious any vvay, therefore ye make them vvorse now then the children of the devils servants were then.

In the thirty eight page, Jer. 30. v. 20. Prophesieth, that children in Gospel times shall have all Gospel Privilled­ges, vvhereof the token of his Covenant is one as much as ever before, though the legality of Circumcision be [Page 20]taken away. And Mich. 7. last, and Luk 1.71, 72. The truth vvhich God sweare to Abraham and the Fathers, and vvhich Christ came to fulfill, belonged to the Parents and their Infants, and vvas sealed to both of them by Cir­cumcision, and to us and ours by Baptisme.

To the thirty ninth page, God commands our Infants to be Baptized, when he saith, Baptize all Nations, Matth. 28. And vvhen Peter, saith, Be Baptized every one, for the Promise is made to your children, and Gen. 17. When God saith, My token shall be upon your children.

To the forty page, I say, the children of the Jewes and Pagans were not all one; we desire but the favour the Heathen had, who when they confessed their Lord to be their God had Gods Seale upon their Infants. I have answered already all in the one and forty page, only where ye say, that Baptisme is not a Seale, therein ye make it worse then Circumcision, which the Apostle calls, Rom. 4. the Seale of Righteousness.

To the forty thrid page, you said Baptisme was the Ordinance profitable every way; and Paul saith that Circumcision is such therefore upon the matter you made Baptisme and Circumcision all one, and yet ye con­tradicted your selfe in saying afterwards they were no wise paralel; Sir, there were no gentlemen in my house that favour your Error for all your Logick, except the Anabaptists whom ye brought along with you.

To the forty foure page, I say God himself makes it an Argument from his Covenant, Gen. 17. to the token upon the children, as it appers by the word therefore, in the 9. v. God gives us not such an Argument for Will-Worship. Ye say, if I look Deut. I. v. 39. where I lookt I found no Covenant at all. The place is Deut. 29. v. 1. And the Cove­nant the Lord made when they came out of Egypt is the [Page 21]same with this in Deut. when they were to enter into the Land of Canaan, it was the same in substance, but dif­fering in circumstances. In Deut. it was made to the chil­dren when they were to enter in to the Land of Canaan, In Exod. it was made with the Parents forty years before when they came out of Egypt, the Covenant then was the same in the matter of it, but it differed in the time place, and persons with whom it was made.

2. Ye say, that the Covenant in Deut. is another, be­sides that when they came out of Egypt, vvhen the Lord gave them the Law, in the ten Commandements. There can be but two Covenants, viz: of Works, or of Grace. But vvhat ever you may think that they were two Cove­nants differing essentially, yet in truth they were both of Grace, for vvhen the people came out of Egypt, the Lord was a Husband to them in that Covenant, there­fore it vvas a Covenant of Grace, Jer. 31. v. 32: And the Covenant in Deut. The Apostle calls it the righteousness of Faith, therefore the Covenant of Grace also.

Craftily ye bid compare the 10 and 12. Verses of the 29. Chapter of Deuteronomy leaving out the 11. between them, because it is full against you and the Covenant of Grace is one and the same though it be many times renued.

Next we come to the forty fifth page, In handling the Covenant you shew your selfe grosly ignorant, and know not what ye say, yet ye would have m [...] believe whatever ye say, but when your Nose is Cheese the Cats shall eat it. In these times and places wherein we live, God hath done vvonderfull things, yet vve have been so unthankfull and unfruitfull, that vve have not [Page 23]yet had hearts to perceive, nor eyes to see to this day, and yet we are not Infidells, so it vvas vvith the Israelites in such a case, they still believed the Lord to be their God. Paul in Rom. 11. v. 8. doth not allude to Deut. 29. v. 4. but to Esa. 29. v. 10. that sin vvas growing upon the peo­ple in Moses and Isaiahs time, but it came not to a full ripeness till the Apostles time, for before they were lookt upon as branches in the Olive, but then cut off. The vvorst Parents whose children I Baptize are sounder in the faith then the best Anabaptiste vvith you, so you are rotten Heriticks. The very same men whom you call unbelievers, Deut. 29. v. 4. Moses, Deut. 30. v. 14. saith, The word was very nigh unto them in their mouth, and in their heart that they might do it.

2. This word being in the heart of the Parents to believe it, and in their mouth to confess it ente­red the little ones into Covenant with God, Deut. 29. v. 11, 12. This way the Apostle calls the righteousness of faith, Rom. 10. v. 6. and this he Preached v. 8. Therefore the Fathers faith and Confession must still enter the chil­dren in Covenant with God, which cannot now be with­out Baptisme, which is the initiating token of the Co­venant. Sir, It is one thing to be in Covenant, which I proved first, and another thing yet consequently follow­ing to have the token of the Covenant which the femalls were not capable of in Circumcision, as now in Baptisme, as Acts 8. v. 12. And Gods Argument is suffi­cient for Infants right to the token from the Covenant, and though then he prefixed a certaine time, yet it was still in their infancie, and so still now in Infancie where we have no prefixed time.

Thus to your forty seven page; but before I come to the forty eight, I must remember some good stuffe in the [Page 22]forty sixt, where you say you are relieved from despa­ring of me by a Latine Sentence, which is Opere in longo, &c. and it speaks of sleepe, and you of despare: O brave Clarke, you understand your Latine well, and apply it better, but do not sleep yet, up run Robbin the Ram is in the Rye: the Prophesie in Ezek. 37.25. is to children, and to childrens children, and that for ever; and the Lord saith, He will set his tabernacle amongst them, which must be his out ward Ordinance, now children can have no out­ward Ordinance if Baptisme be denied. Where you bring in Noah, it is to no purpose. Where ye say I may as well say a childe is Christ as Baptize it; if you mean Christ personally ye speak blasphemy, if ye meane Christ col­lectively with his members, Christ then is so taken in Scripture as I Cor. 12.12. Gal. 3.16.

Ye have abundance of Non sense in the forty nine page, to which I Answer, Baptisme was never ordained for Angels as for Infants, and the Apostles being once recei­ved to the Church needed not to be twise Baptized, and so be Anabaptists.

In the fifty page, Ye say no man denies that they were Infants whom Christ blessed when he tooke them in his Arms. I never knew an Anabaptist confess it before, and these Infants had that from Christ which was better then all you can make of your dipping, and yet they believed and understood and confessed as little, being, as you say, Infants, as they do now at Baptism; and here we find that Christ laid his hands upon them, but no where they re­ceived the Supper: and what ye speak of teaching, I have Answered already, and if you were ingenuous, where one Reason doth not seem to give you satisfaction, take in my other reasons with it, and then a threefold cord is not ea­sily broken, Nam quae quod non prosunt singula multa juvent, [Page 24]where you say, Jesus Baptized none, Iohn 4. v. 1. it ap­peared he did Baptize. Christ is said to do what the A­postles did by his Command, as Peter may be said to have Baptized Corneliousses house, though the Text only saith, Acts 10. v. 48. that he commanded them to Baptized. Infants have a right to all the priviledges of the Church, and to the Kingdome of heaven, but that right is as by reversion, but they have a right to Baptisme in their In­fant injoyment.

To the fifty second p. As the Jewes were cut off, the Gen­tles were ingrafted, but the Jewes vvhen they stood, or vvere cut off, or shall be restored, both they and their children were so, and so it is with the Gentiles.

To the fifty third page, I say all that are of the flesh, are not truly begotten of God, and yet many after the flesh were after the Spirit also, nevertheless all of them in out ward Church priviledges, and though a great many of them be cast into out ward darknese, yet are to be lookt upon as the children of the Kingdome, Mat. 8. v. 12. All that had the token of Gods Covenant were reckoned as Abrahams seed in Covenant, but such were not only the children of the flesh in outward priviledges, but the In­fants also of the Proselites after the flesh, and conse­quently our Infants being Gods people by Nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Gal. 2. v. 15. but Gal. 3. v. 16. the Apostle calls this seed Christ, therefore members of Christ, therefore ver. 27. fit to have Christ put on them by Baptisme.

To the fifty fourth page, The vvives sanctification, and the holines of the childe differ; the child is holy faede­rally by the Covenant with the believing Parent, but the unbelieving wife is set apart for the sanctified cohabita­tion of the believing husband with her. Unbelievers be­ing [Page 33]married, their marriage is lawfull but not sancti­fied, Tit. 1. 15. but if the one be a believer, though the o­ther be not, yet the marriage is sanctified to the believer, and lawfull to both, so she is but sanctified, as the Apostle speakes 1 Tim. 4. v. 4, 5. As for Gal. 2.15. I do not so much mistake the place, as I perceive ye donot under­stand it. Antiochus Epiphanes did according to Dan. 8.24. destroy the Infants which were a part of the holy people, ye reason wildly when you say they could not be de­stroyed with the holy people, because they could not be said to have power vvith them, vid. 1. Mac. 6. v. 1.

To the fifty five page, Repent is a command of the fu­ture Tence, vvhich they that vvere Baptized then, were to performe afterward, as John Baptized to Repen­tance.

2. The children are brought in in the Promise besides them that vvere charged to repent. And why not the Infants of the cradle under Christs vvings? ye believe your Infants are not under Gods protection. What a mad Argument had this been of the Apostle, to say ye have good reason to be Baptized, for now it is a great deale worse vvith your children then it was before, for before the Lord vvas their God, vvherein all the preci­ous Promises that may be are contained, but now they have none, before they had a token but none now, there­fore you have good hearting to be Baptized; here had been fearfull mad motives to encourage them. The Jews said, Christs blood be upon us and ours; this blood Peter so applied it, that it melted the hearts of his Hearers; now to comfort them againe, he saith, The Promis is made to you and your children. This had beene but cold comfort to say you prayed that Christs blood might be on your Infants, and now I tell you the Promise doth not belong [Page 34]to them. By children, Acts 2. Infants are understood first, because the word is [...], which most usually signi­fieth Infants: Secondly, the children are set down be­sides them that understood what he spake, and besides them that were called, or to be called a farre of, and and if Infants be not in the Promise, what becomes of them when they die, or what are they better then than Infidells children? And the Apostle speaks indefinitly of all, leaving out no Infants.

To the fifty sixt page, The Fathers were Baptized, not in Moses name but in Gods name, yet to Moses as their guide before them, and as the water in Jordan was Sacra­mentall water only to them that were Baptized by Iohn and his Disciples in it, but not to the Cattell that went thorow it; so the Baptisme in the red Sea was Baptisme to the Fathers, and not to the beasts, though you make it alike to both.

To the fifty seven page, Your contumelious reproaches against me, are more fit for such a fellow as you to utter then me to answer. I take a Prevaricator to be he that handles a good cause badly, and then though I handle it badly, yet ye are base to oppose a good cause; and what you mocked, I say it againe and againe. That what was commanded by Christ was taught and practised by the Apostles: it was practised, for they were not like the Pha­risees that taught one thing and did another. And what was commanded was taught by them, Matth. 28. else they should prove worse then the Centurions servants who obei­ed their Master. Now Christ commanded that they should suffer little ones to come to him that they might fully every way have as much done to them as Baptisme comes to; therefore the Apostles in their practise could never scruple Infants Baptisme; ye talke like an Ass in bringing [Page 35]in the instance of an Ass. It vvas necessary that that of the Ass should be once done to fulfill the Prophesie, Zach. 9. ver. 9. but this of Infants hath a reason of perpetuall standing for the continuance of it, vvhich is because to such belongs the kingdome of heaven.

To the fifty eight page, Some receiving of the Word, doth not exclude Infants from Baptisme, for by men and women, males, and females are understood taking in In­fants in the number, so our Saviour calls a new born child a man, Ioh. 16. v. 21. Cornelius and Lydia were such as sea­red the true God, and though Gentiles borne, yet when their houses vvere Baptized the priviledges of a Prose­lite belonged to them and their Infants, to be in Covenant with God, and to have the token upon both, and there­fore whether there vvere Infants in their houses or not, it matters not, but upon that account if there had been a thousand, they had all been Baptized.

In the fifty ninth page, It is a foolish reason for you to say Infants in Stephans house could not administer to the Saints, therefore they should not be Baptized, Acts 16. 33. Luke speaks of the Jaylors house, according to their capacitie: when he speakes of all hearing and believing the Word, he meanes such as were able, and vvhen he speaks of Baptisme, he means likewise such as are able to receive it, which Infants are; Lydia might have children for ought as you know, and might have a husband then also, for all you can bring to the contrary.

In the sixty first page, I do instance women at the Lords Supper, intending to deny no thing I have said, but it is argumentum ad hominem, [...] and quisque may be where there is no woman, therfore they do not prove women at the Lords Supper from 1 Cor. 11.28.

In the fixty second page, The Apostle, Col. 2.11, 12. to [Page 63]stop the mouthes of false Apostles that were for Circum­cision, saith, We are Circumcised in Baptisme, now if Bap­tisme did not reach Infants as well as Circumcision did, then the loss in regard of Infants is more by the want of Circumcision then our gaine is by having of Baptisme, and so the false Apostles might have said our losses are not fully made up by Baptisme, and so Baptisme cannot give us satisfaction for our loss. And where you say In­fants Circumcision did not signifie the hearts Circumci­sion; it is false, for it was a token that the Lord was the In­fants God, which containeth all Gods Promises, whereof this is one, Deut. 29. I will Circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy children.

In the sixty third page, You complaine that my Argu­ments have not water enough to sprinkle a child: it is no matter if they be weighty, though they be not watery. I grant yours are watery enough to plunge over head and eares, and you and all your Arguments like Ruben light as water, as water put it in a round glass it is round, put it in a square glass it is square, put it in a green, blew, or yel­low glass, its like the glass, so you conform to the times, some times Quaquers, or Seekers, Antinomians, Armi­nians, Socinians, Anabaptists, or what ye will.

These men whom I name, page fifty three, could do little good upon the obstinacy that were in the Times and Places where they lived Therefore I have little hopes to do good upon you. The Authors I name are for the Word, and you like an erroneous fellow are a­g [...]inst it.

In the sixty foure page, you come to your proof of be­lievers Baptisme; but who denies it, you should have proved that they that were Baptized in their infancy must be Baptized againe, when they can make you a con­session [Page 37]with understanding, and you have no shew for that, but Acts 19. where the Disciples were not Bap­tized againe of Paul, but only Paul tells how they had been Baptized of Iohn.

In the sixty fifth page, You bring in Marke 16.16. which place is no rule to us for Baptisme, for it speaks of saving faith, and such as was accompanied with mira­cles, but such faith we cannot now finde out in any; the Text only shews who then were in the way of salvation. John preached Baptisme unto Repentance, Matth. 3.11. which after ward was to follow and so sutes Infants. The Word We doth include and not exclude Infants, Rom. 6.4. neither doth the confession of aged, Mat. 3.6. hinder the Baptisme of Infants.

In the sixty sixt page, You come to prove Dipping, the word [...], which I sind sorty times in the four Gospels, and twenty times in the Acts, and above half a score of times in Pauls Epistles, besides [...] and [...], which I finde twenty sixe times in the New Testament, yet in all these places the word cannot appear once to signifie Dipping over Head and Eares. But I confess I know not where Baptizo signifies Aspersio, for the one is a Verbe, and the other is a Noune, but my man knows not a Verbe from a Noune, yet I can shew where [...], are put for aspersiones, as Heb 9.10. compared with these same Verses in the same Chapter, to wit, 13, 19, 21. And all Grace is signified by sprinkling, as Ezek. 36.25. &c where sprinkling with cleane water signifies cleansing from all filthiness, and a new heart, and a new spirit, and a put­ting of Gods Spirit in that new heart and spirit, causing it to walke in, and to keep and do all Gods Comman­dements, and to save it from all future uncleaness; what can the heart of man desire more then is here signified by [Page 38]the sprinkling of water, and in Heb. 10.22. by sprinkling is meant the hearts through cleansing; So Heb. 12.24. Christs blood is called the blood of sprinkling, which is no less then 1 Ioh. 1.7. then a cleansing from all sin. You cite for Christs Baptisme over head and eares, Matth. 16 3. where we have nothing but a foule weather morning, as your Pamphlet is full of dirt and mire and blustring wea­ther; the place is Matth. 3.16. where the word is [...] from the water, nor [...] out of the water, then Marke 1.5. [...] is put for [...], or [...] that is in, is put for with or by, Mat. 6.29.11.21. Chap. 16.27. Chap. 25.31. Ioh 1. v. 4.2 Cor. 13.4. Ephe. 3.13.2 Tim. 1.13. and so makes nothing to your purpose. Next you say Iohn was Baptized in Aenon; it is more then ever I read or heard any man of the world say before you that will say any thing, yet ye cite for it, Ioh. 2.23. where there is never a word of Johns Baptisme, nor of no bodies else; the place you meane is 3.23. where it is to be observed that Aenon is a Brook that you may step over with your foote, therefore though it had much wa­ter for sprinkling, it had not enough for dipping; and when Philip and the Eunuch went down from the Chariot and upper ground to the water below them, it is not said they went over head and eares, without which they might come both from and out of the water.

In the old Testament the Hebrew for Dipping it [...] which sometime signifieth dying with colours, as Ezek. 23.15. and sometimes drowning, as Exod. 15.4. This the Anabaptists will not like, though it sets forth an outward conformity to the death and buriall of Christ more then dipping, and yet they urge a necessity of dipping rather then sprinkling, because of this outward conformity; and sometimes I confess the Hebrew word doth signifie Dipping, but not a whole Plunging of the thing dipt, as [Page 39] Levit. 14.6. where the living Bird, the Ceder Wood, and the Scarlot, were all of them dipt in the blood of one little Bird, vvhich could not be by plunging all in so little a quantity of blood; and in the 15. and 16. verses of the same Chapter. the Priest was commanded to dip his right singer in the Oyle that vvas powred in the palm of his left hand, which could be no more then the top of his finger; and Iosh. 3.13. it is said only the soles of the Priests feete vvere in the water vvhen they dipt in Jordan, v. 15. and Ruth is said to dip her Bread in the Vinegar, Ruth 2.14. though she put but a little in it; and Jonathan, 1 Sam. 14 is said to dip his Rod, vvhen he put forth only the end of it into the Hony Comb. Therefore I conclude, that neither the Hebrew vvord for dipping in the Old, nor the Greeke in the New will signifie a plunging of the vvhole necessarily.

Now let unbiassed men judge how little all this makes for dipping. Next ye bring in Socrates Historicus, whom you call Scholasticus relating the Baptisme of Constantine the great. I Answer, it is a Question vvhether ever Constantine, vvas Baptized at all. As for most of your Church History Writers, it is vvell known to the Lear­ned how false and fabulous they are. Carolus Sigonius lib. 5. de Occidentis Imperio ad An. 350 saith, Co [...]stantinus & Constants utrumne sacro fonte abluti vita excesserint parum com­pertum. Your Catechumenists were either such as were Gen­tiles children, vvho vvere to be taught before Baptisme, as vve are to teach Blackemores before Baptisme, yet this makes nothing against our Infants Baptisme; or else your Catechumenists vvere of such as vvere grosely tainted with the error of the Novatians, mistaking the sense of the Scripture, Heb. 6.4. &c. And that the Ancients did sprinkle in Baptism, it is evident to me by their clinici, which [Page 40]vvere they that vvere Baptized in their Beds neare the time of their death, vvhich could not be by dipping, but sprinkling. Now that there vvere such clinici, Cyprian shewes in his 76. Epistle vvritten ad Magnum; this may be seen likewise in other ancient Fathers, as Epiphanius and Basilius, besides the Councels, all cited by Ʋossius in his fift Thesis of the twelfth Disputation of Baptisme. That Constantine and Theodosius, and Nectarius, and Gregory Na­zianzen, and Chrysostome, and the like deferred their Bap­tisme, it vvas not because they vvere Anabaptists deny­ing Infants Baptisme, but because they vvere rather No­vatians, conceiting that if they sinned after Baptisme, they could not be saved, and therefore delayed Baptisme as long as they could, which sinne of delaying Baptisme Tertullian li. de peniten. c. 6: saith is delinquendi commeatum faceri; and Nazianzen Orat. 40. pag. 643. Edit. Morell. saith, [...] As for Grotius though he was learneder then you, yet he vvas erroneous as you, more fit to live amongst the Tran­sylvanians, who deny the Trinity, the Diety of Christ and Infants Baptisme, then to be amongst Orthodox Di­vines. Grotius is well known to incline too much to Soci­nians, Arminians, Anabaptists, and any thing that is naught.

Lastly, Where you say, there is no antiquity in the first three hundred years after Christ for Infants Baptism; let us try it out a little: but first, where some said that Pi­gius was against Infants Baptisme. Pelagius denies it, and [Page 41]was ashamed of it, though you be not; as in his Epistle ad Innocentium, and Augustinus in that clears him, Cap. 17. de peccat. originis. But now we shall shew Infants Baptisme before Pelagius his time I pass by Dionisius Areopagita, sup­posed he, Act. 17. last, in his last Chapter Hierarchiae Eccle­siasticae, because I suspect him spurious. Hyginus lived in Polycarps time, who was the Apostle Johns dis­ciple, and was for the Baptisme of Infants, who is said to be the first that appointed for Infants in Baptisme Pa­trimos, and Patrimas. Lactantius who is said to live about two hundred yeares of Christ, he is for us, Instit. l. 4. c. 4. and Cyprian who lived within two hundred years of Christ is for us, for he heard Tertullian (saith Helvicus) being Bishop of Carthage. Anno 247. He in his Epist. 59. ad Fidum, together with a whole Councell in his time, is for Infants Baptisme: the Councell consisted of sixty sixe Bishops, where the Question was, Whether Infants might be Bap­tized before they were eight dayes old; Cyprian, and the Councell held that Infants might be Baptized before they were eight dayes old; their Adversaries held that they might not till the eight dayes were expired. The place in Cyprian is cited to be in his Epistle, ad Fidum, 3. li. 8. Epist. Irenaeus also is cited for Infants, li. 2. c. 39. and he lived in Polycarpus time. Likewise Origen, who lived within two hundred and thirty years of Christ, in the 5. l. c. 6. Tom. 2. pag. 543. edit. Basil. saith, Ecclesia traditionem ab Apostolis suscepit, etiam parvulis dare Baptismum &c. which is, the Church hath reccived it from the Apostles, even to give Baptisme to Infants. The like he hath in the eight Book, and eight Hom. upon Levit. And Ambrose, vvho lived not much above three hundred years after Christ. l. 2. c. 11. De Abraham Patriarcha, saith, Nec senex proselytus, nec infans vernaculus excipitur, quia omnis aetas peccato obnoxia, & ideo [Page 42]omnis aetas Sacramento idonea; and a little after, Nullum excipit, non infantem; of the same minde is Cyrillus Hierosoly­mitanus Catech. Mystag. 1. & Basilius exhortat. ad Bapt. And Chrysostome Hom. ad Neophytos.

The Christians who were converted by Thomas the Apostle in Crangonore in the East Indies, they have to this day continued the Baptising of Infants, witness Osorius, 3. l. de rebus gestis Emanuelis, though for the most part they delay it till the children be forty dayes old. Tertullian (saith Helvicus) wrote his Book of Prescriptions, about the year 195. some ninty seven years after the Apostle Johns death, at which time he was at least between thirty and forty years old, and so borne some sixty years after the Apostles death, he (lib. de Baptis. c. 18.) though he gives some frivolous reasons why Infants should not be Bap­tized, yet therein he clearly shews that the people did Baptize their Infants. Moreover Tertullian was for the necessity of Baptism to salvation, and for the salvation of Infants, and therfore could not be altogether against In­fants Baptisme: but within four or five hundred years of Christ, for Infants we find Jerome Epist. ad Laetam, and towards the end of his third Book against the Pelagians, where he brings in the Authority of Cyprian and his Col­leagues. We finde also Innocentius, Epist. 26. to the Milevi­tan Councell. And Augustinus, Epist. 28 & de peccat. orig. cap. 40. & 2. li. de nuptiis & concup. cap. 20. & lib. 3. de peccat. mer. & remissi. cap. 9. & 2. lib. contra Jul. & 4. li. de Bapt. contra Donatist. cap. 24.

And we finde Paulinus for Infants in vita Ambrosii; & Theodoret Epitome divinorum dogmat. cap. de Baptismo; & Leo Magnus, Epist. 84. aliis 86 ad Episc. Aquileiens. And the Writer de vocat. gentium lib. 2. cap. 8. And Gennadius de Eccl. Dogm. cap. 31. All these for Infants Baptisme lived [Page 43]within the first five hundred years after Christ; yea whole Councels besides, that in Cyprians time were for them, as the Councell of Carthage called the Milevitan held Anno 418. in the 2. Canon thus, Quicunque parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum Baptizandos negat, aut dicit in remis­sionem quidem peccatorum cos Baptizari, sed nihil ex Adam trahere originalis peccati quod regenerationis lavacro expietur, Anathema sit: And the Councell at Gerund held Anno 517. in the fift Canon is to the same purpose, and like­wise the second Councel at Bracara in the seventh Canon; lastly, the Councell at Vienna.

I will here close with some places of Augustine. And first, De Genesi ad liter am l. 10. cap. 23: Consuetudo (inquit) matris Ecclesiae in Baptizandis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est, neque ullo modo superflua deputanda, nec omnino tradenda nisi Aposto­licae esset traditio, where he means traditionem [...], not [...], as appears lib. 4. de Baptis. cap. 24. where he proves it by Scripture against the Donatifis: his words likewise li. 1. de peccat mer. & remissi. cap. 26. are; parvulos Baptizan­dos esse Pelagiani concedunt, qui contra authoritatem universae Ecclesiae proculdubio per Dominum & Apostolos traditam veni­re non: possunt & Ser. 10. de verbis Apostoli. Ne, mo inquit, vohis susurret doctrinas alienas: hoc Ecclesia semper habuit, sem­per tenuit, hoc a majorum fide accepit, hoc usque in finem perseve­ranter custodit. Idem lib. 2. contra Caelest. & Pelag. saith, that Caelestin. himself in a Book set forth at Rome, confessed In­fants Baptizari in remissionem peccatorum secundum regulam Ʋniversae Ecclesiae & secundum Evang lu sertentiam. To this same purpose, Aug. de peccat. Orig ca. 17. And de Baptis. contra Donatist. l. 4. c. 23. If any man aske Divine Authority on this matter, although we most rightly believe, saith he, that what the Universall Church holdeth, and was not instituted by Councells, but hath been ever held, was [Page 44]not delivered but by Apostolicall Authority, yet may we truly conjecture what the Sacrament of Baptisme perfor­meth to Infants by Circumcision, which the former peo­ple did receive; & de pec. Merit. & remis. lib. 2. cap. 5. All Antiquity hath firmely held, that believers Infants do receive remission of originall sin by Baptisme. Origen. Hom. 8. in Levit. quid causae est cum Baptismus Ecclesiae in re­missionem peccatorum detur, secundum Ecclesiae observantiam etiam parvulis Baptismus detur? Ita Hom. 14. in Luc. & lib. 5. in cap. 6. ad Rom.

Justine Martir lived in the Apostle Johns time, and saith, women ought to look▪ to their children, for of such is the Kingdome of Heaven; And Gregorie Nazianzen Orat. 40. pag. 658. which was concerning holy Baptisme, [...].

Finally, Where you close with your service, I know no service of yours, except it be wherein you are more fit to serve then I to suffer; nevertheless to pray for your con­version, and to do you good I am yours,