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

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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 the Greek Text a Subſtantive of the Maſeuline Gender to agree with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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.

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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 wch 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 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 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , you know my meaning, for you Sir are no praevaricaor, but a Clergyy Diſciple, and may commence Doctor when ye will.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 to them. By children, Acts 2. Infants are underſtood firſt, becauſe the word is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the water, nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of the water, then Marke 1.5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

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,

THe Anabaptists think and ſay, that there is no command for Infants Baptiſme, being ſuch as do not underſtand, nor make confeſſion of faith or ſins, and yet we give them Scripture commands, many and full, though nothing will ſatisfie them, no not when they have good meaſure, preſſed downe, ſhaken together, and running over; as Gen. 17. there is not only a command for Infants that cannot confeſs, but a reaſon that ſtill holds, to wit, that the Lord is their God, and God threatens the diſobedient, and this command in the ſubſtantials was never abrogated. Therefore here is the firſt Command, with a full perpetuall reaſon, and with a threatning, and a command of a continuall ſtanding, and is the very ſame with Baptiſme in the eſſentialls

2. When Chriſt commands Infants to be brought to him, to bleſs them, to pray for them, to lay his hands on them, therein he commands as much and more then Baptiſme comes to: So here is a ſecond command, running over with the wrath of Chriſt to them that oppoſe it.

3. Matth. 28. Baptize all Nations, is a command likewiſe of a full meaſure running over, for it doth not only reach Infants, but all Nations.

4. Acts 2. Peter commands every one to be Baptized, with a reaſon reaching Infants, for theirs is the Promiſe, and here againe you have both Precept, and Promiſe: and yet the Anabaptiſt ſaith, there is no command. What is it to ſet the Word of God at naught, and to caſt his Commandements behinde our back, if this be none? Let ſuch therefore take heed leſt the Lord come and teare them in peeces, while there ſhall be none to deliver. Remember John Leydan and ſuch fellows.

Infants have all the graces ſet forth and ſealed in Baptiſme, therefore are to be Baptized, they are juſtified ſanctified, regenerated, clothed with Chriſt, planted with him, added to the Church, incorporate in his body, entitled in the Covenant to have the Lord for their God, dead, buried, and riſen againe with him, and had by Gods command for many hundreth years a right to an Ordinance equivalent to Baptiſme, being then profitable every way, and the ſeale of the righteouſneſs of Faith, and were never ſince put aſide from Baptiſme, but by that wofull generation of Anabaptiſts here of late ſince the beginning of Luthers oppoſing the Pope; ſince which time the Lord hath fearfully blaſted that wicked ſort of people in many Nations. And therefore I conclude, that children in their Infancie have an undoubted, full and clear right from Scripture for their Baptiſme ſtill to this day, and ſhall have till the laſt day, when the Anabaptiſts ſhall be judged and convinced to purpoſe of all the ungodly deeds and ſpeeches which they have done and ſpoken againſt Chriſts Truth. And as for the particular graces that I have named, as Juſtification of Infants, ſanctification, &c. I ſhall, God willing, if I be put unto it, eaſily prove all theſe graces to belong to Infants in our dutifull and charitable judgement againſt any Anabaptiſt in England whoſoever he be.

I could wiſh with all my heart that the Anabaptiſts would weigh well and conſider what I write without prejudice, remembring that it is no ſhame for them to forſake their errour, but rather their honour and happineſs to turne to the Truth, and ſtand for it, and it is both their ſhame and ſin to be hardned in their hearts againſt it. Better then they have forſaken this error and cloſed with us, Zuinglius who farr excelled all the Anabaptiſts in the world both for grace and learning; Mr. Baxter, who may be a patterne for holineſs and reading to moſt of his time, he hath not only forſaken the Anabaptiſts, but oppoſed them, that they are not all able to anſwer him. There be many Engliſh Books of learned men aganſt the Anabaptiſts, as namely Doctor Featly, Mr. Marſhall, Mr. Gerce, Mr. Church, Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Cooke, Mr: Blake, Mr. Fuller. Mr. Sidenham; beſides many other excellent men, who have written in Latine, as Voſſius, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, and all our beſt Lights in the Chriſtian world, both Ancient and Moderne.

Theſe five ſheets do not, and cannot containe the hundreth part of what I have delivered to my Hearers, for the ſpace almoſt of three years, for Infants, and againſt Anabaptiſts, and much more may be ſaid.