First proofe.

[Page 4] Matth. 28. 19. And first argued from the Ordinance of Baptisme, which being universall, To baptize all Nations with­out exception (expressed in the words as they requi­red) why should not Infants be understood to be in­cluded, And when one Nation was entred in Co­venant by Circumcision, Infants were circumcised; why not then, when all Na­tions are to be entred in Covenant with God, In­fants bapti­zed? they being a part of Nations, as Mr. Logane ar­gued afterward from the etymon of the word Nation, being from Nati, born, so that all that are born ought to be included they being able to satisfie Christs com­mand of comming to him, which by our Saviours own declaration & acceptation of those who were brought to him (albeit [...], and Sucklings, not able to walk on their own feet) was proved; Suffer (saith he) little children to come to me, and forbid them not, for of such belong the Kingdome of heaven.

But Mr. Browne answered to the Doctor, That it did not follow, that Infants were included in the Com­mand because they were not excluded, or excepted; for then (saith he) the baptisme of Bells, and Horses, and of his Hat, were included, because they are not mentioned to be excluded: And (as having a great advantage) did call the people to heare the absurditie of the proofe brought; wherein as he was very impertinent and ri­diculous, in bringing an instance altogether, extra sub­jectum quaesiti, without the bounds of the Question, and the subject thereof, which are all Nations, (neither Bells nor Horses being of the Nations) so that there needed no exception of them, the very name of [ Nati­ons] Here M. Brown did cavill at the word Sa­crament, and Initiation, be­cause not Scripture words: as if expositions of Scripture should be al­way in its own tearms, which would make progressum in infinitum. excluding them: but of Infants (if they had been intended to be excepted) there was great need of ex­pressing the same, they not onely being a part of the Nations, but also in use and custome from the dayes of Abraham, to be entred in Covenant with God, by a Sacrament of initiation: Which use and custome, if our Saviour had intended to have broke off, or altered, he would (no doubt) have done it by a dictum est antiquis &c. sed ego dico vobis, as he did in altering the Law of Divorcement, and other Precepts, which past currant among their ancestors, Matth. 5. 22, 27, 31, 33, & 34. [Page 5] so he would have said here, in the appointing of the new Sacrament, Baptisme, (tearmed the Circumcision of Christ, Col. 2. 11.) It was commanded to the ancients, that they should circumcise every male of eight dayes old; but I say to you, you shall not baptize, before they can give a Confession of their Faith.

Here Mr. Browne (although by the Lawes of Dispute bound to the active part, and to be the prover of his exception of Infants, as being an Affirmative avouched by him, for affirmanti incumbit probare) yet did nothing that way, but sought to wrangle upon the words, and that by so darke Inferences, and Consequences, as were no wayes agreeable to what he required of us, as cleare and expresse proofes in particular of our Position.

First, he alledged, That they should be made Disci­ples The Adversa­ries excepti­ons against the Proofes. [in the word [...]] before they be baptized, because the Pronoune [ [...] them] in the Command [ Baptizing them] is of the Masculine Gender; which (said he) cannot agree with [ [...]] which is Neuter. But for answer: As the name [...] is not in the Text, albeit the Verbe [...] be; so the Pronoune [...] repeats not the Verbe (it is not the use of Gram­mar) but the Noune going before, which is [...] al­beit diversi generis, and that by the Figure Synthesis, which respecteth more the thing then the name, as Grammarians know.

Next he objected, That the first Disciples were taught before baptized; which albeit granted, yet doth not follow that alwayes it was to be so, and that their Children might not be baptized after them, before they were taught: For Christs Commandement was not onely for that time, but to dure for ever; and not only to remaine in constituenda Ecclesia (in the Church, when it was first a gathering) but also in constituta, when it is gathered. Neither the order of the Precept maketh against this order of baptizing first, and then teaching; seeing (as S. Matthew hath the words) it is [Page 6] so, baptizing and teaching them; albeit the English Tran­slation Matth. 28. 19. (rendring the word [...], Teach) doth ex­presse teaching first. But indeed, the word signifieth not onely to teach, but in generall to Disciple, or make Disciples, that is, Christians, (for these two words were Acts 6. 1. Acts 9. 10, 36. Acts 11. 26. in the beginning reciprocall) which not onely by teaching, but also baptizing, may be done: as not onely our Saviours owne words (expounding the Verbe [...] by two Participles, baptizing them, and teach­ing them) doe declare; but also the words of S. John the Evangelist: where crossing the rumour made to the Joh. 4. 1, 2. Pharises of our Saviour, as making moe Disciples then John, he subjoyneth, albeit Jesus himself baptized not, but his Disciples, insinuating Baptisme to be a way of Discipling. And the common use of speech, is to call one a Disciple as soone as he is put to Schoole, and Earnest given, although for a long time the Child learn little or none; and a Souldier when he taketh Sacra­mentum, though he yet cannot handle his Armes.

Neither the joyning of the two parts of the Com­mandement together, Baptizing and Teaching, proveth the exercise there of joyntly, more then our Saviours Command, at the first sending out of his Disciples; Goe preach the Kingdome of Heaven, heale the Sick, Matth. 10. 7, 8. cleanse the Leaper, rayse the Dead, cast out Devils did bind them to teach, before they cured or raysed from the dead.

Second proofe

From Acts 2. 38, 39. From answering the Adversaries Exceptions, and vindicating the Proofe, the Disputer did proceed to prove positively, that Children were included in the Command of Baptisme, as it is cleared by the words of Peter, in the first descending of the Holy-Ghost, who was to bring all our Saviours words into their mind, and direct them in all truth. Repent ye therefore, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus, and ye shall receive remission of sinnes and the gift of the Holy-Ghost; for the promise is made to you and to your Children, and to those that are afarre off, even as many [Page 7] as God shall call. Where, in the reason or incouragement to take Baptisme, the Children are comprehended and invited, as appeareth; for wherefore should their right to the Promise be mentioned. Mr. Browne answered first, that it was spoken to the Jewes (meaning, as I apprehend, that they had an here­ditarie Covenant and Sacrament;) but if it was so, then it would follow at least, that the Children of the Jewes were to be baptized. But the Dr. urged, That the Promise is said to belong to them that were afarre off, even as many as God should call; which were not the Jewes, as Mr. Browne assirmed: for see Vers. 5. 10, they that were even farthest dispersed from Judaea, were pre­sent at the Feast, and were astonished at the marvelous gift of the Holy-Ghost, and heard Peters words, and therefore had part in the answer with the present, in the second Person, [...], to you: but [...], all that are afarre off, are the Gentiles, as the phrase of speech is used, Eph. 2. 13. But you who were afarre off, are made nigh: before, they were aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, and strangers, &c. So that not onely the Jewes and their Children, but also the Gentiles (being once called) and their Children have Title unto the Promises, or the Promises are made to them. Here he did cavill, that they behooved first to be called, before they obtained the Promise; because it is said, even as many as God shall call: but who doubteth of that (said the Doctor?) Never­thelesse it will follow, that as to the Jewes (albeit as yet the Parents were onely called) the Promises were made both to them and to their Children; so to the Gentiles (of whom we are) albeit the Parents be first called, yet the Promise is made to their Children also, if they be baptized; for onely upon the receiving of Baptisme, the Promise was to be ef­fectuall.

Hence he fell a questioning, Whether Children were capable of remission of sinnes, and of the gift of the Holy-Ghost (who is called the Promise of the Father, Acts 1. 4.) especially by Bap­tisme? At which he and his company mocked, saying Naaman ­like, Can a little sprinkling of water doe it? Albeit it be the expression of the Holy-Ghost himselfe by S. Paul, Tit. 3. 5. calling Baptisme the washing of new birth and renewing of the Holy-Ghost. Which gave occasion to the third proofe fol­lowing: to wit;

[...]ird proofe.

[Page 8] [...]. 5. 26. That Infants of beleevers (being a part of the Church, Christs Spouse) are sanctified by the washing of water, in the Word; the Argument was thus: The Church is sanctified by the washing of water, in the Word; But Infants are a part of the Church, Therefore must be sanctified by the washing of water, in the Word. Mr. Browne answered first to the Con­clusion, [...]ainst the [...] of Lo­ [...]. denying their sanctifying to be by Baptisme, but by the bloud of Christ: To which the Dr. replyed, That prima causa non tollit secundam, nor the principall, tooke away the ef­fect of the instrument; Christs death, though it have vertue enough, yet it must be applyed by some meane; and Baptisme to be one of these meanes, appeareth not onely by this place, but also by Rom. 6. 3, 4. Col. 3. 12. Whosoever are baptized unto Christ, are baptized into his death; we are buried with him by Baptisme into his death. After, he begun to cavill about the Proposition called major, That the sanctifying of the Church here, is expressed not onely by Washing, but by the Word. To which the Argumentator did grant, That to the Church in adultis, it was; but the Question was, of that part of the Church which as yet were not capable of the Word: where­with else then with Baptisme are they sanctisied? either so, or not at all (to speake in the way of Gods ordinarie dealing, not of his absolute power:) Beside that, the Word there may be understood of the Sacramentall Word, which comming to the element of Water, maketh it a Sacrament, and giveth the vertue and blessing: For unde est (saith Austin) that aqua cor­pus tangens animam abluat? est a verbo. Hence he fell to the denying of the minor, That Infants were not a part of the Church, using the distinction of visible and invisible, that they were not of the visible Church; which is as much, as not to be of the Church Militant at all: for, beside that the Church and the Profession and Sacraments thereof are visible, and so compared to a Citie on a Mountaine; none are of the invisible [...]tth. 5. 14. Church but such as are of the visible, it being but a part of the whole, qualified in certain respects; so as she is not discerna­ble to man, but to God, who alone knoweth the hearts of the children of men: neither can there be any Church but that, which is called either by Word or Sacraments, as the word [...], the Companie of the Called, doth prove: beside, the children of the Israelites were of the visible Church.

Fourth pro [...]

[Page 9] 1. Pet. 3. 21 Hence the Dr. argumented, from the similitude of Baptisme and the Arke of Noah, which for the exactnesse of it is called [...], (as Beza rendreth it) correspondens exemplar; others, expressa forma, such as in Wax, or Coyne: whence he argued thus by a double Argument: first, The Arke of Noah is like Baptisme, & caetera; But without the Arke, by Gods appoint­ment, none were saved: Therefore, without Baptisme none saved ordinarily, and so the Infants salvation by you hazard­ed: secondly, Baptisme saveth as the Arke; But the Arke saved Noah and his household, Heb. 11. 7. Therefore Baptisme (by Gen. 7. 1. the Law of example) saveth us and our house-hold. To the first he answered, with an upbraiding of Poperie; which the Argumenter said he had no reason to challenge, who comply­ed so much with them in other things: but the Question was not, What the Papists, but what the Scriptures said, whom he made his Judge. To the second he answered, That no young ones were in the household of Noah: against which it was in­sisted by the Disputer, That if they had been, they had not been excluded, the reason for their safetie in the Arke being the same in young ones and elder Children, because they did be­long to Noah, who had found favour with God. Neither was Gen. 6. 8. it the personall Faith of Cham, that made him be received into the Arke: last of all, he fell to crosse the first words of S. Pe­ter, by his following words; [ Not the laying away of the fil­thenesse of the flesh, but the asking of a good Conscience towards God, through the resurrection of Iesus Christ.] Whereupon the Dr. began to cleare these words; shewing, that nothing was intended in them derogatorie to Christian Baptism (for then he should give with the one hand, and take from it with the other;) which if it were, why did he mention Baptisme, and not a good Conscience alone? But what he speaketh against the putting away of the filth of the body, is against their washings and purification (for to the Jewes dispersed he wri­teth;) which also the Apostle to the Hebrewes, almost in the Heb. 9. 10, 13. same expressions, doth, calling them Ordinances, or justifica­tions of the flesh, and purifyings, as touching the cleannesse of The words of S. Peter con­taine non oppo­sitionem to Baptisme, but Appositionem the flesh: like to which, Baptisme doth not save us, as not be­ing a putting off the silth of the flesh, but the asking of the Conscience; or, that which maketh the Conscience ask God, and cry, Abba Father: for it is a Metonymie, effectus pro causa, [Page 10] its the asking of the Conscience towards God, that is the meane or cause instrumentall of our approach to God; it be­ing the Laver, or washing of new birth, and so making us the Children of God.

Here the Answerer startled; What? (saith he) Are we made Gods Children by Baptisme? Whereupon some present, not evill affected, would have mitigated or denyed the assertion: but the Arguer not moved, askt Mr. Browne, Whether that were so strange an expression to him, who had so often uttered it both Child and Minister? Had he forgotten the words of the English Catechisme (Answer to the very second Questi­on?) To which he replyed, That he had indeed sometime taught so, but he was otherwayes illightned now, so that he accounted it Blasphemie. Then (said the Arguer) the Apostle blasphemeth, calling it the washing of new birth, Tit. 3. 5. and our Saviour himselfe saying, that a man is borne againe by the Water and Spirit. To these words of Scripture he replyed no­thing, but talkt still of regeneration, and making the sonnes of God by Faith; which (indeed an effect rather of regene­ration and holy Spirit then a cause) he endeavoured to con­firme by these words, Gal. 3. 2. Received ye the Spirit by the Law, or by the hearing of Faith; (& Ioh. 1. 12. where he speaketh of the first receivers of Christ being in the world, as appeareth verse 10. & 11. before) where, as Gal. 3. 2. [...] the hearing of Faith is the hearing of the Gospel, which is the Doctrine of Faith (for it is opposed there to the Law of Moses;) so the Spirit there spoken of, is the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, to the doing of Miracles, as it is after, verse 5. not the ordinary gift of sanctification, for then all the Churches of Galatia had been inwardly sanctified: beside that, receiving of the Spirit by Faith, doth not exclude the Sacraments, every one working in their owne way and order; for, particulares affirmantes nec contradicunt, nec contrariae sunt.

[...]fth proofe, [...]rom exam­ [...]es.

[...]cts 16. 14, 15. Here the Answerer did call for an example of Infant-Bap­tisme in all Scripture, and did reade to all the Auditors an ex­ample of beleevers baptized. Wherefore the Arguer brought first the example of Lydia's household baptized, where menti­on is onely of her hearing and beleeving: next, an insinuation of Iohns, That little Children had their sinnes forgiven in his Joh. 2. 12. Name; where there is an expression of the forme of Baptism [Page 11] (at least a part of it) as 1 Cor. 6. 11. But now ye are washed, san­ctified and justified in the Name of the Lord Iesus.

To the first he begun to cavil, that Lydia had not a Husband, which was more then he could affirme; howsoever, she had a Family, said the Arguer. To the second he said, first, that these Children were of ripe yeares, as having Iohns Epistle directed to them; next, that In the Name of the Father, was in the power of the Father, which he said it signified principally and properly (apparantly mistaking himselfe, for frequently say­ing properly and principally, for he cannot be so ignorant to think either [...] and [...] to be Synonyma, [...] significare magis robur quam nomen ex vi vocis, for that is proper;) thirdly, that the words, 1 Cor. 6. 11. were said to them of yeares, who sometime were theeves, &c. fourthly, that the distinction there was not of age, but of gifts; and some were called Little Chil­dren, for their gifts of mind accordingly.

Against which the Arguer did insist; and first, that it did not prove that they were of ripe yeares, because S. Iohn wrote to them; for Epistles may be designed for them that are not yet able to reade them: as whatsoever was written before, in for­mer ages, was written for our instruction, Rom. 15. 4. Next, sup­pose they had been able to reade then when S. Iohn wrote, yet he putteth them in mind of forgivenesse of sinnes before ob­tained, [...] Atticè pro [...] which is praeteritum perfectum: but the name [...] v. 14. being a Diminutive, with the oppo­sition not only to Fathers, but also to young men, (the like of which, is not when there is a Spirituall Childhood onely in­sinuated, for then the opposition is onely to perfect men) doe sufficiently shew their age. Neither is the Question, to whom the Apostle speaketh in that place to the Corinthians; but whether there, Baptisme and the form of it be not insinuated? So that [ In the Name of the Father, or Sonne,] as there in the 1 Joh. 2. 12. Name of the Lord Jesus, are paralell and like phrases: neither doth the use of the word [ Name of God] sometime transferred to signifie his Power (whether in Greek or Hebrew) make any thing against the forme of Baptisme insinuated in the words of S. Iohn; for when we are baptized, In the Name of the Fa­ther, and of the Sonne and Holy-Ghost, not onely is it in Name and Authoritie from him, but also in the Power of him, ac­companying the calling of his Name upon us.

[Page 12]Neither if any should object, (which he did not remarke) [...] Joh. 2. 14. That they are said to have knowne the Father, doth that prove, that either they had that knowledge before Baptisme, (al­though when he wrote, it may be they were beginning to know him) or that even then their knowledge was such as the Anabaptist requireth, for Children begin betimes to know their Parents, (according to that of the Poet, Incipe parve puer risu cognoscere matrem) and to this small measure of know­ledge, accompanying Infancie it selfe, the Apostle seemeth to allude, writing to these little ones, as he alludeth to that which is incident to youth-head and old-age, writing to the other 2 distinctions of age, wisdome in old men, & strength in young men. Beside that, the receiving of Baptism is a sort of acknowledg­ment of the Father, not mentall but real; whence Sacramentum fidei, & professionis Christianae dicitur, although after following.

Sixth proofe, From the types and fi­gures of Bap­tisme.

This proofe the Adversarie did shift, saying, That it was nothing to the purpose what was among the Jewes, and that they had no reference to our Sacraments; That a type could not be a type of another type: where the Disputer askt, If Baptisme was to be called a type? the other answering, That it represented Christs death and buriall. The Doctor insisted, That albeit in a large extent of the word it might be called a type, yet not according to Ecclesiasticall use of the word, in which it is joyned to figures & shadowes, which are abolished; for Baptism is not a shadow, but a putting off of the body of sin, Heb. 10. 1. Col. 2. 11, 12. yea, S. Peter saith, the Ark was a type of baptism.

1. Old Circum­cision, answe­ring to the Circumcision of Christ, which is Bap­tisme, Col. 2. 11, 12. Alwayes, albeit he shifted them, here I set them downe, and first Gircumcision, to which not onely succeeded, but answer­eth our Baptisme: Now it was bestowed upon Children, as soone as possible for Nature to endure it; and God had dealt more hardly with our Children then with the Jewes, if he had not provided for us a meane, and conveyance of Grace to us, as well as to them his Covenant. Here they said, they re­commended their Children by prayer to God; but this answe­reth not to a Sacrament, which the Jewes had beside prayer.

2. Baptisme in the Sea and Cloud, 1 Cor. 10. The second prefiguration of Christian Baptisme, was the baptisme of the Israelites unto Moses in the Cloud and Sea; wherein as the Children were as well as their Parents, yea, pars magna (for the Fathers were but a many of them, not all, nor most part) so in the baptisme unto Christ should our Vers. 5. Children be.

Seventh proof [...] The Prophe­sies.

[Page 13]The Prophesies may be added here to Isaiah 49. 22. Behold, I lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and my Ensigne to the people, and they shall bring their sonnes in their bosomes, and their daughters upon their shoulders.

Eighth proof, From the ne­cessitie there­of to all.

The last proofe brought, was the words of our Saviour; Ioh. 3. 5. Except a man be borne againe of Water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God: Unto which the Adversarie made this poore answer, That it was spoken of a Man, looking to the English Translation, not to the Greeke. Where the Dispu­ter marvelling of his impudencie, askt him what [...] sig­nified, and what [...] Whether, or not, the name which John hath in the words of our Saviour, be not nomen speciei, a com­mon name for all mankind, without difference of sex, or age? which albeit he could not denie, yet he still said, That in that place it signified a Man, and not a Child; which, as it was Pe­titio principii, [...] the begging of the Question, (as the Logicians call it) so it might be convinced out of the very next words of our Saviour, Whatsoever is borne of the flesh is Ioh. 3. 6. flesh, and whatsoever is borne of the Spirit is Spirit. So that [...] whatsoever begotten of man, is here declared to stand in need of new birth; yea, the same name [...] rendred Man, is used by the Evangelist, speaking of Circumcision, ( Accipit Ioh. 7. 23. homo circumcisionem Sabbatho) which was meant of Infants.