AN ANSWERE TO TWO ANABAPTISTICAL opinions: viz. • 1. That Infants are not to be baptised. , and • 2. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme. 

ALthough with great sorrow I am forced to vndertake this busines against him that was deere vnto me: yet being therevnto provoked by the sending to me these two positions with certayne reasons annexed vnder the Authors owne hand: I thought it my part (although the vnablest of many) to contend for the maintenance of the faith which was once given to the Saints. Iud. 3. And by the help of God to put a brieffe answere to these opinions, which by the Churches in al ages have bene & are condemned for heretical: the practise whereof I could wil he might never have be [...]allen to any of myne owne country, especially to them that were partakers with me of the afflictions of Christ for the witnessing of his truth. And ch [...]efly vnto him, to whose charge both I & divers others had once purposed to have committed our soules had he not besydes these broached some former opi­nions, both erronious & offensive, whereby the truth (for which we suffer) is like to be the more blasphemed of the wicked & many hindered in our owne country, that shall heare thereof, of whom wee had great hope that they would have walked in the same fayth with vs. Not withstanding for as much as I am informed, that the au­thor hath promised vpon the sight of his errors to confesse the same, I do the more willingly take vpon me this labour, praying the Lord to give a good issue, to his glo­ry, for hi [...] mercyes sake Amen. Now I wil come to answere the positions with the reasons thereof, & first concerning the former, which is this.

A REPLY MADE IN DEFENCE OF TWO truths, viz: • 1. That infants are not to be baptised. , and • 2. That Antichristians cōverted are to be admitted into the true church by baptisme. 

These two truthes are by you, Sir; in your answer intituled Anabaptistical, which reproach I do no more account of thē you doe of the imputatiō of Brownisme, nor then Paul did of Heresy: but rather as Paul professed himself joyful in susteyning that blasphemy for the truth, & you rejoyce in that you for the truthes you professe, are calumniated with such vndeserved imputations: even so doe I blesse God that I am accounted worthy to suffer rebuke for Christ his truth: but know you, Si [...], for your humiliation that your reproach shal light vppon your owne head, & that Christ & his truth are by you evil spoken of.

In your preface you avouch that you are provoked to write, I mervayle you should so speak: seing your conscience telleth you, that you did make the first re­quest [Page 3] or motion to Mrs. By water: & I could doe no lesse then I did, for if I had refu­sed the motion, it would have bene thought that I distrusted the cause: & whereas you alledg, Iud. 3. for justifying your course in answering, I say you pervert the Scripture: for although you are to contend for the mayntenance of the faith which was once given to the Saynts, yet you are neyther to plead for Baal, but to lett him plead for himself, neyther are you to contend for defence of Antichristian errors, but rather as you have in a very good degree rased the Temple of Antichrist, even so you should now proceed to vndermine the very foundation, & to blow it wholly vp at once: which is done by entertayning the baptisme of Christ to be administred vppon persons confessing their sinnes, & confessing their faith: neyther will it help you to say that these two truths have bene condemned for heresy by the churches in al ages, for if the Apostles age aford contrary to the succeeding ages, I say that which is most auncient is the truth: & you know that many of your truths wher­to you are come, have bene condemned for heriticall in as many ages as these truths which I defend.

Againe, whereas you affirme that by the broaching of these opinions & some former erroneous & offensive, the truth is like more to be blasphemed, & therfore you could wish that wee your comtrymen & frends had never fallen into them: I an­swer, that although I shal not rejoyce that any truth be evil spoken of, yet if it shall fal out by occasion of publishing the truth that wicked men blaspheme, let them know that Christ is a rock of offence, & a stone to stumble at: & if any be hindered from the truth by publishing the truth, it wilbe their corruption & sin, & the truth or the publishing of the truth is not in fault: but if you feare hereby that your An­tichristian Church wil fal to the ground, I say, it is that which is appointed to per­dition, & to perdition let it goe: I wil never vse meanes to support it. Finally al­though I have professed my readines publiquely & privately, to forsake my errors vppon their discovery. (& as I have already practised for the which I am reproached among your brethren) yet I never professed my readines to bee perverted from the truth, which you cal heresy: & therfore if you did vndertake to write vppon this ground, you might wel have spared your paynes, & saved your self from so gree­vous a sinne as you are fallen into by pleading for Antichristian corruptions, & by praying the Lord to overthrow his own truth, by blessing your labours in opugning at: & this breefly shal suffice for your preface general.

‘1. That infants are not to bee Baptised.’ Answere.

Touching this first position, that Infants are not to be baptised, I read that Auxen­tius one of the Arrians sect with his adherents was one of the first that denyed the baptisme of Infants, & next after him Pelagius the heretike, against whom Au­gustine & others of the auncient Fathers have opposed & condemned for heresy, & that according to the Scriptures, which by Gods grace we shal together with them also f [...]rther manifest, & prove by sound reasons out of the word the lawfulnes of [Page 4] baptising infants, which first I will vndertake, & then answere the reasons to the contrary.

‘ Gen. 17.20. God made his covenant to Abraham & to his seed: from whence I reason thus.’

2. That covenant which God made with Abraham he commaunded to bee sealed to him & to al his seede, yea even to infants.

But the covenant that we vnder the gospel doe receive is the very same that was made to Abraham, &c.

Therefor that is commaunded to be fealed to vs &c to our seede, yea even to our infants, for so was that to Abrahams.

The Major can not be denyed, see Gen. 17.10.11.12.

The Minor is likewise as true, for the Apostle speaking of this covenant, Act. 2.39 sayth, the promise is made to you & to your children, & to al that are a farre of, as many as the Lord our God shal cal. In which words it plainly appeareth that this is the very same covenant & promisse that was made to Abraham, which they that were a far of, that is the Gentiles beleeving, doe receive & were baptised into. And therefor is Abraham called the Father of many nations, Gen. 17.4. also Gal. 3.13.4. Christ is said to redemne vs from the curse of the Law, that the blessing of Abra­ham might come on the Gentiles through Ies. Chr. that wee might receive the pro­mise of the Spirit, see vers. 8.9. Now then if wee bee partakers of the same covenant (for otherwise Abrahams covenant should not be an everlasting covenant, Gen. 17.7. seing his posterity after the flesh is cut of for a tyme, Rom. 11, 15.17.20.) it must follow that the same must be sealed to vs, & to our infants, (els is it not the same) & that by the commaundement of God. For the abolishing of circumcision, & the bringing in of baptisme vnder the gospel, doth not abrogate or disanulle the com­maundement of sealing the covenant to the beleeving parents with their infants, which was once commaunded to Abraham, but onely sheweth a changing of the outward signe. And therefore as the covenant belongs to the Gentiles beleeving so doth the seal thereof to them & to their seede, as that did to Abraham & to his seede: The outward ceremonie onely changed.

Now in the next place you make a special preface to the first point, affirming that baptisme of infants was denyed by Auxentius the Arrian, & by Pelagius whom Au­gustine & others refuted & condemned for heresy, & that by Scripture: I say that one heretique condemned another contrary to the Scriptures for the truths sake & whereas you bring in the Fathers in this particular point in your 6. pag. I answere I can prove that Augustine, Cyrill, Ciprian, Origen, Nazianzen, Ambrose, & many o­thers were almost as grosse heretiques (if he be an heretique that holdeth an heresy) as Auxentius & Pelagius, & you your selves account thē all Antichristians: & ther­for the auncient practise of pedobaptistry in auncient antichristian Churches is no [Page 5] more to be respected then the auncient practise of the Prelacy & read prayer in the fame: but these are but Florishes: let vs heare your arguments from the Scripture proving. ‘1. That infants are to be baptised,’

Your first argument is taken from Gen. 17.10. & is framed thus:

That covenant which God made with Abraham, he commaunded to be sealed to him, & to al his seed, yea even to infants.

But the covenant that we vnder the gospel do receave is the very same that was made to Abraham, &c.

Therfor it is commaunded to be sealed to vs, & to our seed, yea evē to our infāts for so was it to Abrahams.

To this argument I make answer thus: first distinguishing the two covenants or testaments (for a covenant & testament is al one in the originals though the English words are two): one covenant was made with Abraham & his carnal seed & of that covenant was circumcision a seale: another covenant made with Abrahā & his Spi­ritual seed, & of that covenant the holy Spirit of promise is the seale: for the carnall covenant had a carnal seale vppon the carnal seed: the Spiritual covenant had a Spiri­tual seale vppon the Spiritual seed: For things must be made proportionable, & cir­cumcision which was a carnal seale, could not seale vp the Spiritual covenant to the Spiritual seed, for to say so, is to leap over the hedg & to make a disproportion be­twixt the type & the truth.

These things being thus distinguished let thē bee remembred & applyed orderly & the argument wil appeare of no value: for the major is thus to be vnderstood if it be true that the carnal covenant which God made with Abrahā & his carnal seed, was to be sealed vp to his infants with a carnal seale, viz: circumcision: if it be not so vnderstood it is false: Now the minor, if it be assumed out of the major, (as it must be, els it is a Sophisme) is very false & flatly contradictory to the Scripture: for we vnder the gospel do not receave that carnal covenant which was made to Abra­ham & his carnal seed, whereof circumcision was the carnal seale: but that carnal co­venant & seale together with the subject of that seale, viz: a male of 8. dayes old is taken away by Christs crosse: & in the rome thereof we have the Spiritual covenant typed by that carnal covenant, & the Spiritual seale viz: the holy Spirit of promise signified by that carnal seale, & the Spiritual infant, viz: a new borne babe in Christ, in whom Christ typed by the male is newly formed, signified by that carnal infant.

That al these particulars are so: I prove vnto you plainly by these places of Scrip­ture.

1. There are two Testaments made with Abraham, Gal. 4.24. For Agar that is the old Testament, & Sara that is the new Testament, were both maryed to Abrahā, & Abraham had them both.

2. There are two seedes: Ismaell (of Abraham & Hagar) who typed the carnall seed borne after the Flesh: & Isaac (of Abraham & Sara) who typed the Spiritual seed borne by promise vers. 23.

There are two seales: Circumcision a seale of the carnal covenant vppon the car­nal children: Gen. 17.11. & the Holy Spirit of promise a seale of the Spirituall cove­nant vppon the Spiritual seed, 2. Cor. 1.22. Eph. 1.13. & as circumcision was a seale from God to the carnal seed of the promise & from the carnall seed to God in obe­dience: So the Spirit of promise is a seale from God to the Spiritual seed of the pro­mise, & from the Spiritual seed to the Lord in obedience, Eph. 1.13. Ioh. 3.33. these things are evident: but now you, I am perswaded of mere ignorance, mistaking the covenant, doe make circumcision a seale of the everlasting Spiritual covenant, which is an error, & therevppon you build all your false building of pedobaptistry which is as a howse built vppon the sand by the foolish builders.

Now for your places of Scripture I expound them in order.

Gen. 17.10.11.12. this place proveth that circumcision was a seale of the carnall covenant made with the carnall seed, & not a seale of the Spirituall covenant made with the Faithful: For the Spirit is the seale thereof, who is therfor called the Spirit of promise, & the seale. Eph. 1.13. & if the place of the Rom. 4.11. be objected to prove that circumcision sealed the righteousnes of Faith to Abraham: I answer, that is not the scope of the place: but this: viz: that circumcision had one specialty in A­braham differing from al other, that by circumcision he was sealed vp to be the Fa­ther of al the Faithful as cōcerning the matter of their justificatiō, namely, that as he was justifyed by his actual Faith so should all the beleevers bee justifyed by their actuall Fayth whither they beleeved in their vncircumcision or in their circumci­sion.

Act. 2.39. the promise is offered to the impenitent Iewes, & to their posterity, & to the Gentils a far of: & it was exhibited only to so many as yeelded obedience to the Fayth: & whereas in rehearsing the Apostles speech, you say, the promise is made I say, therein you ad to the text. For if you intend that the promise of the Spirit was exhibited to al the Iewes & their infants, & to the Gentils beleeving & their infants & that this place afordeth it, I say the place doth not intend any such thing but on­ly an offer of the Spiritual covenant, to the carnal Iewes & their children, according to the Flesh, & also the Gentils: but a true conferring or exhibiting of it to so many as should be effectually called by the offer of it in the preaching of the Gospel.

Further whereas you seem to assume that seing the covenant was made to Abra­ham & his infants, it is therfor made to vs & our infants. I deny that ever the covenant Spiritual was made that is conferred to al Abrahams infants according to the Flesh: neyther therfor is it made that is conferred to al our infants: this you should prove, but it is vndone: I confesse the promise was offered to all Abrahams carnall seed vnder that carnal covenant of the Old Testament, & so it is offered now to all our carnal children by the preaching of the gospel in the new Testament: but as the Spiritual covenant was only exhibited to the Faithful, the true seed of Abraham, so is it now only exhibited to the Faithful which are the only true seed of Abraham, who is the Father of vs al, & wee al his children, & justified by actual Faith as he was: in respect whereof infants wanting actual Fayth cannot bee truely said the Children of Abraham but are that they are in secreat to the Lord whatsoever they are.

Thus much for the Scriptures by you alledged in your first argument: From that which I have answered I reason against pedobaptistry thus.

• 1. As it was with Abraham the Father of the Faithful, so must it be with the Children of Abraham, Rom. 4.11
• But Abraham the Father of the Faithful first beleeved actually, & being sea­led with the Spirit of promise, afterward receaved the signe of circum­cision.
• Ergo: The Children of Abraham the beleeving Gentils, must first beleeve actually, & be sealed with the Spirit of promise, & then receave the baptisme of water.

• 2. As in the Old Testament, the carnal children were carnally circumcised & so admitted into that Church of the Old Testament: So in the New Testament the spi­ritual children must be Spiritually circumcised, that is in hart, & then be admitted by baptisme into the Church of the New Testament.
• But the first was signified by type:
• Ergo the second is verified in the truth.

• 3. As in the Old Testament carnal infants were carnally begotten & borne by the mortal seed of generation by their carnal parents, & then were carnally circum­cised, & receaved into the carnal covenant. So in the new Testament Spiritual infāts new borne babes in Christ, must be Spiritually begotten & borne by the immortal seed of regeneration, by the Spiritual parents, & then being Spiritually circumcised they shal by baptisme with water be receaved into the New Testame
• But the first was signified by type:
• Ergo the second is verified in the truth.

• 4. If the carnal infants in the Old Testament were circumcised, then the carnal infants in the New Testament must not be baptized: bicause that as circumcision is abolished which was the signe or seale, so the infant is abolished which is the sub­ject of that signe or seale, & a proportionable infant introduced: which is one rege­nerate by the Spirit & the word.
• But the carnal infants in the old Testament were circumcised.
• Ergo the carnal infants are not now in the New Testament to be baptised.

• 5. As in the Old Testament when the male appeared the 8. day, ther was a pain­ful circumcising & mortifying of the superfluous forskinne when the party was re­ceaved into the covenant actually: So in the new Testament when the Lord Ies. Ch. (typed by the male) appeareth: & when ther is a painful circumcising & mortifying of the superfluous forskinne of the hart, the party so qualified shalbe by baptisme re­ceaved into the new Testament actually.
• But the first was signified by type:
• Ergo the second is verified in truth.

And this shal suffice for answer to your first argument.

Col. 2.11.12.

If circumcision belonged to Faithful Abraham & his seed, yea to such as were but infants, then doth baptisme also appertayne to al beleevers & to their feede being infants.

But the first is [...]ue, Gen. 17.10. Ergo the second.

The consequent wil [...]llow, seing baptisme cometh in place of circumcision sea [...] ling vp vnto vs & [...] ou [...] seed the same promises that circumcision did to Abraham & to his seede, Coll. 2.11.12. & that in as large & ample manner (if not more ample) then to the Israelits, for of them only were the males circumcised, but by bap­tisme are both males & females sealed. And this must follow necessarily, or els the covenant by the coming of Ie. Chr. should be more restrayned, [...]hen it was vnder the law, who came to ratify & confirme that wholly, as the Apostle saith, 2. Cor. 1. 20. The promises of God are in him, yea & Amen, &c. For God gave it with the seale thereof, to Abraham & his infants. & if Christ should give it vnto vs onely & not to our infants, this were to lessen & infringe the covenant, & not to con­ [...] all, but to take away part of that which God before had given.

Your second argument followeth: from Coll. 2.11.12. which is framed thus.

• If circumcision belonged to Faythful Abraham & his seed, yea to such as were but infants: then doth baptisme also aperteyne to all beleevers & to their seed being infants.
• But the first is true, Gen. 17.10.
• Ergo the second.

The reason of the consequent is double: 1. for that baptisme cometh in place of circumcision as a seale of the same promises to vs & our seed: Col. 2.11.12. 2. For that the covenant must be as largely sealed vp to vs as to thē, therfor to our females as wel as males, & infants as wel as persons of yeeres: For the covenant in Christ is not lessened but of as larg extent now as then: 2. Cor. 1.20. Seing in Christ all the promises of God are yea & amen.

I answer that this argument is built vppon the same false ground with the for­mer a meer mistaking of the covenant, & seale, & seed: & their is manifest violence committed vppon the Scripture by perverting & wresting it to false consequents: first therfor I deny the consequence & I give reasons of my deniall.

1. Bicause circumcision did not aperteyne to Abraham & his infants as a seale of the everlasting covenant of life & Salvation, but of the external temporary covenant of the land of Canaan, & of obedience to the Law of Moses: & therfor though cir­cumcision aperteyned to Abraham & his carnal infants as a seale of the external co­venant yet it doth not follow that baptisme belongs to the Faythful & their carnal infants as a seale of the Spiritual covenant of the New Testament made in respect of Christ.

2. Secondly bicause the beleevers do not occupy Abrahams place in the cove­nant of the New Testament, bicause Abraham is the Father of all the Faythfull, but no man though never so Holy hath that perrogative to bee the Father of the Faythfull: Therefore Abraham receaveth the Faythfull into his bosome. Luk. [...]6.23.

3. Thirdly, bicause the infants of the faithful do not possesse the place of the true children of Abraham the Father of the Faithful: but possesse the place of the typical [Page 9] children of Abraham according to the Fleshe, & therfor the disproportion being in al these particulars the consequence of the argument is weake & insufficient,

But if you wil make true consequents you must reason frō the type to the truth proportionably, & not from the type to the type as this argument importeth: ney­ther must you confound the covenants & seales as you do: but must make al things distinct & proportionable the one to the other as thus.

Abraham the Father of the carnal infants: Abraham the Father of the Faithful: Carnal Abraham & his carnal seed, carnally circumcised: So Faithful Abraham & his Faithful Children, Spiritually circumcised. The carnal infants of the old Testament carnally circumcised: The Spiritual infāts of the new Testament, that is, men regene­rate baptized.

Thus you se the disproportion of your argument, & the true proportion that you ought to have made if your argument had been good.

But let vs see the reasons of your consequence, & the Scriptures you do produce for the confirmation of them: you say that baptisme cometh in the [...]ome of circūci­sion as a seale of the same promises to vs & our seed: I vtterly deny it: & I prove the contrary vnto you: Seing that the circumcisiō of the hart succeedeth in the place of circumcising the flesh: Rō. 2.29. & circumcision made without hands cometh in the place of circumcision made with hands, Col. 2.11. compared with Eph. 2.11. & cir­cumcision the seale of the flesh, hath the H. Spirit of promise which is the Spirituall seale to succeed in place therof, Eph. 1.13.14. which seale of the Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, as circūcision of the flesh was an earnest of the inheritance of the land of Canaan to the carnal Israelites: & I desire to be enformed in al the Scriptures where baptisme is called a seale, for I deny that the baptisme of water is the seale of the new Testament, though I cannot deny that the baptisme of the holy ghost is the seale.

I say therfor that the seale of the Spirit must go befor the baptisme of water: & as al the ordinances of the new Testament are Spiritual, & yet visible, so is the seale of the new Testament Spiritual, & yet visible: & thervppon men being visibly sealed with the Spirit as Cornelius company was. Act. 10.47. may challendg the baptisme with water, as Peter there teacheth: this visible seale of the new Testament is confessi­on: as in the old Testament circumcision was their confessiō: & baptisme is not a seale but a manifestation of the seale. You see therfor that baptisme is not the seale of the new Testament, & that circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to A­braham, & al his carnal seed: now the place of Col. 2.11.12. which you produce to prove that baptisme cometh in the rome of circumcision, is not so to be construed, but the Apostle teacheth the vertue of Chr. circumcisiō & baptisme, which is mor­tifying & burying of sinne & resurection from sinne: & the Apost. doth not intend to teach that in the new Testament baptisme succeedeth for circumcision: but hee teacheth the vertue of Ch. circumcision & baptisme in the Faithful: so that seing circumcision was a seale of the promises of the old Testament to the carnal seed, & that the Spirit is the seale of the promises of the new Testament to the faithful seed of A­brahā, therfor neither doth baptisme of water succeed circumcision, neither doth baptisme with water seale vp any promises to the Faithfull, but onely doth [Page 10] visibly declare what promises they already are partakers of, viz: of the Spirit of pro­mise.

Againe: in your second reason you would infinuate a restraynt in the new Testa­ment, 1. baptisme be not due to infants seing circumcision was due to infants in the Old Testament: I answer many wayes: 1. Seing that baptisme doth not succeede cir­cumcision, this alegation is nothing to the purpose: 2. Seing baptisme is both to male & female it is larger then circumcision which was only vppon the male: 3. seing that baptisme is both to Iew & Gentil, therfor more larg then circumcision: but these things are almost nothing to the purpose: Therfor I say more pertinently, That the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ is now as larg as ever it was. For that was never made with Abraham & al his carnal children, but only with Abra­ham & the Faythful, & so it continueth in the same tenor stil: & it is enlarged now since Christs comming only in respect of the cleerer, & more vniversal publication o [...] it: for then the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ was shadowed out darkly in types, now since Christ it is preached plainly: then it was only to the Iewes, now to al nations, Mat. 28.19. besides I affirme that circumcision was never a seale of that covenant that God made with Abraham in respect of Christ, for the Holy Spirit of promise is the seale of it: but circumcision only was a seale of the external covenant: & the seale of the Spirit is as large as the seale of the Flesh For all the carnal Israelites were carnally sealed, al the true beleevers are sealed by the S [...] ­ri [...]al the males were carnally sealed, al that have the male Christ formed in them (whither men or weomen) are sealed by the Spirit: For in Christ ther is neyther male nor female Gal. 3.28. al the carnal seed were carnally sealed whither yong or old, so all the Spiritual seed are Spiritually sealed whither new borne babes in Christ, or perfect men that are come to the measure of the age of the fulnes of Christ: & so the covenant is not lessened, taking things in their due proportion, & not perverting them. & whereas you say in Christ all the promises of God are yea & amen, 2. Cor. 1.20. therby insinuating that in the new Testament the covenant must be as large as in the old, I confesse it to be as larg, but this place is strayned to the proving thereof: For the meaning of it is that vnto the Faythful all the Lords promises are verefied, but his promise was never that al their carnal seed should have baptisme as a seale of life & salvation, but that al the beleevers should have the Spirit of promise which is the new Testaments seale.

From that which I have answered to your second argument I reason thus.

• 1. If al the carnal infants of Abraham were never actually vnder the everlasting covenant in respect of the actuall possession of it, then they never had title to the seale of the everlasting covenant.
• But al the carnal infants of Abraham were never actually vnder the everlasting covenant in respect of the actual possession of it: Seing that Abrahams chil­dren according to his actual Fayth were only vnder it, Rom. 4.11.
• Ergo: al the carnal infants of Abraham never had title to the seale of the ever­lasting covenant, & therfor not to baptisme.

• 2. If baptisme doth not succeede circumcision, then baptisme doth not pertaine to carnal infants though circumcision perteyned to carnal infants.
• [Page 11]But baptisme doth not succeede circumcision, bicause the seale of the Spirit is correspondent to the typical seale of the Flesh, & baptisme with water is only the manifestation of the seale.
• Ergo, baptisme doth not aperteyne to the carnal infants.

• 3. If circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham & all his carnal infants: then (by your proportion) baptisme doth not seale vp the everla­sting covenant to the Faithful & their carnal infants.
• But circumcision did not seale vp the everlasting covenant to Abraham & all his carnal infants.
• Ergo: (by your proportion) baptisme doth not seale vp the everlasting covenant to the Faithful & their carnal infants.

• 4. If beleeving parents do not stand in Abrahams rome to conveigh the covenāt to their infants, then though they be baptized themselves, yet their children shal not.
• But the beleevers do not stand in Abrahams rome, to conveigh the covenant to their infants: For no man is the Father of the Faythfull as Abraham was, & he did never conveigh the everlasting covenant to his carnal infants.
• Ergo: though beleeving parents be baptized themselves, yet ther infants shall not be baptized.

• 5. If infants of the Faythful do not occupy the place of the true children of A­braham, but only occupy the place of the carnal children: then though the true children of Abraham, 1. the actual beleevers be baptized, yet the infants shal not which cannot actually beleeve.
• But the infants of the Faithful do not occupy the place of the true children of A­braham, seing the children of Abraham do the Workes of Abraham, Ioh. 8.34. which infants cannot doe.
• Ergo though actual beleevers be baptized, yet infants shal not.

And thus much may suffice for answer of this second argument which you see is as weake as the first being built vppon the same sand.

Marc. 10.13.14. & Mat. 19.13.14.

3. They that are of the Kingdome of God have right & title to all the Holy things therto belonging, & may perticipate of so many of them as they are ca­pable to receave.

But the infants of beleeving parents are of the Kingdome of God.

Therfor the infants of beleeving parents have right & title to al the holy things therto belonging, & may participate of so many of them, &c. And consequently of baptisme, seing they are capable of that.

The major proposition I thinke wil not be denyed, it is written 1. Cor. 3.21.22. Al things are yours, &c. Rom. 9.4.

The assumption is Mat. 19, 13-17. For of such is the Kingdome of God, meaning that this Kingdome stood not only of such as being of yeeres that beleeved, but also [Page 12] of their infants. And this he declareth not only in this saing, but also by his displea­sure against his Disciples for hindering their comming vnto him: by commaunding to suffer them to come, & by putting his hands vppon them, & blessing them. Mat. 19.13.14.15. For would Christ have blessed them that were not of his Kingdome? or do not the blessings apperteyne only to the children of the Kingdom, even to the seed of Abraham, Gal. 3.8.18.

If it be objected that children are not capable of baptisme. I answere, they are as capable thereof as the infants of Israel were of circumcision, being both pertakers of the same promises with them. & in al respects as capable of the outward seales of the covenant, as they were. And therefore the infants of beleevers are to bee baptized.

Your third argument followeth, from Marc. 10.13.14. Mat. 19.13.14.

• They that are of the Kingdome of God, have right & title to al the holy things the [...]to belonging, & may participate of so many of them as they are capable to receave.
• But the infants of beleeving parents are of the Kingdom of God.
• Ergo, the infants of beleeving parents have right & title to al the holy things therto belonging, & may participate of so many of them &c. & consequētly of baptisme, seing they are capable of it.

The major you say is written, 1. Cor, 3.21.22. Rom. 9.4.

The assumption is proved Mat. 19.13.14,

To this argument of yours I make answer diversly: first you have not proved that the visible Chur. & al the ordinances therof perteyne to infants of the faithful: For the infants of the Iewes that were presented to Chr. were not infants of belevers for ought that I see: neither can it be proved that they were infants of the Iewes, but their is some likelyhood to the cōtrary: seing the disciples repelled thē that brought thē: it may be they were the children of some of the Romane soldiers, or some Cana­nitish persons: but suppose they were children of the Iewes, how is it proved that their parēts were belevers? seing that the people of the Iewes were for the most part stifnecked & vncircumcised in hart. & if they had beē the childrē of beleving Iewes that were baptized by Ioh. or Chr. disciples- (by your doctryne the infants were al­ready baptized) what need was ther to bring thē to Chr. except it were for popish confirmation? & so hence you cannot conclude baptisme. I avouch constātly against you that either they were not the children of Iewes: or that they were not the in­fants of beleving Iewes or if their pare [...]ts beleved, yet it followeth not that therfor these infants were of the Kingdom of God, or to be baptized: for Chr [...] doth not say, of these, but, of such is the Kingdom of God: & so he doth expound himself Mat. 18 3-6. besides how can you prove that by the Kingdome of God Chr. vnderstandeth the visible church of the new Test. or how can you prove that Chr. blesseth none but members of the visible Chur? or how can you prove that the blessing of Abraham aperteyneth only to the members of the visible church? or that from this particular of Chr. praying for infants Mat. 18.13. baptising of infants followeth? or how cā you [Page 13] prove that Christ obteyned for them, & prayed for remission of sinnes, the H, ghost, faith, everlasting life? for many were brought to Chr. for releef of bodily infirmityes.

Secondly: I deny that, bicause Christ blessed some of the infants of the Iewes or Gentils vppon special intreaty, therefore it may hence be concluded that generaly the covenant & seales of the covenant (as you cal baptisme) doth aperteyne to them: for ther is not the same reason of al infants, as of some specialy blessed: as of Iohn Baptist, Ieremy, Sampson.

Thirdly if baptisme doth aperteyne to infants bicause Chr. blesseth some particu­lar infants, & bicause Chr. saith the Kingdom of God doth aperteyne to such, then the L. supper also: for if you say, they are not capable of the L. supper in two respects: 1. for that they cannot eate it, 2. for that they cannot examine themselves: I answer they must have it assoone as they can eate it: & they cannot confesse their sinnes & faith, & so cannot be baptized.

Fourthly: I would know why the Apo. put infants back, & why Chr. did not commaund them to be baptized: Surely, if they had been the infants of belevers, or if the Apo. had known Chr. mynd for baptisme of infants he having so fit an opportunity would have put it in practise: but the deep silence of baptisme in this place where ther is so just an occasion doth instruct vs evidently that Chr. either did not deale faithfully which to say were blasphemy, or th [...] he never purposed the baptisme of infants.

You see therfor by that which hath beē answered that both your major & minor are weak & the Scriptutes alledged by you do not confirme them: for the place 1. Cor. 3.21.22. declareth that al things are yours: that is theirs that actually beleeve & are baptized: & al the ordinances of the visible church are theirs both in title vse & possession: So that hence you must nedes prove if your arg be good that infants must have the vse of al: only your caution helpeth you, viz: that they may pertake so many meanes as they are capable of: but wher is this caution expressed in al the scriptures do you think that the members of the Church are not capable of al the meanes of salvation? but I avouch vnto you that this place perteyneth only to baptised persons not to persons vnbaptized, & therfor it fitteth not your purpose.

Rom. 9.4. The covenants & promises perteyne to the Israelites: I deny the word aperteyneth, it is put into the Text, & perverteth the meaning of the Apo. For Paull intendeth not to prove that the carnal Israelites were al actually within the covenāt of grace & salvation by Chr. being really possessed of it, but that vnder the outward covenant & promise wherof they were really seased, the Spiritual covenant & pro­mise was offered & presented vnto them, the one preaching the other, the law being a scholemr. to Christ.

Lastly, wheras in the answer of an objection you intimate that infants now are as capable of baptisme as infants were of circumcision, being both equaly capable of the covenant & seales, I answer: that baptisme is not the seale of the covenant of the new Test. as circumcision was the seale of the old Test. & that infants of the old Testa. were capable of circumcision absolutely seing that to be circumcised ther was no­thing required but a foreskinne apt to be cut of: but to baptisme in the new Test. ther is required actual saith & repentance confessed by the mouth, Mat. 3.6. Act. 4.37. & 10.47.

From this answer I collect arguments against pedobaptistry thus.

• 1. They that are not members of the visible Church, have no title to the holy things of God, & therfor are vncapable of them: & so of baptisme.
• Infants of the Faythful are not actually members of the visible Church: For these places. Marc. 10.13.14. Mat. 19.13.14. do not prove that the parents of these infants were beleeving Iewes, or if they were beleevers their infants were already baptized with their parents according to your doctryne, & so Christ cannot intend baptisme to aperteyne to them, but the rest of the or­dinances.
• Ergo: Infants of the Faythfull have no title to the Holy things of God, & so are vncapable of them, and by consequent vncapable off Bap­tisme.

• 2. If the Apostles by putting back infants presented to Christ declare plainly that infants were not to bee brought to bee baptized of Christ: then in­fants were not baptized by Christ, nor commaunded to bee baptized by him.
• But the first is true: that the Disciples put back infants presented to Chr. &c.
• Ergo: The latter is true: that infants were not baptized or commaunded to be baptized by Christ.

• 3. If the persons presenting infants to Christ to be blessed & prayed for: do not desire baptisme for them: then they knew no such custome vsed by Christ to baptize them.
• But the first is true: that persons presenting infants to Christ to be blessed & prayed for, do not desire baptisme for them.
• Ergo: they knew no such custome vsed by Chr. of baptising infants.

• 4. If Christ receaving infants, praying for them, blessing them, doth neither bap­tize them, nor commaund his Disciples to baptize them: then eyther Christs pleasure was they should not be baptized, or els hee forgatt his duty, in not Teaching baptisme off infants vppon so just an oc­casion.
• But Christ receaving infants, praying for them, blessing them, doth neyther baptize them, nor commaund his Disciples to baptize them: ney­ther did forgett his duty in not teaching baptisme of infants occasioned.
• Ergo: Christs pleasure was (and is) that infants should not be bap­tized.

• 5. They that are not actualy possessed of the promises or covenant, are not actu­ally to be invested with baptisme.
• Infants are not actually possessed with the covenant: Seing they performe not the condition, viz: confession of their sinnes & their Fayth actually.
• Ergo: infants are not to be invested with baptisme.

This shal suffice for answer of your third argument.

1. Corinth. 7.14.

• [Page 15]Iff the children of beleeving parents be holy, then are they with in the co­venant off Abraham, and so consequently have ryght to the seale thereoff.
• But the first is true, 1. Cor. 7.14.
• Ergo the second.

Touching the former proposition. I take it, that none wil affirme holines in any that are not of the covenant, for in that respect, Israel was called a holy nation. Exo. 19.6.1. Pet. 2.9. & al others vncleane, Act. 11.3. & 10.15. that were without. Iff in­fants be within the covenant, then can not the seal be denyed to such, seing the Lo. hath joyned the promise & seale together, Gen. 17.10. which no man may or ought to Seperate, Mat. 19.6.

What can be objected against the assumption, I see not, seing the Apostle plainly affirmes, but now are your children holy. Vnlesse it may be said, as of some I have heard, that as the vnbeleeving wyfe is sanctified to the husband, so are the children viz: to the vse of their Father: but this to affirme is a great abusing of the Scripture. For the Apostle in that place answering an objection that the Faithful is defiled by the society of the vnfaithful: proveth that the faithful husbād may with good con­science vse the vessel of his vnfaithful wife, by an argument from the effects, namely bicause their children, which are borne of them, are accounted holy or within the promise, God having said to al the Faithful, I wil be thy God, & the God of thy seed. As for that other straunge exposition, that the Children of a beleeving Father are no otherwise sanctified then the vnbeleeving wife is vnto her husband, viz: to their Fathers vse only, that cannot stand with the meaning & purpose of the Apost. For so much may be said of an vnbeleeving servāt, that he is for the vse of his master to do him service: if children be no more holy then so, then have they no prerogative in being the children of a beleeving Father, neither is the objection removed by this answer.

If it bee further pressed that the vnbeleving wife is said to be holy, as wel as the children, yet is she not within the covenant. I answer, that she indeed is not holy, as be her children, for she being an infidel is without Gods covenant, & therfor she is said to be sanctified in her husband, the Apostle respecting their mariage, which though it was contracted before either party beleeved, yet stands firme & not dissolved when either of them is called to the Faith, so that the beleeving husband may lawfully vse her as his wife, if she be content to dwel with him, 1. Cor. 7.12. Now the children cannot be sanctified or Seperate to such vse to their Father, as the wise is to her husband. And therfor are the children called holy, bicause they are the seed of a beleeving Father.

Your sourth argument is from 1. Cor. 7.14. thus.

• If the Children of beleeving parents be holy: then are they within the covenāt of Abraham, & so consequently have right to the seale therof.
• But the first is true: 1. Cor. 7.14.
• Ergo the second.

I answer: First denying your majors consequent: Seing that al the nation of the [Page 16] Iewes were holy, & yet not within the covenant of Abraham, I meane as you do of the everlasting covenant in respect of Christ: that they were not al within that cove­nant is plaine, Rom. 9.6. al they are not Israel which are of Israel: vs. 7. neyther are they al Children bicause they are the seed of Abraham, vs. 12. God revealed, that the Elder should serve the yonger, Act. 7.51. yee have alwayes resisted the holy ghost, as your foreFathers have done so do you: if it be objected that the place of the Ro­manes is spoken in respect of Gods secreat election, & not of mans knowledg, I an­swer, the vs. 12. is plaine of that which was revealed vnto the Church, & yet Esaw was holy & circumcized when he was borne, being not vnder the covenant of A­braham in respect of Christ: & for proof of this point that the whole Church of the Iewes was not vnder the possession of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ: but only vnder the offer of it, I vse these reasons.

• 1. First: The condition or obedience of the matter or members of the New Testament is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members off the old Testament.
• Faith & repentance is the condition & obedience of the matter or members of the new Testament, Marc. 1.15.
• Ergo: Faith & repentance is not the condition or obedience of the matter or members of the old Testament.

The reason of the major is evident, seing that as the ministery, worship, & govern­ment of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature then the ministery worship, & government of the new Testament is, so the constitution, viz: the matter & Forme of the Church of the old Testament was of another nature, then the con­stitution that is the matter & forme of the new Testament is: Seing therfor that the ministery, worship, & government of the old Testament was carnal, the constitutiō must also be carnal: Therfor the matter & forme must be carnal: Therfor Faith & re­pentance was not required to the matter of the old Testament, but only a carnal ho­lines, viz: The circumcision of the foreskinne, whereby the carnal forme, that is the carnal covenant or commaundement was induced vpon them, & wherto they were tyed in obedience, Heb. 7.16. Gal. 5.3.

• 2. Secondly. The type, shadow, figure, similitude of a thing is not the truth, the substance, the thing it self: True is nature & reason.
• The constitution, viz: the matter & forme of the Church of the old Testament is the type, &c. The constitution or the matter & forme of the church of the new Testament is the truth, &c. Heb. 10.1. & 9.19.23.
• Ergo: The constitution, viz the matter & forme of the Church of the old Testa­ment, (that is the members, & covenant) is not the truth: that is the members are not truly holy, but ceremonialy holy, the covenant is not the everlasting covenant, but the typical carnal covenant or commaundement: & so true holines that is Faith & repentance was not required to the mēbers or mat­ter of the Church of the old Testament.

• 3. Thirdly, that which was not nor could not be accomplished, performed, ef­fected or produced by the walking or communion of the Church off the old Testament, was not required, or exacted, or presupposed to the constitu­tion [Page 17] of the Church of the Old Testament.
• Iustification & Faith, Sanctification & repentance, were not effected, perfor­med, accomplished, or produced by the walking or communion of the Church of the Old Testament, Heb. 9.9. Gal. 2.15.16.
• Ergo: justification & Faith, Sanctification & repentance were not required to the constitution of the Church of the old Testament: & so by consequent, the members of the Church of the Old Testament were not truly holy in their constitution.

• 4. That which brought not perfection & life to the members, presupposed not Fayth & repentance to the members: and so not reall or true ho­lynes.
• But the Old Testament, the Law, & the obedience of the Law brought not perfection & life to the members of the Church of the old Testament, Heb. 7.19. Gal. 3.21.
• Ergo: The Old Testament, or the Law, or the Church of the old Testament did not presuppose, Fayth, Repentance, or true Holynes in the members.

• 5. That which was a Schoolmr. only to teach Christ, did not presuppose that the Schollers had already learned Christ or put on Christ, which is only done by Faith & repentance.
• The law or old Testament was a Schoolmr. only to teach Chr: Gal. 3.14. Rom. 10.3.4.
• Ergo, The Law or Old Testament did not presuppose that the Schollers had learned Christ or put on Christ, which is only done by Fayth and Repen­tance.

• 6. That which was hidden, kept secreat was a Mystery, & not revealed the mem­bers of the Church of the old Testament, in their constitution were not in­dued withal.
• Faith, or obedience to the gospel was a mistery, & not revealed, but kept secreat from the beginning. Gal. 3.23. Rom. 16.25.
• Ergo, The members of the Church of the Old Testament were not indued with Fayth or obedience to the gospel in their constitution.

• 7. Ther is no condemnation to them that are in Christ, Rom. 8.1.
• Ther is condemnation to them that are vnder the Law, Gal. 3.10. For it is the Ministery of death or condemnation, 2. Cor. 3.7.
• Ergo: The Law or old Testament doth not presuppose Christ: or they that are vnder the Law are not in Christ: & so the members of the church of the old Testament were not truly holy.

Finally, the whole disputation of Paul to the Romanes & Galatians concerning justification by Faith in Christ without the workes of the Law doth evidently con­firme this excellent truth. Teaching that seing the vtmost obedience of the Law did not effect or produce justification, therfor of necessity it followeth that the Law or old Testament did not presuppose it, or true holines in the members therof: For it had been a vanity to have given them a Law which should not or could not pre­serve & produce that which was in them in ther first constitution: wherfor I doe [Page 18] bouldly defend against all men, that the Church of the Old Testament in the matter or constitution of it was not really Holy, but only Typically: & therfor the members therof admitted in by circumcision were not truly holy or sanctified, or in actual possession of that everlasting covenant which God made with Abraham in respect of Christ: but only vnder the offer of it in that typical Testament given to Abraham, & afterward assumed written & amplified by Moses, Ioh. 7.19-23. com­pared with Heb. 8.8.9.

Having sufficiently confirmed this truth, I returne in particular to answer your objections saying stil that the nation of the Iewes was holy, not truly but typically & that their holines was this, that by that external covenant whereinto they were by circumcision admitted, they were trayned vp, or Schooled to Christ, being by all the ceremonial law & old Testament, or carnal commaundement, as it were by so many meanes consecrated or dedicated to that holy cad & purpose, which was tiped & shadowed by those figures & similitudes of heavenly things. Therfor as the word sanctifying or hallowying is vsually taken in the old Testamēt for the setting of any thing apart to a holy vse: so were the people of Israel holy: even an holy natiō above al the nations of the Earth, See: Exod. 19.10.14.15. Iob. 1.5. Deu. 14.1-4. compared with Act. 21.28. & for the place which you aledg, Ex. 19.6. to prove the Israelites an holy nation, I say, that either the meaning is that they were typically, holy, trayned vp to holines, or that they by attayning the end of the law should attayne true ho­lines in Christ: So that this place is nothing to your purpose of the holines of the e­ternal covenant which God made with Abraham: So that though infants be vnder offer of the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ, yet shal not baptisme be administred vppon them, as your consequent doth import, bicause that in the old Testament none were circumcised but those that were actually feased vppon that external covenant: & therefore none in the New Testament shalbe baptized but those that are actually possessed of the covenant of the New Testament: but the ac­tual possession of the promise is by obedience to the Faith: For by Faith (saith the Apostle. Gal. 3.14.) we receave the promise of the Spirit, & we receave the Spirit by the hearing of Faith preached, Gal. 3.2. & Faith cometh by hearing of the word preached, Rom. 10.17.

Secondly, I answer concerning the consequent of your Majors consequent that it shal not follow that bicause children are vnder the covenant (as you suppose, but we deny) that therfor they thal have the outward signe or seale therof: for you know vnder the law the females were actually vnder the covenant of the old Testamēt, & yet were not signed with the seale: & before the law was given al that were actualy vnder the covenant vntil the tyme of Abraham had no external signe or seale therof. if you say in opposition to the circumcision of the female that she was vncapable of it: I answer the L. had abundance of Spirit, & if it had been his wil that al vnder the covenant should be pertakers of the signe or the seale therof, he could in wisdom & would vndoubtedly have appointed such an external signe or seale that might have bene administred vppon al vnder the covenant, but seing the L. chose out the male only for circumcision, the by he purposed to teach in a type that only the male (that is, one that is in Christ) shalbe sealed with the Spirit of promise vnder the new Test. [Page 19] But if you say in oposition to that before the Law, that ther was no seale or signe appointed by God for them vnder the covenant, bicause the L. thought it not meet or needful. I say that herby it apeareth that, to be vnder the covenāt, was not the cause of title to the seale, but the particular expresse commaundement or wil of God: & so the insufficiency of your consequent appeareth, which importeth that to bee vnder the covenant is reason sufficient to prove a partie to be intitled to the seale or signe of the covenant: & this excellent truth herby is manifested, that if it should be gran­ted that infants were actualy vnder the covenant yet it could not follow thervppon that therfor they should have the signe of seale of the covenāt, which you say is baptisme, except it could be proved by expresse commaundement otherwise: for this ar­gument you see proveth it not: Hence therfor apeareth the weaknes of your argu­ment, viz: that if infants were holy, & so vnder the covenant, yet it doth not follow that therefor they shall have the signe or seale of the covenant which (you say, but we deny) is baptisme.

But I passe vnto your assumption: which you say is evidēt, 1. cor. 7.14. but now are your children holy: you affirme that infants of one of the parents Faithful are holy: I except many things here first: I desire that you expound vnto me what this holines is which the Ap. here mentioneth: happily you wil say it is to be vnder the covenant, then I demaund what it is to be vnder the covenant? prehaps you wil say (though this be to runne in a circle) it is to be justified by imputation of Chr. righteosnes. Thē I demaund which of these three, viz. to be holy, to be vnder the covenāt, to have Ch. righteousnes imputed, is first in nature? happily you wil say: First, they are vnder the covenant. Secondly, they are justified by the imputed righteousnes of Chr. Thirdly they are sanctified or holy. Then I proceed, & demaund when do infants come vnder the covenant: when they are conceaved: or when they are borne? or when the parēts are converted being already borne? It wilbe answered: That these infants that are begotten of Faithful parents come vnder the covenant in their conception: & these infants that are already borne come vnder the covenant when their parents are re­generate: hereby then it appeareth that the covenant is conveighed to the children from the parents by generation, & by filial relation: herevnto add that if it be true that some say, that children vnder the government of the faithful also are vnder the covenant, that the covenant is conveighed also by pupilship or adoption & if bond­slaves or servants being infants be vnder the covenant bicause of their beleving Mrs. then servitude is also a meanes or instrument of conveigning the covenant from Mr. to Servants: this being propounded then as the truth you hold, that plead for Pede­baptisme, then you maintayne, that [...]g generation, filial relation, pupilship, adoptiō & servitude are meanes to bring infants vnder the covenant, then they are meanes to bring infants vnder justification, & vnder sanctification: So that it followeth that we must account al the infants of beleeving parents that are childrē by nature & by adoption, al infants of beleeving Mrs. that are borne in slavery or servitude to be ju­stified & Sanctified, bicause the covenant is communicated vnto them by the fore­said relation: Then I proceed & demaund why may not all the infants borne vn­der one King, if his subjects, bee all his Servants & Vassals (as they say) bee by that relation brought vnder the covenant, & so be accounted justified [Page 20] & sanctified: For relation of a King & a subject borne so is as neer as the relation of a Mr, & Servant, or an adopted Child: And then I demaund, seing the relation of a mā & a wife is neerer a great deale then any relation of adoption or set vitude, why the wife shal not be vnder the covenant for the relation of mariage: happily it will bee said the wife being of yeeres cannot bee admitted bicause of her vnbeleefe [...]: & I say that infants of parents & Mrs. cannot bee admitted, bicause of their want of Faith being vnder yeeres: but it wilbee said that the covenant with Abraham was with him & his seed only: I say, that it was made (by your confession) with him and his adopted infants, with him & his pupils being infants, with him & his Servants being infants: & therfor not only with him & his seed: & seing some not of his seed may be admitted into the covenant, & those that are further of, why shall not those that are neerer as his wife: but you wil say bicause infants do not refuse the covenāt, they may be admitted to baptisme, though adopted childrē, though pupils, though Servants: but wives refusing the covenant may not: I further insist that as infants do not resist, so they do not consent: & that al the Children, Servants, & Wives, that do not resist, may bee admitted, though they cannot make declaration of their Fayth & repentance: if you say: not so: bicause that in them that are of yeers Faith & repentance is required, but of infants no such thing is required: I answer, first shew that by Scripture, & then I say ther is no reason why Faith & repentance should bee required of one to make him capable of the covenant of justification, & Sanctification more then of another, except you wil say that God is accepter of per­sons: & further the covenant is only with Abraham & his seed, not with his adop­ted Children, not with his pupils, not with his Servants, & therfor in thē Faith and repentance must necessarily be had, & so they cannot bee baptized til they shew their Faith & repentance which is contrary to your doctryne: besides you cannot shew in al the Scriptures that persons may be said to be partakers of the covenant actually, except actually they fulfil the condition of the covenant: & if you say that infants being vnder the covenant, justified, & sanctified, therfor they have Fayth & the graces of God in them, I say that is contrary to the Scriptures which say that Faith commeth by hearing: & that the word is the immortal seed of regeneration, wherby new borne babes vnder the gospel are regenerate: & if it be said that infants have a kind of Faith wrought in them invisibly, & after an hiddē manner: I say what God worketh invisibly, & secreatly we dispute not nor regard, but what he worketh visibly & to our knowledg, & by the meanes appointed for the communion of the Church: For ther is but one Faith, which is the common Faith of the members of the Church, which is visibly seen by speaking & confession, according as it written I beleeved & therfor I speake, Tit. 1.4. & if it be objected that then wee doe condemne al infants dying before they be converted: I say No: wee pronounce nothing of in­fants, but leave the secreat of them to the Lord, who hath reserved secreat things to himself: Hence then I conclude that seing you cannot declare what this holines is which infants have, seing they cannot have actuall holynes: Seing you cannot declare that they have Faith or justification, seing they cannot have actuall Fayth: Therfor you cannot declare that they are actually vnder the covenant, by actuall Faith & holines: & so if they bee not actually vnder it, but vnder the offer of [Page 21] it onely, that is it which wee affirme, & which wil help you nothing to baptisme of infants.

Secondly, I desire that you would prove vnto me by Scripture, that in this place. 1. Cor. 7.14. Holines signifieth true sanctification, or to be actually vnder the cove­venant, having it really invested vppon them, You endevour to declare it out of the text: For you say Paul answereth an objection, viz, that the faithful are defiled with the Society of the vnfaithful, & proveth that the Faithful husband may vse the ves­sel of his vnfaithful wise with a good conscience by an argument drawne from the effects, namely, bicause their Children are holy, & vnder the covenant: God having said to the Faithful I wilbe thy God, & the God of thy seed. Wel, let vs see the force of your reason: your fourth argument was this.

• If infants be holy then are they vnder the covenant.
• Infants are holy:
• Ergo infants are vnder the covenant.

Your proof that infants are holy is this.

• If infants be vnder the covenant, then infants are holy.
• Infants are vnder the covenant.
• Ergo infants are holy.

I ask you Sir, in good sooth, is this circular reasoning sound: you say infants are Holy, bicause they are vnder the covenant, & you say they are vnder the covenant bicause they are holy: Let al men judg whither you have proved infants Holy or not.

Thirdly I answer that (Holy) doth not so signify as you expound, neither is the argument taken from the effects, but from the greater to the lesse after this manner.

• If your children (in your owne judgment) be holy, & you do not put them away when you are converted to the faith, but vse thē stil as your Children to al those vses wherto children are apointed, the relation natural of Father & sonne remayning, though you beleve: then much more the relation of mā & wife remayneth, & you may vse your wives, they being of a neerer natu­ral bond then your children.
• But the first is true by your owne confession, & by the light of nature.
• Ergo the second is true by the light of nature much more.

And whereas you say that by this exposition an vnbeleving servant is in as good an estate, & as holy as children in respect of the covenant, I confesse it to be so: & you that plead for pedobaptisme say so likewise, seing that you wil have servants vnder the covenant by their Mrs. Faith: but I would know whither the Apostle spea­keth only of infants or of al Children generally: if generally of al Children, then all the Children of the Faithful are holy, yea even those that are vnbeleevers & then would I know how vnbeleeving children can be holy, if not as the vnbeleving wife is holy: that is to the vse of their parents in the relative dutyes of children & parents. If the Apostle speaketh only of infants, then he speaketh not so generally as God speake to Abraham saying I wilbe thy God, & the God of thy seed, for in that speech you say al the seed is comprehended whither of yeeres or vnder yeeres, yea servants, pupils, children by adoption, &c. So that expound it as you wil, it cannot be vnderstood of holines in respect of the covenant as you pretend: but you wil say [Page 22] they are to bee esteemed Holy & vnder the covenant til they manifest the contra­ry: & I say, that they must manifest that they are Holy before they can bee estee­med Holy: & that you cannot prove that assertion from the Scripture: & the peo­ple of the Iewes Abrahams carnall Children were Holy when they declared the contrary by their sinnes, Exo. 19.6. compared with Exod. 32.9. & 33.3.5, so are the children of the Faithful holy though they be vnbeleevers as the wife is holy though an vnbeleever.

Finally you say: God hath said to all the Faithful, I wilbe thy God & the God of thy seed: I deny it vtterly: God said that only to Abtaham, Genes. 17.7. & whither you expound it literally, or Spiritually, I avouch confidently against you & al men that the meaning of it is not, that God made his covenant with the fayth­full man, or the Faythful woman & their infants begotten of their Bodyes: but that literally the meaning is, I willbe God vnto thee Abraham & thy seed ac­cording to the Flesh to give them the Land of Canaan: & so it is expounded Genes. 17.8. Or Spiritually the meaning is, I wil give vnto Abraham the Father of the Faithful, & al that are his Spiritual seed, everlasting life, which is the true Land of Canaan: The latter which is the truth being signified by the former which is the type: & shew mee in all the Scriptures that God said to every Faithful man & woman (for you must prove it spoken of women aswel as men) that he will be God vnto them & their seed: For I would fayne know why the covenant should passe vnto the infants of the Faithful: it wilbe said bicause of the Fathers Faith: this is false doctryne: For the Prophet teacheth that every man shal live by his owne faith & that one mans faith cānot conveigh the covenāt of justificatiō to another neither can one mans sin cut of another from the covenant as this doctrine importeth: but the soule that sinneth it shal dye.

Neither wil it avayle to plead that the covenant made with Abraham was an everlasting covenant. For berith gnolam in the original doth not import a covenant of everlasting continuance, but a covenant that doth continue his proper tyme: For gnolam signifieth any hidden tyme, or any set tyme of any length, as 50. yeeres the tyme of the jubile: But let it be graunted that the covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17.7. was the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ, (which yet I do not see proved) what then shal it follow that bicause it was with A­braham & the Faithfull whither Iewes or Gentils beleeving actually as Abraham the Father did: Therfor it is made with the Faithful men who is the child of Abra­ham: & with his children begotten of his body which have not Abrahams actuall Faith, & so are not the children of Abraham: I deny it vtterly: For the Apostle saith the seed is but one to whome the promises were made, viz: Christ or the actual be­leevers: For Christ dwelleth in the harts of men by Faith onely. Gal. 3.16. Eph. 3.17. But if it bee made with the Faithful who beleeve actualy which is one seed whither Iew or Gentil, & the infants of the Faithful carnally begotten of their body, which is another seed, (for they are not begotten of the immortall seed of regeneration:) then the covenant is made with the seedes which are many : & that is directly contrary the Apostles wordes, Gall, 3.16. Therefore the one seed is persons ac­tually beleeving, & actually justified by the righteousnes of Fayth, as Abraham the [Page 23] Father of al the Faithful was, Roman. 4.11. whence this Argument may bee framed.

• Abraham is the Father of al them that actually beleeve.
• Infants do not actually beleeve.
• Ergo, Abraham is not the Father of infants: & so infants are not vnder the covenant of Abraham.

• Againe Abrahams covenant was only to Abrahams one seed, that is only to the be­leevers.
• Infants are not actuall beleevers.
• Ergo, Abrahams covenant is not to infants: & so infants are not vnder the everlasting covenant of Abraham.

• Againe. They that are the children of Abraham, do the workes of Abraham.
• Infants cannot do the workes of Abraham.
• Ergo infants are not the children of Abraham: & so not vnder the covenant of Abraham.

Againe. I reason thus:

• They that are not vnder the everlasting covenant made with Abraham shal not be baptized.
• Infants are not vnder the everlasting covenant of Abraham.
• Ergo: infants are not to be baptized.

These & many other such Arguments may be colected out of the answer to this fourth Argument of yours: but these shal suffice.

1. Corinth. 10.1.2.

If the infants of the Israelites were baptized in the cloud & in the sea, as well as their parents, what letteth the infants of beleeving parents vnder the gospel, to bee likewise partakers of baptisma aswel as they?

The former the Apostle affirmes, 1. Cor. 10.1.2. & therefore good warrant must bee shewed, that our infants are cut of from this priviledg that the Iewes Children had. And if the former Baptisme of the Iewes was a Type of our Baptisme, then must there bee an agreement betweene the Type, & the thing Typed, which is not, if our Children bee not baptized, as well as theirs.

The depriving of our Children of the Sacrament, is to shorten the Lords bounty towards his people of the New Testament, that being denyed to their children, which God gave to his people, & to their infants vnder the Law, is to deny them (in regard of their seed) the like assurance & comfort, which the Israelites had of theirs. And so to make our estate worse & more vncomfortable then theirs was: & yet the Prophets prophecyed of the grace that should come to vs, & did inquire & seach after the same. 1, Pet. 1.10.

Glad tydings were preached to Abraham & his seed to infants of eight dayes old Gal. 3.8. And this before Christ came in the Flesh, therefore much more he being come, is joyful trydings brought vnto vs & our infants & so are we to beleve that the [Page 24] grace of God is not lessened either towards vs or our children, but inlarged by his comming.

Your 5. argument is taken from 1. Cor. 10.1.2. framed thus.

If the infāts of the Israelites were baptized in the cloud & in the sea, aswel as their parents, what letteth the infants of beleving parents vnder the gospel to be likewise partakers of baptisme aswel as they?

The former the Apostle affirmeth, 1. Cor. 10.1.2. & therfor good warant must be shewed that our infants are cut of from this priviledg that the Iewes children had: that baptisme being a type of our baptisme,

To this argument I make answer: by framing the like argument.

If their infants did eate the same Spiritual meate & drink which the parents did eate: then why may not our infants being able to eate & drinck, eate & drinck the Lords Supper?

The former the Apostle affirmeth, 1. Cor. 10.1.2. & therfor good warrant must be shewed that our infants are cut of from the priviledg: & those sacramēts were types of our Sacraments.

Againe, I answer more properly thus: That ther shalbe a proportion betwixt the Type & the truth, that baptisme of the cloud & sea, & our baptisme, viz: that as yong & old carnal Israelites were baptized in the cloud & sea, so yong & old Spiritual true Israelites shalbe baptized by the baptisme of repētance: & as the carnal parents with their carnal children were baptized in type: So Spiritual parents with their Spiritual children, that is such as are regenerate by the word & Spirit, shall bee baptized with the baptisme of repentance for the remission of sinnes, which is baptisme in truth.

Further I say: That our infants shal have a priviledg fair greater then the infants of the Israelites had in that typical baptisme: For they by it were only baptized into Moses & the Law: That by it they might learne Moses, & in Moses the truth in Chr. as it were vnder a vele: but our infants vnder the gospel shal have the dayly institu­tion & education of Faithful parents, which is infinitely superior to that darke pedagogical baptisme, & al the baptismes & ordinances of the old Testament: Seing that with open face they may in the preaching of the gospel see Christ Iesus, & not vnder the vele of Moses.

Moreover I deny that the baptisme of the cloud & sea was a type of the external baptisme of the new Testament, in the abstract: but it was a type of our baptisme in the concrete: that is the baptisme of the cloud did Type out our baptisme in the 3. parts therof, viz. 1. The baptisme of the Spirit, 2. The declaration of Faith & repentan­ce the antecedent of baptisme with water, 3. The outward washing with water a manifestation of the foresaid particulars: & all these to bee conferred vppon in­fants proportionable to those infants, that is, New borne babes in Christ.

And whereas you further alledg that if your infants bee not baptized, the Lords [Page 25] bounty is shortned to vs & our infants: our confort is diminished in respect of our infants which they had in respect of theirs: & the gospel is not preached to our in­fants as it was to theirs: I answer that Gods bounty, our confort in respect of our infants, & the preaching of the glad tydings of the gospel is as large & ample every way to our infants as to theirs: For Gods bounty of the actual exhibiting and fealing the everlasting covenant to Abraham & al his carnall infants was never ex­tant in the Old Testament: Neither were the parents in circumcising their infants comforted in the assured conferring of it vppon their infants: & circumcision did not so plainly preach Christ then as he is preached now to infants: but what could the preaching of Christ profit infants either then in types or now in truth? Ney­ther doe I think that the Lord ever intended to teach the infant any thing at that instant, but afterward hee was to learne that which the Schoolemr. circumcision vp­pon his Flesh taught him: viz: the circumcision of the hart: & if you say that so infants baptized are to be instructed, I answer, that in the New Testament by bap­tisme wee manifest what wee have, namely, the inward baptisme, whereas in the Old Testament by circumcision they learned what they had not but ought to have, viz: The inward circumcision of the hart, & mortification of the sinne­full Flesh.

Mat. 28.19.

• If Christ gave a commaundement for the publishing of his covenant & admini­string of baptisme the seale therof to al nations: then are the beleving Gētils & their infants to receave the same.
• But the first is true, Mat. 28.19,
• Ergo the latter also is true, Act. 13.48. & 16.14.15.32.33.

It wil be objected against the Major, that if followes not, that the infants are any more bound to receave baptisme, then they are bound why lest they are infants to receave the word, but the word they cannot receave, ergo. I answere, that the com­maundements is general to al nations, & therfor as Abraham if he should not have obeyed to the Lord commaunding him to circumcise himselfe, & al his family, yea the infants, he should grevously have rebelled against God: So whosoever of the Gentils shal not beleve & be baptized both himselfe & his seed, shall have no part [...]or portion in the inheritance of Christ: Seing he cuts himselfe of & his seed from the covenant of God, Gen. 17.14.

And though infants bee not capable of the preaching of the covenant, (which not withstanding they are bound vnto, as they shall come to yeres of discretion) yet are they capable of the seale, as before is shewed, & therefore by vertue of this generall commaundement. Mat. 28.19. are to bee Baptized.

Your 6. Argument from Mat. 28.1 [...] is framed thus.

• [Page 26]If Christ gave a commaundement for the publishing of his covenant & admi­nistring of baptisme the seale thereof to al nations: then are the beleeving gentils & then infants to receave the same.
• But the first is true. Mat. 28.19.
• Ergo the latter also is true, Act. 13.48. & 16.14.15.32.33.

The errors of this argument I wil discover in order: First I deny that baptisme is the seale of the covenant of the new Testament. Secondly I deny that circumcision was the seale of that everlasting covenant that was made with Abraham in respect of Christ: Thirdly, baptisme therfor doth not succeed in the place of circumcision, ther being only a chandg of the ceremony (as you pretend) the covenant being the same, these thre particulars are already proved. Fourthly I deny, that though Abra­ham who had a special commaundement, did circumcise his male infants, therefore Christians vppon this general commaundement, Mat. 28.19. shall baptise their infants Fifthly, I say rather the contrary is hence proved, bicause Christ commaundeth to baptise only those that are by teaching made Disciples (for so the word matheteu­sate signifieth) therfor infants are by expresse prohibition excluded, & it is as if Chr. should say, I wil have you make them Disciples & baptise them that are made Dis­ciples by teaching & no other: & so Christ expresly excludeth infants. Lastly, I deny that infants are capable of baptisme, for they cannot confesse their faith & their sinnes, neither declare that they are baptized inwardly with the Spirit, & so cannot outwardly by the baptisme with water declare the same, but are in every respect vnable therto, & vncapable thereof.

Hence therfor I reason against baptising infants.

• 1. They only are to be baptized that are made Disciples by teaching.
• Infants cannot be made Disciples by teaching.
• Ergo, Infants are not to be baptized. Secondly I reason thus.

• 2. Every precept affirmative contevneth a negative vnder it.
• Make Disciples by teaching & baptise them, is an affirmative conteyning vnder it, baptize not those that are not made Disciples by teaching.
• Ergo, those that are not by teaching made Disciples, are by Christ forbidden to be baptized: & so infants are not to be baptized.

3. Thirdly I reason thus.

• They that are vncapable of baptisme are not to be baptized.
• Infants are vncapable of baptisme: Seing baptisme confisting of the inward bap­tisme of the Spirit, expressed by confession in word, & washing with water in action: infants are vncapable of the two former parts of baptisme.
• Ergo infants are not to be baptized with water which is the latter.

• 4. If the new Testament be as cleer & perspicuous as the old, & Christ the Media­tor of the new Testament as faithfull as Moses the Mediator of the old Testament: then the persons to be baptized, & the conditiō of baptisme, & the tyme of baptisme are as cleerly & faithfully described in the institutiō of baptisme, as the person, con­dition & tyme of circumcision.
• But for pedobaptisme ther is no expresse description of the person, condition, or [...]y [...]e of their baptisme [...] for true baptisme: ther is most evidently, & faithfully set [Page 27] downe the persons, condition, & tyme of administring it, viz: persons confesting their sinnes, Mat. 3.6. wheras persons impenitent were put by, Mat. 3.7-12. compa­red with Luk. 7. vs. 29-30. Persons beleeving. Act. 8.12.13. & vs. 36-38. persons that had receaved the holy Ghost, & expressed the same by prophecying, Act. 10.46-4 [...] persons penitent, Act. 2.38. persons that are by teaching made Disciples, Mat. 28.19. Ioh. 4.1. persons borne againe Ioh. 3.3.
• Therfor such persons are to bee baptized who are thus particularly described, wherein the new Testament is as cleer as the Old, & Christ the Mediator as Faythfull as Moses: & no other but these: For if others bee, then is not the New Testament so cleer as the Old, nor Christ as Faithful as Moses, which to say is to blaspheme.

Lastly, the Apostles practise is our instruction, but they baptized not onely the master of the family which beleeved, but al his howsehold. Act. 16.15.33. Therefore now also the like is to be done: & so consequently the infants are to be baptized, for they are 2 part of the family. & that infants are of the family, see Gen. 45.18. where Ioseph bad his brethren, take their Father, & their howsehoolds, & come to him, now in chap. 46.5.7. it is said they caried their Children & wives in charets, no­thing hereby, that children were of the howsehold, els had they no commaunde­ment to have caried them into Egypt, see also vs. 27. & Exo. 1.21. it is said, bicause the Midwyves feared God, therefore he made them howses, in 1. Tim. 5. [...]. the Apo­stle saith, he that provideth not for his owne, & namely for them of his houshold, he denyeth the faith, &c. Now I would aske if childrē be exempted from the hows­hold in any of these places, or in any other where is mention made of a particular howshold. Therefore this argument wil prove that children were baptized, vnles it can bee shewed that they were specially exempted. & if the holy ghost have not exempted them, who dare do it against a general commaundement of bapti­sing al nations.

Your 7. argument is taken from Act. 16.15.33. framed thus.

• The Apostles practise is our instruction.
• But they baptized not only the Mr. of the Family which beleved, but al his hows­hold Act. 16.15.33.
• Therfor now also the like is to be done: & so consequently infants are to be baptized, for they are a part of the family.

I make answer to this argument confessing it wholy, but yet denying the conse­quent of your conclusion: For it doth not follow bicause al the howshold of Ly­dia & the Gaylor were baptized, that therfor infants were baptized: you shal [...] what exceptions I take.

First, I say though infants are a part of the family when the family hath infants in [Page 28] it, yet it doth not follow that whersoever ther is mention made of a Family, that therefore that Family had infants in it: except therefore it bee proved that the f [...]mily of Lyd [...], & the family of the Gaylor had infants in it, this allegatiō is no­thing.

Secondly, by this reason you might prove that Lydias Husband, & the Gaylors wife, & their children of 40 yeeres old, & their Servants of 60. yeeres old, were bap­tized. For al these are parts of a Family, yet I supose you wil not say they were al of them baptized, except you can prove, that Lydia had a Husband, or the Gaylor had a wife, or children of 40. & servants of 60. yeeres old: your argumēt therfor is weak presupposing the thing that is in question.

Thirdly, if it were yeelded that ther were infants in Lydias Family, & in the Gay­lors, doth it therfor follow that they were baptized? nothing lesse: & that I will de­clare thus.

1. You say that to the baptising of the Gaylors wife, & children of yeeres of discretion ther was necessarily required Faith & repentance, or els they were not baptized: So say, I that bicause infants cannot beleeve & repent, though they were in the Family yet shal they not be baptized: For ther is one conditiō required for al persons to be baptized.

2. I say: that although it be said that al that perteyned to the Gaylor were baptized, yet it is also said vs. 32. That the word was preached to all that were in his howse: & vs. 34. That al his howsehold beleeved, & how came their faith but by the word preached vs. 32. Seing therfor that al that were baptized in the Gaylors hows beleeved by the preaching of the word: infants that could not beleeve by the prea­ching of the word, were not baptized if he had any: besides it was a mervailous di­stempered tyme at midnight to wake children, & to bring them before the Apostles for baptisme.

3. I say: That for Lydias Family it is not said that all her howsehold was bap­tized: or if it had been so said, yet it followeth not that every particular person off her Family was baptized. For Mat. 3, 5.6. it is said that al Iudea went out to Iohn & were baptized of him, confessing their sinnes: yet hence it cannot bee conclu­ded that all & every one that went out were baptized: or that all & every one went out to bee baptized: no more can it bee proved that bicause it is said that Lydias Family was baptized, that therefore all & every particular person was bap­tized, but as Mat. 3.6. only they that confessed ther sinnes: & as Act. 16.32-34. onley they that beleeved by the word preached were baptized, so was it with them of Lydias Family that were baptized: For the Apostles I doubt not kept one order, & required the same conditions in al that they baptized: So that by that which hath been said the vanity of this argument is manifested: & it is proved plain­ly that none were baptised in the Gaylors Family, but only they that beleved after the word preached & so infants specially are exempted, if he had any in his family which yet is not manifested.

Hence therfor I reason thus against baptising infants.

• 1. The Apostles practise is our instruction.
• But the Apostles in baptising howseholds, first preached the word to al that [Page 29] were in the Family, Act. 16.32. & then the beleeving were baptized, vs. 34.33.
• Ergo: They only that by the preaching of the word were converted & belee­ved were baptized. Againe I reason thus.

• 2. That which the Apostles practised in one Family, they practised in all Familyes that they baptized.
• But in the Gaylors Family, according to Christs commission, Mat. 28.19. They first made them Disciples by preaching the VVord: Act. 16.32-34,
• Ergo: So they practised in al Familyes: & therfor in the Family of Lydia, of Crispus, Act. 18.8. of the Ruler: Iohn, 4.43. & so no infants were bap­tized.

And this shal suffice for answer to your arguments.

Herevnto I wil adjoyne some testimonyes of the Fathers, not to prove that chil­dren ought to be baptized, which is to be done, & is by the Scriptures already pro­ved; but to shew the practise hereof in auncient Churches. Augustine (as I find alledged) writing to Ierome, Epist. 28. chap. 5. Saith Cyprian not ma­king any new decree, but firmely observing the Fayth of the Church, judged with his fellow Bishops, that as sone as one was borne, he might Lawfully bee baptized. See Cyprian Epist. to Fidus. And writing against the Donatists, Lib. 4. Chap. 23. & 24. saith, that the baptisme of infants was not deryved from the authority of man, neither of counsels, but from the tradition or doc­tryne of the Apostles. Civil: vppon Lev: Chap. 8. approveth the baptisme off infants, & condemneth the iteration of baptisme. Origine vppon the Roman sayth, that the Church received baptisme of infants from the Apostles. Nazianze­nus in Orat. in S. Lavacrum. 3. saith: That baptisme agreeth to every age, to every condition of life, to all men, if thou hast an infant, that is Sanctifyed from his infancy, yea from the finger ends it is consecrated. After hee faith: Some man wil say, what sayest thou of infants which neither know what grace is nor payne, what shal wee baptize those? & he Answeres, yea verily. Amb: Lib. 2. de Abrah. Chap. 11. Speaking of baptisme, faith, nether Old man nor prosolite, nor infant is to be excepted, bicause every age js guilty of sinne, & therefore stands nede of the Sacrament These & many others of the Fathers doe beare witnesse according to the Scriptures of the Lawfullnes of the baptising of insents.

And heer for a conclusion you produce the Fathers: I say that the producing of Fathers who al of them held plenty of Antichristian heresies, shal avayle you nothing in your cause: & you that deny the testimony of Fathers contrary to the scriptures, how can you with any color of equity produce Fathers against vs in a case cō ­trary to the Scripture, is it not to set darknes against light? doe not you [Page 30] know that al the Fathers even every one of them brought his stone to the building of the Temple of Antichrist: but I know your drift in the producing of Fathers, viz: First to set a gloze vppon your Antichristian heresy of baptising infants. Secondly to draw the world into dislike of the L. truth: but if a mā should produce testimonyes of Fathers against your Seperation, against you in the case of Presacy, Preisthood, & Deaconry, [...]ead prayer, & other parts of your cause, what would you answer? would not you say, that they were testimonyes of men living in corupt tymes, contrary to the Scriptures, &c. Even so say I to you: but you say that you do not bring testimo­ny of the Fathers, to prove any thing: wel then: you confesse they prove nothing: re­member that, & let al men take notice that you produce testimonyes that you say prove nothing: but why do you produce testimonyes of the Fathers: Forsooth, to shew the practise of auncient Churches: but al those Churches were Antichristian by your owne confession: & what doth antiquity Antichristian, or vniversality an­tichristian help you against the truth? Therfor I say: The truth needeth not the testimony of Antichrist: & old vniversal antichristian errors shal not prevayle against the truth: I have shewed you that from the beginning it was not thus: go; baptisme of infants is a Novelty: but let vs shew you some footsteps of the bringing in of baptising infants, & that out of the Fathers.

Henricus Pantaleon: Chronolog. fol. 16. saith: Victor Apher in the yeer 193. or­deyned: that at Easter baptisme should be indifferently administred to al hence then it followeth that before his tyme only such as were Catechised in the Faith were baptized: For he would not decree that heathen should be baptized.

Eusebius. Eccles. Histor. Lib. 7, Chap. 8. saith that Novatus rejected the Holy bap­tisme, & overthrew the Fayth & confession which was accustomed before baptisme: whereby it appeareth that Fayth & confession were required before bap­tisme, and therefore the rudiments thereof still remayne, that in bapti­sing of infants, a confession of sinne, and Fayth is required of the suretyes or parents.

The same Euseb. Lib. 10. Chap. 15. reporteth the story of Athanasius baptising children in sport: which baptisme was approved (though done in sport) by Alexan­der Bb, of Alexandria, after that he by examination had found that the children had questioned & answered according to the manner of the Catechumeni in baptisme: wherby it appeareth that then only persons by confession of their Faith & sins were admitted to baptisme in Alexandria.

Hosius: Petricoviensi confess. de fide. chap. 27. saith that these two are Aposticall traditiōs, which the Scripture teacheth not: viz: that ther are; persons & one God: & that Dionisius & Origen doe testifie baptisme of infants to be an Apostical tradi­tion: Now you know that their Aposticall traditions were antichristian inven­tions.

Polydor. Virg. Lib. 4. Chap. 4 de inventoribus rerū. saith thus: It was in vse with the auncients, that persons of yeeres (sere) in a manner should be baptized clad with whyte garments: Lactantius.

And this was performed at Easter & whitsontide except in necessity: in the meane tyme til the Feasts of Easter & whitsontyde came they were catechised: this testi­mony is of good instruction.

Ludovicus Vives, writing vppon the first book of August: de Civitate dei. chap. 27. saith: that in auncient tymes no man was baptized but persons of yeeres, who could vnderstand what the mystical water signified, & required baptisme ofter then once: & therfor now the infant to be baptized is demaunded three tymes, if hee wil be baptized, for whome the suertyes answer, yea.

Erasmus Rotrodamus in his annotations vppon the fifth of the Roman. saith, that in Paulls tyme it was not receaved, that infants should bee Bap­tized.

Thus have I thought good to shew you testimonyes of men & so by setting mā against man, to lead you & vs al from m [...]n to the holy Scriptures, which is the rock wherevppon we may safely build: which as you have heard flatly forbiddeth the baptising of infants, who cannot bee made Disciples by teaching. Mat, 28.19. Iohn. 4.1.

Now let vs come to considet of the reasons alledged to the contrary, the first of them is this.

2. Bicause there is neither precept nor example in the New Testament of any in­fants that were Baptized by Iohn, or Christs Disciples, onely they that did confesse theire sinnes, & confesse theire Faith, were baptized, Marc. 1.4.5. Act. 8.37.

Answere.

First, this reason being brought into forme wil be wray the weakenes of it: For suppose that should be graunted that there were nether a special commaundement or example in the practise of Iohn or Ch [...] Disciples, for the baptising of infants, yet may it notwithstanding be lawful to baptize them, namely, if by some consequēce it may be gathered out of the Scripture. And this may be done by good warrant from the example of our Saviour Christ, Mat. 22.31.32. wher reasoning against the Saduces concerning the resurrection, proves it by an argument necessarily drawen from Exo. 3 [...]6. where no such thing was expressely mentioned. And thus he taught vsually & refuted his adversaries, as the History of the Gospel witnesseth. After the same manner doth Paul in his Epist. to the Romanes & Gal. prove justification by Faith onely without works of the law this he did not prove by alledging any place in al the old Testament in plaine termes affirming so much, but by conclusions of necessary consequence from the Scriptures. & to this purpose might divers other in­stances be aledged. So likewise if we prove the baptising of infants by vnanswerable arguments out of the Old & New Testament (though we cannot shew any playne precept or example,) yet may we vppon warrant thereof, not feare to baptise them. For the author of this reason him selfe cannot deny, that both he & we must beleve diverse things which wee gather out of the Scriptures by necessary consequence, [Page 32] that wee shall not find in expresse words. As that there bee three persons in on [...] Godhead, that the sonne is Homousios, that is of the same substance with the Fa­ther: Now such expresse words cannot bee shewed in the Scripture, & many such like.

2. Secondly, also if this argument be sufficient to barre children from the Sacra­ment of baptisme, then is it as sufficient to kepe back women from the Lords Sup­per, for there is no speciall precept, nor yet example that VVomen should pertake of the Lords Supper, but the Lawfullnes there of is onely proved by con­sequence, bicause they are within the covenant, & are pertakers of the Sacrament of baptisme, thus the weakenes of this reason being manifested, I will thirdly answere vnto it.

3. Thirdly, that ther is both precept by Christ & example by his Disciples for the baptising of infants as hath bene proved by my two last reasons alledged to prove the Lawfullnes of baptising of infants: Commaundement, I say, Mat. 28.19. Goe teach al natiōs, baptising them, where is no exception of the children of faithful parents: & therfor ther being a Law once given, that the covenant should be sealed to the infants aswel as to the beleeving parents, the same Law of sealiug the covenant must stand stil in force to the parties (though the outward signe be chā ged) except the Law maker do repeale it, or have set downe some ground for the re­peale therof which must be shewed: or els this commaundement doth b [...]nd vs & our infants to receave this seale of the covenant. And as for examples we read that the Apostle baptized Lydia & her howshold. Act. 16.15, & the Keper, & al that be­longed vnto him, vs. 33. both which seming to be great Families, it is not likely that they were without children, though the Evang: mention them not.

But the exception is that only such as did confesse their sinnes, & confesse their Faith, were baptized. I desire that to be proved that only such & no others were to be baptized. Cōcerning Iohn, indeed he was sent to cal the people to repētance, & so to prepare the way of the L. Mat. 3.3. & so many as did repent & confesse their sinnes he baptized, but did Iohn refuse their children if they brought them to him? but it wil be said, ther is no mentiō made that he did baptise thē, no more say I, is ther that they were offered vnto him. Ther is no mention that the Disciples of Chr. were bap­tized, & yet it were to bold a part, & no doubt very false to affirme that they were not baptized: Not al things that Iohn did, not yet that Chr. did, in the particulars, are written Ioh. 20.30. but the sume therof. & therfor to gather an argument frō hence, bicause ther is no mention that children were baptized by Iohn, therfor they ought not to be baptized is a larger conclusion, then the premisse wil beare. & so the reason taken from the baptising of the Evnuch, (Philip baptized no childrē, when he bapti­zed the Evnuch) is of no waight, to prove that therfor childrē ought not to be bap­tized. Was not the Evnuch a strāger far from his country, now in jorney homeward & therfor not likely that he should have children with him specially in such a tedi­ous jorney, & not knowing of this accident.

Now in the next place you proceed to make answer to my three arguments [Page 33] against baptising of infants: In answer to the first argument you say that if it bee brought into forme it will bewray the weakenes of it: Wel I will bring it into forme, & then let vs streng then it where it is weake: as thus

• That which hath neither precept nor example, is not to be done.
• Baptising of infants hath neither precept nor example.
• Ergo, baptisme of infants is not to be done.

Againe another part of my Argument may bee brought into forme thus.

• That which hath precept & example must be practized.
• Baptising of persons confessing ther sinnes & their Faith is commaunded, & was practised by Christ, Iohn, & the Apostles.
• Ergo, those persons are the persons to be baptized.

My Argument therefore consisting of an affirmative which includeth a negative is as, I take it a forcible Argument: Let vs see your answer & [...]ceptions.

First, you say that a consequence necessarily drawne from the Scripture is suffici­ent to prove the baptising of infants, though ther were no special commaundement or example: as Christ proveth the resurrection, Mat. 22.31.32, out of Exod. 3.6. by necessary consequent & as Paul in the Epistles to the Rom. & Gal. proveth justifica­tion by Faith only without workes, by necessary consequents: & wee beleeve many things that are not expressed in words: as 3. persons in one Godhead, & that Christ is coessential or consubstantial to the Father: this is your answer or exception: wher to I reply thus.

Although a necessary consequence in al cases shal prevayle, yet I say the Lord cannot leave [...] in this particular to necessary consequence he dealing plainly & Fayth­fully with vs: For seing the new Testament is more manifest then the old, the Gos­pel being with open face, the Law being hid vnder the vele: & seing Christ is as Faithful, yea much more faithful then al men, & therfor is called Amen, the Fayth­ful & true witnesse: & so hath as faithfully prescribed al the ordinances of the new Testament as Moses did the ordinances of the old Testament: & seing Moses hath set downe distinctly & most plainly, the persons with their qualifications to bee cir­cumcised, & the circumstance of the tyme when circumcision was to be administred: either Christ hath as plainly & fully set downe these particulars in the new Testa­ment, or els the new Testament is not so plaine as the old, & Christ is not as Fayth­ful a [...] Moses: For it had been easily said, goe teach, make Disciples, & baptise them, & if they have any infants baptise them without teaching them or thus? baptise me of yeeres when they confesse their sinnes & their faith, but baptise al the infants of the faithful, though they cannot confesse at al their sins & saith, or it had beē easily said: Iohn baptized them that confesse their sinnes & ther yong children also: but to say that Christ, Iohn, & the Apostles leaveth direction for this maine mater, only by darke obscure, far fetcht, probable conjectures & consequents from the old Te­stament which was only typical, & is abolished in respect of the Types, & that [...] hath not left evident & vndeniable ground for it distinctly & expresly in al the fore­said particulars, is to say that Christ is not so plaine & Faithful in his office prophe [...] ­cal, as Moses was, who hath taught al these particulars so distinctly as nothing is [Page 34] more plaine: & therfor though I must needes yeeld that necessary consequents are true, yet I deny that in this case the Lord hath left vs to consequents, & it is against his truth, his Faythfulnes, & the evidence of the new Testament, so to do,

More over seing that the new Testament was wrapt vp & p [...]eached obscurely in the old Testament, & the types therof, it was necessary that Christ should out of the old Testament prove the resurrectiō, & Paul out of the old Testamēt prove justifica­tion by faith without work: for the Iewes would not beleeve any thing contrary to the law or without warrant of the law: & the Gentils, namely the Galatians es­pecially, being seduced by them of the circumcision, Act. 15.1. must needes have their mouths stept by the law: & ther were no Scriptures but the old Testament, & the ordinances of the new Testament could not be so plainly drawne out of the old Testament without consequents but new the new Testament being written, & al the ordinances therof plainly taught by Christ & his Apostles: why shal wee bee sent to obscurityes, & conjectural consequents, seing that wee may with open face look into the glory of Christ, as it were into a glasse, & therein see al the beauty of the new Ierusalem as cleer as Christal, Revel. 21.11. 2. Cor. 3.18. & whereas you would fetch arguments from the old Testament to prove the baptisme of infants, we having the cleer light of the new Testament, you therin set vs to Schoole to the rudiments of the world, & put aside the light of the sunne at noone, & set vp a candle as the Papists do in their funerals: for although it be meet that we attend vnto the Prophets as vnto a light shining in a dark place, yet seing the day star is come, & the sunne of righteousnes is risen vppon vs, let vs walk in this cleer light, & vse the other when we want light, as with the Iewes who deny the new Testament: & in o­ther like occasions.

Besides the trinity of persons, & vnity of essence in the Godhead is proved by playne words, 1. Iohn. 5.7. & hereby the Homoiousia of Arrius is confuted: as also: Phil. 2.6. & for the word person it is, Heb. 1.3. & the word God­head is Roman. 1.20. So that hereby you gett nothing: but I say still that whatsoever cannot bee playnly shewed in the New Testament, is not needfull for vs to know in the New Testament, if it bee an ordinance of the New Testament as baptisme is: but the trinity & vnity is no part of the New Testament more then of the Old Testament, & being common to both may be sought out of both, & so any other common truth.

Finally, I say shew mee any necessary consequence for baptizing infants, eyther out of the Old Testament or New Testament, & I yeeld: but I desire it may wel bee observed, first, that you are driven to consequents for this matter, & therein simple witted people may easily bee mislead by a Logician: Secondly, that the Gospel of Christ is for babes: Mat. 11.25. & therefore the most simple person is, capable of it: & so ther shal need no obscure consequents out of it for they are not able to comprehend them: & lastly, that the consequents that are brought I avouch to be meer hallucinatious & sophismes, as I have already declared & shal doe here­after more fully as they shal be produced.

Your second answer & exception is, that if want of Special precept & example, [Page 35] barre infants from baptisme, it shal also barre weomen from the Lords Supper: I deny it, for in playne termes it is said: 1. Corinth. 11.28. Let Anthropos, viz: ey­ther man or woman eate after examination: & Gal. 3.28. Ther is neither male nor female in Christ Iesus, but al are one, & 1. Corinth. 10.17. wee that a [...]e many are one bread, & one body, being al pertakers of one bread, & 1. Corinth. 12.13. whee have been al made to drink into one Spirit, & Dorcas is a Disciple: Act 9.36. & the Disciples meet together to break bread, Act. 20.7. & the Disci­ples continned in breaking bread: Act. 2.41.42. being first 3000. then 5000. a­mongst whom ther was Sapphyra, & the VVidowes of the Grecians, Act. 2.41. & 5.1. & 6.1. & so this exception is nothing to the purpose.

Your third answer & exception followeth, wherein you doe affirme that there is both precept & example for baptising infants, the Commaundement is, Mat, 18.19. The example is of the infants of Lydra, & the Keper of the prison: Act. 16.15.33. To these I have already given answer in the 6. & 7. reasons going before, & therefore hold it needles to repeat it heer againe: onely one thing is heer to bee answered that you object. viz: That the Law once given of sealing the infants as­wel as parents, must bee retayned, except a repeale can bee shewed: I answer, (be­sides that baptisme is not the seale of the New Testament, but the Spirit: & that circumcision was not a seale of the everlasting covenant made with Abraham in re­spect of Christ but of the Old Testament) that when Princes & common wealths make Lawes to endure but for a tyme, when the tyme is expired then they are re­pealed if they be not reestablished: So, though it were graunted that infants of the Old Testament were by circumcision sealed to the covenant made in respect of Chr. which I peremptorily deny, yet seing the tyme of circumcision is exspired therfor infants are not now to be sealed (as you say) by baptisme: for the exspiring of the tyme is the repealing of the Law: therfor vntil you can shew that baptisme of infants male & female is in the new Testament established: I wil desend that they are not to be baptized especialy the female infants which were never appointed to be circumcised: but I count these but slender exceptions.

In the last place you require proof that only persons that confessed their sinnes & their faith were to be baptized: I prove it vnto you thus.

• 1. They only were to be baptized that Christ commaunded to be baptized.
• Persons made Disciples by teaching, were only commaunded to bee baptized by Christ, Mat. 28.19.
• Ergo: persons made Disciples by teaching, were only to be baptized.

The minor of this argument is evident, Mat. 28.10. wher this being the affirmative you shal make then Disciples by teaching them, & then baptise thē: this must needes be the negative, you shal not baptise them til you have made them Discip [...]es by teaching: & so persons taught were baptized & they only.

2. Againe: considering that in every affirmative ther is included a negative: therfor whersoever an example is that persons cōfessing the r sinnes & their faith were bap­ti [...]ed, the [...] is signified that those that did not confesse their sins & their Faith, were [...] baptized: For wee must know that the body is one: & the Fayth is one, & the Spirit one, & the baptisme one, & the seed one: & that there is not [Page 36] two in Christ but one: For in the new Testament they know God from the least vn­to the greatest, Heb. 8.11. & they are al taugit of God, Ioh. 6.45. & the least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater then Iohn. Mat. 11.11. & this do I take to be a plaine proof of the point which you desire.

You say further that the reason why Iohn baptized no children, is for that they offered them not. wel: I say that his preaching was such as peremptorily excluded infants: For it was the baptisme of repentance for the remission of sinnes: Marc. 1.4. & he required confession of sinnes, & repentance of them that he baptized, Mat. 3.6-11 compared with Luk. 7.29.30. otherwise he would not baptise them: & therfor Chr doctryne is the same with Iohns, Mar. 1.15. both therby signified vnto their hearers. that whosoever would be baptized & enter into the Kingdome of God, must repent & beleeve the gospel: For being not regenerate (though they were Iewes, & begot­ten of Faithful parents) yet they could not enter into the Kingdome of God, Ioh. 3.3.5. & heer it would bee considered vnto whome Christ & Iohn Baptist preached: did he not preach vnto the Iewes the Lords owne holy people: & yet he said repent & beleeve: & required of them amendement of life: Now if they had been truly re­generate in their comunion as is pleaded, Iohn needed not thus have preached, nor Christ have required such conditions of them, but onely they might in few words have said: come you Faithful & beleeving Iewes, you & all your infants be baptized at once: For baptisme is for circumcision: but Iohn saith, think not to say you have Abraham to your Father: & Christ saith, you are of your Father the Devil: & Iohn saith, the Lord wil purge his floore: wherby it is evident that the Iewes were not Faithful in their communion: & that they perceaved plainly that seing repentance & Faith were required by Iohn & Christ particularly, which must bee declared by confession, therefore it was in vayne for them to offer their infants whom they knew Iohn & Christ would not baptise, but excluded from baptisme by their doctryne.

Againe, wheras you say ther is no mention made that Christs Disciples were bap­tized, & yet it were boldnes to affirme they were not baptized: & so al Christs & Iohns actions are not written but only the summe: & therfor though it be not men­tioned that infants were baptized, yet in the summe it may be collected they were: I answere, for the Disciples of Christ it is plaine they were baptized, Ioh. 4.1. & Ioh. 1.35.40. & for the summing & particularizing of al Iohn Baptists or Christs actions, I say it was not needfull to set downe the particulars but the kinds: & if ther had been any commaundement or example of baptizing any one infant, it had been suf­ficient, though it had not been mentioned how many particular infants: but as it fel out in circumcision that one particular precept was sufficient, though it were not written how many thowsand were circumcised, so likewise of bap­tisme.

Finaly, for that you say of the Evnuch, though I intend it not as you answere i [...] me thinks that some mention should bee made of Philip to the Evnuch, or of the Evnuch to Philip, his infants or children being at home far of concerning infants: or at least of some other that had infants, or did baptis [...] persons that had infants, & that after this manner: What have you any infants? Let them bee brought to baptis­me [Page 37] aswel as your selvs: For they have title to it through your Faith, or thus, I have infants I pray you let them be baptized aswel as my self: or thus, do you repent & you shalbe baptized & your infants: but the deep silence of infants baptisme, yea the exclusive condition of beleeving & repenting necessary to the Kingdom of God, yea & the confession of sinnes & confession of Faith performed by persons baptized, yea & Christs commaundement of making Disciples before baptisme, all these & many mo are strong profes vnanswerable against baptisme of infants.

The next reason is this.

2, Bicause Christ commaunded to make Disciples by teaching them & then to baptise them, Matth. 28.19. Iohn. 4.1. But infants can not by Doc­tryne become Christs Disciples. And so can not by the rule of Christ bee baptized.

Answere.

1. The Apostles were indeed commaunded to make Disciples, & to cal vnto the Faith & fellowship of the Gospel, not onely the Iewes, but the Gentils through out the world, Mat. 28, 19. & gave them power to preach the Gospel, which before had been preached to Abraham, Gal. 3.8. & to baptise al that did receive it: & thus we graunt that faith must go before baptisme, in al such as are to be made Disciples, & brought into the covenant of God: So went Faith before circumcision, Abraham first beleeved, & after was circumcised, & likewise must al they which with Abrahā enter into Gods covenant, first beleeve & then be baptized as the Evnuch, Act. 8.37. Lydia. Act. 16.13. & the Keper of the prison, Act. 16.33. But when such have re­ceived the Faith, then are their infants & howshold capable also of baptisme as Abrahams Family was of circumcision, he beleeving the promises, Gen. 17. & therfor it is written, that when God opened the hart of Lydia, that she did atend to the VVord that Paul preached, & beleeved, not only the her selfe, but al her howshold were baptized, & yet is ther no mention of the Faith of any of them, save of Lydias onely. & so the Kep beleeving al his received baptisme, & this is proportionable to the ex­ample of Abraham, whose Faith we find sufficient to interest al his seed in the cove­nant, & make them capable of the seale.

2. Secondly, Christ taketh the same course (in giving out this commission to his Disciples, Mat. 28.19.) in bringing the Gentils into Gods covenant, that the L. tooke with Abraham, for making his covenant with him, that he should be the Father of many nations, &c. He did not first commaund him to be circumcised, but preached to him the gospel or covenant. Gen. 17.1-8. & he beleev [...]ng was circumcised & his howshold So here is a commaundement, first, for the publishing of the Gospel to them that were not in Christ, & then for baptising such as beleeved with theire Familyes, for that is included in this Commaundement, els had not the Apostle baptized the Familyes of Lydia, & of the Kep. as before hath been: noted.

1. Thirdly, if children shalbe excluded from baptisme bicause they cannot be ma­de [Page 38] Disciples by teaching, & so beleeve, then by as good reason may they be exclu­ded from salvation, for he that saith, he that beleeveth & is baptized, shalbe saved, saith also, he that beleeveth not shalbe damned, Mar. 16.16. if therfor want of faith be sufficient to exclude infants from baptisme: then likewise the want of Fayth is sufficient to exclude them from Salvation, for if the former be held to be the meaning of Christ, then must the latter also bee graunted, a thought whereof is to bee ab­hord.

Lastly, general rules must bee taken with theire sence & meaning. It is a generall rule given by the Apostle: 2. Thess. 3.19. That if any would not worke hee shousd not eate: yet if any should gather from hence that the impotent & infants should not eate, bicause they doe not worke, this were to offer vio­lence, & to wrest the Apostles doctryne: So Christ giving a general rule for the ma­king of Disciples, & baptising them, now to deprive the infants of beleeving parents of baptisme, bicause they cannot receive instruction, which is intended onely of them that bee capable thereof & vnconverted, is to diminishe the commaundement of Christ, even like as hee that should say, infants cannot beleeve, & therfor cannot be saved.

Againe, that can never be the true meaning of a Scripture whē it is expounded so as it contradicteth other Scriptures, or any sound conclusion gathered out of the Scriptures, as this exposition of the Anabaptists vppon this place of Mat. 28.19. doth, as my formet reasons for the baptising of infants, doe playnly ma­nifest.

Next followeth your Answere to my second reason: which reason of myne is framed thus.

• They that cannot by Teaching bee made Christs Cisciples, ought to be bap­tized.
• Infants by teaching cannot be made Chr. Disciples, Mat. 28.19. Ioh. 4.1.
• Ergo infants ought not to be baptized.

Your answer to this argument of myne consisteth in 4. particulars.

First, you say, that as Abraham first beleeved, & then was circumcised, & then al his houshold receaved circumcision with him: So al the beleving gentils must first be baptized, & then through ther faith al ther howshold must bee baptized as in the example of Lydia, & the Gaylors family: of whose faith ther is no mention made, as neither of the faith of Abrahams family.

To this first particular of your answer I say, that you erre mistaking the Scriptures For Abrahams faith did not go before his circumcision as a necessary antecedent to establish him a member of the Church of the old Testament, but as a necessary pre­sident, example, type, or paterne of justification: & circumcision in Abraham was not a seale of his justification, or of the everlasting covenant God made with him in re­spect of Christ, therby to establish him into Christ, (for he was in Christ & sealed in Christ many yeres before, by the seale of the Spirit:) but Abrahams justifi­cation [Page 39] in vncircumcision, was a type of the justification of the Gentils who are vncircumcised: & Abrahams circumcision alter his justification sealed him vp to bee the Father of all the beleevers circumcised: & so circumcision had a triple vse in Abraham one generall & two speciall & particular: the two speciall are these:

First circumcision sealed vp Abrah. forme of justification to be a paterne to al the beleevers in vncircumcision: that the beleeving gentils should be al justified by actu­al faith, as he was.

Secondly, circumcision sealed vp Abrah. forme of justification to bee a paterne to al the beleevers in circumcision, that the beleving Iewes should be al justified by ac­tual faith as he was.

The general vse of Abrah. circumcision was common with him to Ismael & al the persons of his family. & al the carnal Israelites, viz: to seale him vp to the old Testa­ment, & to the observation of the whole Law, wherby Chr. in that vele of the old Testament was preached vnto the Iewes, it being ther Schoolmr. to teach them Christ.

Now for the place. Rom. 4.11. which I am assured you wil ground your assertiō vppon, I say, it is both falsely translated, & expounded: for (tes en te acrobustia) is vsually translated which Abrah. had when he was vncircumcized: & this I say is a false translation: For this is the true translation, viz: which (is or was or shalbe) in the vn­circumcision: meaning that circumcision vppon Abrah. the Father of al the beleving Gentils was a seale of justification to al the vncircumcision that beleeve: & the end of his circumcision is his Fatherhood of the Faithful: & the righteousnes of faith is not sealed vp to Abrah. particular person, but to the vncircumcised that beleve. & that which was sealed vp in special to Abrah. was his Fatherhood or presidentship of justification: So that circumcision in Abrah. was to establish him the Father of the Faithful Gentils, & his circumcision doth teach the Gentils that if they wil partake Chr. they must by their actual faith apprehend Christs righteousnes, as Abrah. their Father did, otherwise they cannot be justified, & so Pauls intent is plainly proved, na­mely, that al men must be justified by faith without the works of the law: & this do I confidently affirme to be the true translation & exposition, & that the common acceptation & translation of the place is the mother of this heresy of pedobap­istry.

Againe, al the persons of Abrah Family were not circumcised, bicause of Abrah. saith, but the males, al & only the males, were circumcised bicause of the special cō ­maundement of God: Gen. 17.10. the males being assumed as types for to teach thē figuratively the male Ch. & circumcision of the hart by him & the females were vncircumcised as they were also put out from being the matter of the burnt-offring (for the males only were offered in burnt-offring) to signifie that those that had not the male Chr. in them were not fit eyther to be members of the church of the new Te­stament, or to be sacrificed vnto the L. Mal. 1.14. but if Ch. the male were in thē whi­ther male or female in Chr. it was nothing: they were accepted, Gal. 3.28.

Further you say that as it was with Abrah. & his family in circumcision, so was it with Lydia & the Gaylor, & their familyes in baptisme that is not so: I shew the difference in divers particular.

[Page 40]1. They of Abrahams Family were circuncised vppon particular precept in obedience of the Commaundement: Genes. 17.23. you cannot prove that the infants of Lydias & the Gaylors family were baptized vpon particular precept, but only you say it, & indevour to justifie it by the example of Abra. family: but if Abra. family be an example then you must bring a particular precept (as he had) for bapti­sing infants.

2. They that were males only were circumcised, but you wil have both males & females baptized: this is another difference.

3. They that were circumcised of Abrah. Family, were al the males being of yeres, though they were never so lewd & wicked persons: So were not al the persons of Lydias & the Gaylors family, but only the beleevers being of yeeres ac­cording to your opinion.

4. As Faith did not intitle the female to circumcision, & as infidelity did not deprive the male of circumcision in Abrahams Family: So faith did intitle the female to baptisme in the Family of the Gaylor & Lydia: & infidelity in the male did exclude him from baptisme: you see therfor that the proportion is not alike betwixt baptis­me & circumcision.

The second particular in your Answer to this Arg. is, that the same order is kept in Chr. comission, Mat. 18.19. in bringing the gentils into Gods covenant, as was kept with Abtah: he & al his Family were brought in by circūcision, after the gospel preached to him. Genes. 17.1-8. so Lydia & the Gaylor were brought into the covenant with all ther Family, & were baptized after the Gospell preached to them.

I answer, that in this particular there are differences betwixt the one act of Abrah. & the other of Lydia & the Gaylor, according to the commission of Chr. Mat. 28.19.

First, Abrah. & al his family by the Lords commaundement, came vnder the co­venant of the Old Testament actually, & the males only were circumcised: but Chr. doth not commaund all persons of a Family in the New Testament to be baptized, but only such as are made Disciples, & al them though they bee weomen as Lydia was.

Secondly: The gospel was only preached to Abrah. owne person by the L. but in the Gaylors case Paul preached the gospel to al that were in his howse. Act. 16.32. & so Chr. commaundeth to make them Disciples by preaching: So were not Abrah. Family, who being first circumcised afterward were taught the Law being a School [...] to teach Christ.

Thirdly, the gospel was not preached to Abrah. therby to prepare him to cir­cumcision, as if therby it should follow that circumcision was a seale of the Gospel or New Testament: for it is not so as I have already manifested but Chr. in the new Testament commaundeth the gospel to be preached to every creature, that is to e­very particular person, that is to be admitted into the Church by baptisme [...] & so Paul did to the Gaylors Family, & this is another difference.

The third particular in your answer to this argument is [...] if infants be excluded from baptisme for want of faith by hearing the word, then they shal also be exclu­ded [Page 41] from salvation by that reason: Marc. 16.16. I deny it vtterly: For Christ speaketh only of such as to whom the gospel may be preached, which only are men of yeeres For when he saith go preach the Gospel to every creature, he doth not bid them preach to beasts, byrds, Fishes, or infants, which have no eares to heare, but he bid­deth them preach the Gospe [...] to every creature that hath an care to heare, that is, to al that are of a docible age & nature: & then he addeth, whosoever (o [...] them that have eares to heare) do beleeve, & vppon their faith be baptized shalbe saved, who­soever (of mē that have eares to heare) do not beleve (though they be baptized) shal­be damned: now I pray you Sir, how doth this sentence include infants to baptisme, or exclude them from Salvation [...]or how doth your consequent follow: & for infants I say that either they are al saved, though they cannot come to faith by hearing, or that they are one of the L. secrets, & so not to be searched into: & that the Scripture doth speak only to & o [...] thē that have eares to heare, & o [...] things visible & known, & not of things invisible & secreat: therfor this particular of your answer is vaine.

Your last particular in the answer to my arg. is, that general rules must bee taken with ther sence: as 2. Thes. 3.10. that as infāts or impotent persons though they cā ­not work yet may eate, bicause that speech is not directed to infants, &c. so Mat. [...].19. though infants cannot be made Disciples, yet they may be baptized, seing that speech is not directed for infants: & such an exposition of that place must bee given as doth not contradict other Scriptures or necessary consequents from Scriptures.

Wel Sir: I answer you, that first you confesse heer that this place of Mat. 28.19. is not vttered of Christ in respect of infants that they should be taught, & then I say he never intended that by this place you should gather that they should be bapti­zed as you have done in your 6. arg. & heer you do evidently contradict your self as you see: & let that be remembred of you wel.

Next I say, that general rules shalbe expounded with ther sences: & as impotent persons & infants shal eate though they cannot work seing that is spoken of these that are able to work: so infants shalbe saved though they cannot be baptized, seing they cannot by teaching be made disciples: & this is not to diminish the comaundement of Christ o [...] wrest it frō the sence: but to make the cōmaundemēt of baptising larger then the cōmaundement of teaching (as you do that wil have the infants baptized that cannot be taught) is to seperate those things that Chr. hath joyned, & to wrack the cōmaund: of Chr. out of joynt, & to break thē in peeces: & woe be to thē that so do without repētāce. Finally, I confesse that it is not the true sence of a place that contradicteth either Scriptupe or true consequēt: but this truth of the L. which you blaspheme with your title of Anabaptistry, doth not contradict either Scripture or sound conclusion frō Scripture: but is agreable to the constant & most evidēt practise of Ioh. Chr. & the Apo. (for you cannot produce an instāce of an infant baptised by any of them, & most agreable to al the precepts of the Ap Chr. & Ioh. for bapti­sing persons confessing their faith & their sinns: & you are driven to most miserable shifts, & most narrow straights for your pedobaptistry, which you see cannot stand without scraping together all the wrestings & pervertings of Scriptures which you have heaped together in your answ: your principal foundation being a sandy mole­hil fetcht from the old Test: even a false ground, that circumcision was a seale of the [Page 42] new Testament, & that the covenant made with Abrah. in respect of Chr. was made with al his carnal infants, who were al in Chr. Iesus visibly in their byrth & concep­tion by vertue of the covenant: which I have proved to bee manifest vntruths, & so you see your building tottereth & wil never be able to endure the storme.

Now followes the third reason.

3. Bicause if infants be baptized, the carnal seed is baptized, & so the seal of the covenant is administred to them, vnto whom the covenant aperteyneth not, Rom. [...].8. which is a profanation.

Answere.

1. This reason semeth to imply, that the seed of the faithful is part carnal, & part Spiritual, (for I cannot imagine that the Author holdeth al the seed of the faithful to be carnal. & that the covenant aperteynes not vnto any of them, seing so to affirme contradicts. Act. 2.39.) & therfor bicause the Spiritual seed is not discerned vntil it manifest it selfe by outward profession, therefore may not be baptized, lest in baptising them, the seal should be set also vpoon the carnal seed, vnto whom belōgs not the covenant. To affirme this first is to deny that which is due to the seed to whom the promise belongs, for the wickeds sake, & so to injurie them. Secondly, this reason also serves as wel against the circumcision of the infants of the Israelites, seing at eight dayes of Age they could not be discerned, whether they were of the carnal or Spiritual seed, & so the seale of the covenāt not to be administred to thē, to whom the covenant did not belong. But as then the not discerning hereof, did no­thing hinder circumcision to bee administred to all the infants of the Israelites, no more now can the not knowing of the Spiritual seed from the carnall, hinder bap­tisme.

2. Touching the seed of the faithful, thus I conceive therof that it is carnall & Spiritual in divers respects, carnal as they do naturally descend of their parents, so are they al alike in sinne, Psal. 51.3. Spiritual, in respect of the covenant wherein they are comprehended with their parents. Gen. 17.7. Act. 2.39. in which regard al­so, al the children of the Faithful are said to be holy, 1. Cor. 7.14. & thus considered I deny the children of the faithful to be carnal seed, & do affirme that to such be­longs the covenant & the seale therof. & though some of them in the right of God be known for none of his, yet to vs it sufficeth for the administration of baptisme, that they be the seed of the faithful: & therfor as the Israelites circumcised all their children, (though some of them proved to be carnal afterward, as Ismael, Esau, &c.) so are wee to baptise al our infants, leaving secreete things to God, Deuteron. 29.29.

3, If this be sufficient to cleere vs from profaning of the Sacrament if wee bap­tise them that make confession of their faith, bicause they so doe, though they bee not the children of God, as S. Magus, Act. 8, 13. then is it not simply a profaning of baptis [...], to administer it to them vnto whome belongs not the covenant, but to [...]ne it to them which plainly appeare to vs to bee without: Therfore, if no man [Page 43] dare take vpon him to say this or that infant is carnall & without the covenant of grace, it shalbe no profanation of the Sacramēt, if it be administred vnto such, seing we ought to hold the seed of the faithful, holy, 1. cor. 7.14. If it be objected (as some have done to me, that al the seed of the faithful are carnal, & so to beheld vntil they beleeve & make confession of their faith. I answer, first, if they take carnal, as it is op­posed to the children of promise in Rom. 9.8. I vterly deny it, for the children of the Flesh can never be the children of promise, Rom. 9.8.13. These two seeds are made so opposite by the Apostle, as that the one can never be the other. Secondly, if by carnal they meane nothing els, but that natural corruption wherein we are borne: That hinders infants no more from baptisme, then it doth those that can give an ac­count of their faith, seing natural corruption remaineth stil in the purest professor, Rom. 7.23 & if it be replyed, that their natural corruption is not imputed to them that beleeve, no more (say I) is it to infants, els Christ dyed not for them, neither could they be saved, dying whilst they be yong.

Lastly, if Abrah. knowing that God would establish his covenant to Isaac Genes. 17, 19. yet circumcised Ismael, vs. 24. & Isaac knowing that God had chosen his yon­ger sonne, Gen. 25.23. with 27.33. yet circūcised Esau aswel as Iacob, & in so doing neither of them profaned the Sacrament: much lesse is baptisme profaned, when it is administred to the seed of the faithful to whom belongeth the promise, Act. 2.39. And thus having shewed the weaknes of these 3. reasons against the baptising of in­fants, let vs come to the second position, which is this.

In the next place followeth your answer to my third Argum: which Argum: of myne may be framed into this forme.

• The carnal seed is not to bee baptized: For the covenant, perteyneth not to them.
• Infants are the carnal seed, Rom. 9.8.
• Ergo infants are not to be baptized.

To this Argument you make Answer also in 4. particulars.

First, you expound my meaning, but I can expound myne owne words best: & therfor by the carnal seed? I vnderstand al children borne by carnal generatiō, what­soever though they afterward do beleeve: For they are carnal visibly to mee who­soever they bee that doe not shew their Fayth by their workes, that doe not the workes of Abrah. yea though they dye in their infancy, & are saved with the Lord: For I must judg according to that which I see, & which is manifested: & I call them carnall as Paul calleth himself carnal, Rom, 7.14. & the Corinthians carnal, 1. Cor. 3.1.3. & as in opposition to the Spiritual seed, that one seed of Abrah. vnto whome the promise was made: Gal. 3.16. & the Phrase is taken from Rom. 9.8. where the children of the Iewes are called the children of the Flesh: & Gal. [...].23. wher Ismael is said to bee borne after the Flesh, & Heb. 7.16. the commaundement is called car­nal: So children borne of their parents naturally are carnal, such were al the Iewes infants who were after the manner of Ismael. Gal. 4.23. Such are al our infants, for [Page 44] our infants are in no better estate then the infants of the Iewes: They were al borne according to the Flesh (except Isaac who was in type burne after the Spirit) Gal. 4.24.25.28. & I say that the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ did not actually fease vppon any infant of the Iewes in deed & truth: & the place Act. 2.39 doth not prove that it did: For that place is to be vnderstood of the offer: of Christ & the New Testament to all he carnal Iewes & their children, but of the real exhibiting [...]t to al that are called only: & therefore I say that to baptise infants is to baptize the carnal seed, for al infants are carnal, being conceaved [...] borne in since, being the Children or wrath, vntill the Lord work his work in them, which when he doth I know not: when I see it wrought in them by the fruites according as it is written, s [...]ew mee thy Faith by thy workes, then dare I pronounce them the Spirituall seed of Abrah, for they that are of Faith, are blessed with Faythfull Abraham: Therefore I affirme that infants are not to bee esteemed actually vnder the possession of the new Testament, which new Testament is visible in the visible ordi­nances the of: why then they are damned you wil say: God forbid: doe you con­demne al the men that are not of your Faith: & yet they are neerer condemnation in [...]e judgment of the Scripture to you then infants: for Chr. saith that he that be­leveth [...] (speaking of them that heare the gospel & do not beleve) shalbe condem­ [...] but the Scripture teacheth vs nothing concerning the final estate of infants, ex­cept it, b [...] the sal [...]ation of them al: This is my exposition.

Now according to your exposition, I should intend that bicause it is not discer­ned which children are Spiritual seed which the carnal, therefor both of them must be deprived of baptisme, lest by giving baptisme (which you falsely cal a seale, & I therin speak according to your opinion) to al, it should bee profaned by the carnall seed wel suppose that this were my meaning what then you except against this ex­position two things: one that the Spiritual seed should be injuried by denying bap­tisme to it for the carnal seeds sake [...] & I reply by giving baptisme to all indiffe­rently, wee should injury baptisme that is to bee administred only vppon them that confesse their Faith & sinnes, & that are made Disciples by teaching: another thing you except is that this reason should avayle against circumcision seing the m [...]es of 8. dayes could not be discerned to be the Spiritual seed: & I insist that it was not then needful that they should be discerned to be the Spiritual seed for that carnal seale of the carnal covenant: it was enough for investing of them with that carnal & typical seale, that they were the carnal & typical seed, & that they were male Israelites or Proselytes: & shew me in al the old Testament, but especially in the institution of circumcision that the Lord required any thing of any person to be circumcised, but to be a male: but now in the new Testament we having the truths of those types, it is plainly taught vnto vs, first that Christ the male must bee in vs, & [...]. that the [...]r must bee circumcision of the hart, & mortification of the Flesh, & 3. wee must attayne to & learne all that the Schoolm. of the Old Testament could teach vs before wee can bee baptized, for Iohn & Chr. expresly require Faith & re­pentance in them that are to be baptized: & I do infinitely wonder at you & at my [...] & at the whose Earth, that wee should not see so evident a truth all this tyme.

The second particular you bring in answer to my reason is a distinction of the re­spects of the seed of the Faithful: For you say as they are borne of their parents they are carnal & sinful: Psal. 51.5. as they are vnder the covenant they are Spiritual, Gen. 17.7. & are called Holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. & so are not the carnal seed: & so they may be baptized aswel as the Iewes infants were circumcised though some of them prove wicked afterward, as Ismael & Esaw, &c. I answer: First, your distinction is witho [...] warrant of Scripture: & I deny that infants of the Faithful are to be considered in these two respects: & whereas you bring two places Gen. 17.7. & 1. Cor. 7.14. to prove the latter part of the distinction I have answered these two places already she­wing your false exposition of them, & that the infants of Abraham were not in their byrth vnder the actual possession of the everlasting covenant made in respect of Chr. but only vnder the offer of it, & that the infants & al the childrē of the faithful are holy only as the wife that is an vnbeleever is holy: & so this exception of yours is frivolous.

The third particular you bring in answer to my reason, is, that it is not simply a profaning of the covenant to administer the seale of it to them to whom it belon­geth not as to Simon Magus, Act. 8.13. but it is then profaned when it is administred to them that are wicked, &c: I answer, the Sacrament of baptisme is profaned when it is administred vppon a wrong subject whatsoever it bee: as to give the Lords Sup­per to an infant of two yeer old So to baptise an infant is a profanation. For as pro­fession & confession of Fayth shall intitle any man to all the ordinances of the Chur. & first to baptisme: So absence of confession of Faith shall debarre every one from all the ordinances of the Church in communion: & although I will not say that Children are damned, yet I dare say that they are borne & dead in trespas­ses & sinnes, & that they doe not nor cannot shew any sparke of grace to mee, & therfor although I dare not say this or that infant is not vnder the election of God, yet I dare say that never an infant in the Earth is actually seased of the New Testa­ment which is onely atteyned by confession of sinne & Faith: For so saith Christ: the tyme is fulfilled, the Kingdome of God is at hand: repent & beleeve the gos­pel: Marc. 1.15. & except a man bee borne againe hee cannot see the Kingdome of God. Iohn, 3.3. & Christ dwelleth in our harts by Fayth, Eph. 3.17. & as I cannot deny but that many infants are elected, yet I cannot say which infants shal beleeve & confesse their sinnes & Fayth, & so I know not vppon which to administer baptis­me & I must be assured that they do beleve before I can baptise them, for whatsoe­ver is not of Faith is sinne, & to know nothing to the contrary, but that they do be­le [...]ve is not sufficient warrant for baptisme: yea & I doe know certainly that [...]eing Faith cōmeth by hearing, therfor they do not beleve to me, yea though they could heer & did beleeve that is nothing to mee except they can shew mee their Faith by their confession. I say therfor that al infants are carnal to me. Rom. 9.8. For the Apost. v [...]: 5 saith plainly that to be borne of Abrah. acording to the Flesh is not to be borne according to promise, or to be as you say Spiritual, for your distinction before was that every infant of Abrah. & so of the faithful was borne Spiritual as wel as carnal: but heer the Apostle saith directly contrary to your assertion that they are not all Children of the promise & covenant, bicause they are the Children that [Page 46] lineally descend of Abrah. & you say peremptorily that al that lineally descend of Abrah. & the Faithful man are children of the promise & covenant, & so to be bap­tized: I desire you with al your knowledg reconcile these contradictions: & where­as you say the Children of the Flesh are so opposed, that they can never bee the Children of the promise, & that therfor the Children of the Faithful cannot bee so called carnal: I answer that al the children of the Iewes Church were borne accor­ding to the Flesh, Gal. 4.23-25. & so were carnal, & so are the Children of the faithful: & yet as many of the Iewes were afterward regenerate, & children of the pro­mise though al at the first children of the Flesh, so many of the infants of the Faith­ful may prove Children of the promise by Faith; though at the first al are the chil­dren of the Flesh that is carnal: but I confesse indeed that Esaw can never be Iacob: & one so carnal can never be Spiritual: & whereas you say, that carnal corruption doth not hinder infants from baptisme, no more then men of yeeres that make con­fession of their Faith, I answer yes: For men of yeeres confessing their sinnes & their Faith, declare the mortification of sinne & regeneration by the Spirit, infants being borne in sinne, cannot nor doe not declare their regeneration at al to vs: & so with them wee have nothing to doe: & whereas you say natural corruption is not im­puted to infants no more then to men beleeving, let it bee so, & yet you cannot de­fend that without the opinion of vniversal redemption, & then I say, that if the in­fants of the Faithful being delivered from their natural corruption may therfore bee baptized, then al infants shal be baptized who are pertakers of the same benefit, evē the infants of Turkes: if you say no: Seing the infants of the Faithful are only redee­med & vnder the covenant, then you condemne al the infants that dye who are not borne of Faithful parents: & yet you cannot prove that the infants of the Faithfull are vnder the actual possession of the covenant, which is only by Faith, & so the scruple stil remaineth vnlosed.

The fourth particular you bring in answer to my reason, is, that Abrah. circumci­sed Ismael, & Isaac circumcised Esaw, & yet they knew that the Lord would esta­blish his covenant with neither of them: much more may infants bee baptized to whom the covenant belongeth, Act. 2.39. I answer: that the external seale of that ex­ternal covenant was particularly injoyned by God to every male, & the knowledg of the reprobation of Esaw & Ismael did not hinder that carnal seale: nor disanul the precedent expresse commaundement of circumcising every male of 8, dayes old: but now seing wee have no expresse commaundement for baptising infants, but an ex­presse commaundement & many examples to the contrary, that only persons made Disciples by teaching, confessing their Faith & their sinnes, are to be baptized: & con­sidering that infants borne of Faithful parents are the children of the Flesh, Rom. 9.7. Gal. 4.23. & are not actually vnder the possession of the everlasting New Testa­ment, therefore baptisme which you call the seale, can not bee admini­stred vppon them, & the place Act. 2.39. hath o [...] tymes receeved An­swere.

The Second Position.

‘1. That Antichristians converted are to be admitted into the true Church by baptisme.’

Answere.

As the former position denyed the baptising of infants, so doth this annihillate that baptisme which wee have received in the Apostate Church, & establisheth re­baptisation & this also I wil shew to be an error by proving the contrary, & then answere the reasons herevnto annexed.

That the baptisme administred in the Apostate Churches of Antichrist, is baptis­me not to be reiterated, thus I prove it.

• If the Apostacy of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that it ceased to bee the seale of Gods covenant to so many of them as repented: no more doth the Apostacy of our fore Elders, so pollute baptisme that it ceaseth to be a Sacrament to so many of them as repented.
• But the first is true, 2. Chron. 30.11.18.21. els could not so many of Israel as came to Ierushalem have eaten the Passeover, seing no vncircumcised might eate therof.
• Ergo, the second.

If it be objected that the Apostacy is not alike, then let it be shewed, that the Apostacy vnder Antichrist did make a nullity of baptisme, & not the Apostacy of Israell of circumcision: For Israell played the harlot soo deepely, that the Lord denyed her to bee his wise, or him selfe to bee her Husband: Hos. 2.2.

And thus having shewed the vanity of your answeres to my reasons against pe­dobaptiestery [...]. let vs come to your answer made to my second position: which is this.

The first thing that in your Answer you intend to prove, is, that the baptisme ad­ministred in the Apostate Churches of Antichrist is not to be reiterated.

And for this purpose you produce 6. Arguments.

Your first Argument is framed thus,

• If the Apostacy of Israel did not so pollute circumcision that it ceased to bee the seale of Gods covenant to so many of them as repented: no more doth the Apostacy of our forefathers so pollute baptisme that it ceaseth to be a Sacrament to so many of them as repented.
• But the first is true, 2. Chron. 30.11.18.21.
• Ergo the second.

I Answer that the Apostacy of Antichrist is deeper then the Apostacy of Israell, for first Antichristians are not called Israelites, but Babyloniās, Egyptians, Sodomites Gentils in the Revelation, wherby the holy Spirit of wisdom giveth vs to conceave that he doth account the Apostacy of Antichrist equal to Paganisme it self: yea to the very worst kind of Paganisme.

Secondly, I declare plainly the differences betwixt the Apostacy of Antichrist & Israel, in this, that Israels Apostacy did not destroy the true constitution of the chur: But Antichrists Apostacy did rase the true Apostolique constitution: For the true constitution of the Church of the old Testament was of carnal Israelites or Prose­lites circumcised: Gen. [...]7.10-14. Exod. 12.48.49. & so long as they retayned cir­cumcision in the Land of Canaan, they retayned a true constitution, though their A­postacy was never so great in the worship, ministery, & Government, as is to be seen Hos. 4.6.8.12. therfor Abijah doth not chardg the Israelites with a false constitution, but declareth vnto them their false Government, 2 Chron. 13. vs. 8. Their false mini­stery vs. 9. Their false worship, vs. 8. & declareth the true government, ministery, & worship of Iudah. But it is manifest that Antichrist hath not only set vp a false Go­vernment of Prelacy, a false ministery of Preisthood, & a false worship of reading, but also hath set vp a false constitution of the Church: For whereas the true Aposto­lique constitution was of baptized Disciples that confessed their Faith & then sinns he hath foysted in a false matter of the Church, viz: infants: & persons vnbaptized: & so a false forme: for infants are no more capable of baptisme then is a foole o [...] [...]d man or Pagan: neithe [...] can they expresse any more repentance o [...] Faith then such per­sons doe: & seing the true forme of the Church is a covenant betwixt God & the Faithful made in baptisme in which Christ is visibly put on: & that infants cannot receave the covenant which is only done by actual visible Faith, nor cannot seale back vnto the Lord that hee is true, Ioh. 3.33 as God sealeth vnto them his truth by his Spirit, Eph. 1.13. For the covenant is this, I wilbe their God. 2. Cor. 6.16. & they shalbe al taught of God, Ioh. 6.45. & shal al know God from the least vnto the greatest: Heb. 8.11. & the covenant is this: I wilbe their Father, 2. Cor. 6:18. & wee shalbe his sonnes calling him Father by the Spirit, wherby we are sealed, Gal. 4.6. Hence it followeth that the Church of Antichrist being constituted of a false mat­ter, viz: infants vncapable of baptisme, & of a false sonne, viz: in­fants vnable to enter into the New Testament by sealing back the covenant vnto the Lord, & consenting vnto the contract, therefore they can have no title to Christ or any of his ordinances, but are as pagans or Gentils in the Lords account. Circumcision therfor in the Israelites Apostacy was true circumcision, bicause it was performed vppon carnal Israelites or Proselytes the eigth day: but baptisme in Popery is false baptisme, & so in the Lords account no better then Pagan washing, being administred vppon infants a subject that God never appointed to baptisme: a subject that is as vncapable of baptisme as an infidel, a mad man, a naturall fo [...]le, or any other subject that cannot confesse their Faith or sinnes, or be made Disciples by destruction.

Thirdly I declare that Israel was the true Church of God, or a member or part of the true Church of God though infinitely corrupt aswel as Iudah in the dayes of [Page 49] her Apostacy, see Ezechiel 3. toto. & Ezech. 16. toto: & Ezech. 20.28-31. & therfor if Iudah retayned true circumcision in her Apostacy when the L. calleth her a harlot Ezech. 16.35. & the Apostacy of Iudah is worse in the L. account then that of Israel Ezech. 16.47-53. Surely the circumcision of Israel was also true, & Israel a true part of the Church as wel as Indah: & for the bil of divorce which some plead was given to Israel by Hosea: Hos. 2.2. I say that was after the passeover of Hezechiah which was in the first yeer of his raigne, 2. Chron. 29.3.17. & 30.2. & the bil of divorce was given the sixth yeer of his raigne, 2. King. 17.23. compared with 2. King. 18.10. yet neverthelesse Hosea calleth Israel the Lords people after he had prophesied of the bil of divorce to be given, Hos. 4.6.8.12. & when the bil of divorce was given, divers of Israel I doubt not, kept themselves pure from Samaritanisme, & retained circumcisi­on, & came vp yeerly to Ierusalem even til the dayes of Iosiah, 2. Chron. 35.18. com­pared with 2. Chron. 34.6.7.3-33. So that hereby it is most manifest that no man­ner of sinne made the Church of the old Testament a false Church, so long as they retayned circumcision in the Land of Canaan, yea if they retayned circumcision though in Babylō, wherevppō I am perswaded that if the Papucy, or England, or the Greek Churches did only baptise men confessing their Faith & their sinnes into Chr, the Sonne of God, or into the Trinity, though they retayned their false ministery, worship & Government, & other ther abhominations yet the baptisme was true & not to be repeated: as their circumcision was good notwithstanding al their abhomi­nations & horrible Idolatryes, & fearful Apostacy in Israel.

Babylon in Chaldea (which was a type of Spiritual Babylon, Apoc. 18.2.) though they did abuse & profan the vessels of the L. Dan. 5.3. yet did not that make a nulli­ty of them that they ceased any more to be the vessels of the house of the Lor. but were brought vp with them of the captivity that came vp from Babel to Ierusalem Ezra. 1.11. Even so although Spiritual Babylon have profaned the Holy things of God, as baptisme & the rest, yet remaine they stil Gods ordinances to al them that come out of her, Apoc. 18.4. & returne to the celestial Ierusalem. & as these vessels of the howse of the L. need not to be new cast, bicause of Babels polluting them: no more is baptisme to be reiterated to the people of God, bicause it passed thorow the polluted hands of the Papists.

If it bee objected, that they that administred baptisme in Babylon, were Idola­ters, & had no calling therto.

I answere: That they which circumcised in the Apostacy of Israel were Idolaters, & so standing in that estate could not be fit Ministers of Gods holy ordinances. & that the wanting of a lawful calling to administer the Sacrament makes not a nulli­ty therof, the circumcising of Moses Sonne by his mother Zippora, Exod. 4.25. doth plainly teach. For as the Lord makes effectual his word to his people, though com­ming vnto them, by the hands of a false ministery, so doth he baptisme to al that bee his, though administred by them that have not a Lawful calling thervnto. The sin of the minister makes not a nullity either of the word or Sacraments, els thould the [Page 50] efficacy of the word & Sacraments, depend vpon him that administreth thē, which is not so, for both have their effect from the Lord.

If againe it be objected, that baptisme was not administred in the Apostate Chur. of Antichrist to a fit subject I answer that the children in the Apostacy were as fit subjects to receave baptisme, as the infants of Israell in the dayes of Ieroboam & Ahab, were to receave circumcision: Seing the covenant of Abraham (after the comming of Christ) belonged as properly to the Gentils, Gal. 3.14. as before it did to the Israelites,

Your second argument followeth which is this in effect.

As the Babilonians abuse of the vessels of the L. howse did not make a nullity of them, but they were vsed after the captivity, Ezra. 1.11. so the Antichristian abuse of baptisme cannot disanul it, but it may bee retayned when men come to the Fayth: & it needeth not to be reiterated, no more then the vessels of the howse of the Lord be new cast,

I answer many things: First, this arg. is an excellent arg. for the retayning of idoll Temples, the worship, government, ministery of the ecclesiastical assemblies of Eng­land: if it be said they were never apointed by God, so say [...], that baptisme of theirs was never apointed by God: but is the devise of Antichrist.

Secondly, I answer, that the vessels of the Lords howse were his owne ordināces, & therfor need not to be new cast: but the baptisme of Antichr. is not the L. owne ordinance who never ordeyned it: for you must distinguish them thus: The vessels of the L. howse were substances framed by art into particular shapes at the L. apoin­tement but the baptisme of the L. is a compound or concrete ordinance or action li­mited in certaine essential particulars: not being a substance but an accident in definition now if Antic had retained the essential parts of baptisme, I confesse it needed not to be repeated, no more then the vessels of the L, house need to be new cast after the abuse of the Babilonians: but seing baptisme in popery & Antichristianisme, is not the L. ordinance in the definition of it, but Antich. invention: Therefor though the vessels of the L. howse may be retayned, yet baptisme may not: That baptisme is Antichr. invention in the definition of it, I manifest thus: The matter of baptisme, & the forme of baptisme is invented by Antich. go: it is an invention of antichrist in the definition: The matter of antichristian baptisme is a carnal infant: The forme is, washing one into the covenant that cannot consent to the covenant: or baptising without a contract & sealing the covenāts on both parts for the L. doth not seale to the infant, and the infant cannot seale to the Lord: As I have manifested already in the answer to the former argum. of yours: Therefore the baptisme of antichr. is in the definition of it the meer devise of antichr. For the Scripture descri­beth true baptisme which is the Lords owne ordinance thus: The matter must bee one that confesseth his Fayth & his sinnes, one that is regenerate & borne againe: The forme must bee a voluntary delivering vp of the party baptized into the Name of the Father, Sonne, & Holy Spirit, by washing with water, Mat. 28.19. Mat. 3.6. Iohn. [...].1. Act. 2.41. & 8.36.37. compared with Roman 6.17. & Mat. 28. [Page 51] 20. & 18.20. & Gal. 3.27. & Roman. 6.2-6. VVherein ther must be a mutual consent of both persons contracting together: & that this is so, the forme of bap­tisme retayned in popery yet, teacheth plainly: wher they say. Credis? Credo: Abre­nunti [...]s? abrenuntio: which other persons speak for the infant that cannot speak, therby declaring that ther must needs bee a mutual contract of both the parties contracting: This ordinance of the L. therfor is abolished both in the matter & forme, & an other straunge invention of man is in the rome therof substituted, which is not the L. & therfor a nullity, & as if the Babylonians should have framed a Temple altar, arck, or candlestick, after their devise, & given them to the people of the Iewes, they could not have retayned them & vsed them to VVorship God with­all: So cannot true Christians retayne Antichristian baptisme which is devised in the definition of it.

Thirdly, I answer, that if the Antichristians had baptized persons confessing their sinnes & their Faith into the name of the Sonne of God, & the Trinity, it had then been true baptisme though in the hands of the Antichristians, as the vessels of the L. howse, in the hands or the Caldees, & therfor needed no repetition, as these ves­sels needed no new casting: Therfor we keep the Scriptures still though they abuse them, & the Church, ministery, worship, & government taught in the Scriptures though they have poluted thē: but their devised word, that is their Apocrypha wri­tings & false doctrine, & their devised church consisting of carnal infants & persons vnbaptized, & their devised worship of the masse, & their devised ministery of the sacrificing Preisthood, & their devised government of the Prelacy we abhorre, & vtterly reject, as the very devised Idols of antic. & we wil no more retaine thē thē the Shrines of Diana, then the Iews would the wedg of Achā: so say we of his baptisme.

And heer you answer two objections.

First, that though the Antichristians that administer baptisme bee Idolaters, yet it may bee true baptisme aswel as circumcision true by the Israelites that were Ido­laters: & that the efficacy of the word & Sacraments dependeth not vpon the worth of the minister: as circumcision by Zipporah declareth, Exod. 4-5. I answer: First, what say you to Ciprian the auncient Fathers, & all the counsel of leaned Bbs. who concluded that the baptisme of Heretiques was a nullity & decreed re­baptising.

Secondly I say that the Israelites circumcision was in a true church & antich. bap­tisme is in a false Church & that is a dissimilitude.

Thirdly, I know nothing [...]o the contrary, but Zipporah might circumcise her Sonne, her husband commaunding her (for where is it said in al the Old Testament that a woman shal not circumcise) for Moses indeed did circumcise though Zippo­rah was the hand of Moses in the action, as it is the Kings action if the L. Chauncel­lor of the judg of an assise do it. Fourthly I yee'd that the Minister shal not preju­dice baptisme, if the baptisme bee the Lords owne ordinance, that is, if a per­son bee invested with baptisme true in the definition: & yet you know that the bap­tiswe of weomen is strongly questioned, & I beleeve it would trouble you to satisfie a doubt made of a midwifes baptisme in England, that it ought not to bee repeated, or of a Child baptising others as Athanasius did in sport, (which [Page 52] Alexander Bb. of Alexandria with his Clerkes did approve) whither it ought to bee repeated yea or nay: but I leave this point as being but off small importance.

The second objection you answer is, that although baptisme be administred in a false Church of Antichrist vppon an vnfit subject, yet it shal not be repeated, no more then circumcision in the dayes of Ieroboam & Ahab, it being administred vppon an vnfit subject: I say, as I have said divers tymes, that the Israelites infants in their de­fection were the subject that God commaunded to be circumcised, viz: the seed of Abrah. males of 8. dayes age. So are not the infants in Antichristianisme, both for that they are 1. infants, 2. members of a false Church, 3. The seed of vnbelevers which by your owne confession have no title to baptisme: & whereas you say that the co­venant of Abrah. in respect of Chr. did as truly belong to the Gentils after the com­ming of Chr. as it did to the Israelites though both in defection: I deny it: For the carnal covenant belonged to the Israelites the carnal seed of Abrah. even in their pa­rents Apostacy, & the Spiritual covenant made with Abrah. in respect of Chr. did never aperteyne to the 1. Apostate parents, 2. much lesse to the infants of them in their Apostacy, 3. no nor to the infants of the faithful as I have already proved, & Gal. 2.14. is not to be vnderstood of the blessing of Abrah. to come vpon any of the Gentils in their Apostacy, but only being in Christ, as the words are, also vs. 7. & 9. but the externall Covenant was made with Abraham & the carnall Israelites onely vppon the condition of circumcision carnally vppon the males of eigt dayes old, Gen. 17.10.

• If the word of God passing through the false ministery of Antichrist, was of force to convert Gods elect in Babylon, thē is baptisme passing likewise thorow their false ministery of force to seale vp Gods covenant vnto them, & so consequently not to be reiterated.
• But the first is true Apoc. 18.4. For in Babylon were Gods people converted, other ordinary Ministery was ther none, but that false Ministery of the Papists: & therfor it is apparent that God made thereby his word effectuall to all them that beleeve.
• Ergo &c.

If it be objected, that if God should convert his people by an Antichristian mini­stery, it were to give approbation to a false ministery, & to teach that men might lawfully vse it, which is absurd: I answer, for vs to vse a false Ministery is vnlawfull, but it is no more absurd or yet any approbation of a false ministery, for God to worke therby the good of his owne people, then it was his approving of the evill service of Iosephs brethren selling him into Egypt, bicause he vsed theire Ministery, for the saving of Iacob & his houshold, for God can worke good by an evill instrument.

If it bee still vrged, that the Antichristian Ministers had no calling to baptise, I say no more had the Iewes to put Christ to death; yet was his suffering awayleable to save all that beleeve: & so is the Sacrament to al Gods [Page 53] people awayleable to seale vp salvation vnto them.

Your third Argument followeth which is this in effect.

The word in the false Ministery of Antichrist is avayleable to convert: Ergo: The baptisme is also avayleable to seale vp the covenant to the converted, & so need not be repeated.

I answer: First the word converteth none visibly to me particularly known: So cā baptisme seale vp none visibly to me: what they do both in secreat the L. knoweth & what the word doth generally I know by that place Rev. 18.4. Also what the baptisme doth specially I know, for God saith plainly whosoever receaveth the mark of the beast in his forehead shal perish, Rev. 14.9-11. this mark is vndoubtedly bap­tisme wherby they are initiated into Antichrist, & receave his mark, as Christs Ser­vants in baptisme receave his seale vppon them: (remember I cal baptisme a seale in the concrete, or according to your opinion. For otherwise I deny it to be a seale) so that Antichristian Baptisme is rather a seale of perdition to the Antichristians, then of the covenant or Salvation by Christ: & therfor it is to be renounced.

Secondly, Antichrists baptisme false (as I have said) in the difinitiō is none of Gods ordinance no not in the hands of the most faithful minister of rhe world: but Gods word is the Lords ordinance, though in the mouth of the most vile Iudas or Anti­christian in the world, yea though it be in the mixture of a 1000 heresies: So that in this respect also it followeth not that though Gods word may convert in popery, therfor Antichrists baptisme may seale: but stil you build vppon a false fondacion as you see, assuming that which is the question, viz: That baptisme in popery is the Lords.

Thirdly, I answer againe, that if Antichrist had reteyned the L. true baptisme, as I have described true I say in the definition, viz: That he had baptized persons confes­sing their sinnes & faith into the Trinity, or into Iesus Christ, it should not have been repeated: but seing he intendeth in baptisme, to set an indelible character vpon them which is the mark of the beast, to conferre grace ex opere operato to the infants which he washeth, another promising & answering for them Credo & Abrenuntio which the party baptized should himself performe, hence I conclude that he hath set vp his owne idol of abhomination, & cast the L. holy ordinance away, having es­sentialy destroyed the primitive Apostolique baptisme go his baptisme is a nullity or rather a seale of perdition to them that retaine it.

The amplification which you bring to this Argument I omit as a thing not de­nyed, but yeelded vnto that God can work by a false Ministery, evil instruments, & bad meanes, but hence it wil not follow that we may retaine the mark of the beast, no more then we may retaine the ministery of Antichrist, the Church of Antichrist, the Government of Antichrist.

Those Holy things which God by his mercifull providence hath preserved for his people through the hands of profane persons, are not to be rejected for the Au­thors sake, Ezra. 1.11.

But the Scriptures & baptisme hath God preserved in the popish assemblies for the benefit of his people.

Therfor not to be rejected for the Authors sake.

If it be objected against the minor, it is not true baptisme but false, that is admini­stred in the assemblies of Antichr. I answer, though it may be said to be false, in re­gard of some humane devises vsed in the administration thereof yet is it true baptis­me in respect of the matter, forme, & Author therof, which causeth it to have a true being.

Your fourth Argument followeth, which is this.

These Holy things which God by his merciful providence hath preserved for his people, though the hands of profane persons, are not to be rejected for the Authors sake, Ezra. 1.11.

But the Scriptures & baptisme hath God preserved in the popish assemblies for the benefit of his people.

Therfor not to be rejected for the Authors sake.

The minor you prove thus, saying the baptisme though false in respect of humane devises vsed in the ministration therof, yet is true in respect of the matter, forme & Author therof: & in your answer to my second Arg. you say: the author of baptisme in the Kingdom of Antichr. is Chr. the matter water: the forme washing with water into the Trinity.

I answer directely, that if it could bee proved that baptisme in the Kingdome of Antichrist is appointed by Christ, & that water is the true matter of baptisme, & the true forme is washing into the Trinity, I would yeeld vnto you: but this you have not proved, & I have already proved the contrary: but yet to deale somthing more fully in this point which is the mayne pillar & cheef corner Stone of the fon­dacion, I say: 1. VVater is not the matter of baptisme, but onely the instrument of baptisme: For as fire is the instrument of burning, so is VVater of washing: the matter of burning is the fewel that is burnt, So the matter of washing is the party washed: For as wee say accident is esse est inesse: & the subject is al the matter of an accident: & as the matter of the Church are the Disciples of Sayntes: The matter of the Ministery are the Prophets, so the matter of baptisme is the per­sons, vppon whome baptisme is conferred, & on whome it is. It is false therfor which you affirme that water is the matter of baptisme. 2. I say that washing into the Name of the Father, Sonne, & Holy Ghost, is not the forme of Baptisme: For to wash a Turk, Iew, Foole, mad Man, or infant into the Trinity is not [...]ne baptisme: but it were so, if simply to baptize into the Trinity were the forme of baptisme: Therefore to baptise the true matter into the true Fayth, or into Christ, or the New Testament, or the Trinity, or into the true body, [Page 55] is the true forme of baptisme: So that the true matter of baptisme is a new crea­ture: one regenerate: a confessor. As the true matter of circumcision was a male of eigt dayes old eyther lineally descending of Abraham, or a Proselite: So the true matter of baptisme is a person that is of the Fayth of Abraham, one that hath the male Christ formed in him: The true forme of baptisme cōsisteth in three things, (1.) washing with water, (2.) a new Creature, (3.) into the Name of Chr. or into the Trinity, for I think wee are not tyed to forme of words. & so if antichr. hath washed any, I say, I wil never consent that they shalbe rebaptized, but hold that Anabaptistery true heresy.

But if an infant that is not the matter of baptisme, or a wicked man, mad man, foole, Turk, or Iew, or any Pagan bee washed with water into the Trinity, I say ther is neyther true matter nor forme of baptisme, & Christ is not the author thereof: & therfor the baptisme of antichrist is not Christs, but his owne, & so all infants baptized by antichrist are eyther vnbaptized or have the marke of the beast, & so are to renounce it, & to receave Christs marke of baptisme, or els woe bee to them: & when they shall manifest a new crea­ture, & Christ the male is formed in them, & they confesse with their mouth & then be baptized into the Trinity, this is not anabaptistery, but the true primitive Apostolique Baptisme, & so Christ, Iohn, Christs Apostles were anabaptists with you Sir: For they baptized men that had been washed before a thousand tymes with the Iewes baptismes, Heb. 9.10. which baptismes were also into the Messias (no doubt) in those that saw the end off those Figures: But if it bee blasphemy to say that Christ, Iohn, & the Apostles were Ana­baptists, though they were of tymes some of them baptized into the Messiah in Type, bicause they were onely once baptized truly & indeed: So shal it bee blasphemy in all them that call the true Christians anabaptists, that baptize new Creatures once onely into Christ, though baptized before by antichrist in their infancy when they knew not the right hand from the left, or what a new crea­ture, or the New Testament, or Christ, or Baptisme, or any thing els was: hence therefore I conclude vndenyably that seing Popish baptisme hath a false matter, & a false forme, therefore it is antichrists Idoll asmuch as a false Mini­stery, & a false Church is: & so the Lord is not the author of it: & therevp­pon though the Scriptures & Gods word bee retayned by Gods providence & in the word all the Holy things of God, through Popery: yet in the Popish Churches ther is no true Church, Ministery, VVorship, or Government, nor true Baptisme, but all false and Antichristian: and so to bee rejected, and the truth to bee assumed out of the Scriptures: and so this argument off yours is answered.

• If antichrist be not the author of baptisme, but of some humane devises annexed, [Page 56] vnto in the administration thereof: then are wee not to plucke vp the whea [...]e with the [...]ares, Mat. 13.29. And to cast away that which is Christs with Antichr. but to Seperate from that which is mans invention, & stil to retayne that which is of God.
• But to baptise with water into the name of the Father, & of the Sonne, & of the holy Ghost, Mat. 28.19. is from heaven, & not from Antichrist.
• Ergo, we ought not to cast it away, but those traditions where with Antichrist hath polluted it: as for exāple, King Iosias & before him K. Ezechias, when both the Land & Temple were poluted) 2. King. 21.7. & 23.7. did not pul downe the Temple but appointed the Priests to clense it, who did so, & brought out al the vncleanes that they had found in the howse of God, 2. Chro. 29.16.17.18. & 34.8. For in re­formacion of things, difference must be put betwene those things, wherof God is the Author, & such as are devised by man: The former is to be purged from all profa­nation, & the things still to bee retayned, the other to bee quyte abo­lished. This rule in all reformation off Religion ought to bee followed.

The fifth Argument followeth, which is this in effect.

• We must not pluck vp the wheate with the tares, Mat. 13.29. nor cast away that which is Christs, when we cast away that which is Antichrists.
• But to Baptize with VVater into the Name of the Trinity is Christs & not Antichrists.
• Ergo, wee ought not to cast that away, but only the traditions of An­tichrist.

So did Iosiah & Hezechiah, 2. King. 21.7. & 23.4. & 2. Chron. 29.16-18. & 34.8. not pul downe the Temple, but clense it, &c. that wherof God is the Author must be kept, & the corruption or pollution put away: that wherof man is the Author, is quite to be abolished: This is your reason.

I answer: That as when the Babylonians had vtterly destroyed the Temple, the Iewes built it againe: So when Antichrist hath vtterly destroyed the true Temple, the true Church, then must we build it vp againe, & when Antichrist hath destroyed the true baptisme, then must we reare it vp againe: Wherfor seing as is shewed befor Antichrist hath abolished the true baptisme of Chr. in the definition or in the mat­ter & forme therof, & hath reared a baptisme of his owne, it must therfor be aboli­shed: & as when we do renounce the false Church or Ministery, wee do not re­nounce that which is true in the false Church or Ministery, but onely the falsehood so in rejecting the false baptisme of Antichr. we do not renounce that which is true in it as to wash with water into the Name of the Father, Sonne & Holy Ghost: but onely the falsehood: And yet as when wee retayne the truth in a false Church, or Ministery, wee reject the Falsehood in them both, & erect both a new true Church & Ministery: So when wee retayne the truth of a false baptisme, wee reject the Falsehood & erect a true new baptisme: & this is evident if you con­sider it wel.

Againe, seing in the false baptisme, church, & ministery, the corruptions are essen­tial, & the truth only accidental: & truth & falsehood are so intermingled as we can not divide them asunder, assuming the one & leaving the other, but we must needes in renouncing the essential corruptions reserve the accidental truths & iterate or re­peate the accidental truthes if we wil have the essential truth which Antichrist had abolished: Therfor necessarily we must for having true baptisme repeate washing in to the name of the Father, Sonne, & Holy Ghost, which are but accidentals (for a Turck so washed is not baptized) & once onely wash a new borne babe in Christ, into the truth which is true essentiall baptisme which Antichrist had aboli­shed, & which wee onely restore & nothing els: & so your argument is an­swered.

As God hath made an everlasting covenant with Abraham & his seed, Gen. 17.7 which through the malice of Sathan & al his instruments shal never be cut of: so hath he preserved, both in the Apostacy vnder the Law & gospel, the seales thereof, for the comfort of the Faithful.

And therfor the Anabaptists in rejecting that baptisme of Christ, whereof they were pertakers in the Apostate Church: & devising a new, do bring in a new cove­nant & a new gospel, taking vppon them to baptize themselves without warrant from the word: For I am sure it cannot be shewed, that any did ever baptize himself without special commaundement from God, as Abrah. had for circumcision, Gen. 17.9. or Iohn for baptisme, Marc. 1.3. nor yet any others without ordinary or extra­ordinary calling. Ioh. 4.2. Mat. 3.6. Act. 8.38. & 9.18. & 10-48.

If it be sayd the tymes bee extraordinary. I answere, the Lord hath left ey­ther example or rule, or ground of rule, whereby wee may in extraordinary tymes have a sure warrant out of the word, to informe vs in any thing that wee ought to doe.

Your 6. argument is thus much in effect.

That seing the covenant made with Abraham in respect of Christ, is everlasting: Genes. 17.7. & cannot by the malice of Sathan bee cut of: no more can the malice of Sathan abolish the seales of that covenant vnder the Law or gospel, viz: circumci­sion & baptisme.

I answer by an argument of like nature, from Mat. 16.18. framed thus.

If the gates of Hel [...] never pervaile against the Church then ther hath alwayes been a true Church, & Antichrist could never make the church false: & so you of the Seperation have sinned most shamefully in calling the Church of Antichrist false: Verum primum. Ergo secundum.

If my argument be not good against you of the Seperation for erecting a new Church, no more is yours good against vs for erecting new baptisme: This is to an­swer [Page 58] as they say regerendo: But I answer more properly solvendo thus: That the co­venant is said to be everlasting not in respect of the visible real existence in the world in an established Church, but in respect of the stability & firmenes of it in regard of Sathans malice which should not so abolish it, that it should never bee recovered againe: For otherwise the Church went into the wildernes: Revel. 12.14. & al natiōs were made drunck with the cup of the fornication of the whore of Babylon, Revel. 18. [...]. & ther was no true Church in the depth of Antichristianisme, & so no true baptisme, for can any thing be true in a false Church, but the Scriptures & the truthes conteyned therein? I deny therfor, that the covenant, Church or baptisme was visible alwayes: For it was invisible when the Chu [...]ch went into the wildernes: & therfor as you when ther was not a true Church in the world, took vppon you to set vp a true Church (as you say, but wee say a false Church) renouncing the Church of An­tichr, & yet wil not bee said to bring in a new covenant & a new Gospel (for you in your false conceitednes wil reject them for heretiques, if ther bee any that dare say so of you forsooth): So the anabaptists (as you cal them) doe not set vp a new covenant & Gospel, though they set vp a new or rather the old Apostolique bap­tisme which Antichrist had overthrowne: & whereas you say they have no war­rant to baptisme themselves, I say, as much as you have to set vp a true Church, yea fully as much: For if a true Church may bee erected which is the most noble ordi­nance of the New Testament, then much more baptisme: & if a true Church can not bee erected without baptisme, for baptisme is the visible forme of the Church, as Disciples are the matter: Mat. 28.19. Iohn. 4.1. Then seing you confesse that a true Church may bee erected, you cannot deny (though you doe deny it in opposing the truth) that baptisme may also bee recovered: & seing when all Christs visible ordinances are lost, eyther men must recover them againe, or must let them alone: if they let them alone til extraordinary men come with mi­racles & tongs, as the Apostles did, then men are same lists (for that is their opi­nion) or if they must recover them, men must beginne so to doe, & then two men joyning together may make a Church (as you say): Why may they not baptize seing they cannot conjoyne into Christ but by baptisme, Mat. 28.19. compa­red with Mat. 18.10. Gallat. [...].27. but it is evident that all Christs Com­maundements must bee obeyed, Ergo, this commaundement of having & vsing the communion of the Church, Ministery, VVorship & Gouernment, those Holy meanes of Salvation which the Lord of his mercy hath given vs with his co­venant, & commaunded vs to vse: & therefore if all the commaundements of God must bee obeyed, then this of baptisme, & this warrant is sufficient for assuming baptisme: Now for baptising a mans self ther is as good warrant, as for a man Churching himself: For two men singly are no Church, joyntly they are a Church, & they both of them put a Church vppon themselves, so may two men put baptisme vppon themselves: For as both those persons vnchurched, yet have powre to assume the Church each of them for himself with others in communion: So each of them vnbaptized hath powre to assume baptisme for himself with o­thers in communion: And as Abraham & Iohn Baptist, & all the Proselites af­ [...]r Abrahams example, Exod. 12.48, did administer the Sacrament vppon them­selves: [Page 59] So may any man raised vp after the Apostacy of Antichrist, in the recove­ring of the Church by baptisme, administer it vppon himself in communion with others: So wee see the Lords Supper is administred to a mans self in com­munion with others, so is Prayer, Prophesy, Praysing of God vttered for a mans self aswel as for others. And as in the Old Testament: every man that was vncleane washed himself: every Preist going to Sacrifice washed himselfe in the Laver at the dore of the Tabernacle of the congregation: which was a type of baptisme, the dore of the Church, Tit. 2.5. Every Mr. of a Family administred the Passeo­ver to himself & all of his Family: The Preist dayly Sacrificed for himself and o­thers: a man cannot baptise others into the Church, himself being out of the Church: Therefore it is Lawfull for a man to baptize himself together with o­thers in communion, & this warrant is a plerophory for the practise of that which is done by vs: Thus are your 6. weake reasons answered.

Thus having set downe some reasons to prove that Apostates or Antichristians converted are not to be rebaptized, let vs come to the examination of the reasons alledged to the contrary, the first wherof is this.

• 1. Bicause Churches are to bee constituted now after the defection of Anti­christ, as they were first erected by the Apostles:
• But in the constitution off Churches the Apostles receaved in the members by baptisme.
• Ergo, so must wee doe now.

Answere.

1. The estate & condition of people now is not alike to the estate of the Gen­tiles or Iewes in the Apostles tymes, they differ in divers respects: First, all the peo­ple then both of Iewes & Gentiles never had bene themselves, nor were ever of the posterity of those that had bene members of the Church of Christ vnder the gospel, seing then was the first planting of Evangelical Churches▪ but we are now the poste­rity of such parents as were members of the Chu. planted by the Apo. els could we not have Apostated.

Secondly, that people, which the Apo. gathered in to Churches were never bapti­zed, & baptisme comming in the steed of circumcision, & being a seale of our entring into Gods covenant, it was fit, that they which beleved & became the seed of Abra­hā should so enter into the covenāt, they & their seed, as he & his seed entred, that is, as he & his were receaved in by circumcision: So they & thers should be receved in by baptisme, Act. 2.38.41, & 8.38. but we are a people that are already baptized, & the seed of thē that wer baptized, & had receved the gospel, & (although through Antichr. deceaveablenes, both we & they were tainted with many corruptions) yet had they or might have in that Apostacy, (& so we also) so much faith, as thereby both we & they might become the people of God, Apoc. 18.4.

And concerning the constitution of the Churches, here it is to be noted, that the constitution of Churches set downe by the Apostles was by the immediate directiō of the Holy Ghost, & so serveth for a continual rule of establishing Churches to the end of the world, which forme or frame layed downe by them, no man hath power to alter or change, 1. Cor. 4.14. 1. Tim 3.11. But the constituting of Chur. now af­ter the defection of Antich. may more properly be called a repayring, then a consti­tuting of Churches, which through Apostacy have bene ruinated, or a gathering together of the dispersed, hepe of Israell into such formes or shapes of visible Chur­ches (the pate [...]ne whereof is shewed vnto vs in the word) for (as before hath bene noted) our state is not as theirs was that were the first constituted Churches, & so it wil not follow (as it is alledged) that the receiving in of members into our Chur­ches necessarily must be by baptisme, as in the p [...]imitive tyme it was, except onely of such persons as have not bene baptized before.

And herein I take it, lyeth the deceyte of this arg. that it putteth no difference between the people of God comming out of Babylon, & them that came to the faith from amongst the Gentils, equalising Antichristianisme with Gentilisme, the one being an Apostate Church, the other no Church: The one partaker of the word & Sacram: (though with much coruptiō) the other partaker of neither at all, the one professing Christ & Teaching many truths of God, & so many as the elect therby might come to faith, Apoc. 18.4. The other neither professing Christ, nor tea­ching any truth of God, wherby any might be converted to Christ, & become Gods people in the estate of Gentilisme.

And thus having made plaine the different estate of the first planted Churches & ours in Apostacy. I answere fi st: That Churches now are to be constituted (if repai­ring be not a fitter spe [...]ch) as in the Apostles tymes, & that al such as are recea [...]ed in as members, being vnbaptized, must be receaved in by baptisme, but for such as were baptized in Apostate Chu [...]che, their repentance is sufficient without rebaptisatiō, as it was to the Apostate Israelites, who vppon their repentance & returning to Ie­rusalem were receaved of the Church without any new circumcision, & therfore to adde a second baptisme, with the Anabaptists, is to Apostate from Chr. & not to enter into his covenant.

And in that the Apostles receaved in members by baptisme, they could doe no o­therwise, seing the whole world was vnbaptized, but if they had met with any that before had bene baptized into the name of Chr. as they that receaved the baptisme of Iohn, & as we are, I make no question, they did not, nor would not have rebap­tized them, & the [...]for the conclusion wil not follow, that we are now to receave in by baptisme, them that are already baptized.

The next thing in your answer is a solution of the arguments brought by mee to prove the truth: viz.

This truth of the Lords I have proved vnto you by three reasons: The first [Page 61] [...]hereof may bee framed thus.

• So are Churches to be restored or constituted after the defection of Antichr. as they were erected by the Apostles at the first.
• But the Churches were at the first erected by baptisme in their primitive insti­tution by Iohn, Chr. & the Apostles.
• Ergo: so are they now to be restored: & therfor the members are to be recea­ved in by baptisme as they were then.

As in the former point for baptising of infants you were compelled to runne to the old Testament, & from thence to fetch the cheef corner stone of your building viz. from circumcision: So in this second point you vtterly forsake the new Testam. of Chr. & the true constitution Apostolique of the Church of the new Testament, & set vs againe to Schoole to Moses, as if Chr. had not beē faithful enough to teach vs his new Test▪ but we must go learne the new Test▪ of the old Testament: Chr. of Moses: The Gospel of the Law.

And first I would know why we may not aswel with the Papists & Prelates goe fetch one high Preist from Moses, a sacrificing Preisthood from Moses, succession in the ministery from Moses, & a succession in the Church from Moses, as a succession in baptisme from Moses: & in effect you do fetch a succession of the Church from Rome: For in fetching a succession of baptisme from Rome which is the forme of the Church: & in fetching a succession of the matter of the Church which is the seed of the parents baptized you of necessity make the Church of Rome a true Church: For if infants of the Church of Rom [...] have true title to baptisme by reason of the Faith of some of their auncesters o [...] forfathers that were Faithful, then are they the true visible matter of the Church: & if by reason of that title to baptisme, they re­ceave true baptisme in substance as you say in the Church of Rome then they have the true visible forme of the Church, for they that have the true matter & forme of a true Church vppon them are the true Chu [...] & so are the infants of the Church of Rome a true visible Church in the constitution & essential causes therof: & so as in the old Testament the Church came by succession of genealogie in respect wher­of they made so much account of genealogies carnal, Philip. 3.3-5. 1. Timoth. 1.4. So in the New Testament the Church commeth by succession of carnal Genealogie through the Church of Rome to our dayes: & then as the matter of the Church, viz infants descending of baptized parents is by Genealogie, & the forme of the church viz baptisme vppon these infants is by descent: & therfor the Church is by succes­sion: I demaund why may not the ministery be by descent & succession aswel as the Church? & then why is not the Church of Rome or England a true Church, the mi­nistery of the Church of Rome or England a true Ministery▪ & so why may not you returne back againe into England, & take vp your former ministery, & renounce your Schisme which you have made? & so I heare that some are mynded to doe: & truly for my part I hold it as lawful to retaine the Church & Ministery of England, as to retaine the baptisme: & when I shal yeeld to the truth of the baptisme of Englād I wil yeeld to the truth of the Church & ministery of England: & I wil confesse I have been a Schismatique, & returne & acknowledg my error: but bicause I know the ministery & Church of England is false, therfor it must needes be that the bap­tisme [Page 62] which is the forme of the Church is false essentially: & therefore having Se­perated justly from the Church & Ministery of England for the falsehood of them, I must needes also Seperate from the baptisme which is false, for the Church is false bicause baptisme the forme of the Church is false: & if baptisme the forme of the Church of England be true, the Church of England is true also: You are to know therefore (& so I wish you & all the Seperation to mynd it well, & the Lord give you eyes to see, & harts to vnderstand) that all the old Testament was carnal taken from the Elementes of the VVorld, thereby to type out & to teach them heavenly things: & therefore their Church was carnal to type to vs in the New Testa­ment a Spiritual Church: The matter of their Church was a carnall Israelite: the matter of the Church of the New Testament is a true Israelite in whom ther is no guile: The forme of their Church was carnall circumcision a carnal seale. Ge­nes. 17.10-14. The forme of the Church of the New Testament is the circum­cision of the hart, a new Creature, the Holy Spirit of promise whereby wee are sealed, which is manifested by confession & baptisme in water: Act. 10.47. E­phes. 1.13. Gallat. 3.27. & 6.15. Iohn 3.5. Matth. 3.6. Roman. 10.9. Act. 8.36.37. Their carnall Church in the matter & forme came by carnall Genea­logie, & so they all of them were gendred vnto bondage vnder the rudimentes off the VVorld vnder the carnal Testament or covenant: Gallat. 4.24.25. our Spirituall Church in the matter & forme thereof is by Spirituall Genealogie, that is the Genealogie of the Fayth of Abraham the Father of vs all vnder the Spirituall New Testament, Gallat. 3.7.9.14. Roman. 4.10.11. Their parents in the car­nall Church was carnall Abraham & carnall Hagar, & all their carnall parents who according to the Flesh with carnall seed begate carnall Ismaell the type of the carnal Israelites: our parents in our Spiritual Church is Abrah. Spiritual, (& al our Spiritual parents) who by the word of God & by faith begat Spiritual Isaac the type of the children of promise after whose manner we are, Gal. 4.22-28. Rom. 4 19-21. Heb. 11.11.12. 1. Pet. 1.23. Their ministery was a carnal ministery by carnal genealogie of the line of Aaron Sacrificing Preists: our ministery is by Spiritual genealogie of the election of the true Church that is Spiritual.

Thus if you would compare the Type & the Truth together, you should easily discerne the sandy Fondation of your false Church ruinated & your false baptisme quite abandoned: who continue a Church by succession of a carnall line, & a bap­tisme by succession vppon the carnall Line through Popery: VVhereas the true Church is onely by the Spirituall Line of Fayth, & true baptisme by the Spirituall succession vppon that Spirituall Line of Faythfull men confessing their Fayth & their sinnes, which was typed by that carnal Line of the Old Testament: you therefore that introduce a carnal Line into the Church to bee baptized, viz: all your Children according to the Flesh & that by succession fetch baptisme vppon that carnal Line through the Church of Rome into your Church (following the president of the Old Testament in that carnal circumcision by succession of Genea­logie) doe therein vnawares make Rome a true Church, your selves Schismatiques, & set vp Iudaisme in the New Testament, & so are fallen from Christ, & are be­come a new second image of the Beast never heard of before in the VVorld: For [Page 63] such are you of the Seperation.

This being premised as a ground which I earnestly in treat you (even in my best love vnto you) & al the Seperation, especialy the leaders of them, well to weigh & ponder, & not to be ashamed to learne of their inferiors & juniors: I come to āswer the exceptions which you take at my first Argument.

The summe of your exception is this: That seing wee are the posterity of bapti­zed persons, & the Iewes & Gentiles in the Apostles tymes were not so: Therefore wee need not assume baptisme in our entrance into the Church, which wee had in our Apostacy, but wee may enter into the Church without rebaptizing as the Apostate Israelites did without recircumcising: & so we must not in the new Test. be framed according to the paterne taught in the new Test. in entering in by baptisme, but according to the paterne of the old Testam. & the Apostate Israelites therein, &c.

I answer divers things: First, I say that the New Testament is as sufficient for the direction of al the affaires & occasions that befall in the tyme of the New Te­stament, as the Old Testament was for the occurrences that befell vnder the Old Testament: Seing Christ is as Faythful as Moses: & the New Testament as perfect as the Old. Gal. 3.15. & therefore if the Lord had intended to put a difference be­twixt the Apostolique constitution of Churches, & our constituting of them in re­spect of the persons to be admitted into the Church, & in respect of baptiting & not baptising or rebaptising of them he could & would have done it: but seing it is not done in the New Testament, but left in silence: & seing the New Testament of Chr. is perfect & sealed with his blood, you that put this difference add to the new Testament, & bring in a new Christ, a new covenant, a new Gospel, a new Church, & new baptisme: & wo be to them that ad to the word, Rev. 22.18. & as they were accursed that added to the old Test. Deut. 4.2. & 12.32. So much more shal they be subject to the cause that add to the new Test. of Chr. Heb. 12.25. in this respect ther for your answer is insufficient.

Secondly, I affirme that (as the Holy Ghost saith) the Antichristians are in condi­tion equall to Pagans, & therefore as I have said they are not called Israelites or Sa­maritanes, but Babylonians, Egyptians, Sodomites, Gentills: but the Holy Ghost knoweth what & how to speak: And therefore as the Babylonians, Egyptians, Sodomites, Gentils washings were nothing, no more is the baptisme of Antichri­stians any thing: For the Holy Ghost foreseeing that the Antichristians would a­bolish the true baptisme of Christ by baptising infants, & so by admitting into the Church the carnal seed of the Flesh, would disanul that Holy ordinance of bap­tisme, & so abolish the true constitution of the Church, in heavenly wisdom for our instruction calleth persons Apostating from the true constitution of the Church Babylonians, Egyptians, Sodomites, Gentils, therby teaching vs that he esteemeth no otherwise of their Church or baptisme, then of the Synagogues of Babylon; then of the washings of Egypt, then of the worship of Sodom & the Pagans: & these comparisons will fit you well against the assemblies & Temples of Antichrist, and I know no reason that they thould not fitt vs aswell against your Babylo­nish, Egyptians, Sodomitish, and Paganish washings of infants which [Page 64] which though it bee done into the name of Chr. yet is no more avayleable in the Holy Ghosts testimony then washing of Pagans, Babylonians, Egyptians, Sodomi­es Children.

Thirdly, wheras you say that repayring the Church now after the Apostacy of Antichr. is a fitter speech then constituting: herein do you both taxe your selves off the vse of that word constitution: & plainly signifie that you incline to maintain the Churches of England & Rome to be true Churches, wherin whither you doe not forsake your first faith, & turne with the dog to the vomit look you vnto it, & let al indifferent men judg: but your writings are against you sufficient witnesses in this case.

Fourthly, I say that the Iewes that were converted to the Faith & new Testament of Chr. by Chr. Iohn, & the Apostles in your account were in a far better estate thē Antichr. For they (as you say) were of the same body with the Church of the New Testament, & their circumcision was a seale of the new Testament (as you say) & they were in Chr. Iesus (as you say) & were washed I doubt not many of them into the Messias whose blood they typically saw in their manifold baptismes & purifications with water: & al of thē had been partakers of the word & Sacraments in the Chur. of the Iewes, & why might not they by Christ, Iohn, or the Apo. be admitted into the Church without baptisme: if therfor Chr. Iohn. & the Apo. would needes bap­tize them, & so by baptisme constitute them into the new Testament that had all these perogatives in your judgment, much more wil they have vs to constitute An­tichr. converted into the true Church by baptisme: neither can you say without great indignity to the L. ordinances in the old Test. that they were inferior to the baptisme of Antichrist.

Againe you wil needes have this to be a great priviledg to the antichr. to be the carnal seed of them that hath somtyme been members of the Church of Chr. in the new Testament, & therfor you say that in ther parents or auncestors they had title to baptisme: I deny that ever the English nation of any one of our predecessors were of the Faith of Chr. shew it if you can: but we came of a Pagan race til Rome the mother came & put vppon vs her false baptisme: & therfor although the Roma. might plead this, yet England cannot plead it: & so your dissimilitude cannot hold in that thing: & our case is simply Paganish.

Further, you say that the repentance of Apostate Churches is sufficient for their admittance into the true Church without rebaptization, as repentance was for Is­rael without recircumcision: I deny it, for the Churches of Antichr. are false, & the Church of the Israelites was not false: The Churches of Antichr. were false bicause they consisted of the carnal seed baptized which was not that one seed vnto which the promise was made, that is the Faithful: The Church of the Israelites was true bicause it did consist of the carnal seed carnally circumcised, which was the true constitution of the Church of the old Testament: For otherwise if Israel had been false bicause of their Apostacy & Idolatry then Iudah was as false who had in wic­kednes justified Samaria & Sodom, Ezech. 16.51. but indeed they were neither of them false so long as they circumcised the males of 8. dayes old, but the Churches of Antichr. growing false by baptising the carnal seed (which was not the true seed [Page 65] of Abrahams faith) therefore are to bee baptized when they come to the truth, & cannot have Israels Apostacy for the president: wherefore an Edomite or Israelite comming to bee a proselite of the Iewes Church that had omitted circumcision is a true President of the Antichristian Apostacy: For as they omitting the circumcision of the males though of the Posterity of Abraham, yet being Proselites were entered into the Iewes Church by circumcision: So is it in the Apostacy of Antichrist, with the Proselytes of Antichristianisme: for so I take it the Proselytes were types of An­tichristians, converted to the Faith, & admitted into the true Church: & the Israe­lites were not so.

Moreover whereas you say that if the Apostles had met with such as we are they would have receaved vs into the Church vppon repentance without baptisme: I answer, if such an example had been left vs wee would then have rested satisfied, but seing the Apo. have left no such example nor precept therfor you are yet in your Apostacy, & having not repented of nor forsaken your Egyptian baptisme are stil vn­seperated, do stil retaine the mark of the beast, & are subject to the woe that the aungel threatneth to persons so marked.

Now let vs come to the second reason which is this.

2. Bicause true baptisme is but one, but the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme, & so not that one baptisme of Chr. but al the members of Chr. must have true Baptisme.

Answere.

2. Ther is but one Faith & one baptisme, Eph. 4 4. & therefore is it sufficient to bee once baptized, as it was to bee once circumcised: Secondly, That the baptisme of Antichrist is not true baptisme I graunt, & doe also affirme that al members of Christ must have true baptisme, & what then must it follow that now such as are baptized must bee rebaptized, els cannot bee members of a visible Church: I deny it & doe further answere, 1. That the baptisme which wee receaved in the Apostate Church is no more Antichrists then the word that wee receaved therein: For Anti­christ did never ordaine a new kynd of baptisme, but did onely pollute (with his in­ventions) the Holy ordinance of Chr: & therefore if this baptisme that wee have re­ceaved be called the baptisme of Antichr. that is to affirme an vntruth, seing the in­stitution thereof was by Iesus Chr. who commaunded his Apo. to baptize al nations with water in the name of the Father & of the Sonne, & of the Holy Ghost. & the same baptisme for substance is stil retayned in the Apostate churches & none other. Secondly, this baptisme may also in some respect bee called true baptisme, as before I have noted in my fift reason against rebaptization: For 1. it hath Chr. for the Au­thor, 2. it hath the true matter outward signe or element which is water, 3. the true forme of administring the same, which is, baptising into the name of the Father, of the Sonne, & of the Holy Ghost, al which is practised in the Popish Church, neither [Page 66] is any baptized into the name or faith of Antich. but vnto the faith & possession of Christ. & therfor our baptisme is the baptisme of Chr. & to vs that repent true baptisme, & so consequently not to be reiterated.

In the next place you make answer to my second arg. which may be framed thus

• Al the members of Chr. must have that one true baptisme of Chr. taught in the new Testament.
• The baptisme of antich. is not that one true baptisme, taught by Chr. in the new Testament.
• Ergo: The members of Christ must not have the baptisme of Antichrist, but must take the true baptisme of Christ, when they come into the true Church.

The summe of your answer is: That the baptisme we receaved in the false Chur. is not Antichr. but Christs: I make answer, that seing infants are baptized which is the false matter of baptisme, & seing in them ther is not the question of a good conscience vnto God, 1. Pet. 3.21. Nor the hast sprinckled from an evil conscience, Heb. 10 22. which is the forme: Seing they cannot expresse credis? Credo: Abrenuntias? Abrenuncio: which is the forme of baptisme even the mutual contract betwixt God & the party baptized expressed visibly in confession: therfor the baptisme is not Chr. but Antichrists, not from heaven but of man: & al that you object in this particular is already sufficiently taken away in answer to your 4. reason: whither I translated that which is heer answered by you vppon occasion ther intertayned.

The third reason.

Bicause as the false Church is rejected & the true erected, the false ministery for­saken, & the true received: so false worship (& by consequence baptisme) must be re­nounced, & the true baptisme assumed.

Answere.

First. I graunt, that we ought to Seperate from al false or apostate Chur. Apo. 18.4 & to adjoyne our selves to a true Chu. reformed according to the paterne of the A­postles, 2. also every false ministery is to be forsaken, Mat. 7.15.2 Io. 10. gal. 1.8. & the true ministers of God to be received, Ier. 3.14.15. So did the faithful in Israel for­sake the false Preists set vp by Ieroboā, & returned to the Preists of the L to Ierusalē, 2. Chro. 30.11.3. it is our duty likewise to renounce al false wor. 2. Cor. 6.14-17 E­sa. 30.22. & to worship the L, as he taught vs in his word: & thus far do I approve of this reason, but the consequence I must deny, viz: that bicause false worship is to be renounced, therfor baptisme also. For 1. we are to consider in that baptisme recea­ved in apostate Churches two things, first, that which is of God therin. 2. that which [Page 67] is of man, that which is of God, is the substance of baptisme, as before is observed, viz: the same matter & forme that the L. instituted, & likewyse the same end which is the profession of the faith of Christ, & this is not false worship, & so consequently not to be renounced.

Againe, that which in the administration of baptisme is devised by man, are those vnwarrantable ceremonies of crossing, breathing, annoynting, &c. these are to bee renounced as vaine worship, Mat. 15.4. Now the ordinances of God are to be purged from the pollutions of men, & not with their pollutions to be renounced, for if polu­tion might warrant men to cast away with it, that which is ordeyned of God, then might not the holy vessels polluted in Babylon have bene brought againe to Ierusa: nor yet the Tēple it selfe, that was so greatly profaned in the dayes of the Idolatrous Kings have any more bene vsed as a place of worsh. to the L. Secondly, I answer that we have receaved a true baptisme in the apostate Chu. as the people of God did cir­cumcision amongst the ten trybes: & therfor we may no more renounce it, & as­sume a new, then they that returned to Ierus. 2. Chro. 30.11. might renounce theire c [...]rcumcision, & be recircumcised,

It is objected of some, that this comparison houlds not, for Israel was a true Chu. & therfor their circumcision was true: but Apostate Churches have nothing true, neither are the members therof capable either of the covenant or seale in that stan­ding, & it is not true baptisme to such.

This objection in part I have answered before, & now answer further, 1. that the Israelites in their Apostacy were not a true Church, but false: seing they Seperated from Ierus. the true & only Chu. in the world, & erected a new Church & comuniō amongst thēselves, joyning together in a false wor. & vnder a false ministery, 1. King. 12.30-33.20. & 18.19— [...]1. & so became an harlot, Hos. 2.2. Secondly in the apostate Chur. ther be some things true in the substance as the word & baptisme, though corupted in the administration therof by false ministers, & humane devises. Thirdly the members of an apostate Chu. are to be considered two wayes, 1. as they stand mem­bers of such a Chur. Secondly, as they are the seed & posterity of their forfathers which receaved the covenant for themselves & for their seed: & though in regard of the former estate, they have nether right to baptisme or the covenāt (for the holy things of God belongs not properly to false Chu. nor to the members therof consi­dered in that estate) yet even to such members considered apart from such standing & as they are the seed of their forfathers, so are they capable of the covenant & Sacra. & the same is avayleable to them vppon their repentance: For in apostate Churches God hath his people which are beloved for their Fathers sakes, Rom. 11.28. & this apeareth in that he saith, come out of her my people, Apo. 18.4. & to such it cannot be denyed, but that to them belongs the covenant, yea whyles they are in Spirituall Babylon, as it did to the Iewes that were in Babylon of Chaldea: bondage hinders not Cods grace.

But some may reply, that they whose Fathers were Idolaters & vnbeleevers cold have no right to the covenant to be baptized through the Faith of their Fathers. I answer, the right that children have to Gods covenant depends not only vpon their immediate parents, but title therto descends vnto them, from their auncestors [Page 68] Exo. 20. if wee respect herein Gods mercy, even as mens inheritance doe from their former Fathers: neither do the members of an Apostate Church cast of al pro­fession of faith, for such beleve the Scriptures, & in Ch. &c. though with al they pro­fesse divers errors, & worship the true God in a false manner.

If question be made how it can be proved that the members of an Apostate Chu. had forfathers that beleved. I answere, it cannot be denyed, seing that an Apostate Church ariseth not out of a company of infidels (for then could it not be called A­postate seing that to apostate must be in regard of the truth) but is the ruines of a true Church, & therfor it must needs follow that their forfathers were belevers, & had receaved the covenant.

And thus have I breifly answered these two Anabaptistical positions with theire reasons, as the Lor. hath inabled me for the present, wishing this labour might have bene taken in hand by such as could better performe it. & further I do intreate, that the truth (which I contend for), may not, through my weake defence, beare any re­proche, but that which is falt worthy, let it returne vpon my head. & do also earnestly pray that he that hath thus written, & both he & they that so practise, may seri­ously consider of that which is done, & glorify God by their repentance. March. 14. 1608.

In the next place you make answer to my last argument, which may bee framed into this forme.

• As the false Church & ministery are rejected, & the contrary true Church & ministery assumed: So the false worship, & so by consequent the false bap­tisme must be renounced, & the true baptisme assumed.
• Verum primum.
• Ergo secundum.

The summe of your answer is, that we must renounce indeed the false Church, ministery, & worship, & yet may retaine the baptisme receaved in the false Church, which (you say) is true in author, matter, forme, & end: Though corrupt in circum­stance, as oyling, crossing, breathing, &c. repenting of those coruptions, & not casting away the true substance with the corrupted circumstances devised by man, & an­nexed therto, &c.

Although al that is mentioned heer is already taken away in the former discourse yet it shal not be amisse to annexe some thing for further cleering of the point.

First, I deny the popish baptisme to be true in the 4. causes therof as you affirme: 1. The L. never instituted that infant [...] [...]hould be baptized, 2. he never ordeyned that Pagans should be baptized, 3. he never instituted that the carnal seed of the faithfull should be baptized: Therfor seing infants that are not the seed of the faithful, but the seed of Babylonians, are baptized by Antich. the matter of baptisme is false, [...] the L. never appointed that the party should be baptized without his owne confession & consēt to the contract that the L. maketh in baptisme: & therfor the Apo. Peter saith that in baptisme ther is the question of a good conscience into God: & Paull [Page 69] saith that when the body is washed with pure water, the hart must be sprinckled from an evil conscience, 1. Pet. 3.21. Heb. 10.22. therfor infants are baptized which cannot Stipulate or contract themselves vnto the L. therfor the L. doth not contract with them, for Chr. the husband of the Church wil not contract in marriage with a bride or a spowse that is vnder age, Gal. 4.1-4.3. the L. did never appoint that bap­tisme should seale vp his new Testament to infants, or that infants should by his baptisme be admitted into the body of Antich. & into the Church, ministery, wor­ship, & government of Antich. or that his baptisme should set a character indelible vpon parties baptized, or should give grace ex opere operato, al which or most of which are done in Antich. baptisme: but the end of Chr. baptisme is to manifest vi­sibly that the partie confessing his faith & sinnes is sealed by the Spirit vnto the day of redemption, that he hath visibly put on Chr. that he is mortified, crucified, dead, & buryed, risen againe, & ascended with Chr. Rom. 6.1-6. & Col. 2.12. Gal. 3.27. Col. 3.1-5. these are the true ends of baptisme instituted by Chr.: Seing therfor the matter, forme, & end of baptisme in the false Church is from man even from Anti­ch. the for the L. is not the author of this baptisme, but the baptisme is antic. wholy: & although he vseth the words, In nomine Patris, Filij, & Sp. Sancti amen: as the pa­pists do in sprinckling holy water, in baptising their bels, & as conjurers do in their charmes, yet this cannot make true baptisme, but rather is a most notable profanatiō of the holy Scripture, even as it is profaned in ther Sermons & dayly worship per­formed by them. I affirme therfor againe & againe that the baptisme receaved in the false Church is none of the L. ordinance, but antichr. devise, essentially corrupted, in matter, forme, & end or vse: & therfor wholly to be rejected with the oynting, breathing, & crossing, &c.

Heer you endevour to prove that Israel was a false Church, bicause it Seperated from Iudah, & bicause they joyned together in a new Church & communion, vnder a false ministery & worship, & became a harlot wherto I answer that so was Iudah a false Ch: when they worshipped Idols vnder every greē tree, & in the high places: & if you so vnderstand a false Church, viz: meetings, or companyes of men assembled together in a wrong place, & to a wrong worship, vnder a wrong Preisthood, I yeeld Israel so to be a false Church, but I deny that to be the true definition of a false Chu. for a false Church is contrary to a true Church: now a true Church is descerned in the true causes essential: & so a false Church is known by the want of those true cau­ses essential: the true essential causes of the Chu. of the old Test was the posterity of Abrah. or proselytes circumcised: the want of these things only made a false Chur: So long as the Israelites retained circumcision, they were the true carnal constituted Church of the old Test: & Israel & Iudah are called harlots, not for that they were a false Church, but for the worshipping of God in Idols, as before the calves at Dan & Bethel, or the Idols in Iudah, this is plaine enough in the History. So that I cōclude against you that Israel was no false Church in the constitutiō, but had a true matter & forme, viz: circūcised Israelites though vnder a false ministery, worship, & govern­ment, as I have already shewed in the former treatise.

Lastly, you bring vs in a double respect or consideration of members of the Chur. of Antich. 1. as they are members of those false Chu: 2. as they are the children of beleeving [Page 70] progenitors who receaved the covenant for themselves & their posterity: in [...] first respect they are not vnder the covenāt or seale therof in the second respect they are vnder both, for the Fathers sake Rom. 11.28. & so their repentance shal serve their turne when they come to the true Church without rebaptising.

I āswer divers things: first, I do not deny but that mē may be cōsidered two waies visibly as members of Antich. body, invisibly as aperteyning to the L. election, & that is the meaning of the A p. Rom. 11.28. but I deny that hence it foloweth, that when they come from their invisible being in Ch. to a visible being in the true visible Chu. they shal enter in any way but by the dore which is baptisme: For wheras you inti­mate that a man being invisibly elect & beloved of God, & invisibly having th [...]se to the covenant & holy things of God, may therevppon first visibly enter into the false Chu. by false baptisme, & then vppon his repentance come to the true Chu. & enter therinto not by baptisme, but that the dore of Antich. Chur. shal open him the way into Chr. Church long before he come into Chr. Church, wheras I say you intimate vnto vs so much, you do herby teach contrary to our Saviour Chr. who saith that we must goe in by the dore, & not climb vp by the window, & that wee must first bee taught & made Disc. & thē baptized into Chr. but you in the Kingdom of Antic. are first baptized falsely & then made Disciples flat contrary to Christs commaundem.

Secondly I say that no man is vnder the covenant or vnder baptisme for the parēts sake: & that is not the meaning of the Ap. Ro. 11.28. but his meaning is that the elect of the Israelites are beloved for the promise God made to Abrah. Isaac, & Iacob, in re­spect of Chr: not for that the children shalbe pertakers of that covenant, bicause of their parents faith, or bicause of Gods covenant made with the parents & ther carnal infants, but bicause the L. elected them & predestinated them in Chr. to life & sal­vation invisibly: & therfor I do confidently deny, & you are never able to prove that the carnal infants are actually possessed of the everlasting covenant God made with Abrah. for their parents sakes: do you indeed think that God loveth any man for an other mans sake or do you think that God loveth not al men of his meer mercy: or for Chr. sake: neither is it the carnal line that is beloved of God for his mercy sake or for Chr sake: but it is the Spiritual line of Abrah. the faithful onely & elect that are beloved for the [...]hers, that is for the covenant made with Abrah. Isaac, & Iacob, our Fathers in the faith: & so it is true that God loveth men in the false Chu. of An. for Abrah. Isaac, & Iacob, that is for his merciful promise made to them: but what is this to prove that Antic. are beloved, & vnder the covenant, for their carnal line de­scending from a beleving auncestor? or if that were granted how doth it follow that the baptisme visibly receaved in the Antich. false Chu. is true baptisme sealing vp the covenant to them that the L. converteth in the false Chu. No: we have already pro­ved that the baptisme is essentially false & none of Chr. & therfor it is the character or mark of the beast, openly retained in the forhead of al the subjects of Antic. who professing themselves to be of that baptisme do professe thēselves to be of that body for of that body they are of whose baptisme they are, & of that baptisme they are of whose body they are, 1. Cor. 12.13. Eph. 4.4. Gal. 3.27. & we have also proved that the L. true baptisme doth not aperteyne to the carnal line, but only to them that are of Abrah. faith, that is actually beleeving to justification, & shewing the faith of A­braham [Page 71] by the works of Abrah. Lastly, wheras you fetch the title to the covenant [...] to baptisme, for infants in the false Chu. from some auncestor beleving 40. genera­tions happily before acording to that Exo. 20. that the L. sheweth mercy to 1000. generations of them that love him I answer 3. things, 1. you must prove that some off our predecessors had true actual saith & were members of true Ch. & this you must prove for every member you receave in without baptisme therby to assure you that he had title to the covenāt & to baptisme by his carnal line: 2. you must by the same reason receave by baptisme into the true Chu. (if you can come by thē) al the infants of the Thessalonians, the Ephesians, the Galatians, the Colossians, the Philippians, & the Chu. of Asia that did somtime beleve, 3. I deny that you expound the place Exo. 22. truly: For the L. directly doth require that they vpon whom hee sheweth mercy should feare him & keep his commaundem: & I do vtterly deny that ever the fore-Fathers of the English nation beleved, & you can never prove it. For that which you say that seing we are Apostates, therfor it followeth that somtyme we or our aun­cesters had the truth, I wonder at you for so saying: for we are departed frō the faith of the Scriptures, not from the faith of our auncestors, who never a one of them at any tyme beleved visibly in a true constituted Chu. Thus through Gods providence & blessing I am come to a happy end of answering your writing: wherin I praise the L. for his mercy I have receved such assurance of the truth as that you & al the earth shal never be able to wring it out of my hart & hands, & therfor I desire you Sir, & al the leaders of the Seperation to weigh seriously even betwixt the L. & their own harts vpon their beds this which is written, I doubt not but I may erre in particu­lars, & I have resolved to be vile befor men in confessing my erors, but for the maine points in controversy, & the cause I defend it is the most vndoubted & most evident [...]oth that ever was revealed to me: & therfor as you love the L. & his truth, & the people that depend vpon you, seek it out & embrace it, & resist it not, but if we bee in error, shew it vnto vs, why? shal we perish through your default? wil not the L. require our blood at your hand? are we not your countrymen al of vs? in exile for the common truths, we hold out against Antich. Answer we beseech you in the L: nay we adjure you in the Lord: if we be in error it is ignorantly, & of a desire to see the truth & to feare the L: Thus hoping speedily either to heare an answer to this wri­ting, or to see you yeeld to the truth which I vnfeynedly ask of the Lo: for you my countrymen, I end writing this 24. of March. 1608.