AND our friend in the common Faith, we wish grace and peace through the knowledge of our Lord Iesus Christ, to be multi­plyed unto you, & unto all that love our Lord Iesus Christ in sin­cerity Amen.

Wee have understood deare friend, from your Sister and ours, that you desire to have communicated unto you, the grounds of our now practise, which your re­quest we thinke reasonable, and our selves bound to satisfie you in. Our houlding and practising of a communion of Saints in Church fellowship, separated from such as with whom the believer hath no part: 2. Cor, 6.15. wee thinke you seeke not a reason of it being that which you are convinced of as well as wee; nor do we thinke that you seeke to be informed, that there is an ordinance of God to be submitted unto, by believers, called Baptisme: but your inquiry is as wee conceive, where­fore we who have (as we have beene told) had that done unto us in our Infancie, which is commonly called Baptisme, should notwithstanding repute our selves as unbaptized persons, and should become baptized, as if we had [...] Baptisme before, for which our practise, we present you with these ground [...] onely premising, that to be baptized is one of the coun­sells of God which may not be rejected, Luke. 7.30.

[Page 2] First, infants are not the subjects of Baptisme, or are not the persons whom God hath appointed to be baptized.

Secondly, the sprinkling water upon the face, which is all that wee ever heard of (that we had) is not Baptisme.

Thirdly, that which we in our Infancy had, if sprinkling was Bap­tisme, and Infants the subjects yet by the Separations owne grounds was not Gods Ordinance seeing the Church was false, where, and the mi­nistry by whom we had it, and where there is neither true Church nor true Ministerie, there can be no true religious administration, and as well as Mr. Can, may mannage separation from the Nonconformists prin­ciples: may we mannage our practise from the Principles of yours, and Master Can, wee thinke therein doth well, it being the course which the Lord takes with the Jewes, and Paul with them of Corinth, 1 Cor. 7. and Luke 13.15.

But to the first of these three. Infants are not the subjects of Baptisme, as appeareth to us by these reasons.

First, there is in all the word of God no command given to any per­son or persons, officers, or persons out of office, to baptize them: Now if the word of God be true, where it saith; all Scripture is given by inspira­tion of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, reproofe, correction, instruction, in right­eousnesse, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good worke, 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. the Scriptures giving no direction in the do­ing of nor unto any to do that worke, it can be no good worke, and there are of works, but good and bad, and our being so often called to the Law and to the Testimonies, and our being bid to give heed unto that sure word of prophesie, that shineth as a light in a darke place, with an affir­mation that if wee give heed thereunto wee shall do well, cannot but imply at the least, that we shall omit no duty, while wee do but what is written: and the Baptizing of Infants not being by God injoyned unto, or upon a­ny, nor by his word recorded to have beene done by any, it can be as no good worke, so no worke of light; and the Servants of God may not walke in darknesse. Hence do we in one respect decline that practise as an unwritten unverity.

Secondly, Infants have not in them those requisites that are necessary in that service, which are, R [...]tance from dead works, and faith towards God. Heb. 6.1. & Act. 8.36, 37. [...]. 2.38. and wee thinke that of the English common Service Book, will be no objection of yours; saying, yes they do performe them by their sureties?

If you object that though repentance and faith were requisites in per­sons of yeares yet it followeth not that those or either of them, are requi­red [Page 3]of Infants, who by reason of their tender yeares cannot performe them:

Wee give thereunto three Answers.

First, as little as we find in the Scriptures, of the requiring of faith and repentance at the hands of Infants do we find of the Baptizing of Infants: wherefore if the not requiring of Faith and repentance from Infants, be a sufficient exemption to them, from demonstrating either; then in like manner by the same proportion, will the not requiring of Infants to be Baptized, and the not requiring of any to baptize them, be a sufficient exemption both to the one, and to the other: That is our first answer.

Secondly, Wee finde that in all Ordinances, whereunto both old and young indefinitely had accesse, that which was a requisite in one person, was a requisite in every person, and was found indefinitely both in old and young. To eate the Passeover, Circumcision was required, to precede, and that was all that was required, Exod. 12.47 48, 49, 50. To Circum­cision was required that the persons were Males, borne in Abrahams house, of his Children or strangers, or bought with his money of all the Heathen that were round about, Gen. 17.12.23.27. Exod. 12.44. these requisites wee say, being all that were minded, suited with the condition of every one, and for us to hould out accesse to Christ in his Ordinances, to one by this way and to another by that, what is it but to make the Scriptures to be of private interpretation, and to make Christ who is one, and his way one, to become divided? this is to us likewise considerable.

Lastly, that which will give admittance to one Ordinance, will give admittance unto another of like nature: now if the Sacraments (as they are called) or the new Covenant, be like the new Covenant, viz. spirituall, which who dares deny;

Then that which will give admittance unto Baptisme, will give ad­mittance to the Lords Supper: and thus have we such as neither have faith, nor ever professed to have any, admitted to the Church, and to all the Ordinances thereof, and what is this but to make the new Covenant as carnall as the old, and the subjects of the one as carnall as the subjects of the other: and the blood of Christ to be of no more valew, then the blood of Fulls and Goates, that could not take away sinne, Heb. 8.6, 7, 8. 1 Cor. 11.27 28.

Thirdly, the faith of the persons (that ever have any) baptised in their Infancie, in the use of their baptisme when they come to yeares, can be built but upon humane Testimonie, commonly that of a Parish Clarke: and to have our faith stand in the truth of men, is to have a foundation for it, like that of the wisedom of men: which is opposed to the demon­stration [Page 4]of the spirit and power of God; 1 Cor. 2.3, 4, 5.

If you object their, being circumcised in their Infancie.

Wee answer, that it viz. Circumcision left a marke in their flesh, which they could not but take notice of: and therefore their knowledge of their being circumcised depended not upon the testimonie of others.

Fourthly, they cannot rise with Christ in Baptisme, for they being In­sants are only passive, and rising with Christ in Baptisme, being a part of Baptisme, or being by Baptized persons done in Baptisme, they can­not be baptized, the one halfe of Baptisme, being the act of the baptized seeing they cannot act, Col. 2.12. Like as they cannot partake of the Lords Supper that cannot eate, let the administrator do unto them what he can.

And thus we come to the second head, viz. That sprinkling of water upon the face of any person young or old is not Baptisme, let it be done in what Name or with what Ceremonies it will: which is proved to us by these reasons.

First because that the word which is translated into English, Baptize, signifieth to dipp into water, and as sprinkling water upon a thing, is not dipping the thing into water, but the contrary: so is sprinkling water upon a thing not Baptisme, but contrary to it, Thatthe Greek word which is translated baptize, so signifieth viz. to dip into water, we have the Testi­monies both of the Translators of the Scriptures, of Paraphrases, Exposi­tors, and others, wee will not heere trouble you with many. Isaack Causa­ben in his notes upon Math. 3.6. they were baptized in Iordan, saith thus, the manner of Baptisme was to plunge the person Baptized over head in water, and is that which the word Baptising fully declareth; and by and by, it was not for nothing that some have disputed for the plunging of the whole body into water in Baptisme, for they urged the very word. Doctor Downame in his Book of Divinitie hath the same words in effect. V [...]sinus, in his Catechisme in the title of baptisme ingenuously confesseth, that the East Churches did Baptize by dipping the whole body into wa­ter, in the 409. Page of his Book, and this signification: Ainsworth in his Annotations [...] Numb. [...]lvin [...] In­ [...]ons. Chap. [...] 441. 11. Levit. 15. confesseth that word to have, but had we not these and a multitude of other Testimonies, the Scriptures in declaring the practises of Gods servants, give us light enough, Iohn 3.23. Iohn baptised in Aenon, because there was much water there: which argueth a use of much water in baptisme, else that which is there rendered as a reason of his Baptizing in denon, cannot be reasonably expounded, Math. 3.4 5 6, 7. Iesus came unto Iohn to Iordain to be baptized, and is said to come up out of the waters when he was Baptized, which intimateth, that he [Page 5]went into the water to be baptized, as the Eunuch and Philip are both said to doe, Acts 8.36, 37, 38. Besides these Testimonies and practices, the correspondencie which the Apostle makes Baptisme to hold with buriall, in 1 Cor. 15. and Rom. 6. Col. 2. holds out the same thing.

And lastly the commission given to the Apostles, and Disciples of Christ, is to make Disciples, and to baptize them, Math. 28.19.20. Now no rationall person will say there, that the face is the Disciple, no more then they will allow us to say, the nose is the face, yet if the face was the Disciple, that is not so much as Baptized, how much lesse the Disciple;

And wee should aske these part baptizers, but that wee cannot truly call it baptizing, how they know the face should have that besprinkle­ing which they use. If they say the face is the most honourable part:

We answer, that it is not our honour, but our cleansing from our fil­thinesse which is by Baptisme set forth: and no person indued with reason to set out the clensing nature of water, would take that to wash, which is free from filth, and how know they that honour should sway us in this case, and whereas they say that Baptisme comes in the roome of Cir­cumcision, they will make it out by their practices, for Circumcisions roome was the privie parts, (if we mistake not) which they in their sprinck­ling used insteed of Baptisme doe decline. But to summe up all this, if Baptisme be a dipping of the whole body into water, as is proved by Te­stimonies, both divine and humane, then where no part of the body is dipped into water, there can be no part of Baptisme, as there is not in that besprinkling, which now adayes is falsely called Baptisme.

Come we now to the grounds, upon which they of the Separation doe proceed, they affirme, that the Covenant of which they hold baptisme to be a seale, is made but with beleevers and their seed; and that the seale is no seale where no precedent Covenant hath beene: now the Parents of the most of them, by their owne confession, were ungodly and unbeleevers, as the children of the Separation, notwithstand­ing their pretended Covenant commonly prove, and so had no covenant made with them, nor with their seed, nor as they affirme, had their seed, any Covenant made with them till they became beleevers.)

From which consideration we may frame this argument.

If where no Covenant hath gone before, the Seale of the Covenant be set to, it becomes no Seale, then where no Covenant hath gone be­fore, Baptisme being the Seale of the Covenant, if it be set to, becomes no Baptisme.

But where no Covenant hath gone before, the Seale of it be set to, be­comes no Seale.

[Page 6] Ergo, where no Covenant hath gone before, Baptisme being the Seale of the Covenant, if it be set to, becomes no Baptisme.

And thus are they quit of their Baptisme, by their owne grant: for they which have no Baptisme, but that which they had when they were with­out the Covenant, have no Baptisme at all.

Againe they commonly affirme that Baptisme upon the Baptizer is es­sentially requisit, that the baptisme administred by him may be in force for say they baptisme acted, by one unbaptized, unlesse hee had a call like Iohn the Baptist, is a nullity: and thus if it bee possible their baptisme is Worse then naught, they themselves being out of Covenant when they had it and having it for the most part, by persons out of covenant, and by unpaptized ones, or at the best by persons that successively have re­ [...]ved their Baptisme from Rome, where they say all administrations are Antichristian and voide, for Baptisme in Rome by the most eminent of them, even by learned Ainsworth, is called an Idoll, and lying signe, and let all men judge whether the being under an Idoll, and lying signe, will enable persons to communicate true Baptisme. Lastly the Scriptures and Arguments produced by the Separation and others, for the baptizing Infants, we shall briefly summe up and answer and then will leave o [...] grounds with our selves to your judicious censure.

The grand argument of theirs, in confidence of the strength of which they insult like unto Goliah against the Armies of Israel, is, to all those that are within the Covenant doth the Seale belong: but all the children of beleeving Parents are within the Covenant Ergo. Here wee humbly aske, what covenant it is they intend: if the old Covenant, to the old Co­venants Seales we send them, if they say they are all within the New Co­venant, we must needs say they speak falsely, if God bee true, who is so; for Abraham Isaac, and Iacob were beleevers, by the Scriptures owne Testimo­ny, and yet of their children God testifieth, though the number of them be as the sand, yet but a remnant of them shall be saved, Rom. 9.27. And of Isaacks children, God loved one, and hated the other, Rom. 9.13. And Gods New Covenant was not made with Ismael, Gen. 17.19.20. Now if the New Covenant be as Ieremiah reporteth, Ier. 31, 32, 33, 34. and as is expressed, Heb. 8.8. and 10.15, 16, 17. Then God who keepeth Covenant must needs (to be true in what he promiseth,) write his Lawes in the hearts of all beleevers children, they being within his Covenant, and except that [...]thlesse doctrine may be allowed for truth, that men may fall from grace, beleevers children must all be saved, which yet the Scripture denieth, Rom. 9.27 Isaiah. 1.9. and Rom. 9.29.

They further affirme that the covenant made with Abraham and with [Page 7] his seed is made with the faithfull and their seed, to speake in their own words, in that Abraham was but faithfull, and they thinke so of them­selves; foolishly erring in not considering, that they (if they be with­in the Covenant) come in, not in the place of Abraham, but in the place of his seed, and so are not Abrahams, Fathers of the faithfull, there be­ing but one that ever had that Priviledge; now they being themselvs but seed to Abraham, and the promise reaching but to his seed, and not to his seeds seed, their Children are manifestly excluded the promise or Covenant, unlesse they become Abrahams seed, and the Apostle teacheth us but one way by which the Gentiles doe become the seed of Abraham. Gal. 3. and if yee be Christs, then are yee Abrahams seed, and Heires ac­cording to the promise, so likewise Rom. 9.8. and they that are Christs have crucified the flesh, with the passions and lusts: Gal. 5.24. and Luk. 19.9.

Lastly, the Lord teacheth us how to understand the seed of Abraham to whom the promises were made, that were made to Abraham and to his seed, in Gal. 3.16. now to Abraham and to his seed were the promises made, he saith not, and to seeds, as to many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ: wherefore unlesse these persons would runne into ma­nifest wickednesse, (wee might say Blasphemie against God) in ma­king themselves Fathers of Christ, their greatest honour lying in their being Children unto him, (if they be so) the promise cannot descend through them unto any person: The promise being but to Abraham, and to his seed, which is Christ, and to those that are Christs seed, which to be, is more then to be seed to them, Isa. 53.10. compared with Rom. 9.8. and Gal. 3. Vlt.

Their next hould is that of the Apostle, Act. 2.39. for the promise is to you and to your Children, and to all that are a farre off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, whence they conclude belie­vers to be within the Covenant, with their seed.

But we here likewise expostulate in three particulars.

First, What that promise is:

Secondly, who these people were (to whom it was proposed) [...] the proposall of it.

Thirdly, what is the extent and Latitude of that promise: the pro­mise as is most plaine in ver. 17. and 33. of that Chapter, is the guist of the holy Spirit, which God at this time powred out upon the Disciples. and Peter in his speech houlds out no more: Repent saith he, and be baptized every one of you, for the remission of sins, and yee shall re­ceive the guift of the Holy Ghost.

Secondly, it is no lesse plaine & manifest that the persons to whom [Page 8] Peter so speaketh, were in his Judgement, as yet converts. For all that he heard from them was what shall we doe, and we find the Jaylor went further in his expressions, and yet Paul bids him believe in the Lord Iesus, intimating that he not yet believed, though he had made a further inquiry after Salvation then these men.

The last thing proposed, was the extent of that promise, what is might be; the place it selfe we thinke in that particular is cleare e­nough, for Peters exclamation must be considered, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call, for to no more of them, nor of their children, nor of them a farre off, then the Lord our God shall call, doth Peter in any wise apply that promise.

If you object that he applyeth the promise there to no more of them a farre off, then the Lord our God shall call: but he applyeth it to them and to their Children, absolutely without the reservation of being called of God. &c.

Wee answer, that if we take these at this time, to be unbelievers as the truth is, then who sees not the consequence? if we take them to be believers, then all believers Children must have the Holy Ghost, though they never be called, which who will owne? Let them be be­lievers or unbelievers, it matters not much in the question in hand, for they were Iewes, and therefore were in opposition to the Gentiles, who are there by your owne Judgement, spoken of as a farre off, and to those a farre off, as the Objection yeeldeth, yea and that text also, be­longs not the promise, but upon being called, and thus are your chil­dren by your owne graunt excluded the promise till they be called.

The next hold they have is in 1 Cor. 7.14 which many strike at: we wish you to consider, that the same holinesse of which the Child partaketh, is the unbelieving wife during her Infidelity a partaker of, and whether that be reasonably concluded that thence she may be Baptized, (which yet will hold as well as the other) we leave to you: The opinions of those that deny election, that hold free will and falling from grace, &c. Wee protest against and do abhorre: but because we write a letter, and not a Book, wee must conclude as wee do, wishing peace to all that obey God onely, Amen.