YOu have (in your title page and Epistle to the Reader) taken up­on you to do that which you are not able; and promised that which you cannot perform, and affirmed that which you cannot prove, by Scripture: which is, that the Baptisme of Infants is unwar­rantable, and a meer device, brought into the world for politick and by ends, &c. and that therefore (it being the baptisme in the Church of England) you have undertaken to prove it to be deficient, and none of Gods Baptisme.

IN the entrance of your discourse you confesse,Pag. 1. That Bap­tisme is a great ordinance of the new Testament.

To which I adde, that though every ordinance of the new Testament be great, yet there is a difference between them; for some ordinances are active (both in respect of the administrator and partaker thereof,) other ordinances are meerly passive (in reference to the parties upon whom the same are administred) amongst which passive ordinances Baptisme is oneSo Mr. Spilsbery saith, the subject of Baptisme is to be passive: See his Treatise, pa. 26. li 7..

That Baptisme is so (as I have here declared) the Scriptures (Mat. 28.19. Acts 2.38.) which you have quoted, d [...] [...]xpresse, where the Apostles were commanded to baptise others; And the Disciples are [Page 2] not bidden by Peter to baptise themselves, but to be baptised by others. And (you may know that) the Eunuch baptised not (himself) but Philip (a baptised person) baptised him: Act. 8.38. And therefore (in this respect) baptisme is unto us, as circumcision was to the Saints of old, (to wit) an ordinance, not acted by the subject (or receiver) but submitted unto,Josh. 5. and suffered; so it is said, Joshua circumcised the children of Israel the second time, for they were uncircumcised. God did not require them to circumcise themselves, but Joshua (a circumcised person) was to circumcise them. Jos. 5.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 9.

And as to circumcision then, there was required, a right instrument, a right subject, and an enrighting power; so there is now required to baptisme. But as circumcision was Gods, though the subject, and instrument, and power was not right; So is baptisme now Gods holy institu­tion, though done by a false minister, upon a false subject; and by a false power. And though these Antichristians have no command (or warrant) from God to baptise Apostates (or any other persons) no more then the idolatrous Israelites had to circumcise, yet as that cir­cumcision then administred, after that manner (contrary to Gods re­vealed will) was not changed from being Gods, nor done over again, upon those that returned out of that Apostasie: So baptisme now though it be administred by these Apostates, after such an idolatrous manner, and upon such idolatrous subjects, yet it doth not make a nullitie of the ordinance.

By this it appeareth, that you have laid the ground of your rea­soning amisse (in bringing your five particulars) to make a nullitie of our baptisme which we have received in Apostasie, the insuffici­encie of which grounds of yours, shall be further shewed in the ex­amination of the particulars which follow.

Your first particular ground (by which you say you will disprove the baptisme in the Church of England) is,Pag. 2. because (as you affirme) that the end for which baptisme is there administred is to regenerate the infants there baptised; for proof whereof you repeat their forme of words before, and after baptisme, [but you mention not the [...] of institution, which they pronounce in the act of baptising] and you would argue that because they declare that all men be conceived and born in sinne; and because they say, that our Saviour Christ saith, none can enter into the kingdome of God, except he be regenerated, and born anew, of water and the holy Ghost: and because the Minister beseecheth the peo­ple to call upon God [...] Father through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his [Page 3] bountifull mercy he will grant to the children that thing which by nature they cannot have, that they may be baptised with water, and the holy Ghost.

And because the Minister and people pray thus We beseech thee of thine infinite mercies, that thou wilt mercifully look upon these children; sanctifie them, and wash them with the holy Ghost, that they being deli­vered from thy wrath, may be received into the Ark of Christs Church, and being stedfast in faith, joyfull through hope, and rooted in charitie, &c.

We call upon thee for these infants, that they coming to thy holy bap­tisme, may receive the remission of their sins, by spirituall regeneration, &c.

Give thy holy Spirit to these infants, that they may be born again, and be made heirs of everlasting salvation.

Also because the Minister (after he hath cast a little water on the childrens faces openly forthwith, (without blushing Lin. 28.) saith: Now seeing that these children be regenerated, and grafted into the body of Christs congregation, &c. And then exhorts the people to give thanks to God, for that it hath pleased him to regenerate the infants with his holy Spirit, and received them for his own children by adoption, &c.

From these premises you would infer that the baptisme is false, which ground of yours is very weak; yea the ground of your reason­ing is amisse, and contrary to reason.

For it is no right arguing to bring the mixing of their traditions as a nihilation of Gods institution.

And their confession that all men be born and conceived in sin, and re­petition of the words of Christ, and the exhortation to call upon God the Father through Jesus Christ, that he will give them that of his mercy which (they confesse) by nature they cannot have, that they might be bap­tised with water and the holy Ghost. Doth not argue that the baptisme is not Gods ordinance, for it is neither their high conceptions, or great estimations, or such verball pronuntiations that doth destroy or make void Gods holy institutions: yet it is a prophanation of the Name of God, and so it is of the ordinance, because the persons who administer the same, are Idolaters, and the subjects upon whom it is administred, are the seed of Apostates.

Neither is it their beseeching God of his infinite mercies, that he will mercifully look upon these children, and sanctifie them, and wash them with the holy Ghost; that will disanull the ordinance, and make it of none effect. Neither doth their praying, that the children may be deli­vered from Gods wrath, and that they may be received into the Ark of [Page 4] Christs Church, and be stedfast in faith, joyfull through hope, and rooted in charitie, &c. overthrow Gods ordinance, and make the Baptisme received no ordinance of God. Neither doth their acknowledging of baptisme to be Gods, and to be holy, and there praying for re­mission of sins for the Infants by spirituall regeneration, (nor their ascribing regeneration to the holy Spirit) prove the baptisme there administred to be no true baptisme.

And it is not their sprinkling or casting water upon the face of the children that maketh a nullitie of the ordinance; though he without blushing say afterwards, that the children be regenerated; for whe­ther he blush or not blush, that is not materiall; to prove the point which you brought it for.

And though the exhortation which the Minister gives to the peo­ple together with the rest agreeth with their Catechise, the particulars whereof (concerning infants regeneration) though they were confir­med by these FathersIerome, Augustin, Zanchus, Peter Martyr, Dr Whit­ticar. (which you have cited) to be notedPag. 3. instead of many more, yet it doth not argue, but that the baptisme holdeth firme, though in respect of the manner we allow it not, neither their additions thereunto; and though it be done by a wrong administra­tour upon an apostate, yet if that Apostate return from his apostasie, the evill of the manner being repented of, the action hath no need to be done over again, neither doth God so require it, any more then he required the apostate Israelites (when they returned) to be circum­cised again; this you cannot deny, except you could prove baptisme to be lesse durable then circumcision; as if Christ were lesse faithfull in his house then Moses.

Again you say, the end for which Infants are baptised in the Church of England, is to regenerate them, and that they may be born anew, and accordingly it is concluded in the Catechisme; Pag. 3. and confirmed by all these Authors, and divers others well known to your Ministers, the maintai­ners of this doctrine, that in Baptisme they receive the holy Spirit, that they are regenerate, and born anew; that they are made the members of Christ, the children of God, and heires of the kingdom of heaven. In an­swer to all which (you say) you shall say nothing, but onely reason this with some other of their own principles, and practise, and thereby (you say) you doubt not but it will appear to all, how unfaithfully they have, and do delude the Nations in this particular.

I answer. As for their unfaithfulnesse, and their deluding the Na­tions, I doubt not of it; but with what do they most delude? if not [Page 5] with that which they have (like theeves) stolen away; So the whorish woman is said to delude, by commending the stollen waters, and hid­den bread for sweetnesse and pleasantnesse, (and so inticing her lo­vers to commit fornication with herPro. 9.1.7.;) so the Philistines thought the Ark to be a rare thing1 Sam. 4.7, 8, 9., and so indeed it wasVer. 22., for it was Gods Arke, and not theirs, but sacralegiously taken by themVer. 10.11. &c., and put in their idolatrous high place for the honour of Dagan their GodCap. 5. 1.2.; yet it was not effectuall to save them from enemies, but rather to de­stroy themVer. 3.4, 5, 6, 7, 9.10.12.: yet notwithstanding after it was brought back again, the people of God enquired of God by it, and had an answer from him, which was effectuall for the delivering of all Israel whether they were Jews, or Prosolites of Palestina, or any other Nation.

And though the Israelites in their apostasie deceived both them­selves and others, by retaining still an outward profession of God, and practising his outward ordinances, yea, and though they sacri­ficed unto devils, yet circumcision was not worn out by them, nor repeated, when the Apostates returned, but remained true circumci­sion both to young and old: and they, and their holy seed, were p [...]r­petually, to have a part, and portion, in all the holy things of God, and alwayes as their children came to be capable, they were to mani­fest (actually) the fruits of [...]ods Spirit, both faith, and love, and all other graces: but if they afterward fell away, and so embraced the apostate condition (in which their fore-fathers formerly had been) though repentance and regeneration might be preached unto them, yet they had no part in Christs kingdome except they did repent, and become new creatures again; like the incestuous person in the Church of Corinth, when he was renewed again by repentance. And if any of the members in the visible Church (though never so eminent) com­mit sinne, they both may, and ought then to be admonished to re­pentance; Therefore it is no sufficient argument to say, [that because the Ministers preach repentance, &c. to them] that therefore the bap­tisme which they received is false. Simon Magus after he had beleeved, (and therefore was in all visible account saved) was (upon com­mitting of sinne) admonished by Peter to repentance; (yet his bap­tisme was true) and so Judas Iscariot though (he was) a Saint out­wardly, yet afterward he appeared to be a devill.

And so farre as the Church of England both have, and will defend the doctrine of perseverance in the regenerate, and members of Christ, they are in the right, though all the good deeds which they do (ei­ther [Page 6] in point of justification, or sanctification) shalt not avail them, in that estate; for the Lord abhorreth their best actions, as he did abhorre the best actions of the Apostate Israelites, and therefore cir­cumcision [as it was acted by them] was abhorred by him; but when any of them returned, he bound them not to be circum­cised again, but accepted of his own jewels So Mr Spilsburie grant­eth that the vessels of the Lords house, they were Gods ordinances, & that whiles they were in Ba­bylon, &c. Dan. 5.2, 3. but not in respect of the use and service the Baby­lonians applyed them un­to, &c. Though in them­selves, simply considered, they were Gods ordināce, ordained by him to a ho­ly use, in which conside­ration (saith he) bap­tisme may be said to be Gods ordinance in the Church of Antichrist. For this see his Treatise of Baptisme, pa. 35. lin. 20. to lin. 27., though brought out of the sinke and grave of Apostasie.

And so whatsoever good these Antichristians do is evill (as they do it) but if God give any of them a sight of their sinne, they are to repent of the evill of the manner: but for the good thing they have received, they ought not to throw it away, but own it as Gods.

And surely a person may be esteemed to be regenera­ted, and born again, though in Gods secret decree he was never elected. And yet these learned Divines (as you terme them) are not in such a great strait in defending this, though it be against the Arminians; for truth is more easie to be defended, then errour.

Touching that all likelihood (which you bring, by entring into their heart) because it is brought onely as a supposition, as it is sleig [...]tly proved, so it deserves to be sleightly passed over. And your answer thereunto i [...] somewhat like it,Pag. 5.7. being an answer to such a likelihood, therefore it deserves no reply: though in answer to these speeches of yours (which you bring as suppositions or likelihoods) you advise the au­thors thereof to leave off such jugling Pag 7. l. 16., and give glory to God in acknow­ledging the truth.

But after all this you make a simple objection on their behalfe, thusLin 21. 22. Infants are elected, and therefore they may be baptised.

To which you answerLin. 23.24., that all Infants are not elected, and there­fore all infants ought not to be baptised.

To which I reply, that as the objection is without distinction, so is your answer thereunto; and therefore except they were explained, it were folly to answer either of them. For a man may be in Gods se­cret election a Saint, and yet an Idolater, and so are the infants of ido­latrous parents idolaters, (in regard of their visible estate) yet we know not but that God hath elected divers of them, and will in his due time manifest them.

But you make another weak objection for them: for you say, they [Page 7] will reply, That in regard some infants are elected, and none can say that this or that particular infant is not elected, therefore Baptisme must be administred unto all, because we may not deny the elect their priviledges, for fear of giving to others, that which belongs not to them.

And to this mad and foolish objection (which you father upon others) you make answer, that if it be a warrantable ground for you to administer baptisme to all infants, because that some particular infants are elected, then by the same reason it will follow, that baptisme may law­fully be administred to every man and woman in the world, because amongst them also we may judge that some are elected: But this (say you) contradicteth the order and rule of Christ. (Matth. 28.19. Mar. 16.16.) and must be ranked amongst other of their sophismes before detected P. 8 l. 6. 7..

To which I reply: That [some] infants are elected cannot be just­ly denied; But to administer baptisme to [all] infants for fear of omit­ting it to any of the elect, is to do evill that good may come thereof.

Moreover, all the elect are not priviledged to have the outward or­dinance of baptisme, nor any of them till such time as they are mani­fested unto us to be visible Saints; Again, we know Judas Iscariot, and Simon Magus were baptised, though not elected.

Now the reason which is annexed to the objection, is nonsense, which is for fear of giving to others that which belongs not to them: for in administring Baptisme to [all] they give unto others (besides the elect) that which belongeth not to them; therefore such manner of reasoning will not stand; I seldome have heard the like reasoning, except it were amongst those who deny Infants baptisme to be Gods holy institution.

Now in your answer to this you crosse your self; in pag. 7. lin. 9, 10, 11. where you say, that God hath not said he will destroy any in­fants in hell, and it would be censorious for any to judge that they shall be damned, and yet you grant concerning persons of yeers that they are under the censure of damnation. Therefore by your own ground you cannot so freely baptise all men and women as you can all infants, and therefore it appears that what you build up with one hand, you throw down with the other.

In the second part of your answer to this objection, you grant (for arguments sake) that baptisme is to be administred upon the elect before they manifest faith, in which affirmation, you want a distinction, and explanation, for you ought to have made a distinction betweene faith inherent, and faith professed; that is, you should have declared [Page 8] that faith may be inherent in some onely; and professed in others.

Secondly, that all that professe faith verbally have not faith really; and all that have faith really, do not professe it verbally, or manifest it themselves actually.

Again, you should have explained your self, whether you meane by the elect, all the elect, or but some of them, all which you have omitted: wherefore I omit to answer you till you further explain your self. But in the conclusion you affirm, that its true faith onely mani­fested, and made known by confession of the mouth, that gives the elect ad­mission to Baptisme.

To which I answer, that though we cannot know invisibly because it is the onely office of the invisible Spirit, to whom all things are vi­sible, yet we may judge of invisible things, by visible demonstrations; as the Saints before us have done; so God leaving unto us a rule where­by to judge the infants of beleevers to be elected, it is want of know­ledge and charitie which maketh some persons that they cannot judge so of them, nor put a difference between the infants of heathens and the infants of beleeving parents; for the infants of beleevers in the time of the Law could not be circumcised (according to Gods will) without a confession; but if their parents made a confession, it was suf­ficient to bring both them and their infants to have right to circum­cision, and those infants were Jews (that is, confessors) though they could not make a verball confession themselves actually and the like priviledge the infants of beleevers have now under the Gospel, to have baptisme, as the other had circumcision, which is one and the same in effect. But when any of the Jews apostated, they lost the name; and so these idolaters of Rome, and England are as those Apo­states then were, and so is their off-spring. And when we call the un­beleeving Hebrews by the name of Jews (or Israelites,) it is but onely for distinction sake: for as the dumbe Idols were called Gods, and yet were no gods, so those are no Jews which confesse not Christ Rom. 9.6. and 2.28.; but if any do imbrace Christ in puritie, both they and their infants have right to baptisme, (as really,) as the infants of the beleeving Jews had right to circumcision they being in the covenant. Else Christ should be lesse faithfull in his house then Moses. For infants were by God counted worthy of the signe Gen. 17.11. and seal Rom. 4.11. of his righteousnesse both beforeGen. 17.7.9, 10, 11.14. Exod. 12.48. and under the Law Jos. 5.7. Luk. 1.59.; and Christ coming into the world, came not to take away any priviledge from any infant which former­ly enjoyed the same, but placed as great a one (if not greater) in the [Page 9] stead thereof, he came not to take away the types from the infants of beleevers, and bereave them both of substances and types, but seeing baptisme is come in stead of circumcision, as the infants of beleevers formerly had right to circumcision, so the infants of beleevers now have right to baptisme.

Thus, though you have passed from your first particular, to your fifth, from the end, to the subject, yet I have given you a direct answer unto both.

THe second particular, Pag. 9. which you bring (for disproof of the bap­tisme in the Church of England (is, the manner in which baptisme is there administred, which manner (you say) is sprinkling, or casting a little water upon the head or face of the child baptised, wherein (you say) they shew themselves as contrary to Christ as in the former particular. Forasmuch as the institution of Christ requireth that the whole man be dipped all over in water.

To which I [...]nswer, that there is little weight in this confused ex­ception of yours, as may plainly appear in observing the particulars; for you lay it down ambiguously, in saying the [head] or face of the child; If you meane that because the face is a part of the head, that they in baptising the face, baptise the head, in it I assent unto you; but if by the head you meane the scull, (or hairy place of the head) if you say they baptise that part by sprinkling or casting water thereon, I doubt not but you are mistaken.

But you would have the whole man to be dipt all over in water, and this institution you would father upon Christ; But in this your own bare affirmation (though not yours onely) the Scripture will not beare you out.

But for confirmation of this your opinion of dipping every part, you quote divers Scriptures, as Matth. 3.11. Mark 1.8. Joh. 1.26. Act. 11.16. and you tell us they point out a baptisme [in] water, but not a baptisme [with] water Lin. 21..

To which I answer, that if they point not out baptisme [with] wa­ter, then they point out a baptisme [without] water, but I thought you had intended to speak here onely of the baptisme of water (for so the Scriptures quoted do) and if that be your meaning, I pray you to shew (if you can) how these Scriptures (or any other) do point out such a baptisme [in] water, and yet not [with] water: To say it is the baptisme of water, and yet not [with] water, argueth an impos­sibilitie, and is (in the self same respect) a flat contradiction, yea, and contrary to reason.

Indeed if you had not repeated it againLin. 24., and that in the same terms without alteration, I might have thought it had been onely an over­sight of yours. But finding the same thing insisted upon againLin. 27. 29. and againPa. 10. lin 8., charitie it self would not permit me to judge otherwise, but that your words seem to import, that persons may receive the true baptisme of water [in] water; and yet not [with] water. For (after you have quoted Matth. 3.11. Ego men baptizo humas en hudati, I indeed baptize you in water, Mar. 1.8. E [...]o men [...]baptisa humas en hu­dati, I indeed have baptised you in water. Also Joh. 1.26. Act. 11.16.) you say, all these point out a baptisme [in] water, but not a baptisme [with] water.

And whereasPag. 9. li. 22.23. the word [en] (in Rev. 19.21. Kai hoi loipoi apoct athesanente romthaia) signifieth with.

You answer, that it never signifieth with, after this word baptizo.

Another reason you alledge from Christs being baptised into the Jordan.Pag. 9. Pag. 10. Therefore you conclude again that this word [en] (as used af­ter this word baptizo) must signifie [in] and not [with.]

But you should take notice that if Christ received the baptisme of water, he was baptised not onely when he was in Jordan, but there was he baptised [with] the water of Jordan. Wherefore it plainly ap­peareth that the word [en] in this place signifieth [with] and there­fore you have not done well to say it doth not. You alledge Greeke and Latine) Authors to prove that the word en (as used after this word baptizo) must signifie in and not with.

Which thing is contrary to the Scriptures which speake of the baptisme of water, neither can such an affirmation stand with reason, but is contradictory to it self, and therefore not to be beleeved.

But the dipping of the whole man all over in water is that you stand for; but yet you have not proved it to be of Christs ordaining, you deny both washing and sprinkling with water, to be Gods ordi­nance; and affirme dipping is the onely right way: but seeing you de­nie the former, how will you take (or how have you taken) up the latter: if you hold it successively, to the successours you must then go, if you have not found (or cannot find) them which way then have you taken (or which way wil you take) it up? But by one whom you judge to be an unbaptised person. Moreover, you tell us that the whole man must be dipped all over, but you declare not unto us the way and manner thereof; whether the subject must go into the water himself, or whether he must be put in by another, or onely led in, or [Page 11] carried; or (if the party must go in) whether he must be lifted up, out of the water, and so dipped down again, or no; or whether, onely that part that is above the water, (must be dipt, and that part under the water let alone) or if the subject be dipped all but a part, whether he must be dipped again in whole, or in part, or if there be any errour in your dipping, in omission or commission whether it maketh a nullitie of your ordinance, how your judgement standeth in these things I know not: you stand for dipping, yea and dipping the whole man all over in water; not onely the feet, but also the hands and head; but what if some part or parts be missing? is it not true baptisme? But further­more how shall this baptisme be done by a weak person, especially in great and deep waters (which thing you urge in your discourse) how shall this dipping of every part be done in such rivers where the streame is readie to carrie them away (especially when he who is the baptiser is weak of body, and lifteth up the (man or woman) above the water) these things are to be observed also.

But surely it is not good to presume above what is written in the Word of God, either in justifying of our selves, or condemning of others. And if you do but well observe the manner how Philip bap­tised the Eunuch, Act. 8.36.38. peradventure you may receive some light in this point, whereby you may be disswaded from your totall dipping: for it is said that Philip and the Eunuch went both down into the water, and there Philip baptised the Eunuch, which doth plainly demon­strate, unto us, that going into the water is no part of baptisme; be­cause the baptisme was administred after their going into the water; for if it had been a part of baptisme, then the Eunuch baptised him­self, for he went into the water. But the Scripture saith, that they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he bapti­sed him. Neither is it said, that Philip baptised himself (which by the same reason we may conceive he did, if going into the water were a part of baptisme) but the Scripture noteth the going down into the water, and the being baptised with the water, as two distinct things. Neither is it said, that Philip baptised the Eunuchs feet, or legs, for the Eunuch was in the water before, and at the time of his baptisme, but it is said, Philip baptised him; to wit, a part of him for the whole, which part in reason must be conceived to be his face, under which externall noble part is comprehended the whole man, and all the senses of his body. So the Scriptures in divers places teacheth us to understand, that a part sometimes is to be taken for the whole; so it [Page 12] was prophesied, that the Son of man should be three dayes and three nights in the heart of the earthMat. 12.40., and yet he lay not there so long, but rose before three dayes or three nights was totally expired; as appeareth by Matth. 27.46. and 28.1 6 7. Mar. 15.42. and 16.2.9. Luk. 23.54 56. and 24.1 36. Joh. 19.42. and 20.1.14.19. All which doth teach us in some cases of great concernment (as this was about Christs) to understand that sometimes when the whole is spo­ken of, but a part is meant: For to confirm this, you may see here, that we have the words and testimonies of Angels, Apostles, Pro­phets, and Saints, yea and of Christ himself: If then in some things of the greatest concernment we may and must take a part Luk. 24. Mat. 17.23. for the whole Mat. 12.40., sure then in some things [of lesser moment] we may, and must take a part for the whole. For it is not to be thought that God hath tyed to baptise every member of our body, (which shall be raised at the day of judgement) that the Apostles so did baptise; neither can you prove, that the Apostles did so baptise, except you meane that a part is to be taken for the whole, as I have shewed before. And seeing that Act. 8.38, 39 (concerning Philips baptising the Eunuch) is brought by youSee his book, pa. 11. lin. 1. to prove (as I suppose) that Philip baptised every externall part of his body, and that by way of dipping) prove the thing, I say, (if you can) and then you will speak to some purpose in maintenance of your totall dipping. If you cannot do it, to what end then have you brought this Scripture which maketh against you?

Consider, I pray you, that Paul after the Lord had smitten him downAct. 9.4., was without his sight, but was led unto Damascus to the house of Judas, and there remained, in a weak condition, (not having his sight) nor taking any food for the space of three dayesVer 8 9.11., his bo­die being so enfeebledVer. 18.19. shall we think that it would not have been an act of crueltie (Egyptian like) to have dipped him over head and eares in cold water? which thing I suppose you hold. For you cry out for dipping the whole man all over in water, and why will not the same rule which you have for dipping every part serve for washing, or sprink­ling the same parts?

O but (say you) Baptisme in the Church of England is not Gods ordinance, because it is administred by sprinkling, or casting water up­on the subject: & you except against infusing or powring the water up­on (and therewith washing) the subjectSee A.R. p. 9 li 16. p. 1 [...]. l. 3. But if you did but consider and read the Scriptures with understanding, and good judgement, you might perceive this manner to be right according to the rules [Page 13] and coherences of Scripture; for sprinkling (or putting water upon persons in baptisme) hath been not onely an ancient custome, but an act of Gods own acting and ordaining. God opened the windows of heaven, and powred down water in the time of Noah, and this was his manner of baptising then.

And God himself baptised the children of Israel in the Red sea, not by overwhelming them with water, as he did the Egyptians, but by sprinkling or infusing water upon themPsal 16.17.19.20.; and yet Paul gives it the denomination of baptisme 1 Cor. 10.1.2., and therefore though baptisme be administred by sprinkling it is the very right baptisme.

And surely you have not well considered (or at least not explained your self) in saying, that the washing of cups is not a putting or infu­sing water upon the cups See A. R. p. 10. li. 21. 22.23.; If you meane that it cannot be done by im­posing water upon them, I affirm and will prove that it may be done by washing without dipping: whether they be cups or platters. But you should have considered that persons wash their faces by putting water thereon, this common experience teacheth us: so the Prophet Eliah washed his hands by water powred upon thē 2 King. 3.11., done by his own servant Elisha; and in reason a man may with more ease & lesse trou­ble dip his hands, thē his face: yet you may see the Prophet made clean his hands by having water powred upon them. And therfore (if reason it self would not teach us) the Scripture would, that cups may be wash d by powring water upon them, and made as clean, yea cleaner then if they were dipt without cleansing or washing: but by this ob­jection of yours you would intimate that so farre as you dip so farre you wash: or else of what weight is your speech of washing cups by putting them in water after your manner of dipping.

Again, we may consider that sprinkling was appointed of God in the time of the Law; the ashes of the Red heifer mixed with living waterNumb. 19. was for this use, of sprinkling the people.

And I suppose you cannot deny but ou [...] baptisme answereth that, as well as the baptisme of Noah in the A [...]k or Israel in the Sea. And I doubt not but that the baptisme of Noah was a resemblance of our buriall with Christ: neither dare I affirme otherwise, but that the baptisme that now is, is a like figure answerable to that; but Peter telleth us it is not the washing away [...]f the filth of the flesh, but it is a bap­tisme which saveth us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Pet. 3 20, 21 And sprinkling and washing hath a similitude with the death, bu­riall, and the resurrection of Christ: for those that are sprinkled and [Page 14] washed with the blood of Christ, are dead unto sinne, and do live unto righteousnesse. The Law was their Schoolmaster to lead them unto Christ; but sprinkling was a part of the Law, an action of Gods ap­pointment, therefore it was to lead them unto Christ: and if we do but observe, we shall understand that the Red heifer Num. 19 was a figure of Christ, the killing of it, and burning it on the Altar, signified the death of Christ, and his bitter passion; the Ashes being to be mixed with living water, and so that water to sprinkle the people set all this forth unto them: It was to teach them that the blood of Christ was onely sufficient to purge sinne, it was therefore to teach them morti­fication of the old man, a dying to sinne, and a living to righteous­nesse, through the mercie of God, and the Messias who was then to come; yea, and it did also really figure out unto them, Gods graci­ous acceptation of them, and of that sacrifice for them, for so the turn­ing of the burnt offering unto ashes did signifie Psal. 20.3., and so the sprinkling was to put them in mind of the same; and whereas it was mixed with living water, and so imposed upon them, it was to teach them, that so their sinnes should be washed away through Christ: and to this the Apostle alludeth, where he mentioneth pure water. Now he that is a self-denying Christian, dead unto sin, and so mortified, he is buried with Christ by a baptisme without hands; And when he apprehends Gods gra­cious love and mercy, and free acceptation of him through Christ, he may wel be said to be risen with Christ: all these things the sprinkling was to teach them, to behold Christs day afarre off; And yet you pre­sume to say, that sprinkling or washing without dipping hath no [simili­tude] with death, burying, and rising again Treat. A.R p. 11. li. 24.25.: But why then doth the Scripture so plentifully set forth our mortification, repentance from dead works, dying to sin, and living to righteousnes under such termsHeb. 10.22.23. & 12.24. Eze. 36.25 as washing and sprinkling, if sprinkling and washing did not bear out a similitude thereof. And why doth the Scripture give that the deno­mination of baptisme 1 Cor. 10.1.2. Luk. 12.50. Isa. 52.14., which was not done by dipping them (or plun­ging them) in the element. Surely these things being rightly consi­dered, it will evidently appear, that the baptisme done by sprinkling and washing is not onely a full resemblance of our mortification or washing from our sinnes, and the cleansing of our souls by Christs blood, and so a dying to sinne, and a living to righteousnesse1 Cor. 6.11.; a put­ting on of Christ Gal. 3.27., &c. but also holds forth unto us the death of [Christ] and his bitter passionLuk. 12.50., yea self-denyall, and forsaking of all for Christs sake, as much, yea, and much more then dipping the whole man without washing can do.

Yea the Apostle Peter intimateth that the externall baptisme is a washing away of the filth of the flesh (holding forth no more then an externall ordinance can hold forth. This Peter could speak by expe­rience, for he knew that Simon Magus, who beleeved outwardly had the outward washing, and yet manifested himself afterwards to be in the gall of bitternesse, and in the bonds of iniquitie Act 8.23;) but the bap­tisme which is onely available to salvation, is the answer of a good con­science toward God, that is the baptisme indeed which saveth by the resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 3 21.: Now he that hath his heart sprinkled with the blood of Christ, he may fully assure himself that he shall be saved, and so he is risen with Christ though he want the outward bap­tisme (which you grant is nothing in comparison of Christ In the second Treatise, pa. 17.) and so he having part in Christ who is the resurrection and the life Joh. 11.25., he shall not be hurt with the second death. Rev. 2.11. and 20.6.

But this your dipping of the whole man all over in water, you would have to hold forth not onely death and buriall, but also a rising again: and for this end you mention some words of the Apostle Paul, Col. 2.12. Buried with him by baptisme, wherein you are also risen with him, &c. Rom. 6.4.5. We are buried with him by baptisme into his death. And if we have been planted together in the likenesse of his death, we shall also in the likenesse of his resurrection. And in 1. Cor. 15.29. St. Paul amongst other arguments to prove the resurrection hath these words, What shall they do which are baptised for dead, if the dead rise not at all; why then are they baptised for dead?

Answ. The first Scripture (Col. 2.12.) speaketh of a resurrection then present, and the other Scriptures (Rom. 6.5. 1. Cor. 15.29.) speake of a resurrection to come. Now in the resurrection at the day of judge­ment the blind shall receive their sightRev. 1.7 Job 19.24, 25, 26.27., though the eyes which are the instrument of their sight are perished; and though a person have lost his legs, or his armes, or any externall member of his body, (that is not superfluous) yet he being not thereby killed is (according to his capabilitie) still to beleeve, that all those breaches shall be made up in the resurrection: now if you should happen to baptise such a one by dipping which hath such defects in nature, as the want of his legs, armes, or eyes, &c. will you say that that baptisme setteth forth unto him no more but onely the raising of those externall parts which you then dip; then you will have it to set forth a blind (or lame) resur­rection. But if you will say, the baptisme he receiveth at your hands setteth forth the resurrection of all the parts, both those parts that are [Page 16] missing, and those parts that are not; those members that are baptised and those members that are not baptised: then the case is evident that (the eminents part (or parts) of the body being baptised) the said baptisme setteth forth the same benefit unto the rest of the members; for in the resurrection if one member be had in honour, all shall be had in honour.

For further explaining of the matter, I put this ordinarie case un­to you, (and desire you to consider thereof) Suppose a man come un­to you to be baptised, and wanteth one, or both of his legs, arms, eyes, or other externall members, what now is to be done in this case? Per­adventure you will say that you cannot baptise those members that are not to be found; So say I too: But what then? if those members were (or are) to be found? must you needs seek for those; to baptise them with him? You will say, No! that would be a senslesse thing to baptise that which hath no more life in it then a stone! I also affirm the same. But what is further to be done? will you proceed and baptise this be­leever, or leave him unbaptised? You will say, He is a beleever, though he want his eyes, legges, armes, &c. and therefore he must be baptised, though he want those externall members. Yea, but then I ask you whe­ther you do not conceive that your baptisme is a buriall, and a rising again, and whether you do not beleeve that it setteth forth unto the lame man the resurrection of [all] his members, as well as if all his members had been baptised; I suppose you will say, Why not? there is no reason can be given to the contrarie, considering that those members shall be raised with the body at the resurrection. But then I desire you to remember this, and beare in mind what will follow, namely, that baptisme setteth forth the resurrection of those externall members which were never baptised, and therefore that which you esteeme to be no baptisme, or but a baptising [in part] setteth forth the resurre­ction of the [whole] bodie; and so totally of [all] the members there­of, and belonging thereunto; so that the face (or eminents part of a man) being baptised though the rest of the members are not wet with water, yet this baptisme holdeth forth the resurrection of the whole body. I meane not onely a spirituall resurrection, but a translation of the naturall body into a spirituall body, and this is the resurrection the Apostle speaketh of when he saith, What shall they do that are bap­tised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why then are they baptised for dead? 1. Cor. 15 9.

Your conclusion of this pointPa. 12. which is grounded upon a suppo­sition, [Page 17] I reject, because it openly contradicteth the Scripture, 1 Cor. 10.2.1. Pet. 3.27. Matth. 20.22. Luke 12.50. Isa. 14.15. For you say, that he that is not dipped, is not baptised; and that all those that have the administration of baptisme by sprinkling, or by any washing without dipping are unbaptised. Which I denie, and that from the grounds before alledged; remember (I pray you) how you urge the great­nesse of the quantitie of the element, to be of such necessitie to bap­tisme, that except a person have so much, wherein he may dip the whole man all over, baptisme cannot be rightly administred upon him; and so by your grounds not administred at all.

And this is one of the particulars, by which you would disprove the baptisme in the Church of England.

Now, though in the Church of England the manner of baptising is by sprinkling, washing, or powring the water upon the most eminent part of the subject, which is there presented to be baptised, yet in the Church of Rome, and in some places of England, and the dominions of Wales, they have used, and do use dipping of persons in the ordi­nance of baptisme; which is a thing [in respect of the manner] plea­sing unto you (and therefore in this second particular not here ex­cepted against by you) for in striking at the manner, you have in this touched nothing, but [onely] their washing, sprinkling, or powring of water upon the partie, whereon it is administred.

Your third ground (or particular) by which you labourPa. 12. at lin. 26. to disprove the baptisme in the Church of England, and make it to be of none effect, is, because of the Antichristian power, authoritie, and office of mini­stery by which it is administred: and so you conclude, that because their power and authority is not of Christ: therefore the baptisme is not from ChristPa. 13. lin. 1.2..

To which I answer, That I grant they have no enrighting power to administer any of the holy things of God, no more then the Apo­state Israelites, yet as that Antichristian power by which they did ad­minister, destroyed not circumcision, but that it remained true cir­cumcision: so baptisme, (being as dureable as circumcision) it cannot be worne out by these Apostates, no more then circumcision was by the other.

And what right had the Philistines to the Arke? or what authority had the Babylonians to steal the vessels of the Lord? or what power had Idolaters to lay sacralegious hands upon any of his holy institu­tions? Surely they had no such commission, either from God or [Page 18] Christ, so to do; yet, I hope, you will not say, that the Arke was no Arke, the vessels no vessels, the institutions (as in themselves) nothing at all; for then you would openly contradict the Scripture1. Sam. 4. & 5. Dan 5.3.23. Ezra 6.5. Ezek. 43.8. Rev. 11.2.. The like may be said concerning Gods institutions under the defection of An­tichrist, the marriage, is marriage; though the manner be not per­formed lawfully: the Word is the Word of God, and baptisme his own, though in apostasie.

And whereas you sayPa. 13. at li. 25, that as the Lord Jesus Christ hath no where in his Word ordained or appointed any women to administer his baptisme. Nor no more hath he any where in his Word authorised any men by any false power to administer his baptisme.

I answer. The like may be said concerning circumcision; We read not that any woman had authoritie (from God) to circumcise And yet Mr Spilsbery in his Treat se of Bap p. 33. lin. 47.48. saith, he seeth not but that in case of nec [...]ssity a woman might lawfully cir­cumcise, she being no where prohibited. But by the same rule of his, a woman may lawfully baptise.: yet the act being done by Ziporah [a woman] it was not false cir­cumcision; and God (who is the God of order) never gave wicked men any order to circumcise, or any one by any false power to administer his signe, and seale of the righteousnesse of faith; and yet though it were administred in that Apostate estate, of Israel by apostates, and upon Apostates, yet it made no anullitie of the ordinance, but was the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith to those that returned out of the grave of that Apostasie.

Therefore the ground which you draw by similitude from the civill [...]ates (applying the same comparatively to the spirituall) will not serve your turne. For the Kings Proclamations are his, though proclaimed by any: which thing you would have to be nothingPa. 13. p. 14.; for in speaking of the ordinances of the common-wealth, you include them all, and so you would inferre that what an Antichristian mi­nistry doth, if it be done by a false power, the action (whether it be baptisme, or any other thing) it is false: but this your ground will not hold. For the Kings lawfull acts are reall, and substantiall, though the dispensation of the same (in respect of the party dispen­sing) be contrary to his mind and will. As if the King command that none in his Realme shall marrie persons together, but the Christian Magistrates. But if the Priests do the same contrary to the Kings com­mand, shall we say the Parties are not married, and that the marriage is false and counterfeit? this I conceive you will not affirmeFor then their children begotten (in th [...] estate) are bastards. So your former ground being groundlesse, your comparison is fri­volous.

And considering that Gods ordinance of circumcision was reall and [Page 19] effectuall, though administred by a false power, you cannot say that it was none of Gods ordinance, for then they should have been circum­cised again: so the like may be said concerning baptisme. Therefore your other comparison and applicationPa. 14. at l 26 [in this case] about Jannes and Jambres rods, &c. (2. Tim. 3.9. Exod. 7.10. ver. 11.12.) is of no weight, but rather a wresting of the words of the Scripture, for you can gather no such conclusion out of Pauls words, neither by any part of the Scripture it self, or necessarie consequence; for though these Antichristians (in opposing the truth) are like Jannes and Jam­bres, yet because they draw neer unto God with their mouthes, (and their hearts farre from him) they are rather like the Apostate Israelites.

For which Papist (of the grossest of them) will deny verbally that Christ is come in the flesh, that there are three persons in the Trinity; &c. so farre are they from denying it, that they abhorre those that say to the contrary, and are readie to burne them with fire and fagot. Such a kind of zeal have they for him whom they know not rightly, but in their superstitious works denie him: And (by your own confessionPa. 15. l. 20.) the Church of England doth in their nineteenth Article professe, that the visible Church of Christ consisteth of faithfull men, &c. this is a reall truth; And yet these persons (I say) do deny Christ, because they sub­mit not unto him as he is Prophet, Priest, and King. And yet not­withstanding we will not say but that these Apostaticall persons have baptisme, and as much right unto it, and power and authoritie to ad­minister it, as the Apostates of old had to receive and administer cir­cumcision. But the Temple, and the Altar, and the worshippers must be measured, when the Court which is without (by Gods command) must be left out, and not measured, because it was given to the Gen­tiles. Rev. 11.1, 2.Christian Rea­der, understand that whereas Mr. A.R. hath (in his treatise of Baptisme, p. 12. to 22. p. 31.32.) spoken against the power and au­thoritie, and office of mini­stry, which the man of sin hath given to the Ministers of Antichrist, I contradict him not in this, but do judge them (in the same visible estate) as Ieroboams apostaticall priests were, though they have baptisme as the other had circumci­sion.

Fourthly, (youPag. 23. to p. 24. lin 4. say) the ground from which baptisme is there admini­stred, is the repentance and faith of the sureties; the evidence whereof you bring out of the Catechisme: where they declare, that repentance and faith is required to baptisme; and that the infants performe it by the sureties, who take upon them to answer for the infants.

Answ. That repentance and faith is required to baptisme is true; but seeing the sureties are not able to perform it for themselves, much lesse can they do it for others; It is not Noah, Daniel, or Job that can save any sinner from Gods wrathEzek. 14.14; the righteous are scarcely saved themselves1. Pet 4.18.; how then shall the wicked undertake, so presumptuously [Page 20] to answer for any, especially for those whom God (in his revealed will) hath made no promise to save; yet though the members of the Church of England do presume so farre, it doth not make a nullitie of the ordinance, no more then the Philistines presumption in ta­king the Arke of God1. Sam. 4.10, 11. and 5.1., or the men of Bethshemosh their looking therein& 6.19., made it to be no Ark of God; neither doth mens traditi­ons destroy Gods institutions; for Gods pillars and posts are still his own, though Idolaters do set theirs therebyEzek. 43.8..

But though some in the Church of England do baptise by sureties, (which they commonly call godfathers and godmothers) yet others see it to be vaine and popish, and do baptise their children without them, these [in respect of the ground which you have here instanced] you cannot object against.

Now, the ground wherefore the Church of England doth administer baptisme, is taken out of Gods Word; (at least pretended (by them) so to be) how Christ declared that little children belong to the kingdom of God; and he took them up in his arms, & laid his hands upon them and bles­sed them, &c. yea from the very institution of Jesus Christ unto his disci­ples, Matth. 28.19. Mark. 16.16. this I say (though it be the ground whereby they administer baptisme, as (peradventure) the ground of the Apostates of Israel circumcising, was taken from the commission of God given to Abraham) yet these Idolaters (like the Apostate Israe­lites) are sacralegious abusers of this holy institution of God.

Thus having answered directly to your foure particulars, which you have brought against the baptisme in the Church of England; I now proceed to answer your fifth and last particular; (to wit) con­cerning the subjects which you treated of, in your first particular, where you passed from the end to the subject.

Pag. 24.THe subjects (say you) on which baptisme is there administred are infants.

To which I answer, that you have omitted a materiall word, for you should have said the infants of [Idolaters] but when you speake of infants [in generall] without denoting what sort of infants you mean; you speak in the aire!

But you grant that the Scripture holdeth forth, that disciples (or be­leevers) onely are to be baptised; which is really my judgement, that onely beleevers (or disciples) are to be baptised, as formerly they were to be circumcised; and as Abraham himself had no command to circumcise all nations, or seeds, (or any apostate whatsoever, though [Page 21] the off-spring of his body) but those that were the seed in covenant with God Gen. 7.14., so the Apostles had no warrant to baptise any other, but beleeving men and women, and their holy seed; according to the great commission of our blessed Saviour, where all nations were command­ed to be baptised, onely upon this condition, that they should be­come disciples, Matth. 28.19. Mar. 16.16. Act. 2.38. And I grant with you, that to be a disciple of Christ is to abide in him, and to continue in his words, Joh. 8.31. such are Christs disciples indeed, and are made free by Christ Joh 8.36.; such as beare the crosse, and come after Christ, forsaking all that they have; But know this, that free Justification cometh not by any act of our own, but by the righteousnesse of Jesus Christ, im­puted unto usIsa. 63.3.5 & 53.10, 11, 12. Rom. 3.6. Rev. 1.5. & 5.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.. And therefore holy infants may be said in one re­spect to do all these things; Christ himself hath declared, that they receive the kingdome of God; and such holy infants are his disciples in­deed; such have born the crosse divers times, suffering with their holy parents, for the same cause; and they resist not the will of God in any thing; these are not all infants, but onely the infants of beleeving pa­rents, whom we ought to judge as righteous, and as holy (till they manifest otherwise) as any other Saint on earth, though he professe great things; these are those heavenly creatures, to whom the Gospel ought be applyed though they are uncapable to receive it actually; yea when the Gospel is verbally applyed to the parents, their infants are not exempted, but received, according to Christs words unto Zacheus, To day is salvation come to this house, for as much as he also is the sonne of Abraham Luk. 19.9.. Christ hath promised life to those that chuse life, and also to their infants; and therefore the same infants have faith imputatively, for he that beleeveth not, shall be damned. So that it appeareth, that salvation cometh not but by faith in Christ.

For as much then as the Scripture is so clear, that these holy in­fants are saved, and seeing that salvation cometh not without repen­tance and faith: It is too much presumption to say, that infants are destitute of faith and repentance; though all the men in the world would grant it.

But I do wonder what is the maine ground that doth drive you, or, the greatest reason (or conceit) that doth draw you so to deter­mine concerning infants Pag. 25., as if they were destitute of the heavenly gifts and graces of Gods Spirit; Is it because they cannot verbally expresse (or actually perform) such things, as those of riper yeers can do? If this be your greatest reason, it will not beare down the [Page 22] least weight in the ballance of Gods sanctuary; as may easily ap­peare.

But though baptisme in the Church of England be administred up­on the wrong subjects (namely the seed of Idolaters) and though eter­nall life be sought and promised by them another way then God hath appointed; yet to affirm, that because some infants are not meet subjects of baptisme, that therefore no infants are, is a saying found­ed upon the sands, and fetched out of the fond fictions of mens brains, and not from the word of God.

Your best way had been this, to have searched into the records of holy Scripture, and observed the nature of the ordinance of circum­cision, and compared the same signeGen. 17.13. and sealeRom. 4.11. of righteousnesse with baptisme Col. 2.11, 12., and so to have found out the equivolence which the one hath with the other, and then you should have examined whe­ther the circumcision of Apostate Infants were according to the will of God, and if it were not, whether they were commanded (by the Lord) at their returning, to be circumcised again; If it had been so, then you might have had ground to have beaten down the baptisme, which is received in the Church of England: but this is not the way you take; but instead of this you shoot at rovers; not keeping to the matter in hand. And till it can be proved that the circumcision of in­fants was none of the Lords circumcision, I must still say, that the bap­tisme of Infants is the Lords baptisme; wherefore stand to your cause, and bring forth your strong reasons. For as yet your reasons are verie weak, though you conceive you have brought them to such an issue, that, you sayPa. 26., you shall now proceed no further therein: yet (I say) except you can make void the covenant of Abraham so much, that it doth not appertain to the infants of beleeving parents, as well as to the parents themselves, and that the application of the Gospel ap­pertaineth not to them also, and that the generall commission of Christ includeth not infants, [which you can never do while the world stands, seeing the Scripture (in this point) is so clear against you] I must still say, that the baptisme of such infants is lawfull, and warrantable; yea for as much as it was acted by God 1. Cor. 10 2, and instituted by Christ Mat. 28.19 M rk. 16.16., it ought to be practised by his Saints, perpetually to the end of the world Mat. 28.20.; and the further you go on in gain-saying this truth the greater is your sin.

For, all unbaptised persons to whom the application of the Gospel doth appertain, are expresly commanded (by Christ) to be baptised.

But the application of the Gospel appertaineth to the infants of be­leeving parents.

Therefore all such infants (if they be not alreadie baptised) are ex­presly commanded (by Christ) to be baptised.

The first part of this argument is proved from Mar. 16.16.

The second, namely, that the application of the Gospel apper­taineth to these infants is proved.

1. By the covenant of Abraham, which was a covenant of life,Gen. 17.7. ge­nerally made with Gods visible Church both young and old.

Secondly, by the testimony of Christ, that they are part of the fur­niture of his Fathers kingdome Mar. 10.13.14., and these vessels though they be but of [small] quantitieIsa. 22.24., yet they are spiritually holy, and therefore have a right to baptisme, the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith, (as really) as the infants of the beleeving Hebrews had right to circumcision the signe and seal of the same righteousnesse of faith.

Therefore this administring or baptisme upon such holy infants, doth not prevent the administring of baptisme upon disciples (or be­leevers) as you falsly speakPa. 27..

For seeing the infants of beleevers are not placed among dogs, and whoremongers without, they are within the new Jerusalem, and have right to the holy Citie, and the priviledges thereofRev. 22.14.15.. For Jesus Christ (who is yesterday, to day, and the same for ever, Hebr. 13 8.) never gave them such a dismissi n, that they should not be members of his visible Church, as heretofore they have been, (Exod. 12.48.) but rather he hath confirmed them therein, (Jer. 30.20.) for all the promises of God are yea, and Amen, in Christ. 2 Cor. 1 20.

Therefo [...]e, I desire rather to magnifie the mighty power of God by which the infants of Israel were baptised 1 Cor. 10 1 2. in the dayes of Moses, (before the Law was given on mount SinaiJoh. 7.22.) then deny them bap­tism now in the dayes of the M ssias, or call the baptism of such in­fan [...]s a device of mans braine, and no baptisme of Christ, as you have here presumptuously (or (at least) ignorantly) donePa 28., you pleadPa. 28 li. 15 16. a­gainst the baptising of infants destitute of faith.

But those infants are the infants of idolatrous parents, whom we are not to name among the living in Je [...]usalem [...]sa. 4 [...] till either one or both of their parents repe [...]t, or till they renounce their parents sinne, according to that in Ez k 18 14.17. And the baptising of those in­fants I do not allow of, but would have them to be put by; but some of them being baptised (though not aright) shall we say that that [Page 24] baptisme is no baptisme, or that it is another baptisme then the baptisme of beleevers; no surely, there is no more externall baptismes of water, then there were externall circumcisions. Now if you can prove, that there were (appointed by God) divers externall circumcisions, both in respect of the nature, end, and use therof, (one circumcision for infants, another for elder persons) and that the circumcision of infants pre­vented the circumcision of Beleevers; then you may with more colour of truth say, that the baptisme of infants preventeth the baptisme of beleevers, and make the baptisme of infants a different thing from it, which thing you can never do.

But peradventure you will say, (by infants here) you meane the infants of wicked and idolatrous parents, and not the infants of the faithfull.

To which I answer, that then you should have so expressed; But I would have you to mind, that though the act of baptising idolaters be different from the [baptising] of true Christians (in respect of the manner, effect, and application thereof) yet the [baptisme] is one and the same, even as the circumcising of the apostate Jews, and of those that were not Apostates, did not argue but that the circumcision was one and the same, but differed in the manner of administration, and in the application thereof.

Pa. 28. lin. 19. to lin. 28.Whereas you say, that the baptisme of infants as it is by authoritie or­dained in this kingdome, doth thus farre prevent the baptising of beleevers, that hereby no native can be baptised upon faith, seeing all are to be bapti­sed in their infancie, when they are destitute of faith: wherefore if all other Kingdoms and Nations did the same, then the commandment of Christ, for the baptisme of disciples (or beleevers) would be quite pre­vented, and destroyed out of the whole world, as well as it is out of this Kingdome.

I answer, that though the natives infants in the Church of England be not baptised upon their faith; because Idolaters have no faith Rev. 22.15.; yet if any do return out of that Apostasie, they are not to be baptised again, no more then the penitent apostate Israelites were circumcised again; because (God having purged the evill of the manner of admini­string his ordinance) the ordinance is really accounted with God, (and ought so to be esteemed of his Saints) as done upon a right subject. Christiā Rea­der, see Mr. Henry Barrow [a Martyr in Queen Eliza­beths time] his discovery, (pa. 114. and so forth to the end of the dis­course concer­ning this mat­ter) where he handleth this particular point at large..

And though we had no right to baptisme (as we stood) in that estate, but wickedly usurped the same, yet being come out of Babel, [Page 25] that which is Gods, we have a right unto; although we received the same before we separated from Babel; Even so the Apostates of Israel (in their apostasie) had no right to the circumcision Psal. 50.16. Hos. [...].2, 3, 4. Jer. 9.25, 26. they received in that apostasie, but when any of them returned to Judah 1. Chron 30.13., they were not commanded to be circumcised againe, because they then had a right to that circumcision which they had formerly received in that idolatrous way in which they had walked.

Even as a man which stealeth goods from the owner thereof, hath no right unto them; but if he bring the same back to the owner, and the owner give him that which he formerly stoleThe stealing of a thing doth not alter the property there­of, or make the thing to be nothing., then he hath a right unto them.

So when we were in the idolatrous assemblies, we were run-awayes, and apostates from God, and theeves to God, like Jeroboam and his crue, but when we returned, we came and tendered to God that which we had stollen from him; even as the penitent Israelites did their cir­cumcision; and as God did not command them to be circumcised a­gain; no more hath he commanded us to be baptised again; but is graciously pleased to bestow upon us those false gotten goods, which we unjustly did reset, and receive, from the hand of our old mother,Prov. 9.17. Rev. 9 21. that whore of Babylon, which stole them from God: who ordinarily doth mixe her own traditions with Gods, to make her own ware to passe in sale.

Whereas you say, that the baptisme of disciples (or beleevers) is out of this kingdome of England: Indeed I hope it is not so. For there are a number of baptised beleevers who do baptise their infants, and so long as they so do, the ordinance of baptising disciples (or beleevers) will not out of the land where they are now, or wheresoever (by Gods providence) they shall be cast.

And you should mind that the baptisme in the Church of England appertaineth to beleevers, therefore, it is theirs properly; and though idolaters (by Gods permission) sacraligiously abuse it, yet they do not destroy it, but rather destroy themselves with it, as the Philistines 1. Sam. 5.9, 10. in retaining the Arke. But I could wish that you would put a distin­ction between [baptisme] and baptising, the manner of baptising being theirs, but the baptisme properly Gods; appertaining to his Church, as well as the outward court (in the Law) appertained to the Temple 2. Chron. 4.9.

Further (you say) that if any shall here object and say, the discover­ing of the evill of this forme of baptising is needlesse, seeing divers persons see it already to be so frivolous and naught, that they much dislike it, and [Page 26] will not have their children baptised with godfathers, but upon other grounds, namely, from the covenant made with beleevers, and their chil­dren, upon which ground also, they of the separation use to baptise their children, wherefore their arguments should have been likewise answered.

To this you answer:

1. Although some few see this forme of baptising to be sinfull and naught, yet what is this to the rest of the whole Nation, who yet make con­science of that Idol to this day?

2. Although they of the separation, and some others, do mend the mat­ter (as they thinke) in the baptising of their children otherwise, and upon other grounds, yet what is all this to their own baptisme, being naught by their own confession; and a nullitie also, even from their own grounds: for they grant, that no children save onely beleevers children, are in the cove­nant, or have right to baptisme; then most of themselves had no right to baptisme, their parents (by their own acknowledgement) being ungodly: whence it will follow, that they themselves being baptised in their infancy, had not the baptisme of Christ, and so by consequence are yet unbaptised persons: Thus is their own baptisme clearly made void from their own grounds, and how then can their children be now baptised in the right of such parents, who are yet unbaptised themselves?

To all which I reply: That though I hold the discovering of the evill forme of baptising to be needfull, yet I dislike your evill proceed­ings in the discovery thereof.

But whereas you speake of the forme of baptising, and the forme of baptisme both in the objectionPa 28. l. 33.34. and the answer which you makeP 29 l. 6, I suppose, you intend the set form for baptising, mentioned in the Com­mon Prayer Book, and this (I conceive) is the Idol, which you sayli. 8 9., many make conscience of to this day; and if this be your meaning, I will not oppose you, because I am of that mind, and so are the best informed Christians that the Common Prayer Book is vaine and Po­pish, and meeter for [Babels brats] then for [Simons babes], and better beseeming time-serving [Masse-mongers] to be occupied there­in, then the faithfull, laborious, and painfull Ministers of the Gospel.

Whereas you say, the seperation and some others do mend the matter (as they thinke) in the baptising of their children otherwise, and upon other grounds.

I answer. If by the separation you meane those that are come out of Babel, (I say) I know none (either young or old) that [Page 27] have right to baptisme in Babel, or if they walk in any of the sinnes of Babel, and will not be reclaimed; they have no right to any of Gods ordinances, because they are not visible Saints. And therefore they cannot have such grounds for baptising their infants, as the Saints have for baptising theirs: for those that are out of covenant themselves, as they cannot lawfully apply the covenant to their seed, (nor to them­selves) no more can they apply the seal of the Covenant; neither is it lawfull for them to baptise any at all, whether beleevers or unbelee­vers, for it is sacriledge for any that are not visible Saints to admi­nister or partake of any of Gods ordinances.

And whereas you ask the separation (and these some others) what all this is to their own baptisme, which (say you) is naught by their own confession.

Answ. Here I suppose you do not take along with you the distin­ctions of the seperation; for we say that when we were in Babylon, the baptisme we received was not properly ours, but Gods baptisme, ap­pertaining onely to visible Saints. And though we hold the manner of [baptising] to be naught, yet the [baptisme] in it self we affirm, and have proved (and will still further prove upon occasion) that it is good; but the baptisme of the holy Infants of beleevers administred up­on them out of Babel, we hold to be good in every respect, and that it hath no need of any purgation. And I suppose you alledge no­thing against the baptisme we administer now, but onely the mino­ritie of the subject (which you account in no better an estate then a heathen.) And because we have not such a multiplication of the element as may dip a man in, all over.

As for those some others besides Separates, which, you also say, do mend the matter, I know not who they be, if they are not separated from the unclean thing, they are unclean; and how do they mend the matter, that are not amended themselves?

We do not say, that no children, save onely beleevers children, are in the covenant, or have right to Baptisme; you here mistake us (or else mistake your self) for we affirm that some unbeleevers children are in the covenant, though their parents are out of the covenant; and we also hold, that some beleevers children are out of the covenant, though their parents are in the covenant; but such of their children as are in­fants, and (also such of yeers) which depart not from the steps of their righteous parents) we judge to be in the covenant; Now, I say, if by children you mean infants, then we still affirm, that all the chil­dren [Page 28] of unbeleevers [in their infancie] are out of the covenant, (so far as men can judge) and have no right to baptisme, [their parents be­ing ungodly.]

For how can the infants be said to be godly, in visibilitie, [either by action, or imputation] so long as their parents are visible idola­ters, either personally, or statively: Surely, where the guilt of originall sinne is not to be judged to be imputatively done away by Christ, the visible seal of the forgivenesse of that sinne ought not to be applyed, but their guilt of originall sinne is not [in Gods revealed will] decla­red (and therefore is not of us to be judged) to be imputatively done away by Christ.

Therefore baptisme (which is the visible seal of the forgivenesse of that sinne,) ought not to be applyed unto such persons.

And though we affirm, that we had no right to baptisme in the state of Apostasie, (our parents being then Antichristians) yet it will not follow (as you would inferre) that we had not the baptisme of Christ: neither by our own grounds, nor from any ground you have, or (I suppose) can alledge against the same; And therefore there is no place for you to build any just consequence that we are unbaptised per­sons; yea though you upon this unnecessarie consequence build an af­firmation, that our own baptisme is clearly made void even from our own grounds; and upon this conceit of yours, you ask how then can their children be now baptised in the right of such parents, who are yet un­baptised themselves? and so you take for granted, that which you cannot prove. For I think in this particular concerning the baptisme of such infants, you may seek your opposite among the Babylonians, for I conceive no Seperate will in this oppose you.

But (you say) the grounds which Seperates and others do urge for the baptising of Infants, shall be further examined and answered (if God will) in anothe [...] Treatise.

To which I answer, that there shall be a Reply made thereunto with all speed (God willing) in another Treatise.

Next you adde, that if any shall think it strange and unlikely, that all the godliest Divines, and best Churches, should be thus deceived in this point of Baptisme for so many yeers together.

Let them consider (say you) that all Christendome (except here and there one, or some few, or no considerable number) was swal­lowed up in grosse Poperie for many hundred yeers before Luthers time, which was not untill about 100 yeers agone.

To which I answer, that all this is nothing at all to the point, for the apostasie of Israel was for many hundred yeers; and yet the Saints, I suppose, did not doubt but the Apostates were deceived in the point of circumcision; howbeit not simply in circumcising, or in circumcising of Infants, (for that was the ordinance of God) but in circumcising in apostasie, and imposing the signe upon Apostates, and their apostate seed, Therefore (the Prophet Isaiah saith unto God) thou hast forsaken thy people, the house of Jacob: because they are replenished from the East, and are southsayers like the Philistines, and please them­selves in the children of strangers. Isa. 2. So these Apostates are not de­ceived (simply) in the act of baptising, or in administring it upon in­fants (onely as they are infants) but because they baptise in that Ido­latrous and Apostate state, and administer the signe upon the infants of ungodly parents.

In comparing the Baptisme of Infants with the abominable hie­rarchy, you foulely misse, (especially if you meane the infants of godly parents;) you might as well have said, that the circumcision of Infants was as bad as Jeroboams hierarchy which he made of the lowest of the people1. King. 13.33, 34. But considering that the circumcision of holy Infants was the same signeGen. 17.11. and sealRom. 4.11. of the righteousnesse of faith which Abraham had; and considering that baptisme is come in the stead of it, and that it is no lesse generall then circumcision, nor infe­riour thereuntoCol. 2.11, 12., you may perceive that the baptisme of Infants is an ordinance from heaven.

But the hierarchy are the armie of Locusts, which came from hell, and were hatched in the [smoke] of the bottomles pitRev. 9.3., which smoke is somewhat like to Bishop Hals foggie Divinitie, which you have set downPa. 30. at li. 8. for memorandum. In whose judgement (you say) the bap­tisme of Infants hath lesse warrant, then the hierarchy; but this his erronious judgement, will stand you in no stead, neither will his chal­lengeLin. 27. 28, 29, 30. nor the judgement of any other (though never so much no­ted) avail you any thing at all, in this your opposition of the bap­tisme of the infants of beleevers. Neither can Bishop Hall on the one side, nor you on the other side, (with all the help you can get) over­throw the baptisme of Infants; for all your words without the autho­ritie of Scripture is but wind; for it is presumption (or ignorance at the best) in Bishop Hall and you: so to speak concerning Infants bap­tisme, as if the Scripture owned it not.

But all which you have here said doth not overthrow our baptisme [Page 30] which we received in the Church of England; for if Apostates should weare out Gods ordinance of Baptisme, any more then the Apostates of Israel did weare out the ordinance of circum­cision in the time of Israels Apostasie (before Christ was mani­fested in the flesh) it would argue a great weaknesse, and imper­fection in Christ, as if he were not so faithfull in his house as Moses, or as if Baptisme were of smaller value, and sooner worne out then circumcision.

But you (in the entrance of your Treatise) have granted it to be a great ordinance of the New Testament. To which I further adde for conclusion, that as circumcision was not worn out, but was so permanent that it remained till Christs first coming, and till he took away the beggerly rudi­ments of the old Covenant: so baptisme hath not nor shall not be worne out or taken away, but remaine as permanent, till Christ come to give us the substance of all his ordinances; the ac­complishment of all his promises, the enjoyment of that immortall and unchangeable inheritance which shall never be worne out, or taken away, but remaine from everlasting to everlasting.