THE first Ground and Ar­gument for Paedo-bap­tism, Arg. 1 that I shall lay down, is the general Commandment that our Saviour Christ gave to his Apostles, Mat. 28.19. Go, teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: All the exception against this is, that Teaching being first enjoyned, makes Infants uncapable of Baptism, because they are uncapable of Teaching.

To this it is answered, that the teaching there enjoyned, was the publication and preaching of the Go­spel to all Nations in the first place, before the Sacrament of Baptism was [Page 2]to be administred unto them; which is most apparent from St. Mark his expression of the same Commission and Precept, Mark 16.15. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every Creature. That which St. Matthew phraseth [teach] or [Disci­ple] St. Mark expounds to be the preaching of the Gospel. And this was necessary to be done in the first place, and accordingly was done be­fore ever any Nation received Bap­tism. So that when the Gospel is preached to any Nation, and that Nation doth receive and entertain it, then is that Nation discipled or taught, and so put into a capacity and susceptibility of the Sacrament of Baptism, and all in that Nation have a title unto it, whereof Infants are a considerable Party; whose Incapaci­ty of teaching doth not make them uncapable of Baptism, because while they remain Infants, they are not in­cluded among those that are to be taught: For our Saviour did not send his Disciples to teach Infants, but men of years: And therefore the teaching pre-required, as ante­cedent [Page 3]to Baptism, is necessarily re­quired only of men of years, that be docible, and not of Infants that are indocible. So that we acknowledge a necessity of a praevious & precedane­ous teaching, before Baptism of doci­ble persons, but not of Infants; because they are capable of Baptism, though not of teaching. I know that pro­tervious and peevish Spirits are able and apt enough to cavil at any truth, be it never so clear, and so its proba­ble, will cavil at the interpretation of this place of Scripture: But the indifferent Reader may discern it to be both can did and consonant to other Texts; for no where in Scripture is there any exception against this gene­ral Command of battizing all. Nati­ons that embrace the Gospel, amongst which Infants are a considerable par­ty (as was said before) And there­fore where the Gospel is preached and embraced, there Infants of that Nation are to be baptized by vertue of that command. For a general Command in Scripture to perform any duty appertaines to all persons of what condition soever, unless in the [Page 4]same Scripture some exception be ad­ded; whereas in this case there is no any.

A Second Argument may be th [...] testimony of the ancient Fathers o [...] the Church, who affirm it to be a [...] Apostolick Tradition, and so of the same authority and credibility with other Apostolick Traditions; such as these, The Apostles Creed, Th [...] change of the Sabbath from the la [...] day of the week to the first; an [...] what Books of Scripture are Canon [...] ­cal, and what Apocryphal. Whic [...] Assertions being received by th [...] Church, as Apostolick Tradition [...] are, and ever have been, acknowled [...] ed and embraced as undoubt [...] Truths, though they be not (in t [...] ­minis) word for word expressed i [...] Scripture: And so in like manner hath Infant-Baptism, as leaning upon the same ground with them; so that the Anabaptists may as well question the truth of the Apostles Creed, an [...] the sanctification of the first day of the week for the Sabbath, and the Canon of Scripture, as the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism, in that they [...] [Page 5]lean upon one and the same foundati­on, i. e. Apostolick Tradition; which was ever held by the Churches of God to be of authentical authority, next unto Scripture it self: For though the Reformed Churches dis­claim Popish, Humane Traditions, as mens Inventions; yet these Apo­stolick Traditions, they receive and reverence, as unquestionable Truths. Now that the ancientest Fathers, as Dionysius Areopagita, Justin Martyr, Origen, St. Augustine, with many others have witnessed Paedo-Baptism to have been accounted and received as a Tradition Apostolical, neither can, nor is denied by the Learnedest Anabaptists. But yet they will not give credence to their testimony hereof, which how void of Charity it is to censure such renowned Doctors, as reporters of an untruth, especially in matters of Religion, I leave it to be considered of, by all persons of understanding. Arg. 3

A Third Argument may be the constant practice of Infant-Baptism by all Christian Churches from the ve­ry next age after the Apostles, to this [Page 6]present age. This was witnessed by Dionysius, who lived in the Apostles time, and Ignatius, and Justin Mar­tyr, and Iraeneus and Origen. This is proved at large by many learned men, who of late have written of this Subject, and therefore I will super­sede the labour of rehearsing the par­ticular proofs thereof; especially considering that the most learned of the Adversaries of this truth, do not deny this; but yet condemn it as an errour and a very pernicious abuse, needful to be taken away out of the Church of God, as is to be seen in Mr. Tombes his Antipedo-Baptism, in the 3^d Part, and Section the 98 about the middle of the Section; which is a presumptuous censure, unfit for any particular man to pass against the Church.

Now this practice of Paedo-Baptism by the Universal Church of Christ in all ages and places is an Argument ir­refragable and unanswerable, to prove the lawfulness of it: For the Church is the ground and pillar of truth, so saith the Apostle, 1 Tim. 3.16. Parti­cular Churches may erre both in judg­ment [Page 7]and practise, but the Universal Church cannot erre in any important point of Faith, such as this is; because of Christs promise to it, both of prote­ction and direction in several Texts, as Mat. 28.20. Teaching them to ob­serve all things whatsoever I have com­manded you, and lo, I am with you al­way, even to the end of the world; which could not be meant only of the Apo­stles, (as who could not live to the end of the world) but of necessity of the whole Catholick Church. And John 14.16. I will pray the Father, and he shall send you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth. And again, John 16.13. He promiseth his Disciples again, to send them the Spirit of truth, which should guide them into all truth. Seeing therefore the Universal Church for many ages, and those next succeeding the Apostles, have allow­ed and practised Infant-Baptism, no intelligent godly Christian may oppose it, without manifest contempt of the sentence and judgment of the Catholick Church; which whose will not hear, is to be accounted as a hea­then [Page 8]man, and a publican, Mat. 18.17. If some particular Churches on­ly had practised it, the Legality of it might have been questioned; but seeing all Churches for many ages did practile it, the legality of it is thereby made unquestionable.

A Fourth Argument may be the Circumcision of Infants in the time of the Jewish Church. Arg. 4 For if Bap­tism be the Sacrament, now under the Gospel, that succeeds the Jewish Circumcision, which is abolished; then, by the rule of analogy and pro­portion, and parity that is betwixt them, to whom Circumcision belong­ed under the Law, to those Baptism belongs under the Gospel. But Bap­tism is the Sacrament now under the Gospel, that succeeds and comes in place of the Jewish Circumcision: Which is most apparent from Col. 2.11, 12. Where the Apostle proves that the Collossians were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, being buried with him in Baptism; that is, because they were baptized in or [Page 9]into his name; for else the Apostles argumentation were inconsequent, if Baptism did not come in place of Circumcision; for in affirming they were circumcised, because they were baptized, he declares Baptisme to come in room of Circumcision: Hence therefore it followes that as Infants were to be circumcised in the time of the Law, so Infants are to be baptized under the Gospel.

I cannot conceive what exceptions can be brought against this argument, but one of these two.

1. Either the unfitness to require a Covenant of a Child, that cannot speak to declare it. Or,

2. Because there is not a particular Commanding Scripture for it.

If the first be objected, I Answer, That to lay an imputation of unfitness upon Infant-Baptism in that respect; is to charge God, himself with com­manding that which was unfit (which were audacious presumption, if not blasphemy) for he commanded In­fants to be circumcised, whereby they entred into a Covenant with God, though they could neither ex­press [Page 10]it nor know of it, Gen. 17.

To the second exception (which I find in Mr. Tombes, in the 3d. Part of his Anti-paedo-Baptism, section, 11. near the end) I return a three­fold Answer.

1. I answer, That what is colligi­ble and deducible from Scripture by good and undeniable consequence, (as Infant-Baptism is) is of force and creditable, as well as what hath precept or example. For its an errone­ous Principle (as the learned & judici­ous Doctor Saunderson hath observed and taxed in his Preface lately prefix­ed to a new Addition of some Ser­mons of his that had been formerly published) to hold that a man may do nothing (meaning about the reli­gious Service of God) for which there cannot be produced either com­mand or example from Scripture; for so he should be barred from deduct­ing any doctrinal conclusions from Scripture, but what are specified in it either by precept or example; which would much infringe and straighten the Ordinance of preaching.

2. I answer, that though it were [Page 11]granted, that it's fit to have either precept or example for performance of religious duties; yet for circum­stances about the pe [...]formance of them it's not necessary; and this is but a cir­cumstance, Ergo.

3. I answer, that there is an im­plicite Command as well as an expli­cite, and the former is a sufficient warrant, and that Infant-Baptism hath; namely in Mat. 28.19. as for­merly hath been declared.

A Fifth Argument, Arg. 5 Infants have remission of sins and salvation by Christ, as well as those of riper years: This is proved by Mat. 18.3. Where our Saviour saith, Except ye be convert­ed and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. And from (Mark 10.14. Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God. This being granted that Infants are saved (some at least, which is sufficient for the present purpose) it followes, that then they are made members of the Church of Christ; for, extra ecclesiam non est salus, out of the Church there is no salvation: [Page 12]It was the sentence of Cyprian, Lib. de unitate Eccles. and it hath ever been owned as a truth by all Orthodox Di­vines; as which hath its ground from Acts 2.47. Where it's said, that God added daily unto the Church such as should be saved; which implies thus much, that all such as are saved, are first added unto the Church. And Mr. Tombes acknowledgeth this to be true, understanding by the Church, the invisible Church of the Elect, in his Anti-paedo-Baptism, Part 3. Sect. 9. pauso post medium, which is as much as we require to be granted.

Whence I argue thus, If Infants he members of the Church of Christ, then they are cleansed from their sins by such waies and means as the Church is cleansed (this is undeni­able) But the Church is cleansed by the washing of water through the Word, Eph. 5.26. i. e. by the Sacrament of Baptism, through the word; and therefore Infants also, as which are members of it. And if so, then the Sacrament of Baptism belongs to them, and may not be withheld from them, neither in Charity nor [Page 13]Equity. For if they be members of the Church, which is cleansed by the washing of water through the word, then this washing of water through the word (which can be no other but Baptism) belongs unto them, as be­ing the means whereby they are made members of the Church.

If it be objected against this Argu­ment (which is all that can be object­ed) that some Infants are saved, and so are made members of the Church, and yet die before they be baptized,

I answer, that such are saved after an unknown and extraordinary way, which puts no bar to the ordinary way and means of salvation by God ap­pointed, which is Baptism; as the fore-cited Text of Scripture proves, with many other. For Gods extraor­dinary works wrought either without means or against means, are no Pat­terns and Presidents for us to follow, nor do at all warrant us to neglect the use of ordinary means. Gods mitaculous preservation of the lives of Moses and Elias fourty daies with­out food, is no warrant for others to fast so long: Nor his miraculous [Page 14]work in providing a Whale to save Jo­nas from drowning, when he was cast into the sea, any warrant for others to throw themselves into the sea, and yet expect to be saved from drowning. And therefore Gods mercy to Infants unbaptized, in saving them after an unknown and extraordinary way, is no warrant for us to neglect to bap­tize Infants, which is the ordinary way and means appointed by God for their sanctification and salvation, as in the next Argument is largely pro­ved.

If any Anabaptist can answer this Argument fully and fairly without shifting and shuffling, I shall never trust my own Judgment again; but shall be ever jealous of the shallow­ness of it.

A Sixth Argument; Arg. 6 All means of Grace and Salvation which God hath appointed as instrumetal to that end, are to be afforded to Infants, which they are susceptive or recep­tive and capable of (this no rational person will deny) For when God hath appointed the means to any end, we are tied to the use thereof; if we [Page 15]expect to attain to that end; as I might instance in divers particulars: But Baptism is a means of Grace and salvation, which Infants are receptive and capable of, and therefore it is to be afforded and ministred unto them.

That it is a means of Grace, i. e. of remission of sin, and so conse­quently of salvation (which is all that I stand in need to prove) is oft affirmed in Scripture, Acts. 2.38. Re­pent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis­sion of sins, Acts 22.16. Arise and be baptized (saith Ananias to Saul) and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Rom. 6.4. We are buried with him by Baptism into his death, i. e. made partakers by bap­tism of the merits of his death and bu­rial. Eph. 5.26. (the Text before alledged) It is said, that Christ san­ctifieth and cleanseth his Church by the washing of water through the Word, Tit. 3.5. It is called the Laver of regene­ration, 1. Pet. 3.21. It's called the Figure that saveth us. Out of all which Texts, [...] apparent, that bap­tism [Page 16]is appointed of God as one means (together with other) of re­mission of sin, grace and salvation; which though it doth not alwaie; con­fer the same ex opere operato (as the Papists erroneously affirm) yet al­waies it doth so, when God is pleased to vouchsafe the concurrence and co­operation of his holy Spirit with it, which also of necessity is required to all other means of Grace, to make them effectual, as well as to Baptism; as namely, both to the Word preach­ed, and to Prayer, or they avail not. This then being proved, that baptism is a means of Grace by Gods appoint­ment, it necessarily follows, that it appertains to Infants, as who are receptible of Grace as well as those that are of ripe years; and there­fore baptism which is a means of grace, ought not to be withheld from them.

Al that is or can be answerd to invali­date the force of this argument, is this, That though Infants are in themselves capable of baptism, as being a means of Grace, yet the Scripture puts a bar to them, because they want Faith, [Page 17]which is required before baptism.

To this it is answered, that the precedence of Faith is required only of such as are capable of Faith, and not of Infants which are not in a ca­pacity of it; which I thus demon­strate:

If Faith, and so consequently Re­mission of sin and Regeneration, were alwaies and of all, necessarily requi­red before baptism, then baptism could never be a means and instru­mental cause to bring forth faith and regeneration: For if Faith and regeneration must go before it, then it cannot be the instrumental cause of Faith and regeneration; for the ef­fect cannot go before the cause.

But that it is somtimes and to some a means of regeneration, remission of sin, Faith and other Grace, is suffi­ciently proved by the Texts before quo [...]ed.

Therefore the precedence of faith is not necessarily required of all to be baptized. I apprehend the force of this Argument, and the last before this, to be such as will stall any Anabaptist whatsoever, to enevate or invalidate.

To these, Arg. 7 I might add a Seventh Argument, very valid and convin­cing, which is the Title and Interest which the Infants of Christians have to the Covenant of Grace: For if the Covenant of Grace it self belong to Infants (which hath been former­ly proved from Mat. 18.3. & Mark 10.14. and is justifiable by many other Texts of Scripture) then the seal thereof also belongs to them.

But because this Argument is so largely and fully pressed already by divers learned men, I will omit all further prosecution of it: and con­clude this first point thus: Its an old adage and a consessed truth, that force united becomes more forcible. Lay now all these Arguments and conside­rations together (the least whereof will sway with any, but such as are forestalled with prejudice) and paedo­baptism will stand as a truth infringi­ble, and a Fort impregnable and in­superable.

The Second Point.

THat opinion or Doctrine in Re­ligion, which is new, Arg. 1 is not true (this is denyed of none)

But such is Anabaptism, or the re­baptization of such as have been bap­tized in their infancy:

Therefore it's not true.

I prove the Assumption thus; be­cause its not to be found in Scripture, neither by precept not example, nor by good consequence to be deducted from it, but was broached about 300 or 400 years after the Aostles, by one Donatus a Presbyter about Car­thage in Affrica, as is testified by se­veral Authors, amongst whom St. Augustine is a principal; who writ a [Page 20]Book in confutation of him. I have heard that some Anabaptists in an­swer hereunto, have alledged, Acts 19.2, 3, 4, & 5 verses, as a president and example for re-baptization. But I shall clear that Text from warrant­ing it, which I do demonstrate these two waies.

1. Because the Evangelist doth not say of those there mentioned that they were rebaptized, but baptized; he saith not, [...], he saith not, which when they heard, they were rebaptized (which had been the more proper speech, if they had been truly baptized before) but he saith, [...], i. e. which when they heard, they were baptized; which intimates, they were not rightly baptized till then, and therefore that was no reite­ration of their baptism, but their first baptism.

2. Its apparent from the Context, that they were not rightly baptized before, that is, baptized in a right form; and therefore this was no re­baptization, but a first baptism: For the right form is, to be baptized in [Page 21]the name, or into the name of the Fa­ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, or in the name of the Lord Jesus, which is the same in substance with the former, though in fewer words.

Now that they were not baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost, is most apparent, in that they said in the second verse, that they had not so much as heard, whether there were a Holy Ghost; which they must needs have heard, if they had been baptized in his name. Neither were they baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus before, for in that its said, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus then, it undeniably implies, that they were not baptized in his name till then; and so conse­quently not truly and rightly baptized till then: And so I hope I have cleared this Text from warranting the Anabaptists rebaptization, or dipping those that have been formerly bapti­zed in their Infancy.

The Professors of Anabaptism at their first appearing in the Christian Church, Arg. 2 and boasting themselves to [Page 22]be the only true Church (which was done by Donatus and his Disciples, as was declared in the former argument) were condemned by the Church then as Hereticks, and cut off as unsound members, and were so suppressed by it, that for the space of 1000 years or thereabouts, there never appeared any face of them again in any Christian Nation. This is a truth so clear out of all Histories, that make mention of them, that I presume there is none of them that have the face to go about to outface it.

But this, namely a cessation to be, can never befal the true Church of Christ, witness many Texts of Scri­pture, as Psal. 125.1. They that trust in the Lord, shall be as Mount Sion, that cannot be removed, but remaineth for ever. Mat. 16.18. Upon this Rock will I build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And Esay 27.3. Lest any assail it, I keep it, saith the Lord. with many such like, which justifie that the true Church of God cannot fail and cease to be.

Whereas therefore there appeared [Page 23]no face of Anabaptistical Professors for so long a time, it proclaims them to be no true Church of Christ, and so their anabaptistical Profession not to be truth. This argument I once used in a dispute with one Mr. Oats (a Co­ryplaeus and teacher of note amongst them) and all the answer he returned, was this, that he had heard that there had been some of their profession for­merly in Hungary; which was both an insufficient answer, and a tacite and clandestine confession, that they must either prove the continuance of such profession and professors from the Apostles times, (which they never can, nor (that I ever heard) attempted to do) or else must yield themselves in a manifest and obstinate Errour.

The Anabaptists interpretation of several Texts of holy Scripture, Arg. 3 as if they did impugn and disallow Infant-Baptism, is dissonant and dissentane­ous from the interpretation of all vi­sible Churches, both before and since their appearance; and therefore is a private interpretation, and so is repug­nant to St. Peters Doctrine, who tels us, that no prophesie of Scripture is of [Page 24]any private Interpretation, 2 Pet. 1.20.

Divers of the Fathers affirm, that the Primitive Church received of the Apostles not only the Scripture, but the genuine and true Interpretation thereof, and this indeed in all proba­bility was so. And therefore if the Primitive Church held Paedo-Baptism to be agreeable to Scripture, and so accordingly practised it (as before hath been declared) its out of doubt a doctrine of truth, and the Anabap­tists reclamation and opposition of it (as if it were not warrantable by Scri­pture) a private and novel mis-inter­pretation of Scripture, and therefore to be disavowed, detested and explo­ded.

Re-baptization of those that have been baptized before, Arg. 4 is repugnant to Scripture, which allowes but one Baptism, Eph. 4.4. There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism.

But our Infants whom they re-bap­tize, have been truly baptized be­fore. Ergo, They act therein against Scripture. Now that our Infants are truly baptized, I thus demonstrate; [Page 25]Those (whether men, women, or children) that are baptized in the right and true form of baptism, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, expresly set down, Mat. 28.19. are truly baptized. But our Infants are thus baptized, and therefore are truly and rightly bapti­zed: For its a known Canon in Lo­gick, and received of all Learned men as a truth, that [forma dat esse] the form of a, thing gives its being unto it. And therefore Infants being baptized in this true and right form, are truly and rightly baptized and so ought not to be baptized again.

That Profession of Christian Faith, Arg. 5 which was never publickly and open­ly acknowledged and owned by any Christian Nation; but ever since its first hatching, hid it self in corners and private Conventicles, & was pro­fessed only of some private persons, cannot be the truth: for Veritas non quaerit angulos, Truth seeks not to sculk and hide it self in corners; but such is Anabaptism: Ergo. The ma­jor Proposition I make good, from those many Texts of Scripture, where [Page 26]its affirmed, that Nations, yea many nations should flow unto the Church of the Gospel (which is the ground and Pillar of truth, where truth is to be found) as Esay 2.2. It shall come to pass in the last daies, that the Moun­tain of the Lords House shall be establish­ed in the top of the Mountains, and shall be exalted above the hils, and all Nati­ons shall flow unto it. And the like sentence is in Micah 4.1. which was fore-spoken of the state and condition of the Church under the New Testa­ment. And for the minor Proposi­tion, let them make it appear, that ever any Nation did openly and pub­lickly, without restraint, make pro­fession of Anabaptism, and they shall be quit from the Conclusion. But this was never yet done, nor indeed can be done, Esay 49.23. Its fore­told of the Church of the New Testa­ment, that Kings should be nursing Fa­thers and Queens should be nursing Mo­thers unto it: That is, that there should be some supream Civil Ma­gistrates that should be propitious to it, and Protectors of it: But this honour was never done to Anabap­tists; [Page 27]there was never King nor Queen nor Supream Magistrate, that hath protected their Profession, nor the Professors thereof, under that notion; but have alwaies declared their dislike and distast of them; which undenia­bly secludes them from being that true Church of Christ there spoken of, (which yet is their Pharisaical boast) and proclaims them to be a Set and Sect of Schismaticks, that have ground­lesly made a scandalous and dange­rous separation of themselves from that true Church of Christ, whereof divers Civil Magistrates have been for many ages, and still are the constant and resolute Protectors and Defend­ers.

The Third Point.

THE first reason that I shall ten­der to their due consideration, Reas. 1 is this, Because Persons of that Profes­sion, are generally void of Charity; which Charity being the cognizance of a disciple of Christ, as is taught by Christ himself, John 13.35. By this shall all men know that ye are my Disci­ples, if ye have love one to another: And being also a Badge of truth, as St. John affirms, 1 John 3.19. Thereby (saith he, speaking of Love or Charity) we know that we are of the truth. The contrary thereto, which is uncharitableness, must needs be the Livery of such as are adver­saries to Christ and his truth, and therefore to be abhorred and abandoned.

Now that they are uncharitable, appears these two waies.

1. From their separation of them­selves from all other Christi­an Congregations, and refusing Churh-fellowship and society with them.

2. From their ostentation and boasting of themselves to be the only Church and people of God upon earth, and censuring all others as unregenerate Persons, and so out of Gods true Church; and thereupon term them the world, (as one that was of their Profes­sion and Association, but is now reclaimed, hath certified and assu­red me) Whereas Charity thinketh not evil, but believeth all things and hopeth all things, 1 Cor. 13.5, & 7r Now by this uncharitable censure of theirs, they condemn not only all the Reformed Churches of Christendom (amongst which there be Millions of Saints) but all the Martyrs in Queen Maries daies here in England, and all the Mar­tyrs in the Primitive Church, that never were dipt after their Infant-Baptism, [Page 30]Baptism, and yet lived godlily, and suffered gloriously, and died comfortably.

That the Martyrs in the Primi­tive Church lived and died with signal and apparent evidences of extraordinary divine Graces, and supernatural comforts imparted and infused into them, is witnessed (as by other Ecclesiastical Historians) so, by that creditable Author, Euse­bius, in his Ecclesiastical History, Lib. 8. Cap. 12. toward the end: where he testifieth of them, That they so shined throughout the world in their afflictions, that the behold­ers wondred at their patience and noble courage, and that (saith he there) was not without cause; for they expressed and shewed forth unto the world special and manifest signs of the divine and un­speakable power of our Saviour Christ working by them.

And for the Martyrs in Queen Maries daies, Mr. Fox in his Hi­story of them, recordeth many speeches uttered by them, which were manifest evidences of Gods [Page 31]divine Graces and Comforts in an extraordinary measure and manner conferred and breathed upon them. And therefore to censure both these and all other Christian Professors in the world besides themselves, to be without God in the world, sets a shameful brand of Pharisaical pride and uncharitableness upon them: And is enough to make both the ears of all that hear it to tingle, and their hearts to boil with in­dignation against them, and divers wise and godly persons wonder, that they are not more strictly dealt withal and restrained; this and some others of their gross hallucinations and errours, and pre­sumptuous and irregular extravagan­cies and Practises considered.

A second Reason that I shall offer to their consideration, is this, Reas. 2 Their presumptuous confidence in their own Opinions and Judicious­ness; preferring the same before the wisdom and judgment of mil­lions of eminently Learned and Godly Christians (and many of them Martyrs) who lived before [Page 32]them, and that in all ages, even next to the Apostles, as hath been former­ly declared. This is contrary to the prescript Rules, Directions, and Sanctions of the holy Scripture, as in Prov. 3.7. Be not wise in thine own eyes. And Prov. 26.12. Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him. Esay. 5.21. Wo unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight. Luke 9.23. If any man will come after me, let him deny himself: Which self­denial in one point of it, consists in the denial of a mans own rea­son and wisdom, Rom. 12.6. Be not wise in your own conceit. Its not to be questioned, but that the Christians of the Primitive Church, and the Learned holy Fathers that succeeded them (who were main and strenuous Props and Pillars of the true Christian Faith, in defence thereof against the Heresies of those times) as also the modern, learned and illustrious Divines, the late Re­formers of Religion, Luther, Zuing­lius, Melancthon, Peter Martyr, [Page 33]Calvin, Junius, Beza, Zanchy, Chemnitius, with many such of other Nations; and those Renowned, Pi­ous and Learned Divines of our own Nation, that lived but a few years since; as Cranmer, a Bishop and a Martyr, Jewel, Whittaker, Reighnolds, Andrews, Perkins, Bi­shop Usher, Bishop Hall, Hooker, with thousands more, who were Di­vines of singular and transcendent piety and Learning: It's not to be questioned (I say) but that these men did seriously and searchingly and throughly sift and examine this Point of Infant-Baptism, yet con­cluded for it, and owned it to the last period of their lives without any scruple at all. And is it likely that a few Illiterate Persons (I speak it comparatively, namely, in respect of those so profoundly Learned before-named) should espy out such an errour to be crept into Gods Church, as they were never able to discover.

Oh be humbled now in your selves, all ye self-conceited and perverse Anabaptists, and lay your [Page 34]hands upon your mouths, and deny your selves, if ye will be Christs Disciples, as ye would be accounted. And take unto you these or the like words, and say (as the truth is) Alas! we are weak men, and far inferiour to those renowned Worthies and glorious Martyrs now mentioned, both in Learning, Per­spicacity, Judgment, True Zeal and Piety; and therefore we do acqui­esce and submit to the Judgment and Sentence of those Learned, Judicious and illustrious holy Ones of God, so far excelling us in all divine Graces and Vertues. And the rather to bend you hereunto, remember how St. Peter hath set this Presumption and self-conceited­ness as a black Brand upon the He­reticks of these last times, in 2 Pet. 2.10. Where he speaks thus of them, That they are presumptuous, and stand in their own conceit, and fear not to speak evil of them that are in Authority: And therefore it stands you in hand to beware that you wear not this Reproachful Li­very.

A Third Reason may be this, Reas. 3 Because they give great offence to many Godly Christians, by sepa­rating themselves from the Con­gregations of the Reformed Chur­ches; which is repugnant to the Doctrine of the holy Scritpures, as is evident by these Texts, 1 Cor. 10.32. Give no offence neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God. And Rom. 16.17. Now I beseech you Brethren, mark them which cause divisions and of­fences, contrary to the Doctrine which we have learned, and avoid them. Herein they proclaim themselves to be such vain ostentators, as God complains of, Esay 65.5. Who said, stand by thy self, come not near to me, for I am holier than thou; and yet they were a smoak in Gods Nose, and a fire that burned all the day, as in the next words God himself pronounceth against them. Hereby also they declare themselves to be such Mockers, as St. Jude foretold should appear in these last times, in the 18 and 19 v. of his Epistle; in that they thus separate them­selves [Page 36]from other godly Christians; for these be they (saith he) that se­parate themselves. If they shall say, that it is an offence taken, and not given: Its answered, that its the unanimous sentence and judgment of all Learned and Orthodox Di­vines, both ancient and modern, and amply justifiable by Scripture, that neither corruption in manners in a particular Church, nor errours in matters of Ceremony, Circum­stance, or in the manner of Church-Government are a sufficient ground or warrant for any particular per­sons to desert it and make sepa­ration from it; but it must be some errour in the Fundamentals of Religion, that will justifie a separation from any particular Church. Now the Church of England is not culpable or chargeable in the least measure, of errour in any one particular Tenet, that strikes at the Foundation of Christian Belief, as I doubt not but they will ingeni­ously confess. And therefore their separation from the Church of England, is an offence given by [Page 37]them, and not an offence taken by us, who profess our selves Members of the said Church.

I wonder that the example of our blessed Saviour is no more minded and regarded by them; who never refused to joyn himself to the Congregations of the Peo­ple of the Jews, though they were guilty of more foul errours, and gross abuses by many degrees, than the Church of England is. And its very apparent from St. Pauls Epistles to the Corinthians and Ga­latians, that neither errours which are not fundamental, nor corrupti­on in Manners, will warrant a se­paration from any Church; seeing he acknowledgeth and owneth both these, as the Churches of God; albeit he taxeth them both, both for palpable errours and foul mis­demeanors (as is evident in the said Epistles) and such as were more gross and dangerous errours that any the Church of England holds. Reas. 4

A Fourth Reason shall be this; Because their Sect hath hatched se­veral Broods of Fanatick, Vertigi­nous, [Page 38]and Brain- [...]ick persons, that are looked upon by prudent persons, as Monsters among Christian Pro­fessors, as Quakers, Ranters, Seek­ers and Adamites, the very scum and shame of Christians: For these were never heard of, till they sprang up from among their Disciples, which their resorting still together doth evince and evidence. Whereas therefore such prodigious and abominable Brats, or rather Monsters are hatched in their Nest, its a shrewd signe that the Brood is naught.

A Fifth and last Reason that I shall propound to them to be weigh­ed in the ballance of their discre­tion, Reas. 5 is this; Because Persons of their Profession have never been accounted as sound Members in the Body either of Church or Com­mon-wealth; but as Incendiaries and seditious Persons, and Pertur­bers of the Peace both of Church and Common-wealth in all Nations and Countreys where they have appeared; and have been proceeded against accordingly, as by divers [Page 39]examples in Histories is very evi­dent. One of the first of this Sect, that shewed himself openly, was one Thomas Muntzer, who in the year [1523] published his doating errours of this sort, at the City of Alsted in Saxony; who stirring up the People to sedition also and insurrection, whereby great tumults were raised, grievous outrages com­mitted, and many Thousands slain, and himself being a principal Agi­tator and actor amongst them, was at last apprehended by the Land-grave and the Duke of Sax­ony, at Frankenhusium; where he was sentenced to death by the said Princes, and had his Head cut off and fastened to a Stake. This story of him and divers others of their Sect, is at large recorded by one Mr. Alexander Ross, a late Reve­rend Divine, in the latter end of his Book entituled, [...] Or A View of all Religious in the world. Some question is made, whether these Stories of the Anabaptists, were penned by himself or not; but it matters not, seeing the truth [Page 40]of them is avouched by divers other Authors.

After this, or about the same time, one Balthasar Pacimontanus, (a Clergy man of Ingolstade in Germany) declared himself to be of this Sect (he was confuted and convinced both by Luther and Zuinglius) who persisting obstinately in his errours, was at last burnt at Vienna, a famous City of Austria in the said Germany; as Bellarmine reports in his first Book, de Sa­crament. Baptism. Cap. 8. from the Testimony of Johannes Cochlaeus.

Afterwards appeared John Becold of Leiden, with his Associates, at the City of Munster in Holland; who for their prodigious Errours, Blasphemies and wicked Practises, were openly condemned and put to death, about the year [1537] as the History of them is written both by Sleidan and divers others, and notoriously known to be true.

Lastly, (to omit very many other Instances) ariseth up one Michael Servetus, a Spaniard by birth; one that Mr. Calvin laboured much with [Page 41]to reduce from his errour of Ana­baptism, and some other Opinions that were blasphemous, but not pre­vailing with him, to reclaim him, he was at length sentenced to death by the Senate of Geneva, and there burnt, in the year [1553] as Chem­nitius witnesseth, in locis communibus, Part 1. Cap. 2. de tribus Personis di­vinitatis.

Consider now therefore with your selves what comfort or encourage­ment ye can have to be the Disciples and Followers of such Leaders; who never yet were approved of in any Christian Nation; but were ever ex­ploded, proceeded against and spued out as scandalous and criminous Offenders? Yea and even here a­mongst your selves, divers of your eminent Leaders and Teachers have been notoriously and deservedly fa­med to be of loose and scandalous Conversation (whereof ye cannot be ignorant) which greatly blemish­eth your Profession; because ye pre­tend to more Holiness (yea and make your boast thereof) than ye will ac­knowledge to be in others, who are [Page 42]not of your Faith and Perswasion. If these Reasons will not prevail with you, do desert the errour, yea, the dangerous errour of your way, I have no more to say to you, but shall ten­der my Prayers for you (as St. Paul did for the Ephesians) To the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory, that he may give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, the eyes of your understandings being open­ed, that ye may know, what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the Glory of his inheritance in the Saints.