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 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 same Scripture some exception be added whereas in this case there is no any A Second Argument may be thâ— testimony of the ancient Fathers oâ— the Church who affirm it to be aâ— Apostolick Tradition and so of the same authority and credibility with other Apostolick Traditions such as these The Apostles Creed Thâ— change of the Sabbath from the laâ—â— day of the week to the first anâ— what Books of Scripture are Canonâ—cal and what Apocryphal Whicâ— Assertions being received by thâ— Church as Apostolick Traditionâ— are and ever have been acknowledâ—ed and embraced as undoubtâ—â— Truths though they be not in tâ—minis word for word expressed iâ— 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 anâ— 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 〈◊〉 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 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 3d 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 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 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 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
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 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 it s 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 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 it s 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 it s 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 It s 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 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 Swasory and Considerable reasons to bend and sway with all Anabaptists to repudiate and renounce the errour of their way 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 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
A MIRROUR FOR Anabaptists In three Rational DISCOURSES That may put the Blush upon them viz. 1. Paedobaptism Defended and Justified 2. Anabaptism plainly Confuted 3. Some valid and suasory Reasons to draw them from the Errour of their way to re-embrace the Truth which they have deserted and to return to the Church of God from which they have departed By THOMAS GERY B.D. and Rector of Barwell in Leicestershire Prov. 23.23 Buy the truth and sell it not London Printed for Nath. Webb at the Kings-head and W. Grantham at the Bear in St Pauls Church-yard near the little North-door 1660. A PREFACE HAving perused some of the late Elaborate and Learned Writings and Disputes of our Modern Orthodox Divines about Infant-Baptism in Justification thereof as also the voluminous tedious and sophistical Cavils and exceptions against the Writings and Assertions of the aforesaid Authors by one M. Tombes an Anti-paedo-baptist and a very able Scholar yet no Anabaptist as being no Separatist from the Church of England I find them all set forth dressed and adorned with so much Art and Eloquence as transcends the capacity of the Vulgar people so that some of them are like Painted Glasse-Windows that are beautified with Pictures of divers colours which while they please the sight do hinder the Light Now because the vulgar illiterate people do stand in need to have the truth of this Point of Faith about Infant-Baptism to be held forth and cleared up unto their apprehensions as who are mainly concerned therein I did apprehend that it would be both a charitable and an acceptable work to tender unto them some plain and short explication of this Point and justification of 〈◊〉 And therefore have here endeavoured to epitomize and abbreviate the more large discussions hereof before mentioned and to lay the truth open with such brevity perspicuity plainness as that it may be obvious to the eye of every rational and intelligent person that is not muffled with prejudice and may neither cost much mony to buy nor much labour to read If any shall deem this a frivolous and needless work after so many learned dissertions and discussions thereof my Apology and excuse is this That in my communication and conference with some of the Disciples and Followers of Anabaptists these ensuing Arguments have prevailed to give them a sight of their errours and to renounce them And therefore in hope that they may work upon some more of them also to this purpose through his help who worketh many times by weak means that his own power may shine forth with greater lustre I have been induced to make them thus publick If they prevail not to reduce any more Anabaptists from the errour of their way yet they may happily prevent their seducing of others I presume not herein to add any thing to the Learned disceptations and discourses before mentioned but only to abbreviate modifie and accommodate them to vulgar capacity and apprehensions If hereby I shall convince but one misbelieving person of their errour about this Point or confirm but one in the right belief of it I shall not repent me of my labour though hereby I expect to incur the displeasure and censure of many To the AUTHOR My Reverend and Worthy Brother in the Ministry of the Gospel I Have to my best ability perused this learned and laborious Piece of yours wherein you have set before the face of all gainsayers in a short and plain but pithy manner all that is or needs to be collected from other accurate Assertors of the contrary to what the Anabaptists of this age alledg for their opinions without reason and destitute of all proof down from the Apostles times and Primitive Churches Your eludication of that 19 Chap. of the Acts v. 1.2 3 4 5. is most convincing and your Arguments concerning precedence of Faith not necessary in Infants and the other both before and after that Section are irrefragable But Alas Sir we find when all is done to these men and other opposers of those manifest Truths held out and maintained by ancient and the most Learned of our Modern Fathers and defenders of that clear truth which you shew the world in this your Glass and wherein many holy Martyrs have lived and died yet etiamsi nihil habeant contra nobiscum tamen non sentiunt not because they do not sufficiently understand but by reason of a resolved on perversity in the will And God knows this is a common misery incident to men and this hath been and is a knot full of perplexities which is made up in that Conclusion Ultimus actus intellectûs est Voluntas which if it were absolutely true then we might to good purpose still labour in rectifying that Faculty of understanding and so the will must follow But we find and feel it otherwise for we all do many sins which even the Soul of our understanding our Conscience checks us for and which we know ought not to be done No wonder then if these men so abundantly convinced will yet persist in errour and the evident reason of their wilful stubbornness herein is the same which is discovered in all Schismaticks namely pride accompanied with Faction and Singularity Your great and lasting Comfort is to have so strenuously conflicted with these unreasonable and absurd Disputers and done enough and more than satisfies all impartial Readers of your Book In the only way remaining and which you resolve to take I shall cordially joyn with you in commending these arrogant and for the most part ignorant men to Gods Mercy and the Word and Power of his Grace Remaining Sir as you have obliged me Leicester May 20. 1659. Your Faithful Friend and Fellow Servant in Christ Jesu THO. PESTELL A Mirrour for Anabaptists The first Point that I am to begin with is the Arguments justifying Paedobaptism 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 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
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 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 granted that it 's fit to have either precept or example for performance of religious duties yet for circumstances about the peâ—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 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 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 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 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 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 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 quoâ—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 It s 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 Having now sufficiently proved the lawfulness and necessary use of Paedo-baptism I come in the next place to confute what is repugnant to it which is Anabaptism or dipping such as have been baptized in their Infancy And my first Argument I frame thus 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 it s 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 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. It s 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 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 it s 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 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 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