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 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 a Gen. 17.11 and seal b Rom. 4.11 of his righteousnesse both before c Gen. 17.7.9 10 11.14 Exod. 12.48 and under the Law d 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 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 â—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 again a Lin. 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 again b Lin. 27. 29. and again c Pa. 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 Eâ—o men â—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 whereas * Pag. 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 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 was prophesied that the Son of man should be three dayes and three nights in the heart of the earth * Mat. 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 a Luk. 24. Mat. 17.23 for the whole b 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 you c See 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 down d Act. 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 dayes e Ver 8 9.11 his bodie being so enfeebled f Ver. 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 subject * See A.R. p. 9 li 16. p. 1â— 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 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 them g Psal 16.17.19.20 and yet Paul gives it the denomination of baptisme h 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 i 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 theÌ„ * 2 King 3.11 done by his own servant Elisha and in reason a man may with more ease lesse trouble dip his hands theÌ„ 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 water * Numb 19. was for this use of sprinkling the people And I suppose you cannot deny but ouâ— baptisme answereth that as well as the baptisme of Noah in the Aâ—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 â—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 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 terms * Heb. 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 righteousnesse a 1 Cor. 6.11 a putting on of Christ b Gal. 3.27 c. but also holds forth unto us the death of Christ and his bitter passion c Luk. 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 a Act 8.23
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 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 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 Fathers * Ierome Augustin Zanchus Peter Martyr Dr Whitticar which you have cited to be noted * Pag. 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 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 her a Pro. 9.1.7 so the Philistines thought the Ark to be a rare thing b 1 Sam. 4.7 8 9. and so indeed it was
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 b 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 c In the second Treatise pa. 17. and so he having part in Christ who is the resurrection and the life d 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 sight * Rev. 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 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 point * Pa. 12. which is grounded upon a supposition 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 labour * Pa. 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 conceive you have brought them to such an issue that you say * Pa. 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 a 1. Cor. 10 2 and instituted by Christ b Mat. 28.19 M rk 16.16 it ought to be practised by his Saints perpetually to the end of the world c 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 d Mar. 10.13.14 and these vessels though they be but of small quantitie e Isa 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 speak * Pa. 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 thereof f Rev. 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. Therefoâ—e I desire rather to magnifie the mighty power of God by which the infants of Israel were baptised g 1 Cor. 10 1 2. in the dayes of Moses before the Law was given on mount Sinai h Joh. 7.22 then deny them baptism now in the dayes of the M ssias or call the baptism of such infanâ—s a device of mans braine and no baptisme of Christ as you have here presumptuously or at least ignorantly done * Pa 28. you plead i Pa. 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 Jeâ—usalem k â—sa 4â— till either one or both of their parents repeâ—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 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 a ChristiaÌ„ 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 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 a Psal 50.16 Hos â— 2 3 4. Jer. 9.25 26. they received in that apostasie but when any of them returned to Judah b 1. Chron 30.13 they were not commanded to be circumcised againe because they then had a right to that circumcision which they had