PRIMS Full-text transcription (HTML)

A LEARNED AND FULL ANSVVER TO A TREATISE INTITVLED; THE VANITY OF CHILDISH BAPTISME. Wherein the ſeverall Arguments brought to overthrow the lawfulneſſe of Infants Baptiſme, to­gether with the Anſwers to thoſe Argu­ments maintaining its lawfulneſſe, are duly examined. As alſo The queſtion concerning the neceſſitie of dipping in Baptiſme is fully diſcuſſed: By William Cooke Miniſter of the Word of God at Wroxall in Warwickeſhire.

Printed and entred according to Order.

Matth. 19.14.

But Jeſus ſaid, Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me, for of ſuch is the kingdome of heaven.

LONDON, Printed by I. L. for Chriſtopher Meredith, at the ſign of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard. 1644.



THe reaſon prevailing with my deare friend, this Authour, to deſire me in his abſence, to direct this Treatiſe to your patronage, was partly to teſtifie his grati­tude; as for many other favours, ſo eſpecially that you were the chiefe meane in opening a doore to him for the exerciſe of his Mi­niſterie: partly becauſe he could find in your ſelfe and faimily a great inſtance of that truth in this book aſſerted; I meane a gracious covenant made, and made good in your family, from parents to children, to ſeverall generations. And could any dedication fall out more happily then this, when you are not more a Patron to, then a Pat­terne of the truth herein publiſhed? As con­cerning the book it ſelf, I ſhall ſay no more to you of it then this; when your leiſure ſhall reſpite you ſo as to read it, you will not repent that you holpe the Authour of it into the worke of the Miniſtery. To others, who am I that I ſhould take upon me to adde any thing to its valew? nay it ſelfe will be its owne abundant commendation; I doubt not but it will find acceptance with all that love this truth, from ſome great Patrons whereof, it had, when a Manuſcript, an ample and full teſti­mony: and for others, however it doe not find them ſuch, yet if they will read it impartially, I doubt not, but by Gods bleſsing, it will make them ſuch. Sir, all I have to doe in this buſi­neſſe is in the abſence of, and at the deſire of my deare friend to offer theſe his firſt labours to your favour, and patronage, being not a little glad I have this opportunitie to acknowledge the many great favours you have ſometime heaped upon my ſelfe, as alſo becauſe of them to teſtifie I am

Your faithfull honourer and ſervant, FRA: WOOD COCKE.


WE ſhould not be ignorant of the wiles and me­thods of Satan,2 Cor. 2.11. who being a lyar and mur­derer from the beginning,Joh. 8.44. hath made it his perpetuall practiſe by lies to ſeeke the deſtru­ction of ſoules. His lies are of two ſorts; one ſort whereby he indevours to perſwade men to embrace falſhood as truth, to call evill good, and ſwallow down deadly poyſon as wholeſome food. The other, where­by he labours to perſwade men to reiect truth as falſhood, and call good evill, that ſo mens ſoules may be famiſhed for want of neceſſary nouriſhment. This he doth in matters of eſtate, practiſe, faith, and worſhip; and the more errour he can entangle us in, the ſtronger hold he hath of us. His principall endeavour therefore is to keep us in diſlike and deteſtation of all good, and love and delight in all evill. If he cannot prevaile ſo farre, he labours at leaſt to intangle the ſoule in one or two dangerous errours, that will bring certaine per­dition. Many he detaineth in ſottiſh ignorance, groſſe profaneneſſe, and heatheniſh impiety; perſwading them that their eſtate, practiſe, faith, and worſhip is good enough, ſo that they can ſay, God is mer­cifull; Chriſt died for ſinners; they profeſſe the true religion, and plead that all forwardneſſe in religion, which exceeds their lazie ſtraine, is but curious preciſeneſſe, and needleſſe now fangled ſingu­laritie. Thus he prevailed with many, (to the grievous ſcandall of religion, and danger of their own ſoules) even in the Apoſtles times, as may appeare by the lamentable profanneſſe, errour, and ignorance in ſome Churches,See 1 Cor. Chap. 5. & 6.8. & 10. & 15. & 2 Ep. &c. . eſpecially that of the Corinthians. If he cannot thus prevaile with ſome who leave their ſinfull courſes, and deſire in all things to pleaſe God, and to make their calling and election ſure; and in maters of faith, worſhip, and practiſe, to be guided by the truth; he will raiſe in them ſcruples that they may ever be queſtioning Gods love unto them, the truth of their grace, and the ſoundneſſe of their religion: ſo farre as to hold them downe with deſperate diſcouragements, and deepe perplexities, and cauſe them to denie Gods gratious worke in them. How many doth Sa­tan in our dayes abuſe, by leading them to miſ-iudge of their eſtates? One partie ſitting ſecurely without queſtioning the condition of their ſoules in reſpect of God; as if all things were ſo well with them that they need nothing more. Another party on whom God hath ſhewed much mercy, yet ever doubting and queſtioning. So for matters of faith, practiſe, and worſhip; a great part is held in ſuch careleſneſſe that any religion will content them, that ſuites with their carnall ends, and they take up their religion without examining the grounds thereof. Others as much be abuſed on the other hand, who becauſe they ſee ſome things queſtioned and proved unſound that havs gone for currant: therefore will make bold not onely to queſtion, but alſo in their manner to declaime and diſpute againſt many lawfull, war­rantable, well grounded, yea, and neceſſary truths, and practiſes, taught, enioyned, or approved in the Scripture. As for example, the moralitie of the Sabbath, yea the uſe of the whole Morall Law, ſubiection to the civill Magiſtrate; the lawfulneſſe of an oath, pre­ſence and communion in Gods worſhip, where all things are not per­formed punctually according to their humour; yea humane learning (and what not?) have been cried down as Antichriſtian. Amongſt the reſt the baptizing of infants of Chriſtian parents is condemned. Concerning which they doe not make ſober inquiſition, as deſirous to try all things, and hold faſt that which is good; but earneſtly di­ſpute, uſe vehement aſſeverations, and carry on the matter with ſo great confidence and boldneſſe, together with citation of many Scriptures, and pretence of ſincere love and zeale to the truth; that poſſibly the hearts of ſimple and upright Chriſtians may be troubled, if not enſnared; which hath been the ancient practiſe of Satan by his inſtruments, (whether they were ignorant of what they did, or knowing, I ſay not) Act. 15. See the magiſteriall peremptorineſſe of thoſe falſe teachers. And how apt Gods people are to be troubled with words, or writings of this kind appeareth. In the ſame place, Act. 15. verſ. 2. & 2.4. & 2 Theſſ. 2.2. Our darke mindes and corrupt wils being farre more prone to errour and vice, then to truth and vertue. And how Satan will beſtirre himſelfe by his inſtru­ments, and make uſe of the ignorance, pragmaticalneſſe, pride and malice of ſome men this way, we may ſee, Gal. 3.1, 2, 3. Which things I having had ſome experience of, and meeting with a Pamphlet in­tituled, The vanitie of Childiſh Baptiſme, &c. by A. R. and hear­ing that ſome are drawn away to admire and imbrace the opinions therein maintained, and that others were unſatisfied concerning ſome things that are therein delivered: I was troubled to ſee that ſuch ſtumbling blocks ſhould be laid before Gods people; but not ſeeing a ſpeedy remedie procured, by that ſo much wiſhed and prayed for way of a Synod of Gods faithfull Miniſters, to conſider of thoſe things that trouble the Church according to that example, Act. 15. Nei­ther having ſeene any thing purpoſely written upon this ſubiect; (Though of many the unfitteſt, in regard of want of abilitie, helps, and time, wherewith others abound) I inclined my thoughts to anſwer the maine Arguments that the Authour brings againſt the baptiſme of infants, and to vindicate our Arguments againſt the Obiections here made. Though I confeſſe, conſidering the groſſe and manifeſt errours, the fantaſticall conceits, the taunts, ſcoffes, and raylings, and evident abſurdities, wherewith the Booke is ſtuffed, (which ſhew with what a ſpirit the Authour was led) it may ſeeme unworthy an anſwer: yet becauſe there are ſome truths ſcattered therein, many Scriptures alledged, (though impudently perverted) and much zeale and confidence pretended; many iniu­dicious people may conceive there is ſome matter of weight and mo­ment in it. Therefore untill God ſhall be pleaſed to ſtirre up ſome fitter more fully to handle this ſubiect (if this controverſie be not rather to be buried in ſilence for the abſurdneſſe of the Adverſaries opinions) I have undertaken by the aſſiſtance of God and rule of the Scripture to examine this Authour. In which examination I will not follow him in his extravagancies, and impertinencies; neither ſhall I (I hope) imitate him in his bold and confident, yet ground­leſſe aſſertions; much leſſe in bitter taunts and reproachfull ſpeaches which he uſeth towards our Miniſters and Church: (If I ſometime ſet forth the ridiculouſneſſe and weakneſſe of his reaſoning; or retort on him his own language, to ſhew how much fitlier it agrees to him­ſelfe then thoſe on whom he beſtowes it; I conceive I have warrant in Gods word, Prov. 26.5. 1 King. 18.27.) But in the feare and as in the preſence of God, I will make triall of his principall reaſons and grounds, ſo farre as God ſhall enable me by the light of his holy word; not intending to defend all the Arguments which he undertakes to anſwer; nor to reply to all his Anſwers of Obiections, whereof ſome (whether invented of himſelfe, or obiected by others) I owne not, ſeeing ſometime the truth may be pleaded for upon unſound grounds. The truth I ſtand for; not the weake grounds. But I hope that whatſoever he obiecteth with any ſhew of reaſon or weight I ſhall ſufficiently anſwer; and lay down grounds for the defending of the truth that may ſatisfie any intelligent Reader that ſeeks the truth: So I come to his Preface to the Reader.



YOu ſay,A. R. that In your ſerious thoughts you minded di­verſe places of Scripture, which evidently ſet out Baptiſme to be an undoubted pledge from God to all the right ſubiects to whom it is applied, of the free pardon of ſinnes, Mark 1.4. & 16.16. Act. 2.38. and 22.16. 1 Pet. 3.31.

Anſwer. Anſ. If in your ſerious thoughts you had compared what is ſaid of circumciſion, which is anſwerable to baptiſme, you might have found that it was to the Iewes, Gods Covenant,Gen. 17.10, 11. (which comprehends all the bleſſings of the covenant) Gen. 17.10. A token of the covenant, verſ. 11. A ſigne or ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, Rom. 4 10. Rom. 4.10.And ſo doubtleſſe a pledge of the free par­don and remiſſion of ſinnes, which is comprehended in Gods covenant, and in the righteouſneſſe of faith. And yet circumci­ſion was adminiſtred unto infants as the right ſubjects thereof.

Secondly,A. R. Baptiſme is deſigned to beleevers onely upon their making profeſſion of faith and willing ſubmiſſion thereunto: this you ſay, you find, Matt. 18.19. Ioh. 3.22. compared with 4.1. Act. 2.41. & & 18.8.

Anſwer. Anſ. Neither you nor any one elſe hath found in thoſe Scri­ptures, that onely actuall beleevers, and profeſſours of their faith ought to be baptized and none elſe. Where is I pray you the par­ticle onely, or any thing equivalent thereto? None of thoſe pre­cepts or examples limite Baptiſme for all times onely to ſuch: Though ſuch as beleeved and profeſſed the faith be there ſpoken of; will it follow that none elſe have right to baptiſme? The Diſciples are neither forbidden to baptize others but profeſſours of the faith; nor limited to thoſe onely, for ought that can be ga­thered from thoſe places. Abraham which firſt received the2 ſeale of circumciſion,Gen. 15.6. with Gen. 17.1, 2, 3, &c. and in his own perſon actually entred into Covenant with God, was endued with the righteouſneſſe of faith, having not as a meere patient, but as an agent accepted the Covenant. Will you thence inferre that onely ſuch ought to be circumciſed under the old Covenant, as had in their own perſons as agents accepted of Gods Covenant, and were endued with the righteouſneſſe of faith,Gen. 17.10, 11. whereof they were to make profeſ­ſion? the Text will confute that inference. Yet your collection is no better from ſome examples of perſons of ripe yeers which were out of the new Covenant before, and were now to be brought under it. Who becauſe they muſt beleeve, and profeſſe their faith before they were baptized; therefore their children though borne of parents within covenant, may not be baptized untill they actually beleeve and profeſſe their faith. For as upon Abrahams beleeving and receiving the Covenant, and ſeale of circumciſion, his family was received into covenant, and all his males circumciſed: ſo we have plaine examples in the New Te­ſtament of Governours of families, who beleeving and being ba­ptized, had their whole families baptized alſo; where yet there is no word of the faith and profeſſion of any beſides the Gover­nours, as Act. 16.15. & 31.32, 33. 1 Cor. 1.16. as ſhall be ſhewed more fully hereafter, God willing, in due place.

A. R.Thirdly, you ſay, that The right ſubiects of Baptiſme are not to be meerly paſſive,Mat. 3.2.6. Mar. 1.5. Act. 22.16. Gal. 3.27. Col. 2.12. with 3.1. but to performe ſuch duties as are incompatible to infants, and perſons deſtitute of underſtanding.

Anſwer. Anſ. This holds true of thoſe that were to enter firſt into Co­venant; as Abraham muſt not be circumciſed before he could in his owne perſon accept Gods Covenant and actually beleeve; but this was not neceſſary to his poſteritie that were borne in Cove­nant. The like was ſhewed of Baptiſme in the examples fore­going.

A. R.Whereas you ſay, Vpon theſe conſiderations you could not with­out unfaithfulneſſe to God and your owne conſcience, but ſuſpect your own baptiſme, &c.

Anſwer. I anſwer. It is not alwaies an argument of faithfulneſſe to God, to pretend to follow the dictates of conſcience; ſuch is the deceitfulneſſe of the heart, and erroneouſneſſe of conſcience; and ſo much ſelf-conceitedneſſe, and wilfulneſſe is in men, for which they will hypocritically pretend conſcience.

A. R.Whereas you ſay, You remaine unſatisfied by our ſtrongeſt Ar­guments,3 and are more confirmed thereby in your perſwaſion of the unwarrantableneſſ of the baptizing of infants.

Anſwer. Anſ. This doth no more make againſt a truth, that you are ex­aſperated to oppoſe by ſo much more, by how much more it is confirmed with Arguments; then the rebellion of our corrupt hearts (by ſo much more reſiſting the Law of God,Rom. 7.8. by how much more powerfully it is preſſed upon us) proveth the Law to be evill.

Whereas you talke ſo much of The invaliditie and inſufficiencie of our Arguments, your faithfulneſſe to God and your conſcience: I hope it ſhall appeare what fidelitie and conſcientiouſneſſe you ſhew in abuſing the Scriptures, and what ſufficiencie and validity there is in your arguments and objections in the following exa­mination. As for your peremptory, raſh and arrogant cenſuring the baptiſme of children to be a meere device of man, introduced and maintained for politique ends by mans ſubtiltie: It is not much to be regarded, ſo long as we know that we muſt not ſtand to your ſentence at the laſt Day.

So much for the Preface. Now to the book it ſelfe.

AN ANSWER TO A TREATISE intituled, The vanitie of Childiſh BAPTISME.

WE will come to your five conſiderations whereby you would prove that, That which is adminiſtred in the Church of England under the name of Baptiſme, is not the Baptiſme of the New Teſtament: and thoſe are, Firſt, the End. Secondly, the Manner. Thirdly, the Power. Fourthly, the Ground. Fifthly, the Subject.

The firſt Conſideration or Argument taken from the End of childrens Baptiſme: Anſwered.

FOr the End you lay down for granted: Firſt,A. R. that the end of childrens baptiſme in our Church is regeneration. Secondly, that this appeares by divers paſſages in the Liturgie, Thirdly, you adde4 the Doctrine or iudgement of divers Authours which iuſtifie the ſame, as you ſay. Fourthly, you reaſon from this and ſome other prin­ciples againſt us. This is the ſumme of your firſt Argument, which at large to ſet downe were tedious and endleſſe.

Anſwer. Anſ. Though I will not go about to defend every expreſſion in the Liturgie, or the Authours brought by you: yet I may well deny, firſt, your propoſition as you expreſſe it: ſecondly, I deny alſo that the reaſons brought by you from the Liturgie, and Au­thours prove that in our Church the end of baptizing is regene­ration, ſo that the act of baptizing ſhould regenerate the child.

But to come to your propoſition. If your meaning be that the end of our baptizing is properly to regenerate; as if our Church uſed baptiſme that they may (ex opero operato, as the Papiſts ſay) conferre grace and regeneration, it is a ſlander to ſay it. If you meane that they uſe it for this end that it may be a pledge, ſigne, ſeale, or confirmation of regeneration; or to ſpeake brieflier, that we uſe it ſacramentally to regenerate, or myſtically to waſh away ſinne, we avouch it; and this we beleeve is the right end of baptiſme, as you grant, viz. A pledge of the pardon of ſinne, which implies regeneration, ſo Rom. 6.3, 4. Mar. 1.4. Act. 22. &c. And in this ſenſe thoſe expreſſions in the Liturgie, and Au­thours may be warranted (if they intended any more let them anſwer for themſelves) as being agreeable unto the Scripture phraſe in ſacramentall matters. Exod. Gen. 17.11, 12. Matt. 26.26.28. 1 Pet. 3.21.As the Paſchall Lambe was called the Paſſeover, though but a ſigne, pledge, or memoriall of the Angels paſſing over and ſparing the Iſraelites. Circumciſion is called the Covenant, though but the ſigne or token of the Cove­nant. Bread and Wine in the Supper, the Body and Bloud of Chriſt, though but ſignes and ſeales thereof. Baptiſme ſaveth us, though it be but a pledge, ſigne, or ſeale of our ſalvation. And why may not the ſame be ſaid to regenerate us, as well as to ſave us? Is not regeneration the beginning and alſo part of our ſalva­tion? Doth not the whole comprehend the part? And there­fore we may and ought to pray for the regeneration of infants to be baptized, (that if begun, it may be continued, increaſed, ſeal­ed, and perfected: if not, that it may be wrought in Gods due time; ſo that baptiſme may have its efficacie.) And give thanks that God hath given the ſeale of regeneration, and ſolemnly ad­mitted them into that Covenant wherein he hath promiſed, the bleſſing it ſelfe.


Let us ſee now what uſe you will make of this, that we hold infants baptized to be regenerated, viz. ſacramentally, as we have interpreted our meaning: whence you gather

That all infants baptized muſt be neceſſarily ſaved;A. R. which is acknowledged an abſurditie even by our Miniſters which call upon baptized perſons to repent, and preach regeneration unto them: Or elſe (ſay you) we ſhall be forced to leave our other prin­ciple, which we hold againſt the Pelagians, Papiſts, and Arminians. Namely, that True ſaving grace can never totally, or finally be loſt: And that they which have beene regenerate can never utterly fall away. This is the ſumme of your reaſoning wherein you are very large, as having gotten us at an advantage, in your conceit.

Anſwer. Anſ. Will any man ſay, that all that were baptized by Peter, or to whom baptiſme was applied in his time (of which he ſaith,1 Pet. 3.21. that it ſaveth) were certainly ſaved? Or that it was an abſurd thing to preach regeneration or ſalvation after baptiſme? Or that this doctrine, that baptiſme ſaveth or burieth with Chriſt, &c. is in­conſiſtent with that other doctrine concerning the perſeverance of the Saints, ſeeing ſome of thoſe that were baptized in the A­poſtles time fell away and periſhed? Or in your baptiſme (if you uſe any) which you profeſſe is a pledge of the remiſſion of ſinnes; are all certainly pardoned? Or need you never to preach repen­tance and regeneration to them? If ſo, belike you are happier maſters to your diſciples, then Chriſt was to his.

And ſeeing now you thinke you have got our learned Divines (as you ſcoffingly call them) at an advantage, and follow them ſo eagerly with your horned argument, as if your blow were unavoidable,comparing your ſelfe to Chriſt, and them to the Scribes and Phariſees,Matth. 21.23. Let us try whether you would not by this Argument, baffle and nonplus the Prophets, Apoſtles, and Chriſt himſelfe. For this your Argument holds as ſtrongly againſt them as againſt us, who teach no other thing in ſaying that baptiſme regenerateth, and true grace can never be loſt (though ſome baptized periſh) then what we have received from Chriſt, the Prophets, and Apoſtles. Might you not as well have taken up Nathan for preaching unto David,2 Sam. 12. to bring him unto repentance and converſion. Why, what needs this Nathan? David received circumciſion the ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith, and of circumciſion of his heart in his infancie,Rom. 4.11. and had the ſpirituall grace beſtowed on him effectually; and muſt he now6 be regenerate and borne againe? And why ſhould David him­ſelfe upon Nathans exhortation and reproofe,Pſal. 51.10. pray that God would create in him a cleane heart, and renew a right ſpirit within him? (which, what elſe is it but the renewing of the worke of regene­ration?Ezek. 18.21. Jer. 4.4.) Why ſhould the Prophets exhort the Iews to make them new hearts, and circumciſe their hearts, though they had received circumciſion? What would Nathan, David, and the Prophets have anſwered this ſubtill diſputant if he had examined them thus?

Or if you had been living in Pauls time, when he called up­on the Romanes,Rom. 12.2. 2 Cor. 5.17. Epheſ. 4.23. & 24. Gal. 4.19. Rom. 6.3. Gal. 3.27. Corinthians, Epheſians and others, to repentance and renovation; to put off the old man, to put on the new man, to become new creatures, to be renewed in the ſpirit of their mind; profeſſing that he travelled to forme Chriſt in them a­gaine. Belike this learned Divine (to uſe your phraſe) Paul would ſoone have beene daſht, if you had but riſen againſt him. Why, what's the matter Paul? Did not you teach that ſo many as have beene baptized into Chriſt, have put on Chriſt, are buried with him in baptiſme? What? have they put off Chriſt? riſen againe to ſinne?Rom. 8.38, 39. Phil. 1 6. Rom. 11.29. fallen away from grace, &c. This will not ſtand with your doctrine; that nothing ſhall ſeparate from Gods love; that God will perfect the good work which he hath be­gun; that the gifts and callings of God are without repent­ance. Therefore you were deceived in ſaying that Chriſt is put on in baptiſme; or in teaching that men cannot fall away from grace.

Or if you had had Peter in hand when he called Simon Magus to repentance, Act. 8, 22. though he had been baptized; you would belike have leſſoned Peter better. Why, what needs this Peter? Didſt not thou teach that baptiſme ſaveth, and is he that was ſaved even now damned againe?1 Pet. 3.21. ſure thou waſt miſtaken when thou ſaidſt baptiſme ſaveth; or when thou ſaidſt that the faithfull are preſerved by the power of God through faith unto ſalvation,1 Pet. 1.5. ſith Simon that awhile agoe beleeved and was bap­tized, hath need now to repent, as being in the gall of bitter­neſſe, and bond of iniquitie.

Thus if you had diſputed, learned Peter and Paul belike had beene in great ſtraits what to have anſwered. It was well for them that none of theſe acute Anabaptiſts (as they are called) were ſprung up in thoſe dayes. One more inſtance I will bring. 7Our bleſſed Saviour preacheth unto his Diſciples neceſſitie of converſion, and becoming as little children,Matth. 18.3. as they would enter into the kingdome of heaven. Yet elſewhere he ſaith,Joh. 3.35. Except a a man be borne againe of water and the holy Ghoſt, he ſhall in no wiſe enter into the kingdome of God. Thereby (as you gather) aſſuring us that if a man be regenerate and borne againe, he ſhall ſee the kingdome of God. But I conceive you will not deny but the Diſcipcles had already beene borne againe by water and the holy Ghoſt. Sure in this caſe had you beene in his time you would have more troubled him with your Dilemma, then an hundred of the Scribes and Phariſees with all their Sophiſtrie. What? To teach that being borne againe by water and the holy Ghoſt,Joh. 10.28. they ſhall certainly enter into the kingdome of God: And that none ſhall pluck them out of his hands being given him of the Father: And yet now threaten them with the loſſe of the kingdome of heaven, unleſſe they ſhall be converted, become as little chil­dren? (which, what elſe is it but to be regenerate?)

Doe you thinke that this your arguing would have perſwaded the world that Chriſt was a falſe witneſſe of God? When your reaſoning thus againſt the Prophets, Apoſtles, and Chriſt him­ſelfe, ſhall be found unanſwerable, we ſhall be forced to yeeld unto you; but untill then we (who in this point have their do­ctrine for our warrant; That though Baptiſme ſave and regene­rate, yet baptized perſons have need to be called upon to repen­tance and regeneration) need not to regard your bold, and confident aſſeverations.

I have the largelier ſet forth the manner of your reaſoning, only changing the perſons, (if it may be) to make you ſee your weak­neſſe; if not, to make others aſhamed of their ſimplicitie which admire ſuch diſputers. You would not have reaſoned ſo, if you had conſidered: Firſt, that notwithſtanding ſome abuſe baptiſme, yet that hinders not but in regard of Gods inſtitution, baptiſme may be ſaid to regenerate or ſave. And ſo ſecondly, that they which have received baptiſme according to Gods appointment, as farre as we can diſcerne, may be ſaid to be regenerated and ſaved, viz. ſacramentally. Thirdly, that baptiſme is adminiſtred to the members of the Church; not onely as a pledge of remiſ­ſion of ſinnes paſt, upon ſuppoſition of repentance and faith; but alſo of ſinnes to come; being both an obligation to us daily to re­new our faith and repentance, and an aſſurance unto us, that up­on8 the performance of that condition God will pardon; in ſo much that our regeneration, viz. ſacramentall in baptiſme is a main ground, why Miniſters ſhould call upon us being baptized to ma­nifeſt our regeneration in our lives, ſeeing God hath given us the ſeale of regeneration to aſſure us of the grace it ſelfe, if the fault be not in our ſelves; and to bind us to repentance that we may be partakers of the remiſſion of ſinnes; and hence the Apoſtle urgeth converſion or ſanctification from baptiſme before recei­ved. Rom. 6.So that if in Chriſts and the Apoſtles time the baptized had need to be called to repentance or regeneration, though baptiſme ſaved and buried with Chriſt: what abſurditie is it if our Mini­ſters call to repentance, and regeneration, thoſe that were rege­nerated in baptiſme in the forenamed ſenſe? For even in the beſt times ſome that had profeſſed, and beene baptized, had done it unſoundly and hypocritically, and ſo had need to be called unto ſinceritie: whereunto when they were brought, their baptiſme though received in time of hypocriſie, ſhould be a pledge of the remiſſion of ſinnes;Act. 8. as in Simon Magus whom Peter bids to re­pent, but not to be baptized againe. Secondly, others might have the truth of grace and regeneration, and yet not give ſo cleare te­ſtimonie thereof to themſelves and others as was to be deſired. Thirdly, thoſe that had truely repented and beleeved, might have fallen and need to be reſtored. Fourthly, the beſt by ſuch exhor­tations are kept watchfull. None in this life are ſo fully regenera­ted or converted, but they need additions and increaſe. So that your conſequences that you draw againſt us from our principles are frivolous.

A. R.Now let us come to your anſwer to our Objections as you pretend: You ſay, that To ſophiſticate by ſome diſtinction, leſt all our gaine by this trade ſhould be taken from us; and as all the people gave care to Philip; ſo all the people ſhould give care to us, and ſo our kingdome ſhould be at an end: we uſe this diſtinction, that they are onely holy in the judgement of charitie, of the Church eſteemed regenerate; neither are any required to beleeve them to be re­generate as an Article of faith, but in the judgement of charitie: and then you ask, What is the ground of this our charitie?

Anſwer. Firſt, I would deſire to know, Whether the Baptiſme which you adminiſter regenerates and ſaves, or no. (I meane ſacra­mentally, for we ſay ours regenerates) If no, then it is not the Baptiſme that Chriſt & his Apoſtles uſed,1 Pet. 3. for Peter ſaith, it ſaved;9 Paul ſaith, it buried with Chriſt. If yea,Rom. 6. whether you beleeve that all that are baptized of you, are certainly regenerate and ſa­ved, or no; and then tell us, what is the ground of your beliefe.

Secondly, Whereas you diſlike this diſtinction, you ſhould have demanded of Peter and other the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts (that baptized ſome hypocrites no doubt, witneſſe Simon Magus, Ananias, Saphira, &c. and yet held that Baptiſme ſaveth and buri­eth with Chriſt) whether they held that theſe who received Baptiſme were ſaved and buried with Chriſt in the judgement of certaintie or charitie, and then you might have demanded a ground of that their judgement: And ſeeing you arrogate to your ſelf ſuch skill in Scripture, tell us what was Peters ground in ſaying Baptiſme ſaveth, when yet many that were baptized were damned; and what anſwer you ſhall make to this queſtion, hap­ly may ſerve to anſwer your own queſtion to us.

Thirdly, We anſwer directly. Our ground on which we build this charitable opinion, (viz. that Baptiſme regenerateth ſacra­mentally; or that infants of Chriſtian parents baptized are rege­nerate) is Gods word. For doth not the Scripture tell us, that God is the God of the faithfull and of their ſeed, that he hath ta­ken them into Covenant? Gen. 17.7.10.Thus God promiſed unto Abraham the father of the faithfull, not as any priviledge peculiar unto him; but as the common priviledge of all in covenant, and therefore proſelytes of what nation ſoever upon their entring into cove­nant had their children taken into covenant likewiſe. Again,Exod. 12.48. Act. 2.36. 1 Cor. 7.17. the promiſe is made not onely to the faithfull, but alſo to their chil­dren. Hence it is, that the children of beleeving parents are holy. Which places of Scripture ſhall in due place (God willing) be vindicated from your groundleſſe exceptions. Now whoſoever is in covenant with God, hath God for his God, hath the promi­ſes belonging to him, and is holy, muſt needs be regenerate, as he is in covenant, hath God for his God, &c. And therefore ſeeing that children are in the ſame condition with their parents (or thoſe that are in ſtead of their parents) in reſpect of outward covenant (which is all the ground we have for judging others;) So that if the parent be in covenant, the child remaines ſo untill by his own perſonall infidelitie and apoſtaſie he diſcovenant him­ſelf: if the parent be out of covenant, the child remaines ſo, un­till by his own perſonall faith, he accept and enter into covenant. Hence it follows, if we have ſo much ground for our judgement10 of charitie, to hold that the parents are regenerate, as the Apoſtles had for thoſe whom they baptized, which was no more then their profeſſion of faith and repentance; we have the ſame ground for our judgement concerning the regeneration of their children. viz profeſſion of faith and repentance made by their parents; though we may oft be deceived in parents and children, and no marvell, even the Apoſtles themſelves were deceived: for they doubtleſſe baptized many hypocrites.

As for your other objections, whether fained by your ſelf and fathered on us, or found in any writings on our ſide; they are not worthy defending, nor your anſwer unto them worthy a reply. Who ſay, that The meere election of infants, whether all or ſome, is the ground of our baptizing them, or beleeving them to be re­generate. If any ſay ſo, let him anſwer for himſelf. But our ground, as hath been ſhewed, is the externall being in covenant; whereby they have right to the ſeale of initiation; which is not without its efficacy unto al; though ſome (whether they receive it in infancy or ripeneſſe) by their own fault may render it unprofita­ble to themſelves. Therefore your frivolous inferences have no place here, as that, Al men & women in the world are to be baptized: for all are not outwardly in covenant. And as for your confident aſſertion, that Faith manifeſted by the confeſſion of the mouth, is the only ground of Baptiſme to the elect, (if you meane it of the profeſſion of faith of the perſon to be baptized) it is not proved by thoſe Scriptures you alledge,Act. 8.37. Rom. 14.23. (as hath been partly ſhewed al­ready, and God willing ſhall be ſhewed more fully hereafter) unleſſe you will make the Eunuches Baptiſme with all its cir­cumſtances, a neceſſary rule to be followed by all to be baptized. So much may ſuffice to be anſwered to your firſt conſideration.

An anſwer to the ſecond conſideration or argument, taken from the manner of Baptizing.

LEt us come to your ſecond conſideration, taken from the manner of the adminiſtration of Baptiſme. A. R.You ſay; The manner in which Baptiſme is adminiſtred in our Church is by ſprinkling or caſting a little water on the head or face. And your poſition that you oppoſe againſt us is this. Chriſts inſtitution re­quires that the whole man be dipped all over in the water. Hence your argument is this; The manner of the uſe of water muſt be ei­ther11 by infuſion or dipping. But Iohn the Baptiſt or Dipper, uſed the water by putting the party into the water, not by infuſing or ſprinkling water upon the party, as is proved, Matth. 3.7. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.I indeed baptize you in water, Mark 1.8. I indeed have baptized you in wa­ter, Ioh. 1.26. Act. 11.16.

Anſwer. Anſw. We will try how ſubſtantiall this reaſon is. Whereas you ſay; The uſe of water muſt be either by infuſion or dipping: In ſome ſenſe this is true, namely, if it be taken by way of enu­meration, not of oppoſition; for Baptiſme which ſignifies waſh­ing, is done by applying the water to the party baptized or waſh­ed; But water is ordinarily applyed the one of theſe two wayes. viz. either by dipping or ſprinkling. In this ſenſe we grant your propoſition is true: viz. that Baptiſme muſt be either by dip­ping or infuſion, and ſo that it be either way it is ſufficient. But you take it not in this ſenſe, as may appeare by the manner of your reaſoning; for by the affirmation of the one, you inferre the deniall of the other; and if you ſhould take it in this ſenſe, it would make againſt your ſelfe, and overthrow your own argu­ment. Therefore it appears you take it by way of oppoſition, and ſo we utterly deny it as falſe. Your reaſoning is like this, We come to the knowledge of Chriſt by reading the Scriptures, or hearing the word preached. Joh. 5.39.But Chriſt bids the Iewes to ſearch the Scripture, viz. by reading, that they might come to the know­ledge of him. Therefore not by hearing the word preached. Or like this, The Miniſter muſt preach either ſitting or ſtanding. But Chriſt preached ſitting. Matth. 5.1. &c.Therefore Miniſters may not preach ſtanding. Or this, We muſt pray either ſtanding, or kneeling, or ſitting, or lying, &c. But Chriſt ſaith, when you ſtand praying. Mark. 11.25.Therefore it is not lawfull to pray with any other geſture but ſtanding. Who ſeeth not the weakneſſe of this reaſoning? yours is no better.

But to come to your aſſumption. But Iohn the Baptiſt or Dip­per (as you ſay, according to the Dutch) did uſe the water: By put­ting the partie into the water, not by inſuſing or ſprinkling, Mat. 3.11. Mar. 1.8. Ioh. 1.26. Act. 11.16.

Anſwer. Anſw. Firſt, None of theſe places prove that Iohn put the par­tie into the water, much leſſe that the whole man was dipped all over in the water, which you undertooke to prove; But here is not the leaſt intimation of any ſuch matter.

Secondly, Whereas you gather from the Originall: that Iohn12 baptized in the water, and dipped the whole man all over in the water, and put the party into the water, you might as well ſay, that Chriſt baptized in the holy Ghoſt, and fire, and that he dipped the whole man all over in the holy Ghoſt and in the fire,Act. 11.6. Matth. 3.11. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. or put the par­ty into the holy Ghoſt and fire; (which were a ſtrange interpreta­tion) for the particle is the ſame.

Thirdly, Whereas you gather hence [A Baptiſme in water] not [a Baptiſme with water] I would have you tell me what were they baptized or waſhed with if not with water? as if there were an irreconcileable repugnancy between baptizing in water, and baptizing with water.

But that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉doth not neceſſarily ſignifie [in,] you grant in our objection,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. which you propound thus,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉doth ſignifie [with] ſometime as in Revel. 19.21. And the reſt were ſlain with the ſword. Whereunto I might adde that not onely in this place, but frequently in the New Teſtament, the particle〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(by an He­braiſme) anſwering the prefixe ב ſignifies as well with as in. Matth. 5.13.〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. with (not in) what ſhall it be ſalted, Matth. 7.2. with (not in) what judgement. Act. 26.18. with (not in) the ſanctified. You anſwer this objection thus.

" 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is never taken for [with] after baptizo.

Reply. I reply. That is the thing in queſtion. And I would demand whether you thinke that our Tranſlatours, (and moſt or all others) who have Engliſhed it [with] knew not how to render the O­riginall in its proper ſignification as well as your ſelfe? Beſides theſe forementioned places,Mat. 3.11. Act. 11.19. ſpeaking of Chriſts baptizing with the holy Ghoſt and with fire, cannot be otherwiſe Engliſhed with any ſenſe.

Your peremptory deniall of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉to ſignifie [with] after〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, you would confirme thus. Either the word Baptizo muſt ſignifie to ſprinkle, or the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉muſt not ſignifie [with.] But the word baptizo doth ſignifie to dip. Ergo, the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉muſt ſignifie [In] and not [with,] as is proved very clearely, and denyed of none who are not ignorant of the language.

Anſw. As for this your Syllogiſme, it ſhews your Clarklineſſe wherewith you ſcoffingly taunt our Miniſters. It is notoriouſly fond, it wants forme, hath foure termes: In the aſſumption you put [to dip] in ſtead of [not to ſprinkle,] as if one word might not ſignifie to dip and ſprinkle both. There is no neceſſitie in the propoſition. Your aſſumption wherein you ſay (But baptizo13 ſignifies to dip) if it be taken excluſively, as to debarre all o­ther ſignifications (which it muſt, or elſe it is brought to no purpoſe) is falſe. Whereas in your concluſion, you ſay〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉muſt ſignifie [in] and not [with] which you ſay is denied by none, who are not ignorant of the language.

Anſwer. Anſw. What fond arrogancy this is, I ſhall make appeare by and by. But let us heare this criticall Linguiſt prove what he ſaith from the ſignification of the Greek word.

You ſay that Greeke Authors account Bapto and Baptizo, to ſignifie that for which the Latines uſe Mergo, Immergo & Tingere immergendo; that is to dip or plunge, to douſe over head, or under water.

Anſwer. Anſw. Bapto indeed ſignifies Mergo or Tingo. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.Baptizo is a derivative that cometh thence, which ſometimes may ſignifie the ſame with its primitive. But if we look into the uſe of it in the New Teſtament, we ſhall finde it rendred, To waſh; where the Originall word to Baptize is not kept. as Mark. 7.4. And when they come from the market they eate not except they waſh. The waſhing of cups and of pots, and of brazen veſſels, and of beds or tables. Again, verſ. 8. The waſhing of pots and cups. Here you have the verbe Baptizo to waſh, and the noune Baptiſmos, waſh­ing. And that this is the proper ſignification of the word may appeare (aaBez Lotiones Arias Mon. lo­tiones. vul. Bap­tiſmata. beſide the conſent of Tranſlatours) in that it is uſed as ſignifying the ſame thing with the other words, that al­wayes ſignifiesaaBez Lotiones Arias Mon. lo­tiones. vul. Bap­tiſmata. waſhing, as verſ. 2. bb〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.With unwaſhen hands, and verſ. 3. bb〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.Waſh their hands. By which it appeareth, that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſignifie the ſame thing. So Hebr. 9.10. And divers waſhings, where the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the legall waſhings. So Luk. 11.38. The Phariſee marvelled that Chriſt had not waſhed be­fore dinner. So that the word ſignifies properly to waſh, whether by infuſion or immerſion it matters not.

But ſhould we grant Baptizo and Bapto, to be altogether of the ſame ſignification (though the contrary have been ſufficient­ly proved,) what will you gain thereby? 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſignifies, either mergo or tingo. Mergo ſignifies properly, to drown, overwhelm, ſwallow up, &c. If you will have your converts (according to this interpretation) ſo baptized as to drown them; you will make ſure work to prevent their ſinning any more. And ſo your Baptiſme will have a priviledge above the Baptiſme of Chriſt, Iohn or the Apoſtles; for their converts and baptized ones ſinned14 after Baptiſme. But if you will have Baptiſme taken and uſed in this ſenſe, I know none that will be your diſciples, unleſſe they be weary of their lives. The other word Tingo ſignifies to dip orccDan. 4.12. &c Interpreters render the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉which in ſound hath great affi­nitie with〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ſome let­ters being tranſpoſed, by Intingitur. Iun. & Trem. Ar. Mon. Buxtorf. our Tranſla­tours render it, to be wet. Where Intingo, cannot ſignifie to douſe over head, or to dip, but to beſprin­kle or bedew, for it follows with the dew of heaven. beſprinkle, to embrue, ſtain, wet, or waſh, &c. Now what reaſon is there, why it ſhould be reſtrained onely to the firſt ſigni­fication? Nay if we compare Scriptures, we ſhall finde that what is rendred by ſprinkling in the Old Teſtament is expreſſed by this word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in the New. As if we conferre theſe two places, Rev 19.13. and Eſa. 63.3. In Rev. 10.13. Anddd〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſparſus, aſperſus, inſper­ſus fuit. vel a­ctive, aſperſit. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉conſper­ſus, tinctus, ma­defactus. Bez. veſte tin­cta ſanguine. Ari. veſtimen­tion tinctum. Vulg. veſte a­sperſa. he was cloathed with a veſture (dipt) in blood, So our Tranſlatours, (or rather ſprinkled, ſo we,) Eſa. 63.3. Their blood ſhall be (ſprinkled) on my garments; To which place of Eſay it is certain that the holy Ghoſt in the Revelation alludes (that I ſay not that it may be a repetition of the ſame propheſis, pointing at the ſame time and thing) as it may appeare by the ſame ſimilitude of treading the wine-preſſe of Gods wrath, largely proſecuted in both places. See Eſa. 63.1 With dyed garments, verſ. 2. Red in his apparell, &c. verſ. 3. I have trod the wine preſſe, and compare Rev. 19. v. 15. &c. So that it is evident, that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉doth expreſſe the ſame that was meant by〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Though our Tranſlatours render it dipped, becauſe the word in the Originall ſignifies either dipped or ſprinkled equally; Yea, Beza uſeth a word that equally ſignifies dipped or ſprinkled. So Arias Montanus. But the vulgar tranſla­tion hath a word that onely ſignifies beſprinkled, not dipped.

But you ſay. That Baptizo ſignifies, to dip, plunge, douſe o­ver head, &c. is proved by Chriſts own Baptiſme. Andee〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. he was baptized into the Iordan. Mark 1.9. But it is not, the water was put upon him, as in ſprinkling the water is put on the partie.

Anſw. 1. Neither is it, he was dipped, plunged, douſed over head, or under the water, &c.

2. The force of your argument lyes in this particle〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which you will needs have tranſlated [Into] not [In.] But can you, who cenſure others for their ignorance of the language, be igno­rant that [〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] ſignifieth very frequently In or by, not Into? as Matth. 2.23. ff〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.He dwelt in [not into] a citie called Nazareth. Matth. 4.13. He dwelt in [not into] Capernaum. Matth. 5, 45. Neither by the earth, neither by Ieruſalem,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉&〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are put in the ſame ſignification there. Matth. 10.9. Neither poſſeſſe money15 in [not into] your purſes. and 41. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.In [not into] the name of a Prophet. Matth. 13.33. She hid it in [not into] three mea­ſures of flower, &c. Thus you ſee〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſignifying in, ſo that it were abſurd to render it into, and ſo you have proved nothing for your purpoſe from the particle.

"You adde the teſtimonie of our Tranſlatours themſelves. For which I anſwer. Matth. 26.23. and Mar. 14.20. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉&〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, have the prepoſition ſet before them, which alters the ſignification and reſtrains it to ſignifie Dipping, in which ſig­nification the ſimple Verbe that we are about is not reſtrained un­to. From Luk. 16.24. Ioh. 13.26.〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. you prove nothing but what we willingly grant without this labour; namely, that bapto ſome­times ſignifies to Dippe. But thence it followes not that it ſig­nifies ſo alwaies, or onely. Of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Revel. 19.13. and the difference betweene Bapto, and Baptizo, I have ſpoken before. And here you confirme what I ſaid, and contradict your ſelf. For ſaying that in no Greek Authour, nor Scripture writ­ten by the Apoſtles in that Language, can be found that they differ:Mark. 7.4.Immediately you bring a place where Baptizo is taken in a ſenſe different from Bapto, which you never ſhewed, not have I read to ſignifie, to Waſh. So that you pull down with your owne hands, what you have beene building all this while. See before what hath beene ſaid to that place, where mention is made of ſuch a waſhing, as is ſo farre from neceſſarily implying dowſing into the water onely, that it will ſcarcely admit it as waſhing themſelves when they come from the market, and the waſhing of Beds or Tables. What you adde,That waſhing of cups, is putting cups into the water:is as true as waſhing hands or face is putting them into the water. May not cups be as well waſhed by infuſion of water in and upon them; as by putting them into the water?

Your conjecture from Ioh. 3.23. is as frivolous. As if there could be no reaſon why Iohn ſhould chuſe a place where were many waters, but this, that he might dip the whole man into the water, plunge and douſe them over head, or under water, (as your expreſſions are) But no ſuch reaſon is here expreſſed, nor ſo much as intimated. Rather the cauſe ſeemes this. Becauſe in thoſe hot countreys waters were rare,Gen. 21.15.19. Gen. 26.18. Judg. 1.15. and in ſome places could not be had in a great diſtance: therefore Iohn choſe places where were continuall running waters and ſtreames: eſpecially, ſeeing16 there came ſuch huge multitudes unto him to be baptized,Mat. 3.5, 6, 7. and it is more then probable that not onely Iohn, but alſo his diſciples baptized, as Ioh. 4.1, 2. Chriſt is ſaid to baptize thoſe whom his diſciples baptized: So Iohn may be ſaid to baptize thoſe whom he and his diſciples baptized together, a long the river at ſeverall places of the river, that they might make more ſpeedy diſpatch, with ſo great multitudes. Act. 2.41. Act. 16.15.33.Neither is it true that you ſay; A little font will ſuffice to beſprinkle a whole world with handfuls. More­over, we reade of great multitudes baptized, even three thouſand in Ieruſalem, without mention of going to the rivers; and of whole families, without mention of going out to the waters, or fetching great ſtore of waters. It is like the waters they had within doores at midnight ſufficed.

Act. 8.38, 39.Your Collection from Philips going down to the water with the Eunuch, that therefore they uſed dipping; is as vain. Muſt not they go to the water where it was, if they would uſe it? would the water have come up unto them in the chariot any ſoo­ner for ſprinkling then for dipping? Of the ſame ſtamp is your inference, from Matth. 3.16. Mark. 1.10. from Chriſts aſcending from the water. For as Chriſt was pleaſed to be baptized with water: ſo he was pleaſed to go where the water was. viz. in the channell, to which there was a deſcent, and from which there was an aſcent; ſo that he muſt go down to and come up from the water. But here is not the leaſt hint that Iohn douſed Chriſt over head or under the water. Nay, rather that conceit of yours is here confuted; for if our Bleſſed Saviour had been plunged of Iohn into the water, then it would rather have been ſaid; That Iohn caſt or plunged Chriſt into the water,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and took him out of the water. But it is onely implyed, that Chriſt went down unto the water and came up again from it.

From your other Scriptures, Col. 2.12. Rom. 6.4.5. 1 Cor. 15.29. what you goe about to gather I know not, unleſſe this, that as Chriſt was buried, abode in the grave three dayes, and then roſe again: ſo the party baptized muſt be put under the wa­ter, abide there ſome conſiderable time, and then come up a­gaine (for if you preſſe a ſimilitude of Chriſts buriall in going down into the water, and of his reſurrection in coming up out of the water; why not alſo of his abode in the grave three dayes, by abiding three dayes, or ſome anſwerable time under the water?) which will make bad worke; neither can any ſuch thing be ga­thered17 from thoſe Scriptures. Now to uſe your owne words: Let any man that is not quite fallen out with his reaſon judge, whether in all theſe Scriptures be any ſyllable that ſpeaks more for dipping then for ſprinkling or waſhing with water? Men may well be at agreement with their reaſon, and yet perceive no ſuch thing as you inferre hence. Col. 2.12. Rom. 6.4, 5. 1 Cor. 15.29.But I would demand here two Que­ſtions: Firſt, How can you gather from theſe places, a dipping of the whole man over head and under water? and that a ſimi­litude of Chriſts death, buriall, and riſing againe, to be repreſented by dipping into the water is ſignified here? Theſe Scriptures ſhew indeed that the end of our baptiſme is to ſeale our commu­nion with Chriſt, in his death and reſurrection, by which we are dead to ſinne, and raiſed againe to holineſſe. But if you will preſſe hence a neceſſitie of reſemblance of Chriſts death, buriall, and reſurrection by our deſcending into, abiding in, and coming up out of the water;Pro. 30.6. Revel. 22.18. take heed leſt you be one of thoſe which adde to Gods word, leſt he reprove you as a lyer: and adde unto you the plagues written in his Booke. For I know not any word of God wherein this repreſentation is neceſſarily implied, much leſſe expreſſed. Beſides, if you urge death and reſurrection to be reſembled by deſcenſion into, and aſcenſion out of the water: you muſt urge alſo buriall (which is principally there expreſſed) by the biding of the whole man, head and all under for a time an­ſwerable to Chriſts three dayes buriall, which cannot be without danger (yea certainty) of drowning.

Secondly, If it ſhould be granted that a repreſentation and re­ſemblance of Chriſts death, buriall, and reſurrection is ſet before us in baptiſme; and ſo of our death to ſinne, and riſing again to holineſſe: Yet I would demand, why may not this be repreſented as well by infuſion of water, as by dipping? Can you give me an example of ſo many killed and buried by immerſion or dipping into the water; as I can give of them that have beene put to death and buried, by the infuſion of water? I am ſure a whole world of men and other earthly creatures (thoſe few that were in the Arke excepted) were buried in the univerſall Deluge at once, by infuſion, not by dipping. So that infuſion or ſprinkling,Gen. 6.27. & 7.11, 12. may well as clearely ſignifie death and buriall, as dipping. And to the preſervation of Noah and thoſe that were with him, by the Arke, (on which waters were poured) from drowning: the A­poſtle18 compares baptiſme, as its antitype. Wherefore you might doe well to be henceforth a little more modeſt, and not talke as if all men were fallen out with their reaſon which will not jumpe with you in your weake conceits.

Now we come to your inference or concluſion, which being built on the crazie and rotten foundation of ſuch vaine and fond premiſes, falls to the ground of it ſelfe. And whereas you ſay, that, The Greek wanted not words to expreſſe any other act as well as dipping. I anſwer. Neither did the Greek want words to ex­preſſe onely dipping of the whole man all over into the water; or dowſing and plunging over head and under the water (which you would have Baptizo to ſignifie, but neither have nor can prove that it doth) if the holy Ghoſt had meant any ſuch act. Nei­ther doth the Spirit of God need your helpe to find out fit words. It ſeemed fit to that wiſe Spirit to uſe Baptizo, which ſignifies to waſh, whether by dipping or ſprinkling; waſhing onely being in­tended to be ſignificant, and not either dipping or ſprinkling. Whereas you ſay, that It cannot be proved that baptiſme was ad­miniſtred any other way then by dipping, for at leaſt a thouſand years after Chriſt.

Anſ. I leave the proofe and trialls of that to Hiſtorians and An­tiquaries, as being unfurniſhed with the Records of Antiquitie: though I conceive your Aſſertion is as bold and groundleſſe as your others are proved to be. Secondly, Why do you not prove that dowſing over head, and under water, was uſed for at leaſt a thouſand years after Chriſt? Thirdly, How can you tell it can­not be proved that ſprinkling was uſed of all that time? Will you perſwade people that you have read over all the writings of the Ancients; or that you are ſo honeſt, faithfull, and unerring, that your word muſt be taken for an Oracle without proofe?

As for your cleare reſulting conſequence, as I ſaid, It is built on too weake grounds to ſtand, and therefore may be ſafely de­nied as a plaine untruth. And whereas you apply the words of Peter and Ananias unto us,Act. 2.38. Act. 22.16. 1 Sam. 15.23. as to unbaptized perſons, per­ſwading us to ariſe and be baptized: Intimating, that for us to refuſe this your Charge, is rebellion and ſtubborneſſe, as witch­craft, iniquitie and idolatrie. I would adviſe you take heed of, and repent for abuſing Scripture, as in theſe and a great part of your quotations you doe moſt groſly. God will not hold them19 guiltleſſe that take his name in vaine. When you come to us with the ſame ſpirit and authoritie, as Peter, Ananias, and Samuel had; we will hearken to you.

Now though what hath beene ſaid in anſwer to this diſputers Arguments againſt baptizing by ſprinkling, or infuſion; and for onely dipping or plunging might ſuffice; yet I will adde ſome­thing more to what hath been written, endeavouring to make it appeare, that waſhing, whether it be by dipping, or ſprinkling, is the externall act required in this Sacrament, to be uſed; and that ſprinkling, or infuſion, is as (if not more) agreeable to the nature and inſtitution of this Sacrament, as dipping, or im­merſion.

Argument 1. As the word uſed ſignifieth waſhing, (as hath beene ſhewed) ſo the thing repreſented, ſignified, and ſealed in this Sacrament, is ſet forth in the Scripture by the phraſe of waſhing, or cleanſing, as 1 Cor. 6.11. But ye are waſhed,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. but ye are ſanctified, but yea are iuſtified, &c. Now who queſtions but our juſtification, and ſanctification, or remiſſion of ſinnes, together with mortification, and vivification are ſealed, and ſignified by baptiſme, &c. But theſe are here called waſhing. So Tit 3.5. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.According to his mercy he ſaved us, by the waſhing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghoſt. In the former of which expreſſi­ons (waſhing) if here be not meant baptiſme it ſelfe, (which to deny I ſee no reaſon) yet certainely here is meant the thing ſig­nified by baptiſme, which is ſufficient for our purpoſe which way ſo ever it is taken. Heb. 10.22. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.Having our bodies waſhed with cleane water. 1 Ioh. 1.7. And the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt his Sonne ſhall cleanſe us from all our ſinnes. Heb. 9.14. The bloud of Chriſt ſhall purge your conſcience. Now we know waſhing, purging, or cleanſing, may be, and commonly is, as well by infuſion, or powring on the thing to be waſhed, as by dipping. Common ex­perience teſtifies ſo much, and Scripture is not ſilent herein. Luk. 7.44. She hath waſhed my feet with tears, viz.〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. by powring or diſtilling, as the word ſignifies. And though it were granted that in thoſe hot Countries they commonly waſhed, by going downe into the water, and being dipped therein; whether in ordinary, or ceremoniall, or ſacramentall waſhing; that will no more in­force on us a neceſſity of obſerving the ſame in baptiſme now, then the example of Chriſt and his Apoſtles**Matth. 26.2. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Mar. 14.18. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Luk. 22.14. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Matth. 14.19. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. geſture in the Sacra­ment of the Supper ties us to the ſame, (which was leaning, and20 partly lying, which was their uſuall table geſture then.) Now the ordinary table geſture which is uſuall among us is moſt fit; ſo the uſuall manner of waſhing amongſt us is moſt fit to be obſer­ved in baptiſme; and that is by powring, as well as by dipping.

But it may be objected, That ſprinkling a little water, doth not ſo fitly repreſent the perfect waſhing away of all our ſinnes, as dipping or plunging, ſith here the whole body is waſhed, there onely the face or head onely. Anſw. Firſt, the Scripture no where requires the waſhing of the whole body in baptiſme. Se­condly, with as good reaſon one might plead thus. It is moſt con­venient that at the Lords Supper every communicant ſhould re­ceive his belly full of bread and wine; and take as long as ſtomack and head will hold, to ſignifie the full refreſhment of the ſoule with the body and bloud of Chriſt. But who would endure ſuch reaſoning? Theſe outward elements of Water, Bread and Wine, are for ſpirituall uſe, and to ſignifie ſpirituall things; ſo that if there be the truth of things, the quantitie is not to be reſpected further then is ſufficient for its end; namely, to repreſent the ſpirituall grace: and that it be neither ſo little, as not clearely to repreſent it;2. Pet. 3.21. nor ſo much, as to take off the heart from the ſpirituall to the corporall thing. Not the waſhing away of the filth of the body in baptiſme; nor the glutting or ſatisfying of the naturall appetite in the Lord Supper is to be looked after, but the waſhing and re­freſhing of the ſoule; which may well be repreſented by the ſprinkling of a little water; eating, and drinking of a little bread and wine. In Circumciſion a little skin was cut off.

Arg. 2The ſpirituall grace and inviſible act of God upon the ſoule ſig­nified and repreſented by the outward act of baptiſme, is oft ex­preſſed in Scripture by the phraſe of powring, and beſprinkling, and that in great probabilitie (if not certainly and unqueſtionably) with alluſion to the Sacrament of Baptiſme, either already ad­miniſtred,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉fudit. Infu­dit, affudit, pro­fudit, perfudit. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or to be adminiſtred. I mean the bloud of Chriſt, and the Spirit of God, (which are the inviſible grace of Baptiſme) are ſaid to be powred or ſprinkled on Gods people. Eſa. 44.3. For I will powre water on him that is thirſtie, and floods on the dry ground: I will powre my Spirit on thy ſeed, and my bleſſing upon thine off-ſpring. Here the Spirit is ſaid to be powred, and this benefit is ſignified by the type of powring water. Ioel 2.28. I will powre out my ſpirit on all fleſh. Which promiſe Peter citing, cal­leth upon the people to repent, and receive baptiſme, as being21 the ſigne and ſeale which God had appointed to repreſent, and ex­hibite this promiſed bleſſing by. Ezek. 36.26. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉And I will ſprinkle upon you cleane water, and you ſhall be cleane. This cleane water queſtionleſſe, is the blood and ſpirit of Ieſus Chriſt, repreſented by the water in baptiſme. Thus we ſee three ſeverall phraſes ſig­nifying, to ſprinkle, beſprinkle, powre. If we look into the New Teſtament we ſhall find the like phraſes, Act. 2.17. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.I will powre forth my Spirit upon all fleſh. Heb. 10.22. Having your hearts be­ſprinkled from an evill conſcience. 1 Pet. 1.2. By the ſanctification of the ſpirit, and ſprinkling of the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt. See Heb. 9. 13. and 14. verſes compared together; and Heb. 12.24. Now let any one without prejudice conſider theſe Scriptures, whether at leaſt ſome of them ſpeake not in alluſion to baptiſme, and whe­ther they all hold not forth the thing ſignified in baptiſme; and whether baptiſme be not a lively reſemblance and repreſentation of the things here ſpoken off. And then withall let him conſider, whether the thing exhibited in this Sacrament be ever ſo fully ſet forth by dipping, and then I leave him to judge whether ſprink­ling be not as (that I ſay not more) agreeable to the nature of this Sacrament, as dipping.

Arg. 3Thirdly, this douſing over head, and under water that A. R. pleads for, as eſſentiall to baptiſme, ſeems directly againſt the ſixth Commandement, and expoſeth the perſon baptized to the dan­ger of death. For firſt, ſuppoſe the party be fit for baptiſme (as they account) in the ſharpe Winter as now beleeving, profeſſing, &c. He muſt immediately be taken to the river (as his tenet ſeemes to hold) and there plunged in over head and eares, though he come forth covered with yce. But if he eſcape periſhing with cold; how can he eſcape being choaked, and ſtifled with the wa­ter: if he muſt be plunged over head to ſignifie his death to ſinne: ſecondly, be kept under water, to ſignifie his buriall: and third­ly, be taken up, as this Diſputer ſeemes to reaſon? But whatſoe­ver be the danger of freezing, or ſuffocation; it ſeemes this he holds the onely baptiſme, and therefore muſt not be ſwerved from.

Arg. 4Fourthly, will not this their manner of dipping be found alſo againſt the ſeventh Commandement in the Decalogue? For I would know with theſe new dippers, whether the parties to be dowſed and dipped, may be baptized in a garment or no? If they may, then happily the garment may keep the water from ſome22 part of the body, and then they are not rightly baptized; for the whole man, ſay they, muſt be dipped. Againe, I would aske what warrant they have for dipping, or baptizing garments, more then the Papiſts have for baptizing Bells. Therefore belike the parties muſt be naked, and multitudes preſent as at Iohns baptiſme, and the parties men and women of ripe yeares, as being able to make confeſſion of their faith and repentance: yet though they both ſinne againſt the ſixth Commandement, indangering life, and againſt all common honeſtie and civilitie, and Chriſtian mo­deſtie required in the ſeventh Commandement, they muſt have this way obſerved, becauſe they fancie it the onely baptiſme. Shall we thinke this was the baptiſme of Iohn, Chriſt, and his Apoſtles? But enough of this ſecond Conſideration; we come to the third Conſideration.

The third Argument, or Conſideration againſt our Baptiſme, taken from the Miniſters (by whom adminiſtred) examined.

YOur third Conſideration againſt baptizing of infants amongſt us, is taken from the Calling, Office, Power, and Authoritie of the Miniſters, by whom they are baptized. Which ſubject be­cauſe it hath been largely handled by others, ſhall be lightly paſſed over. Yet we will try what you ſay to it with ſhew of truth, or weight.

A. R.Whereas you ſay, That our Miniſters power and authoritie was received from Biſhops, who received their power from the An­tichriſtian State of Rome, as they confeſſe; ſo that the baptiſme is from Antichriſt, not from Chriſt.

Anſwer. 1I anſwer. Firſt, our Miniſters have their authoritie, and office, from Ieſus Chriſt; as many as being fitted for that function, upon due triall, and approbation of Miniſters, (though a Biſhop, or Bi­ſhops have had an hand; yea, a chiefe ſtroke therein) and the choyce or acceptation of Gods people; have ſet upon the worke of the Miniſtery.

Anſwer. 2Secondly, a thing is not therefore forthwith unwarrantable, or Antichriſtian, becauſe it comes from a Biſhop, or from the Pope; or authoritie derived from them. Is the doctrine of the unitie of Gods Eſſence, Trinitie of Perſons, Creation of the world, &c. therefore unlawfull, or Antichriſtian, becauſe holden by them? If23 the Scriptures of the Old and New Teſtament have been in the cuſtodie of the Papiſts, as the Old Teſtament in the cuſtodie of the Iewes; ſo that we have no Bibles now, but what came ſuc­ceſſively from the Iewes and Papiſts: Muſt we therefore reject the Scripture as Antichriſtian, or Iewiſh, and look for immediate revelations? Or if the Biſhops had a hand in the Tranſlation of our Bibles; muſt they therefore be caſt away as Antichriſtian: ſo that neither you nor your diſciples may meddle with them, be­cauſe they have paſſed through the hands of the Biſhops? If any of you have heard any Sacred truths from Miniſters (which have beene ordained by Biſhops) which you ſeemed to beleeve for a time: muſt you of neceſſitie caſt them away as falſhoods, and An­tichriſtian Tenents, falſe doctrines or nullities? as you will make their baptiſme Antichriſtian baptiſme, the reaſon is the ſame. Take heed leſt in ſo doing you caſt away your ſoules.

Anſwer. 3Thirdly, many things that Antichriſt, and they that are held under Antichriſts tyranny, hold and profeſſe, are not Antichriſtian, but truly Chriſtian. As that the Canonicall Scriptures are the word of God, that God is one in Eſſence, yet three in Perſons; that Chriſt is the Sonne of God, &c. And many things taught by them, many acts done by them, are not Antichriſtian, but Chri­ſtian. For Antichriſt was foretold to ſit in the Temple of God;2 Theſſ. 2.4. which he would never have beene ſuffered to do, had he not pro­feſſed and practiſed ſome things that for their ſubſtance were of God. And as for the faithfull over whom he did tyrannize, while he ſate in the Temple of God: though they were abuſed and chea­ted by him, with many ſuperſtitions and errours, that he impo­ſed upon them: yet there were ſome ſaving truths that they profeſſed, and holy and acceptable worſhip, and practiſe which they did performe, which in Chriſt God was pleaſed to accept; ſo that it is fond to reaſon; Baptiſme, Ordination and the Scri­ptures were received from Antichriſt, therefore Antichriſtian.

Anſwer. 4Fourthly, the power and authoritie of the Miniſters doth not depend on the qualitie or ſtation (eſpecially in reſpect of the worſt part) of the perſon or perſons, chuſing or ordaining them. Elſe men could never be aſſured of their owne or others miniſtrie, whether it be true or falſe: (for the qualitie of men is onely knowne unto God, and in the ſtation of the beſt there may be ſomewhat irregular and wanting exact perfection) but princi­pally on Chriſts inward call, diſcerned by the gifts, propenſitie,24 and ſincerity of the parties undertaking that office; al which are re­quiſite, if they will, to their own comfort, and with Gods approba­tion exerciſe their miniſterie; although the want of ſome of theſe hinder not, but that he which by Gods providence is called to the miniſterie, may have power and authoritie ſufficient from God to be an inſtrument of God, for the good of others, though he were weake and unfound himſelfe;Mat. 10.4. and 40. as we may ſee in Iudas: (who was one of thoſe to whom Chriſt ſaith, He that receiveth you, re­ceiveth me, &c.) the Scribes and Phariſees, (concerning whom Chriſt gave a charge that they ſhould be heard and obeyed in thoſe things which they taught ſitting in Moſes chaire:Matth. 23.2, 3. Phil. 1.15, 16.18. Act. 6.5. Rev. 2.6. vide Bright­man, in locum. though their lives were not exemplary) the envious, contentious, and unſin­cere Preachers of Chriſt (in whoſe preaching yet Paul rejoy­ced;) in Demas, and Nicolas the Deacon, who as Interpreters hold, proved afterward the ring-leader of the Nicolaitanes.) This (I ſay) Chriſts inward call either of approbation, as in the firſt; or of providence, as in the later, is the principall thing, whereon the power and the authoritie of the Miniſter doth de­pend. And then the leſſe principall are the ordination and choyce of them, by ſuch as are the Miniſters and people of God, by pro­feſſion (though ſomething Antichriſtian, or otherwiſe ſinfull may cleave unto them, in regard of their qualities or ſtations.) And laſtly, the expreſſion of the end for which they were ordain­ed, viz. to adminiſter the holy things of God. By which two lat­ter, viz. the outward calling, and the manifeſtation of the end, the hearts of Gods people may be aſſured of Chriſts inward cal­ling, ſo farre as that they may be confident, that whiles they diſ­charge the duties of Miniſters, it ſhall not be without efficacie for their good, if they be not wanting to themſelves.

Anſwer. 5Fifthly, as Paul proveth his Apoſtleſhip (when it was que­ſtioned amongſt the Corinthians by occaſion of the whiſperings of the falſe apoſtles, who could not otherwiſe inſinuate themſelves into the favour of the Corinthians, but by traducing Paul and bringing him out of favour with them, as no Apoſtle of Chriſt, which hath beene ever the guiſe of falſe Teachers (which practiſe is too rife now adayes) As I ſay, Paul proves his Apoſtleſhip a­mongſt other arguments from Gods bleſſing upon his miniſtery (Are not you my worke in the Lord? 2 Cor. 9.1, 2.If I be not an Apoſtle unto others; yet doubtleſſe I am unto you: for the ſeale of mine Apo­ſtleſhip are ye in the Lord;) Which muſt needs be a good argu­ment,25 both becauſe the Apoſtle uſed it, who would not bring a weake and non-concluding argument; and alſo becauſe as God will not bleſſe any Ordinances but his owne, to work repentance, faith, and holineſſe; ſo neither will he bleſſe any Miniſtery but his owne Miniſtery: ſo through the mercy of God our Miniſters have a ſufficient anſwer for all that ſhall examine them concern­ing their miniſtery. The Converſion, Humiliation, Reformation, Faith, Conſolation, heavenly Ioy, and Holineſſe, which God thereby hath wrought in thouſands of ſoules (to his everlaſting glory be it ſpoken) evince them to be the Miniſters of Chriſt, whoſe worke and ſeale ſo many faithfull ſoules are, and prove that all thoſe which goe about to perſwade the people that they are Antichriſtian miniſters are ſlanderers:2 Cor. 9.13, 14, 15.Like thoſe falſe Apoſtles of which Paul ſpeaks, deceitfull workers, transforming them­ſelves into the Apoſtles of Chriſt; and no marvell, for Satan himſelfe is transformed into an Angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his miniſters alſo be transformed into the Mi­niſters of righteouſneſſe, whoſe end ſhall be according to their workes. Or like thoſe deceivers which had ſo bewitched the Galatians,Gal. 4.14, 15, 16, 17, 18. that whereas they had received the Apoſtle as an Angel of God, even as Chriſt Ieſus, &c. yet after a while ac­counted him their enemie, becauſe he told them the truth, whom they zealouſly affected but not well, deſiring to ſeparate thoſe Galatians from the Apoſtles, that they might have all their affection.But I will leave ſuch deceivers and thoſe which are deceived by them (if they doe not truely repent) to the judge­ment of him on whoſe Miniſters they raile; knowing that he who hath ſo farre honoured their faithfull labours, will vindicate them in his due time, from all thoſe contumelious aſperſions, wherewith on all ſides they are laden: if they continue faithfully and reſolutely doing his worke, notwithſtanding all oppoſitions.

Your reaſoning that you falſely ſay, the Non-conformiſts have taught you, is idle.Did the Non-conformiſts ever call mid­wives Antichriſtian miniſters? midwives were never capable of miniſterial functions, nor called to the miniſterie by the ordination of Miniſters, nor choyce or acceptation of the people; neither have they any miniſteriall power from Chriſt. But our Miniſters have, although there have beene ſome diſorder or defect, in the externall exhibition of this power, through the fault of men, which yet probably was nothing ſo great, as was the diſorder a­mong26 the Iewes in calling the Scribes and Phariſees, whoſe mi­niſterie notwithſtanding our Saviour enjoynes the people to uſe.

To an Objection which you bring in of our Miniſters: That they received their office of Biſhops as Elders: not as Lord Biſhops. You anſwer: That if our Biſhops be lawfull Elders, they muſt be Elders choſen by a true Church, which is a Con­gregation conſtituted of beleevers and Saints by calling, Act. 2.41. 1 Cor. 1.2. Phil. 1.7. Rom. 1.7, 8. To which your An­ſwer, I reply.

Firſt, If you ſpeake of Biſhops being lawfull Elders, ſo as to be right Miniſters in all circumſtances, and particulars of their ſta­tion and calling, ſo that there needs no reformation: we doe not plead for them as lawfull Elders in that ſenſe; as knowing that ſome evill adhereth unto their Miniſtery, which being removed, they become lawfull Miniſters. But ſo farre we hold them law­full Elders, as that their calling of Miniſters, Preaching, admini­ſtring of Sacraments, (when done for the ſubſtance according to the rule of Gods word) are not meere nullities, nor prophanati­ons of Gods Ordinances to Gods people or Miniſters that make uſe of them; but may be, and oft are, effectuall for their good; ſo that if theſe Biſhops will caſt away that which being Antichri­ſtian adhereth unto them;Act. 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.2. and faithfully diſcharge the office of Elders and Miniſters of Ieſus Chriſt, faithfully feeding the flock of God, they are to be imbraced as Chriſts Miniſters, and that without any new Ordination;Rev. 2.3. as may appeare, Revel. 2. and 3. Chapters: where the Angels or Miniſters which had left their firſt love,Rev. 2.13, 14. had them which held the doctrine of Balaam, which taught Balak to caſt a ſtumbling-block before the children of Iſ­rael,Rev. 2.20. to eate things offered to idols, and to commit fornication, and had them which held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which Chriſt hated; yea which ſuffered the woman Iezabel, which cal­led her ſelfe a Propheteſſe, to teach and deceive Chriſts ſervants, &c. Rev. 3.15.Thoſe which had a name to live, and yet were dead, whoſe workes were not perfect, ſuch as were neither hot, nor cold, but luke-warme. Such, I ſay, are ſtill called Angels, bidden repent and doe their firſt workes; with a promiſe at laſt implied, that they ſhall keep their ſtations of Angels. And this is ſufficient to war­rant unto us,Matth. 23.1, 2, 3, &c. per totum. the acts which they doe as Miniſters. The Scribes and Phariſees had many corruptions (in Chriſts time, and ſo had the Prieſts both before, and in Chriſts time) adhering to their27 function, and thoſe very groſſe; yet was not their miniſtery vaine to thoſe which according to Chriſts appointment made uſe of it.

Now to your poſition;That, they muſt be Elders choſen by a true Church, which is a congregation of beleevers.That I may know your meaning: I would demand of you,

Firſt, Whether you mean that of neceſſitie the whole Church and every particular member therof, muſt be preſent at the choo­ſing of a Miniſter, and give their voice expreſſely therein. If this be your meaning, it is neither proved in the Scriptures you bring, nor any other. Or whether by being choſen by a Church, you meane no more then to be choſen by ſome ſpeciall perſons in a Church, that repreſent the whole Church. If this be your mean­ing, I will concurre with you in that particular, as knowing that women and children have no voyce, though members. Nor is it neceſſary that every particular member of the reſt ſhould give his vote: ſith at ſuch times oft ſome are occaſioned to be abſent, and if preſent, they yet may be ſo many, that they cannot well give particularly their voices, and though many refuſe to give their votes, yet if the greater part vote for him it is ſufficient.

Secondly, Whereas you ſay. Conſtitute of Saints and belee­vers by calling. I aske, whether you meane thoſe that are ſo effe­ctually called, that they are really and truly become Saints and be­leevers, ſo that there is not a wicked man or hypocrite among them, and that the mixture of wicked men or hypocrites among them which call the Elders, cauſeth them not to be true Elders. If this be your meaning, looke over that place which you brought for proofe of your opinion, and you ſhall finde it clearely confu­ted; 1 Cor. 1.2. if you compare that verſe with Chap. 3. v. 3. and Chap. 5. and 6. throughout. Chap. 8. and 10. and 11. and 15. and 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. and almoſt throughout both Epiſtles. By comparing which places you ſhall ſee, that theſe beleevers and Saints by calling, did not ſo walke, either in regard of ſoundneſſe of judgement, puritie of worſhip, or holineſſe of life, as to give cleare evidence of their effectuall calling or ſound ſanctification. So compare, Phil. 1.7. with Chap. 3.18, 19. and Rom. 1.7, 8. with Chap. 16. v. 17, 18. and then ſpeake your conſcience, whether you can judge all theſe down right beleevers effectually called, really Saints. But if by beleevers, or Saints by calling, you meane ſuch as are called to faith and holineſſe, and withall make a pro­feſſion by externally giving their names up to Chriſt, and accept­ing28 outwardly the covenant, promiſing faith and obedience unto Gods word; though there may be hypocrites and wicked livers: we concurre with you, as knowing that they muſt be Chriſtians by profeſſion, and partakers of the heavenly calling (not Iews, Pagans or other Infidels) that goe to the making up of a viſible Church; and ſuch are our Churches, whereby the Elders of whom we ſpeak have been choſen or accepted.

Thirdly, whether your meaning be the Congregation or peo­ple only, without the precedency, concurrence, examination, di­rection, and Ordination of Miniſters, muſt chuſe their Governours or Officers, or elſe they are not true Governours or Officers: If you meane ſo, looke backe on the Scripture cited by you Acts 14.23. with other places, Act. 6.3.6. 1 Tim. 4.14. and 5.22. where it appeareth, that Miniſters had the chiefe hand in making Miniſters.

Now theſe things propounded: I anſwer to your poſition, that we can eaſily ſhew, that our people in England, in regard of their generall and unanimous conſent to (and profeſſion of faith in) the ſame truth, contained in the book of God, acceptation of the co­venant, and giving up of their names unto Chriſt, are a Church or Congregation of faithfull people or Saints by calling, though many doe not walke anſwerably to their calling (the greater is their ſinne, and ſhame, and ſhall be their condemnation unleſſe they repent.) And in regard of the many ſeverall companies of the faithfull, by whom Gods worſhip is performed apart one from another; there are many Churches or Congregations of Saints by calling in our Land. We can ſhew alſo, that although our Elders of whom we ſpeake, have not been choſen by the whole Congregations, in reſpect of every particular member; yet by ſome ſpeciall perſons (in behalfe of the whole Congregation) to whom that charge was committed by them, (or (which was their ſinne) uſurped from them) and that the people at leaſt by accepting them ſo choſen, did make choice of them in their own perſons. And that whatſoever diſorders or defects have been in the choice, do not nullifie their miniſtery. As for ſuch as have ac­knowledged the unlawfulneſſe of their miniſtery, or plead meere qualifications (of whom you ſpeake) let them anſwer for themſelves, how they can, we are not bound to ſtand to their principles, or maintain their opinions.

As for the ſeven next Objections, into the Anſwer whereof29 you digreſſe (moſt of them being belike fained of your ſelf, that you may finde ſomewhat to ſay) beſide extravagant imperti­nencies, malicious and maſter-like cenſures, and ſome unqueſti­oned truths, which are yeelded by us, but do nothing profit your cauſe, nor hurt ours: I ſee nothing that it is worth while to an­ſwer, but what may be ſufficiently anſwered unto, by what hath been ſaid before. Neither do I intend to follow you in your idle roving. Onely it is to be obſerved, that this A. R. cannot endure to heare of a Synode, though a ſpeciall and maine ordinance of God, to compoſe differences, and quiet the hearts of Gods peo­ple, which have been diſquieted by trouble-Churches. See Acts 15. the whole Chapter.

Becauſe (ſaith he) a Synod cannot make a Laſt to ſuit every ones foot, which in plain Engliſh is this, they will not ſuffer Ieſu­its, Papiſts, Arminians, idle Miniſters, Anabaptiſts, Antinomians, and Familiſts to have their own way in practiſe, worſhip, opini­on, &c. Neither will they ſuffer every man to abuſe the Scripture after his owne fancie, and vent abroad his poyſonous conceipts a­mong the ſimple, to draw diſciples after them. As if it were better to let every man follow his owne deviſes, and labour to draw others into his opinions (ſo that whoſoever is moſt cun­ning, pragmaticall and able to conform his doctrin to the humours of men, ſhall goe away with moſt diſciples, to the overthrow of thouſands of ſoules,) than that there ſhould be a conſultation of godly, learned, & conſcientious Miniſters, about the eſtabliſhment of religion. And here it is further to be noted, that the children of darkeneſſe, though in ſome particulars they be oppoſite one to another, as Papiſts, Arminians, ignorant, lazy and malignant Mini­ſters and licentious Atheiſts on the one ſide, and Anabaptiſts with Antinomians and Familiſts on the other ſide, doe differ from, yea directly oppoſe one another in ſome particulars; yet they agree together, as in oppoſing Gods faithfull Miniſters and people, ſo in hating the light, and refuſing to be brought unto the triall of Gods word, and to be tyed unto the Rules thereof, as they ſhall be found out and applyed by an Aſſembly of faithfull Miniſters.

Again, it is to be obſerved, That theſe men take it in high in­dignation, that any ſhould go about to reſtrain them from abuſing the Scripture, and carrying about the ſimple people with every wind of doctrin, by whom they may be had in admiration, while they are ſuffered to go on in their bold preſumption, and confident30 venting of their ignorant conceits, and malicious rayling againſt authoritie; which may appeare by this Authours abuſe of Scrip­ture,for a colour of accuſation of thoſe that would reſtraine them, and by his tale of a Miniſter in the Weſt.But I come to the fourth Conſideration.

The fourth Argument Anſwered.

YOur fourth Conſideration then is taken from the ground of baptizing children; which as you are ſhort in urging, I will be ſhort in anſwering. A. R.Whereas therefore you ſay, The faith and repentance of the Sureties, is the ground of our baptizing, as you would prove from the queſtions propounded at the baptizing, and out of the Catechiſme. Whence you conclude, that it is not true Baptiſme; becauſe in true Baptiſme, the faith and repentance of the partie baptized is the ground.

Anſwer. I Anſwer. Not the faith and repentance of the Sureties as you pretend, is the ground of our Baptiſme, (neither do we ſay ſo) but Gods gracious Covenant which he hath made with the parents and their children; (of which hereafter) Which Cove­nant that parents may publiquely profeſſe themſelves to have in­tereſt in, and with them their children, it is convenient that they (and other Sureties, if they ſee it good, to joyne ſuch with them­ſelves, to undertake what they promiſe in the behalfe of their children, in caſe parents ſhould be negligent, ignorant, or by ſpee­dy death, or otherwiſe diſabled to bring up their children religi­ouſly) I ſay it is convenient, that they ſhould make a profeſſion of their faith and repentance, which yet doth not at all prove that their faith and repentance is the ground of the childrens Bap­tiſme. But the tenour of Gods gracious covenant, under which they profeſſe themſelves (and with them their children) to be, is the ground of this act. Now though there may be ſome un­juſtifiable or unfit paſſages, in the Catechiſme or manner of Bap­tiſme, whence you fetch your Argument, (ſeeing that it is ap­parent, that our ground of baptizing Infants, is the Covenant of God made with the parents, or thoſe which are in ſtead of pa­rents, which Covenant that they are in, they teſtifie by profeſ­ſing their faith and repentance, and conſidering that the anſwer­ing of Sureties, and the Catechizing of Children, doth nothing touch the eſſence of Baptiſme) thoſe paſſages nothing prejudice31 the truth of Childrens Baptiſme. But concerning this matter, viz. the ground of Childrens Baptiſme more hereafter.

The fifth Argument againſt the Baptiſme of Infants, taken from the ſubiects to whom it is ad­miniſtred, Anſwered.

THe fifth Conſideration,A. R. which yeelds an Argument againſt our Baptiſme, is taken from the ſubiects, on whom Baptiſme is ad­miniſtred, and thoſe are Infants, whereas (ſay you) the Scripture holds forth the Diſciples, or beleevers onely are to be baptized, which you prove thus. For the Commiſſion of Chriſt was onely to baptize diſciples, as appeareth, Matth. 28.19. the words being theſe. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.Going therefore diſciple all nations, baptizing them, &c. Now the queſti­on (ſay you) is to what this word (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉them) hath relation, whe­ther to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nations, or no. But (ſay you) it is cleare out of the words, that it hath not relation to nations, but to diſciples: for the word which is put for them in that place, is autous not auta, which it ſhould be, if it had relation to nations.

Anſw. 1. But I pray you, who (but your ſelf) ever ſaw in this Text, the word Diſciples, to which〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, them, may have rela­tion? There is no ſuch word, either in any uſuall tranſlation, or in the Originall. 2. What neceſſitie or likelihood is there, that your ſuppoſed〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, diſciples, ſhould be antecedent to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉them? Becauſe forſooth, it is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Know you not, that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Na­tions, though in voyce it be Neuter, yet in ſignification it is Ma­ſculine: Signifying men in the Nations or Heathens (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Homines in Gentibus, or Gen­tium, or Gentiles. You ſure would never have been ſo confident, that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉muſt needs be referred to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, diſciples, if you had but conſulted with Lylies Rules, who tels you of a figure called Syntheſis, when a ſentence is congruous in ſenſe,Syntheſis eſt o­catio congrua ſenſu, non voce. Gens armati. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. though not in voice; and brings an example like to this; The Armed nation: which figure is very frequent in the Greeke language; to inſtance onely in this ſame word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Act. 15.17. And all the nations up­on whom my name is called upon them, where you have〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whom and them, anſwering to the antecedent〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉gentes. And I beleeve where you finde a Relative in Scripture, anſwer­ing to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nations,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. moſt frequently (if not alwayes) it is the Ma­ſculine gender, as Act. 28.28. to the Gentiles is ſent this ſalvation32 and they ſhall heare. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.Act 13.48. The Gentiles hearing glorified the word of the Lord, and they beleeved, ſo many as were or­dained unto eternall life. Rom. 2.14, 15. When the Gentiles not having the law, do by nature the things of the law, theſe having not the law, are a law to themſelves, which ſhew the work, &c. Inſomuch, that your Criticiſme hath greatly failed you here; and ſo your foundation which you have laid to prove, That all who are baptized according to Chriſts Commiſſion, proving but a meere conceit, or ſelf-deceit, your building that you reare thereupon will vaniſh away.

Obiect. If it be ſaid, Chriſt commanded the Apoſtles to teach or make diſciples, and then to baptize, ſo that none are capable of Baptiſme but thoſe that have been taught or made diſciples firſt.

Anſwer. 1To this I anſwer. Firſt, This cannot be gathered by any neceſ­ſary conſequence from the connexion of the words; any more then it may be concluded from the ſame verſe: that none may Teach or Baptize but Apoſtles, or ſuch as have authoritie, and gifts of miracles and tongues, to goe to all nations. For, as Baptizing is joyned with Teach, ſo Teach ye, is joyned with Go ye (before) and All nations after. But if no wiſe man will deduce or yeeld to this concluſion (None muſt either Preach or Baptize, but thoſe which have gifts and authoritie to goe into all nations for that end) from the coherence of the words; you muſt excuſe us, if we yeeld not to the deducing of your concluſion from the cohe­rence. viz. That none are to be baptized, but thoſe which have been firſt taught or made diſciples.

Anſwer. 2Secondly, I anſwer. It is true the Apoſtles were to teach thoſe among the Gentiles of ripe yeares, and make them diſci­ples before they or their children were to be baptized, becauſe they and their children were out of covenant, and ſo uncapable of the ſeales, and might not be received into covenant themſelves or their children, untill they gave up themſelves and theirs unto Chriſt by faith and repentance: which they could not ordinarily have wrought in them, but by hearing the Goſpel preached. Yet when parents had given up their names unto Chriſt, their chil­dren being alſo given up to Chriſt by them, were capable of Bap­tiſme. As by Abrahams giving up himſelf unto God in Cove­nant, not onely he, but alſo his children, and thoſe that were as his children, were received into Covenant, and had the ſeale thereof33 adminiſtred to them; by vertue of the unchangeable tenour of the Covenant of grace, I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed:Gen. 17.7. as hath been ſaid, and God willing ſhall more fully be ſhewed. Therefore the Commiſſion which was given to the Diſciples, makes nothing againſt baptizing the children of the faithfull: which are already in covenant with God, though they have not heard the word preached.

Anſwer. 3Thirdly, Yea I conceive it is no abſurditie, but a ſound truth, to ſay, that infants of beleeving parents are made diſciples of God and Chriſt: ſo that the Apoſtles in making parents diſciples that gave up themſelves and their children unto God; in that act made their clildren alſo diſciples; in two reſpects. Firſt, in that parents gave them up unto God, promiſing and purpoſing to bring them up in the knowledge of God, ſo ſoone as they ſhould be capable of outward teaching. This Abraham was bound unto by vertue of the Covenant; that as God would be the God of his ſeed, ſo he ſhould command and teach his children and houſhold after him, that they ſhould keep the way of the Lord, &c. Gen. 18.19. So all the Iſraelites, Exod. 12.26.26, 27. Deut. 6.6, 7. And the like obligation lies upon Chriſtian parents, Epheſ. 6.4. ſo that now they are the diſciples of Chriſt, in reſpect of Gods obligation, and the parents promiſe, purpoſe, and prayer.

Secondly, they may be ſaid to be Chriſts diſciples, in that they are now under the teaching of God and Chriſt, who hath pro­miſed to teach all that are in covenant, all the children of the Church, or faithfull (at leaſt ſome of all ſorts) from the leaſt to the greateſt. Eſa. 54.13. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Edoctia Ieho­va, or Edocti Ievovae. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉And all thy children ſhall be taught of the Lord, &c. All, is an univerſall note, implying all ſorts, ſexes, ages, and conditions of thoſe which were children of the Church, or poſteritie of the faithfull. Ier. 31.34. And they ſhall teach no more every man his brother, ſaying, Know the Lord. For they ſhall all know me, from the leaſt to the greateſt of them. And ſo that thoſe which are ſo little, that they are uncapable of the teaching of men, are capable, and under the promiſe of Gods teaching. To which promiſes our Saviour having, as it ſeems, reſpect, ſaith, Ioh. 6.44. It is written in the Prophets, And they ſhall be all taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and learneth, com­eth unto me: So that as there may be outward teaching with­out inward: ſo there may be inward teaching without the out­ward. Chriſt ſaith, Whoſoever hath heard of the Father, not who­ſoever34 hath heard of the Preacher; for many may heare of the Preacher, and yet not come to God; and ſome may be taught of God, that are uncapable of the Preachers inſtruction: though the inward and outward both be ordinary, to thoſe who being of ripe yeares are effectually called. So that ſith God promiſeth, that in the time of the Goſpel, All even from the leaſt unto the greateſt ſhall become his diſciples, why ſhould the infants of beleevers be excluded, ſeeing they are capable of divine inſtruction, and the operation of the holy Ghoſt, even from their mothers wombe? Luk. 1.15. I have ſtood the longer on the anſwering of this Scripture objected, Becauſe theſe anſwers may ſerve for all the other reaſons, and Scriptures you bring, to confirme your laſt Argument againſt baptizing of children. Where having heaped up many Scriptures needleſly, you talk your pleaſure, and triumph as if the cauſe were your owne; as if your grounds were un­moveable, and your concluſion unqueſtionable. But though you plead againſt Childrens Baptiſme, you ſhould remember that you diſpute not with children. Neither have we need or will, By wit and ſophiſtrie to goe about to elude any truth, and juſtifie any errour, though never ſo groſſe and abſurd, as you ſay;Which imputation of yours, it may ſeeme, is you laſt ſhift; to anſwer thoſe that will not be carried about with every winde of your vaine doctrine, and ſubſcribe to your dictates.

Now for what followeth, I will not proceed in maintaining thoſe further objections; which either you deviſe of your owne head, or raiſe out of others words, to whoſe principles we are not bound; your anſwers whereunto either doe not concerne us, or if any thing therein ſeeme to beare ſhew of truth and weight, it may be ſufficiently anſwered from what hath beene already laid downe. Therefore I will not trouble my ſelfe with the re­petition of the ſame things. So forbearing any further to meddle with your confident concluſions, Apology for your expreſſions, or other impertinent digreſſions, wherewith you fill up paper; I come to give our reaſons for the lawfulneſſe, and requiſiteneſſe of baptizing the infants of Chriſtian parents; intending to conſi­der all along your anſwers you have made to them.

Arg. 1Our firſt Argument therefore ſhall be: To whom the ſpirituall and inviſible grace repreſented, ſignified, and ſealed in baptiſme belongeth by vertue of Gods promiſe, to them baptiſme it ſelfe belongeth, Act. 2.38, 39.


But to the children or infants of parents beleeving, or within Covenant, belongeth by vertue of Gods promiſe, the ſpirituall grace repreſented, ſealed, and ſignified in baptiſme; to wit, the teaching of God, and the Spirit of God, which doth include all the ſpirituall bleſſings ſignified by baptiſme; as ſanctification, or regeneration, wherein is comprehended virtuall faith, and there­in, being beſprinkled with the bloud of Chriſt, and pardon of ſinnes, Eſa. 54.13. Ier. 31.34. Ioel 2.28. Eſ. 59.21. Act. 2.39.

Therefore Baptiſme belongeth to infants of Chriſtian pa­rents.

Both the premiſſes me thinkes ſhould be undeniable with Chriſtians, as being built on the word; and ſo the concluſion certaine. But becauſe I would cleare this Argument, againſt the cavils of the captious, and doubts of the ignorant, or ſcrupulous; I will adde ſome what by way of explanation, and confirmation.

The propoſition, for ought I know, it is not doubted of by any. It is taken as an unqueſtionable principle by A. R. and many of his arguments againſt baptizing infants, are built upon this ground: becauſe they have not regeneration, faith, remiſſion of ſinnes. And it may further appeare by theſe Scriptures, Act. 8.38. Nothing now could hinder the Eunuch from being baptized, for now the ſpirituall bleſſing appertained to him, and therefore the externall ſigne: Act. 10.47, 48. Can any forbid water, that theſe ſhould not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghoſt as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized, &c. And Chap. 11.17. The Apoſtle implies, that it had beene a withſtand­ing of God, not to have baptized them on whom the gift of the holy Ghoſt had been powred. And ſo ſtill upon the profeſſion of faith, and repentance, when in the judgement of charitie, the Preachers apprehended the parties to have intereſt, and right to the ſpirituall grace, they adminiſtred the outward ſigne, though queſtionleſſe they were deceived in many: as Ananias, Sapphira, Simon Magus, &c. Yet it was a ſufficient warrant to the Mini­ſters to baptize them: becauſe ſo farre as they could judge, they were under the promiſe. For if amongſt Chriſts few Diſciples, there was one traytour, ſonne of perdition, devill: doubtleſſe a­mongſt thoſe many thouſands that were baptized, upon their pro­feſſion of faith and repentance at the preaching of Iohn, and the Apoſtles, many were hypocrites; as may appeare by the great evils that brake out in the Primitive Churches. This I adde to36 ſhew that there is no infallible certainty of the inward grace re­quired of, or poſſible to the Miniſter.

And that to whom the inward grace belongs, to them the out­ward ſigne belongs; appeareth in Peters exhortation in that place quoted in the propoſition, Act. 2.38, 39. And Peter ſaid unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Ieſus Chriſt, to the remiſſion of your ſinnes, and ye ſhall receive the gift of the holy Ghoſt: For the promiſe is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afarre off, even ſo many as the Lord our God ſhall call. Wherein he ſhews them that if they will repent, they have right unto baptiſme, as having right unto the thing ſignified in bap­tiſme, viz. the remiſſion of ſinnes, by the bloud of Chriſt powred on their ſoules; and the gift of the holy Ghoſt being the Spirit of Chriſt, powred on them; of which he had ſpoken before, ver. 17. both clearely repreſented and ſignified by the infuſion, or powring of water in baptiſme. And the rather to perſwade them to re­pent, and be baptized, that they might receive remiſſion of ſinnes, and the gift of the holy Ghoſt: Peter tels them, that the pro­miſe is to them and their children, and ſo many as God ſhould call, though afarre off: even among the Gentiles. So that if by faith and repentance they and the Gentiles ſhould accept the promiſe, they and their children ſhould have intereſt in the re­miſſion of ſinnes, and the gift of the holy Ghoſt; and ſo conſe­quently in baptiſme; ſo that not onely the parents repenting, but alſo their children had title to the promiſe of the holy Gohſt; and ſo to the ſeale thereof.

A. R.Firſt, againſt this you object: It is not ſaid, your infants, but your children.

Anſ. Infants are not excluded I hope; for infants are children, though not onely infants: neither do we hold that the promiſe was made to infants onely. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.Peter uſeth a generall word that ſig­nifieth poſteritie, of what age ſoever, whether of ripe or tender years.

Secondly, you object: It is not ſaid promiſes, but promiſe; and that it is not promiſes, but promiſe; not infants, but children:You promiſe us ſatisfaction by looking back to what went before in the Chapter, after a long repetition wherof, you tell us what we may gather; to wit, that the gift of the holy Ghoſt, mentioned ver. 17. to be propheſied of by Ioel; and to be received of the Father, and ſhed forth by Chriſt, ver. 33. is repeated ver. 38.


Anſw. All this maketh nothing againſt us; but for us.

Thirdly, you adde: You may ſee who are meant by children, viz. the ſame that were mentioned, ver. 17. under the termes of ſonnes and daughters that ſhould prophecie.

Anſw. As if the Spirit mentioned here, were onely a Spirit of prophecie. The Spirit hath divers operations; ſome ordinary, and ſome extraordinary, 1 Cor. 12.4.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Neither is it ſaid, that all ſhall prophecie and dreame dreames.

Fourthly, you ſay: Therefore no infants are meant here who can­not prophecie, &c.

Anſw. Why may not infants be of the number of that all fleſh, on which God would powre his Spirit, though none of thoſe that prophecie, ſee viſions, dreame, &c. For theſe effects of the Spirit are not related as common to all, on whom God would powre his Spirit; but peculiar to ſome, which had extraordinary gifts. Secondly, What hinders but they may receive the Spirit in their infancie, by which they may prophecie in ripe yeares? as we ſee in Iohn the Baptiſt, Luk. 1.15. & 41. Thirdly, I anſwer; That this promiſe is not onely made concerning the extraor­dinarie gifts of the Spirit which were beſtowed in the times of the Apoſtle, by which men did prophecie, dreame dreames, ſee viſions, ſpeake with tongues, &c. but alſo of the ſanctifying Spirit which is common to all ages of the Church, even where ſuch miraculous and extraordinarie gifts are not beſtowed: may appeare, verſ. 30. The promiſe, ſaith the Apoſtle, was to all afarre off, whomſoever the Lord ſhould call: that is, all the Gentiles whom God ſhould call by the Goſpel to faith. Now no man I hope will ſay, that all whom over God called, dreamed dreames, ſaw viſions, prophecied, ſpake with ſtrange tongues, &c.

Fifthly, you adde:There is not ſo much as any colour, for baptizing of infants from hence. For the Text is not, Be bapti­zed. For the promiſe is to you, and your children; as many in Print doe falſely alledge. But repent and be baptized, &c. and ye ſhall receive the gift of the Holy ghoſt. For the promiſe is to you and your children.

Anſw. If we ſhould take the words in your ſenſe, viz. that thoſe words For the promiſe is made, &c. are brought as a reaſon onely of the words going immediately before; it makes nothing againſt me, for ſo the 38. verſ. containes a pregnant proofe of my propoſition, and verſ. 39. of mine aſſumption.


Secondly, I anſwer. There is no neceſſitie can appeare, no nor probable reaſon (I beleeve) can be rendred, why the reaſon (For the promiſe, &c. verſ. 39.) ſhould be referred onely to the words immediately preceding (you ſhall receive the gift of the holy Ghoſt; and not unto the exhortation, Repent, and be bapti­zed, &c.) which untill you could have given ſome proofe of, you might well have ſpared your immodeſt language, and hainous accuſation