Kātabaptistai kataptüstoi The dippers dipt, or, The anabaptists duck'd and plung'd over head and eares, at a disputation in Southwark : together with a large and full discourse of their 1. Original. 2. Severall sorts. 3. Peculiar errours. 4. High attempts against the state. 5. Capitall punishments, with an application to these times / by Daniel Featley ...

ANABAPTISTS ANSWER.

Christs command extends onely to such as are capable of teaching and instruction, which children in their infancy are not: for Christ saith, Teach all uations, baptizing them.

REPLY.

First, the words of onr Saviour are not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, teach, but [ I] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, make disciples: and though children in their non-age cannot be taught, yet they may be made Christs disciples by being admitted into his school, their parents giving their names to Christ, both for themselves and their families. And, in Christs precept, teaching doth not goe before, but follow Bapti∣zing, ver. 20. teaching them to observe all things, &c. which is punctu∣ally observed in the children of the faithfull, who, after they are

Baptized, when they come to yeers of discretion are taught to ob∣serve all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded.

[ 2] Secondly, Though children in their infancy are not capable of teaching, or instruction, because therein they must be active both by apprehending what is delivered to them, and assenting to the truth thereof: yet are they capable of Baptisme, wherein they are meerly passive, being washed in the Name of the Trinity, prayed for, and blessed and received into Christs congregation: this may fitly be illustrated by Circumcision, which by the com∣mand of God was to be administred to children at the eighth day, though then they were no way capable of teaching or in∣struction in the Spirituall meaning of that outward signe made in their flesh: and our Argument drawn from the analogie of Baptisme and Circumcision, may be truly called, in regard of the Anabaptists,* 1.1 pons asinorum, a bridge, which these asses could never passe over; for to this day they could never, not hereafter will be able to yeeld a reason why the children of the faithfull under the Gospel are not as capable of Baptisme, as they under the Law of Circumcision. If they alleadge that these cannot be taught being but sucklings; neither could they. If they alleadge, that these know not what is done unto them, nor have any sense at all of the Sacrament; neither had they, save that they felt the pain of the knife, as these do the coldnesse of the water, and often shed tears at their Christening, as the others did at their Circumcising. If it be further said, That they were of the seed of Abraham ac∣cording to the flesh, it may be truly rejoyned, that these are of the seed of Abraham according to promise, and his children as he is the father of the faithfull, and so they have the better title of the two.

[ 3] Thirdly, It is no way safe to defer Baptisme till riper yeers, for by this means millions of children might go out of this world without the ordinary means of their salvation, which were an unsufferable, if not a damnable abuse: for though we like not of that rigid opinion of the schools ascribed to S. Augustine, who in that regard was stiled durus pater infantum, that children dying unbaptized, are necessarily damned; yet we must take heed of de∣clining to the other extream in denying Baptisme to be the or∣dinary means of salvation for them, and thereby slighting our Lords precept. It is true, God is not tied to his own Ordinance,

he may, and in charitie we beleeve doth save thousands of the chil∣dren of the faithfull, who are still-born or dye before baptisme; nei∣ther will he punish the child for that which it is no way guiltie of; yet Gods ordinance ties us, and the parents and governours are guiltie of a hainous crime before God, who, in contempt of Christs command or through error of their judgment take not care for their childrens baptisme, and thereby deprive them of the ordina∣ry remedie of that originall maladie in which they are conceived and born.

ARGUMENT II.

None ought to exclude the children of the faithfull out of the kingdom of heaven.

But by denying them baptisme (as much as in us lyeth) we exclude them out of the kingdom of heaven.* 1.2 For as Christ af∣firmed to Nicodemus, & confirmed it with a double oath, or most vehement asseveration, Amen, amen; or verily, verily, (I say unto thee) except a man beborn of water, and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Ergo, we ought not to deny them baptisme.

ANABAP. ANSWER.

The words of our Saviour concern m••n in riper years, not children; (he saith) except a man, not except a child be born again.

REPLY.

First, Christ by man there understandeth the species of man∣kind, comprehending all ages and sects; for otherwayes they might as well exclude all women as children from baptisme, because it is said, except a man be born, not except a woman; but the words immediatly following make it a clear case,* 1.3 the Christ by man un∣derstandeth all singular persons contained under the species of man∣kind, whether male or female, young or old; that (saith he) which is born of flesh, is flesh: but certain it is, children are properly born of flesh, as men; and after they are born of flesh, they are first chil∣dren before they are men.

Secondly, this regeneration by water Christ speaketh of is to take away the filth of sin, that so they may be capable of entring into the kingdom of heaven,* 1.4 into which there shall in no wise enter any thing that is defiled; but children, before their regeneration by water, are

defiled as well as men. And therefore Christ prescribes this remedie to them as well as men. That children are died as it were in the grain, and stained from their mothers womb, is clearly proved by many pregnant texts of holy scripture; as namely, Psal. 51. 5. Behold, I was born in iniquitie, and in sin hath my mother conceived me; and Ioh. 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and flesh and blood cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, 1 Cor. 15. 50. and Rom. 5. 12. By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men;* 1.5 in whom, or for that, all have sinned; 1 Cor. 15. 22. In Adam all dye; and Ephesi. 2. 3. We were by na∣ture the children of wrath, even as others. All that are sentenced to death are guiltie of sin; but children as well as men in Adam were sentenced to death, else no children should dye. Again, that which comes by nature is common to all who partake of that nature; but the Apostle teacheth us, that by nature we are the children of wrath; therefore certainly children are not free from sin, which alone makes us the object of Gods wrath.

ARGUMENT III.

They whom the Apostles baptized are not to be excluded from baptisme. For what the Apostles did in the performance of their ministeriall function, they undoubtedly did either by Christs command, or by the direction of the holy spirit, where∣with they were infallibly assisted.

But the Apostles baptized children,* 1.6 for they baptized whole families, whereof children are a known part.

Ergo, children ought not to be excluded from baptisme.

ANABAP. ANSWER.

The word houshold or family is taken in the places alledged for the greater part of the family; neither is it said, that there were any chil∣dren at all in those families.

REPLY.

First,* 1.7 to refell the first answer, the words of St. Luke are suffici∣ent of themselvs; where it is said that the gaoler was baptized, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and all that were his, or all that belonged unto him: therefore not only the major part of his family, according to the false and corrupt glosse of the Anabaptists, but simplie and abso∣lutely all that lived under his roof.

Secondly, as it is not said in expresse words, that there were any children in these families, so neither is it said that there were any women or servants: yet no man doubteth but there were of both sexes and conditions in these families.

Thirdly, it is to be observed, that it is not said that the Apostle baptized one family, but many; namely, that of Lydia, that of the Gaoler, and of Stephanas; and it is no way credible that in all these families blessed by God, and converted to the Christian faith, all the women should be barren, and not one fruitfull.

Lastly, if there were any children in the families, and the Apo∣stle had not baptized them, he would undoubtedly have excepted them, as he doth in the like case, 1 Cor. 1. 14. I thank God, I bap∣tized none of you but Crispus and Gaius. I baptized also the houshold of Stephanas. He, who is so exact and punctuall in reckoning of those whom he baptized, if he had baptized no children, would have ad∣ded; I baptized also the houshold of Stephanas, except the sucklings and children there. But the Apostle neither there nor elsewhere excepteth children; therefore, being as essentiall parts of a familie as well as their parents, they must be comprised under the name of the family or houshold.

ARGUMENT IV.

Such as were circumcised under the law may and ought to be baptized under the gospell. For baptisme answereth to cir∣cumcision, and is called by that name, Colos. 2. 11. 12. the same grace is sealed unto us by the one as by the other; to wit, mortification of the flesh, remission of sins, and admission into the visible church; and the children of Christians are as capa∣ble of baptisme as the children of the Jews were of circum∣cision.

But children were circumcised under the la••, Gen. 17. 12. 13.

Ergo, children may and ought to be baptized under the Gospel:

ANABAP. ANSWER.

The argument from the circumcision of children to the baptisme of them followeth not, because there is a command for the one and not for the other.

REPLY.

First, in this their answer, either by command they understand an expresse command, and in particular; or a generall and implicite; if they mean an expresse command and in particular; such an one is not requisite, as themselvs (will they, nill they) must needs con∣fesse: for, they can produce no expresse and particular commande∣ment, either for the baptizing of women, or administring the Lords Supper to them, or for sanctifying and keeping holy the eight day from the Creation, or first day of the week, called now the Christian Sabbath; nor for re-baptizing any that were baptized in their infancie, which yet the Anabaptists generally practise, and from thence take their names. If they understand a generall and implicite command; such an one we produced before for the bap∣tisme of children in the prosecution of the first argument, and shall many other in the arguments ensuing.

Secondly, where the reason and equitie of law remains, there the law is still in force, at least for substance, though not for every circumstance. But the reason and equitie of the law of circumcising children still remaineth: for nothing can be alledged why children then should be by circumcision admitted to the church, & not now as well by baptisme, hic aqua adversariis semper haeret.

Thirdly, if the children of Christian parents should be excluded from baptisme, they should be in a worse condition then the chil∣dren of the Jews were under the law; for they, by receiving the sacrament of circumcision, were admitted into the visible congre∣gation of Gods people, and accounted partakers of his promises. But it were absurd, nay, (as* 1.8 Calvin further enforceth this argu∣ment) execrable blasphemie to think that Christ should abridge those priviledges to the children of the faithfull under the Gospell, which God granted to children under the law.

ARGUMENT V.

All they who are comprised within the covenant, and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof, may and ought to receive it.

But children are comprised within the covenant of faith, whereof circumcision was a seal, Rom, 4. 11. and now baptisme is.

Ergo, children may and ought to receive baptisme.

Of the major or first proposition there can be no doubt; for it is unjust to deprive a man of the confirmation of that to which he hath a true right and title. And for the minor or assumption it is as clear, for so are the words of the covenant, Gen. 17. 7. I will e∣stablish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee.

ANABAP. ANSWER.

That promise there belongs only to the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and not to us.

REPLY.

First, this answer is in effect refuted by the Apostle, Rom. 4. 13. The promise that he should be the heir of the world was not given to Abraham or his seed through the law,* 1.9 but through the righteousnesse of faith,* 1.10 as he was the father of all the faithfull; and in that notion we are as well his children as the beleeving Jews; and we read expressely, Act. 2. 39. that the promise is made unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, and even as many as the Lord our God shal call; and Gal. 3. 7. Know ye therefore that they that are of faith, are of the children of Abraham.

Secondly, the covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed is said to be eternall; the chief head whereof, was, that he would be their God: but this is not verified of Abrahams seed ac∣cording to the flesh; for very few of them for these many hun∣dred years have been Gods people, being professed enemies to Christ and his church: this promise therefore must necessarily be understood of his children according to promise, among which all true beleevers and their children are to be reckoned; and if they are comprised within the covenant, why should they not receive the seal of their initiation and admittance thereunto, which was circumcision, but now is baptisme every way corresponding there∣unto? As is solidly proved, and clearly illustrated by S. Cyprian l. 3. ep. 8. Lactan. l. 4. divin. justit. c. 15. Augustinus ep. ad Dardonuns 57. & cont. Iul. Pelag. l. 2.

ARGUMENT VI.

Such, who were typically baptized under the law, are capable of real and true baptisme under the Gospell, for the argument holds good à typo ad veritatem, from the type to the truth; from the signs in the law to the things signified in the Gospell.

But children were typically baptized under the law, for they with their fathers were under the cloud,* 1.11 and passed through the red sea; but their washing with rain from the cloud prefigured our washing in baptisme and by the spirit; and the red sea, in which Pharaoh and his host were drowned, was an emblem of Christs blood, in which all our ghostly enemies are drowned and destroyed.

Ergo, children are capable of true and reall baptisme under the Gospell.

ANABAP. ANSWER.

The cloud, and the red sea, and the rock that followed them were not types, but only metaphors and allegories from which no firm arguments can be drawn in this kind.

REPLY.

First, this answer whets a knife to cut their own throats.* 1.12 For, as Gastius affirmeth, it is the doctrine of the Anabaptists, that all sa∣craments are nothing else but allegories; if then the cloud and the red sea were allegories signifying our spirituall washing, according to their own tenets they are sacraments: and if children were par∣takers of sacramentall ablutions under the law, why not under the Gospell?

Secondly, the Apostle saith expressely, ver. 6. that all these things were types or figures, or lively patterns to us; and ver. 2. that all were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea: the cloud therefore, and the sea were types of our baptisme, and not meer tropes or allegories.

They may happily object, that as we read in the canon law, that a Pastor or Rector may have a Vicar endowed, sed vicarius non habet vicarium; that a Vicar cannot have a Vicar endowed under him; and likewise in Philosophie, that the voice may have an echo by the repercussion of the aire, but that the echo hath no echo: so that the promises of God have types or sacraments representing them, but that the types and sacraments themselvs have no types and sacrament to prefigure them. But the answer is easie, for we may say with Nazianzen, that either there may be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ an obscure type of a clearer, and a rude draught or imperfect modell of a more perfect, such were the legall types of the Evangelicall sacraments: or to speak more properly, circumci∣sion, and the Pascall Lamb were not types of our baptisme, and of the sacrament of the Eucharist, but of the things

represented by them, viz. of the circumcision of the heart* 1.13 and our spirituall nourishment, by feeding upon the Lamb of God that takes away the sinnes of the world.

ARGUMENT VII.

All they who belong to Christ and his kingdom ought to be received into the church by baptisme.

But children belong to Christ and his kingdom, as Christ himselfe teacheth us, Mar. 10. 14. and Luk. 18. 16. suffer little children to c••me unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God; verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein, vers. 15. and he took them up in his arms, and put his hands upon them and blessed them.

Ergo, children ought to be admitted into the church by baptisme.

ANABAP. ANSVVER.

This place is put in to be read at the sprinkling of children:* 1.14 for the whore hath sweet words, as sweet as oyle, & with these fair speeches she maketh the nations yeeld to her, Prov. 7. 21. but the simple only beleeve her: for this place maketh nothing for the baptisme of chil∣dren: the children mentioned in the Gospel were not sucklings; for it is said, they came to Christ, neither did Christ christen any of them, though he took them into his arms, and blessed them, to shew that he was the Saviour as well of young as old.

REPLY.

First, Barber deserveth to be trimmed himself for thus reproa∣ching his mother the church of England, who if she be a whore, what must he needs be but a bastard, who cannot deny himself to be born of her? If she and other reformed churches, who have ex∣cluded the papacie, and banished the great whore out of their pre∣cincts, be no better then whores, what true spouse hath Christ in the world? or what had he for 1500. yeares? during which time all churches through the Christian world baptized infan••s even those who were the forerunners of these Anabaptists, and bare also the••r name because they practized rebaptizing as these do; yet they condemned not simply the baptisme of infants, as I noted before.

Secondly, though it be said that these children came to Christ in a large sense, that is, had accesse to him, yet they came not to him upon their own leggs; for S. Luke saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they brought unto him babes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who were no other then such as we tearm sucklings, or infants, and though it be true that Christ christened them not, for he christened none himself, but his Disci∣ples only, as S. Iohn teacheth us; yet his receiving them and bles∣sing them,* 1.15 and commending humility to all by their example, saying, that of such and none but such is the kingdome of God, is a sufficient ground and warrant for us to christen them: for why should not we receive them into the bosom of the church, whom Christ took into his armes? Why should we not signe them, on whom he layd his hands? Why should we not baptize and pray for them whom he blessed? If he be the Saviour of young as well as old, and to perswade us of this truth, expressed such love to infants, why should we exclude them from baptisme, an outward means of salvation, whom Christ (as they confesse) excludes not from sal∣vation it self? See more below in the answer to A. R.

ARGUMENT VIII.

All they who are partakerrs of the grace both signified and exhibited to us in baptisme, may and ought to receive the signe and sacrament thereof: this is the basis and foundation upon which S. Peter himself builds, Acts 10. 47. Can any man forbid water,* 1.16 that these should not be baptized which have recei∣ved the holy Ghost as well as we? And it may be further con∣firmed both by an argument drawn à majore ad minus, after this manner: if God bestow upon children that which is greater, the inward grace; why should we denie them the les∣ser, the outward element? Or by an argument drawn à relatis, they to whom the land is given ought not to be denyed the sight and keeping of the deeds and evidences thereof, neither ought we to sever those things which God hath joyned, to wit, the signs and the things signified: they divide the signe from the thing signified who denie them to have grace ordinarily, modo non ponant obicem, who receive the outward sign; and they again sever the thing signified from the sign who allow unto children the grace of remission of sinnes, and regenera∣tion, and yet denie them the sign and seal thereof, to wit, bap∣tisme.

But children receive the grace signified and exhibited in baptisme;* 1.17 for the Apostle teacheth us, they are not unclean but holy; and therefore have both remission of sins and sanctifica∣tion.

Ergo, children ought to receive the sign and sacrament there∣of, to wit, baptisme.

ANABAP. ANSWER.

The Apostles ••eaning is,* 1.18 that the children of beleevens are not uncleane, that is, bastards; but holy, that is, born in holy wed∣lack.

REPLY.

First, this answer is no way pertinent to the scope of the Apo∣stle, which is to perswade the Christian husband not to forsake his unbeleeving wife, nor the Christian wife to depart from her unbe∣lieving husband; because the unbeliever is sanctified by the beleever, where by sanctification the Apostle cannot understand legitimation. For faith in the husband doth not legitimate the wife, that is, make her no bastard if she were so born, but sanctifieth her to himself, and maketh her a part and member of a holy familie dedicated to God.

Secondly, neither is sanctification here nor in any other place of Scripture taken otherwayes then for separating some way from prophane, as persons, times and places, are said to be sanctified. Neither doth holy necessarily implie no bastard. For some holy men have been base-born, nor doth not bastard implie holy; for both the children of damned hereticks, yea, and infidells too,* 1.19 if they be begotten in wed-look, are no bastards; yet in the state and condition they are in, are far from holy. See more hereof infra, in the answer to A. R.

ARGUMENT IX.

All Apostolicall traditions (which are truely such) ought to be had in reverent esteem, and retained in the church. For what the Apostles delivered they received from Christ him∣self, either by word of mouth, or the infallible inspiration of his spirit: such things are part of that sacrum depositum, which Timothie is charged so deeply,* 1.20 (O Timothie, keep that which is committed unto thee,) and the Thessalonians to keep, stand fast and keep,* 1.21 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, word for word the traditions which you have been taught, either by word or by our Epistle.

But the baptisme of children is an Apostolicall tradition truely so called.

Ergo, it ought to be had in high esteem and retained in the church.

ANABAP. ANSWER.

Though it hath been an ancient custome in many churches to christen children, yet it is no Apostolicall tradition, but a humane ordinance, which had its originall from the Pope, the man of sin.

REPLY.

First, there was christening of children in the church before there was any Pope in the sense they take the word for oecume∣nicall bishop chalenging unto himself, and usurping authoritie o∣ver the whole church; for not only* 1.22 S. Augustine, and Prosper, and and Ierome, make mention of this custome and good use of it to condemn the Pelagian heresy which denieth original sin, but also the councell of Carthage, in the dayes of* 1.23 S. Cyprian, who flourished in the year 250, determined, not only that children might and ought to be baptized, but also even before the eighth day; upon which some in those dayes stood strickly, but erroneously: and confor∣mably hereunto we find a canon in the Milevitan councell, in which the synod decreed,* 1.24 that whosoever shall deny baptisme to children, e∣ven as soon as they come out of their mothers womb (in case the chil∣dren be weak, and in apparent danger of death) let him be accursed; and before either the synod of Carthage, or this Mile••tan,* 1.25 Irenaeus in his second book against heresies, chap. 39. speaks of infants, chil∣dren, young▪ and old saved by their new birth in Christ; namely, by water and the spirit, Joh. 3. 5.

Secondly, S. Origen and S. Austine affirm in expresse tearmes, that the baptisme of children is an Apostolicall tradition.* 1.26 Origen having alledged the words of the Psalme (51. 5) I was borne in iniquitie, and in sinne hath my mother conceived me, inferreth upon it, propter hoc, for this reason, because we are all conceived and borne in sinne the Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles to administer baptisme to little children. And S. Austine,* 1.27 The custome of our Mother the Church, in baptizing infants, is no way to be slighte∣ned or rejected, nor otherwise to be thought on or beleeved then as an Apostolicall tradition.

Thirdly, it may be proved to be an Apostolicall tradition by that ground which S. Austine layeth, and every mans reason readily giveth assent thereunto, namely,* 1.28 that whatsoever is observed uni∣formly in all churches, and no man can tell when it began, must needs be thought either to be done by the Decree of some generall Councell, or to have descended from the tradition of the Apostles themselves.

But the baptisme of children hath been observed, and practised through the whole Christian church,* 1.29 as Austine affirmeth, neither was it first appointed by any Canon of generall Councell that can be produced: for though it be mentioned in the Councell of Vi∣enna, and the second Councell held at Brachara, and in Synodo Gerundensi, yet was it farre more ancient then any of those Coun∣cels, neither can any name the time when first it began; and there∣fore we cannot otherwise conceive of it, then that it had its first originall from the Apostles.

ARGUMENT X.

All members of the reformed Protestant churches in Chri∣stendome ought to conforme their judgements to the harmo∣nie of the Protestants confessions set forth by the consent of all orthodox churches, and firmly grounded upon deductions at least of holy scripture, if not evident texts.

But the judgement of all the reformed churches delivered in the harmonie of their confessions is professedly for the bap∣tisme

of children, and expressely against this renet of the Ans. baptist's.

Ergo, let the Anabaptist either disclaime the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Pro∣testants and children of the reformed churches, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 renounce this their heresie, for, t••••s p••rs qu•••• n••m congruit ••ot••.

Now for the Protestant confessions concerning this point, I shall rehearse them in order, beginning with the English Articles of Re∣ligion, Artic. II.

First, the infants of Christian parents are not to be kept from bap∣tisme, because they care borne in sinne, and belong to the people of God.

Secondly,* 1.30 the Helvetion confession, We condemn the Anabaptists; who deme that children newly born ought on be baptized: for, accor∣ding to the doctrine of the Gospel, of such is the kingdom of God; and they are within the covenant of God; why therefore should not the soul of that covenant be given unto them?

Thirdly, the Bohemian confession,* 1.31 Though baptisme for the most part in the primitive church were administred to men of riper yeares, yet children ought to be dedicated and consecrated to Christ, according to his command, Suffer little children to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 unto me.

Fourthly, the French, Article zy.* 1.32 Although baptis•••• be a sacra∣ment of saith and repentaunce, yet in as much as children are reckoned with their parents in tho church of God, we affirme, that infants that are born of holy parents ought to be baptized by Christs autho∣ritie.

Fifthly, the Belgick confession,* 1.33 We beleave that children ought to be baptized, and signed with the sign of the covenant, for the same reason for which the children in Israel were circumcised, namely, for that the same promises are made to them and to us.

Sixtly, the Augustane confession, they* 1.34 condemn the Anabaptists, who dislike the baptisme of children, and affirm, that infants without baptisme, and dying without the church, may be saved.

Seventhly, the Saxon confession,* 1.35 We retaine the baptisme of in∣fants, because it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 must certain, that the promise of grace belongeth also to infants: and because of them it is said, Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdome of seaven.

To drive this nayl to the head, I shall need to adde nothing save the capitall punishments inflicted upon such as taught and practised Anabaptisme: those Christian States accounted it no light errour upon which they layd so heavie a load of punishment; in some places the broachers of this heresie, and practisers of re∣baptizing, have been punished with beheading, in some with drow∣ning, and in some with burning. There is a law against this sect in the Code of* 1.36 Iustinian, written with blood rather then ink, If any man be convicted to re-baptize any of the ministers of the Catholike sect, let him who hath committed this hainous crime, together with him whom he hath seduced to be re-baptized, suffer the stroake of death. At* 1.37 Vienna the Anabaptists are tyed together with ropes, and one draweth the other into the river to be drowned: as it should seem, the wife magistrates of that place had an eye to that old maxime of justice, quo quis peccat eo puniatur, let the punishment bear upon it the print of the sinne: for as these sectaries drew one another into their errour, so also into the gulf; and as they drowned men spiritually by re-baptizing, and so prophaming the holy sacrament, so also they were drowned corporally.* 1.38 In the year of our Lord 1539, two Anabaptists were burned beyond Southwark, in the way to New∣ington; and a little before them, five Dutch Anabaptists were burned in Smithfield.

If I have been somewhat the more prolix in the prosecution of the arguments which make for the baptisme of infants, S. Austine shall plead for this my large plea for them,* 1.39 We are in conscience bound to speak the more for poor infants, because they are not able to speak for themselves.

Now there remaineth nothing, but that we stop the mouthes of their adversaries, by reselling such objections as they usually make, and unchristianly urge against christening them at our fonts.

The objections of the Anabaptists answered.

First,* 1.40 they argue from the Scripture negatively, thus: the bap∣tisme of children hath no warrant in Gods Word; for we find there no command for it, no example of it, no promise to it: there∣fore it is to be rejected as an humane invention, and condemned also as an addition to the Scripture.

But we answer,* 1.41 that by the like argument they might prove that no woman ought to be admitted to the sacrament of the Lords Supper; for there is no command for womens participation of the sacrament, nor example of it, nor promise to it in Scripture.* 1.42 If they answer, that women are comprised under the name of beleevers, so are children under the name of whole housholds and families, which are reported in holy Scripture to have been baptized: if they say further, that by a like reason women are to be admitted to the sacrament, as men, because Christ dyed as well for them as men, and they are as wel incorporated into Christs mysticall body as men: we rejoin in like manner for the same reason that children were circumcised under the law, they ought to be baptized under the Gospell. For sith they are comprised in the covenant, why should not they as well receive the seal thereof set to it in the new law, as well as the children of the Jews received the seal set thereunto by the old?

[ 2] Secondly, I have produced before both command for baptizing of children, Argument 1. and example of it, Argument 3. and pro∣mise also unto it, Argument 5. The command of baptizing all Nations, Mat. 28. 29. the examples of baptizing whole families, Act. 16. 15. 33. 1 Cor. 1. 16. and the promise made to us and our seed, Act. 2. 39. evidently extend to children.

They argue from Scripture affirmatively;* 1.43 our Lord Jesus Christ in that great charter Mat. 28. 18. 19. 20. saith, Go teach all nati∣ons, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and Mark 16. 15. Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gos∣pell to every creature; he that shall beleeve and be baptized shall be saved; but he that will not beleeve shall be damned. From these texts they would infer that none ought to be baptized but such who are first taught, and instructed in the principles of Christian faith; and

consequently, that no children ought to be baptized, because they are not capable of teaching.

That the placing the word teaching before baptizing in that text* 1.44 doth no more conclude that teaching must alwayes precede bap∣tisme, then the setting repentance before faith in those words, Re∣pe••t ye, and beleeve the Gospell, Mark 1. 15. and setting water be∣fore the spirit, Ioh. 3. 5. (except a man be born of water and the spirit) necessarily infer that repentance goeth before faith, which yet is but a fruit of faith: or that the outward baptisme with wa∣ter goeth before the inward baptisme of the spirit; whereas the contrarie is clearly proved out of that speech of Peter to Cornelius, Act. 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be bapti∣zed, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we?

Secondly, if there be any force in this argument drawn from the [ 2] order of the words it maketh against them; for thus we wound them with their dudgeon-dagger, (Christ saith) baptize them in the name of the Father, teaching them to observe all things: baptizing there∣fore must go before teaching, especially in children, who may be baptized before they can be taught.

Thirdly, they mis-translate the words; for Christ saith, not, go [ 3] teach all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all things; neither is there a tautologie in our blessed Saviours words; for his words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. go make disciples among all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them. Now though children cannot be taught before they are baptized, yet they may be after a ••or•• made Christs disciples by their parents or god-fathers offering them unto God, and undertaking for them that they shall be brought up in the Christian religion.

Fourthly, Christ speaketh here of the plantation of the Christi [ 4] an faith, and the conversion of whole nations, in which alwayes the preaching of the word goeth before the administration of the sacrament. First men are taught to repent of their sins, and be∣leeve the Articles of the Christian faith, and after they have made confession of the one, and profession of the other, then they are to be received into the church by baptisme. This course was taken by the Apostles in the beginning, and must at this day be taken by those who are sent into Turkie, or the East and West-Indies, to con∣vert Pagans, or Mahumetans, or unbeleeving Iews to the Gospell. They are to baptize none before they have taught them the princi∣ples

of Christian religion; but after the Gospell is planted, and the parents are beleever••, and received into the church by baptisme, their children are first to be baptized, and afterwards taught so soon as they are capable of teaching.

They argue from examples after this manner;* 1.45 such are to be bap∣tized, who with the Iews in Ierusalem Mat. 3. 6. confesse their sins; who with the Proselytes Act. 2. 41. gladly receive the word; who with the Samaritans Act. 8. 6. give heed to the word preached; who with those of Cornelius familie Act. 10. 44. receive the holy Ghost by the hea∣ring of the word; who, with Lydia, have their hearts opened to attend the things that are spoken by the Apostles, Act. 16. 14. who with the Gaoler, hear the word preached, and seek after the means of salvation, Act. 16. 30. But children can neither confesse their sins, nor attend to the word preached, nor actually beleeve nor desire baptisme: they therefore ought not to be baptized.

But we answer,* 1.46 all that can solidly be concluded from these ex∣amples, is but this in the affirmative; all such who were so qualified as these were, viz. hearers of the Gospell, penitent sinners, and true beleevers, unfainedly desiring the means of their salvation, ought to be admitted into the church by baptisme, which we freely grant; but they cannot conclude from these examples negatively, that none other ought to be Christened. No more, then it will follow, that those of Cornelius his family received the gift of the holy Ghost, and spake with divers tongues before they were baptized with water; therefore none but such who have received such gifts of the holy Ghost may and ought to be baptized. To confesse sins, and actually professe faith, makes a man more capable of baptisme: yet dumb men▪ who can do neither, if they have a good testmonie of their life and conversation, and by signs make it appear they un∣fainedly desire the sacraments, may receive them.

[ 2] Secondly, if there be any force at all in an argument drawn from examples affirmatively, it must be from examples in the like kind; as from men to men, & from children to children, not from women to men, or from men to children, or from children to men. For it will not follow, women in the Apostles times were covered in the church, therefore men ought to be so: or men may speak in the church, therefore women may: or children are usually fed with milk and not strong meat, therefore men in ripers years ought to use such dyet: no more will it follow, men in riper years, who are

capable of instruction ought to hear the word, to give their assent thereunto, and enter into a strict covenant with God, to lead a new life before they have accesse to the Font. Therefore the like duties are required of children, who have not yet the use of reason, nor knowledge of good or evill. By this reason they might starve chil∣dren, because the law is, he that will not labour let him not eat. It holds in men, but no way in children, who are not able to labour in any calling by reason of the infirmitie of their joynts, and want of reason and understanding.

Baptisme is a seal of the righteousnesse of faith,* 1.47 therefore it ought to be administred only to beleevers; else we set a seal to a blank. But children are no beleevers, nor can be while they are such, because they cannot understand the word nor give assent thereunto. Ergo, children ought not to be baptized.

But we answer, that unbeleevers or not beleevers may be either taken for,* 1.48 first, such as when they hear the word of God, reject it, or secondly, such who neither have means to hear it, nor desire it; such unbeleevers are to be excluded from baptisme. For to give baptisme to such, were worse then to set a seal to a blank, it were to give holy things to dogs, and cast pearl before swine. Or thirdly, for such who are born within the precincts of the church, and care is taken that they shall be taught the principles of faith, as soon as they are capable thereof. These, though they cannot give yet an actuall consent to the mysteries of faith, are not to be rearmed in∣fidels, or unbeleevers positively, but negatively only; and we ought in charitie to beleeve, that they will actually beleeve as soon as they shall have use of reason, and God by his spirit shall open their hearts to attend to the word preached: to unbeleevers in this lat∣ter sense, as circumcision, the seal of the righteousnesse of faith un∣der the law was given, so may baptisme though not in token of their present, yet of their future faith.

Secondly, the children of the faithfull parents whom the Apo∣stle [ 2] calleth holy receive some measure of grace even in their infan∣cie, as the text saith expressely of S. Iohn Baptist, he shall be filled with the holy Ghost from his mothers womb, Luke 1. 15. 41. as Eliza∣beth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe sprang in her womb. Up∣on which words,* 1.49 S. Ambrose commenting, saith; Iohn Baptist, while he was yet in his mothers womb, received the grace of the holy Ghost, and his leaping with joy argued some sense and apprehension of that joyfull message.

Now,* 1.50 sith children that dye shortly after baptisme have the full sight of Gods face in heaven, why may they not have some glimpse of it even whilst their soul is in their bodie? * 1.51 S. Austine is confident; that God after a most hidden manner in∣fuseth his grace into children; and in his 57. epistle ad Dardanum, it is a wonderfull thing, yet true, that God dwels not in some who know him, as the philosophers, Ro. 1. and he dwelleth in some who know him not, as in infants baptized. We may safely therefore conclude with * 1.52 Tilenus, children have faith as they have reason; in the seed, though not in the fruit; in the root, though not in the leaf; in some inward ope∣ration, though not in any outward expression.

They argue also,* 1.53 ab absurdo, indeed absurdly after this manner; signum frustra datur non intelligenti, it is a vain and absurd thing to administer the sacrament to such as know not what it means; as it is to no purpose to present a beautifull picture to a blind man, or sound a silver trumpet in a deaf mans eare, or minister physick to a dead bodie. But children know not what the sacrament means; when the cold water is powred on them they are offended with it, and expresse their dislike with crying and tears; therefore it is vain to christen children.

But we answer;* 1.54 in this objection the Anabaptists Gyant-like fight with God. For if there be any force in this argument at all, it will be as available to overthrow the circumcising of children in∣stituted in the old law by God himselfe, as their baptisme in the new. For the children among the Iews under the law, who were circumcised the eighth day, knew no more what circumcision meant, then ours do what baptisme; only they felt the pain of the knife, as these do the coldnesse of the water, yet were they circum∣cised by Gods expresse command. Will they say that Christ utte∣red many parables, and wrought many signs and wonders before his disciples and other of the Iews in vain, because at the present they understood them not, though afterwards they understood them, and made singular use of them? In like manner dare they affirm that Christ did in vain lay his hands upon chil∣dren and blessed them, because children knew not what it meant?

or that ministers in vain baptize them, because at that time they know not what it signifieth, or why it is done?

Secondly, it is not in vain to offer to any that which may doe [ 2] them good, whether they be sensible of it or no: Physick is mini∣stred to children, naturall fooles, and mad men, to cure them, al∣though in the case they are they have no knowledge what good it may doe them. A man that is in a swoon hath strong water pou∣red down his throat, even when he is past sense, and it fetcheth him again: so though children perceive not what they receive, yet the sacrament may be and is soveraign unto them for their soules health.

Thirdly, though children for the present understand not why [ 3] they are baptized, and what is undertaken for them, and what fruit they reap by baptisme, yet order is taken by the Church, that as soon as they come to yeares of discretion and actuall use of rea∣son, they shall understand and be perfectly instructed in this my∣sterie; and that which is done to them in their infancie, after they have notice of it will be altogether as beneficiall unto them, as if they had known it at the time when the sacrament was admi∣nistred unto them.

They argue from the effects of baptisme;* 1.55 baptisme is the laver of regeneration, the burying of the old man, the putting on of Christ, the putting away the filth of the flesh, with a confident demanding of a good conscience. But children are not regenerated nor renewed in their mind, nor have buried the old man, nor have put on the new, nor can confidently demand with a good conscience out of a certain perswasion of faith: therefore they ought not to be baptized.

But we answer,* 1.56 the texts of scripture upon which they ground their argument, namely, Coloss. 2. 11, 12. Tit. 3. 5. Heb. 10. 22. 1 Pet. 3. 21. contain in them high commendations of baptisme, but no prohibitions of administring it to children: for all these effects the Spirit of God produceth in all the elect that are bap∣tized, but not all at an instant, but by degrees, as we grow in faith and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour: they are begun at our baptisme, but perfected afterwards, unlesse the partie imme∣diately die after baptisme, when no doubt God supplyeth that by the extraordinarie work of his Spirit; which riper years with the ordinarie means of faith would have brought forth, if God had

spared them life. Children are regenerated by the impression of Gods image in their soul, which in processe of time shineth most bright in them by supernaturall light in the understanding, and puritie in the heart, and conformitie in their lives to the law of God: they are also purged from the guilt of their sinnes, and Christs righteousnesse is imputed unto them, though they have no sense or feeling thereof till God worketh powerfully upon their hearts by the preaching of the word, and they apprehend Christs merits by an actuall faith. As a flower in the winter lyes hid under ground in the root, which at the spring shooteth forth the leaves thereof; so in children that are baptized there remaines that root of sanctifying grace in their hearts, which in riper yeares putteth forth the leaves thereof by a holy profession, and bringeth forth fruit by a godly conversation.

They argue à pari;* 1.57 if the sacrament of baptisme be to be ad∣ministred to children, then also the sacrament of the Lords sup∣per, for both are seales of the same covenant. But the supper is not to be administred unto infants, therefore neither is bap∣tisme.

But we answer,* 1.58 that the inference is not good: for though both are seales of the covenant of grace, yet there is a three-fold disparitie in them, which looseneth the sinewes of the argu∣ment.

[ 1] First, baptisme is the seale of our new birth; but the Lords supper of our growth in grace and ghostly strength: baptisme is a sacrament of initiation, the Lords supper of perfection. Now it will not follow, that because a punie or novice may or ought to be admitted to the lowest form in the school of Christ, there∣fore he may and ought to be set in the highest: the Lords sup∣per is strong meat, and not milk, and therefore no fit meat for sucklings.

[ 2] Secondly, the sacrament of the Lords supper was instituted for the commemoration of Christs death;* 1.59 As oft as ye eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, saith the Apostle, ye shall de∣clare the Lords death till he come. But children neither can appre∣hend nor shew forth Christs death; therefore that sacrament is not ordained for them.

[ 3] Thirdly, before the receiving the Lords Supper every one is re∣quired to examine himselfe, which children cannot do. But before

baptisme there is no such examination required. Though if any in riper years be converted to the Christian faith, it is most re∣quisite that he be examined by the minister who baptiseth him, and that he be able to give a good account of his faith: but every one who is fit to be baptized is not presently to be addmitted to the Lords Table without precedent preparation, and a more strict exa∣mination of himself, both concerning his growth in faith, and sin∣ceritie of repentance, and unfained charitie, with an earnest desire of that heavenly repast.

They argue from Christs example,* 1.60 who was not baptized till he was thirtie years of age.

But we answer,* 1.61 that Christs example alone without a precept doth not bind us. For Christ neither instituted nor administred the holy Supper till the day before his death, and then he both admini∣stred and received it after Supper, and that with his Apostles only: yet we are not bound, either to defer our receiving to the day be∣fore our death, or to administer the Eucharist after Supper, or to participate only with such a number, and those Priests or Ministers of the Gospell.

Secondly, Christ in his infancie was circumcised, circumcision [ 2] then being in force; neither was baptisme then instituted, but now circumcision is abrogated, and baptisme succeeds in the place thereof.

Thirdly, though Christ were not baptized in his infancie for the [ 3] reasons above alledged, yet was he baptized (if I may so speak) in the infancie of baptisme it self. For, as soon as Iohn began to baptize, Christ came unto him, and required baptisme of him. When the fulnesse of time was come, in which God had appoynted to mani∣fest him to the world, and appoynt him our teacher by a voice from heaven, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear him. According to whose example we ought not to defer our baptisme; but, upon the first opportunitie offered unto us, receive that seal of our new-birth in Christ and admission into his church.

I conclude the answer to this argument with an observation of * 1.62 Gastius; that Christ, because he was Lord both of the people in the old testament and of them in the new, therefore he would re∣ceive the sacraments of both, and was both circumcised in his infancie, and baptized also as soon as baptisme was in force.

Since the examination and confutation of this second Article of the Anabaptists, there came to my hands a small pamphlet, dedica∣ted to the house of Commons, intituled, The vindicath••u of the royall commission of king Iesus: wherein the author Francis Cornwell master of Arts, and sometimes student of Emanuell Colledge in Cambridge, frameth many arguments against the ordinance of the church in baptizing infants. Of which I may truly say, as Martiall doth of Caecilius, who made disverse dishes of one and the self same kind of course root.

Atreus Caecilius cucurbitarum Sic illas quasi filias Thyestae In partes lacerat secatque mille: Gustu protinus has edes in ipso, Has prima feret, alterave mensa, Has coenae tibi tertia reponit: Huicseras Epidipnidas parabit; Hoc lautum vocat, hoc putat venustum Unum po••ere ferculis tot assem.

Thou cheatest my stomack with varietie of dishes, in all which there is but one sorie root drest after a diverse manner, & in all of them not a half-pennie worth of good and solid meat.

So this new Anabaptisticall Proselyte endeavours to cheat the judgement of the reader with varietie of syllogismes and enthymems, in which there is but one or two arguments at most, propounded in di∣vers forms, and in all of them not the weight of one solid reason; the summe & effect of his whole book is contained in the title-page, wherein he affirmeth, that the christening of children doth universal∣ly oppose the commission granted by king Iesus, Mat. 28. 19. 20. Mark 16. 15. 16. and that paedobaptisme is a popish tradition, brought into the church by Innocentius the third; upon these two notes he runs in divi∣sion through his whole book. The first hath no colour of probabilitie, and the latter is a grosse & ignorant untruth; if the baptisme of in∣fants oppose the cōmission granted by Christ, Mat. 28. either it opposeth it in words or in sense: not in words, for there is no mention at all of children in either of those texts, much lesse any prohibition of bap∣tizing them, neither doth it oppose it in sense. For the meaning of our Saviour there apparently is; that his Apostles and their Suc∣cessors

should go and convert all Nations, and plant Christian churches in them: first, teaching them the Gospel and principles of Christian Religion, and after administring the sacraments unto them; which they have done accordingly: first, teaching the parents and baptizing them, and after their children into their faith. But the objection from these texts is fully answered, and retorted in the end of the conference and in the solution of the first argument brought by the Anabaptists in this section. And therefore I come briefly to examine his second assertion or rather aspersion of the whole Christian world in these words in the frontis-peece of his book, Against the anti-christian faction of pope Innocentius the third and all his favourites, that enacted by a decree, that the baptisme of the infants of beleevers should su••ceed circumcision. These words ver∣tually contain this proposition, that the christening children is the practise of an Anti-christian faction, which was brought first into the church by the decree of Pope Innocentius the third. Of which enunciation, I may say as Tertullian doth of the Chameleon, quot co∣lores, tot dolores; or rather, quot dicta, tot maledicta; so many words as there are, so many grosse errors and scandalous reproaches. For the baptizing infants is not the practise of a faction, nor a part, but of the whole, not Anti-christian, but truely Christian church. Neither was it introduced by Innocentius the third, but is of far more ancient date, and was derived even from the times of the A∣postles themselvs.

First, it is well known that the Greek and Latine churches, or the Eastern or Western were the membra dividentia of the whole church; and that the christening of infants was approved of and practised by the Greek church is evident by the testimonies of Gregorie Nazianzen, orat. 40. in bap. Origen hom. 8. upon Leviti∣cus, and 14. of Luke: and that it was likewise approved and practi∣sed in the Latine church is clearly collected from Ambrose, lib. de Abrahamo Patriarcha, Ieron. cont. Pelag. l. 3. Augustin. l. 10. de Gen. ad lit. c. 23. Cyp. ep. 59. ad Fidum. Now if the Greek and La∣tine churches were Anti-christian, where were there any Christians in the world?

Secondly. Pope Innocentius the third, as it is well known to all the learned, lived in the twelfth age of the Church, and flourished about the year 1215, in which year he called the great Councell at Lateran. Before him Gregorie the great (whom M. Cornwell him∣self

alledgeth, page 11. out of M. Fox in his book of Martyrs) about the year of our Lord 599. above six hundred yeares before Innocentius the third resolved Austine the Monk that in case of ne∣cessitie infants might be baptized as soon as they were born: and two hundred yeares before Gregorie, S. Austine wrote a treatise de baptismo parvulorum, and for the lawfulnesse thereof, in his 28 epistle, and in his third book de pec. mer. & remiss. and by occasion elsewhere also alledgeth a testimonie out of S. Cyprian to that pur∣pose, who wrote in the year of our Lord 250. nay, which is most considerable, Origen in his Comment upon the epistle to the Romans, c. 6. l. 5. (quoted by M. Cornwell himself, p. 10.) affir∣meth in expresse tearms, that the church from the Apostles re∣ceived a tradition to baptize children: whence I thus frame my argument.

All Christians ought to hold the traditions which have been taught them by the Apostles, either by word or epistle, 2 Thess. 2. 15.

But the baptizing of children is a tradition received from the Apostles, as Origen affirmeth, loc. sup. cit. & Austine, l. 10. de Gen. ad lit. c. 23. & de bap. cont. Donatis. l. 4.

Ergo, the baptizing of children ought to be retained in the Christian church.

Thus M. Cornwell hath spun a fair thred, of which a strong cord may be made to strangle his own assertion.

Yea, but M. Cornwell chargeth all ministers deeply to answer this his negative demonstration, saying,

O that the learned English ministerie would informe me, lest my bloud like Abels crie aloud from heaven for vengeance, for not satisfying a trou∣bled conscience: how shall I admit or consent to the admittance of the infant of a beleever to be made a visible member of a particular congregation of Christs body, and baptized, before it be able to make confession of its faith and repentance, lest I consent to separate what God hath joyned together?

That which God hath joyned together, no man ought to separate.

But faith and baptisme God hath joyned together,

Mar. 16. 16. Acts 8. 37, 38. & 16. 33, 34. Gal. 3. 27. Ephes. 4. 5.

Ergo, faith and baptisme no man ought to separate.

ANSWER.

This argument is so far from a demonstration, that it is not so much as a topicall syllogism, but meerly sophisticall; therin any who hath ever saluted the University, and hath bin initiated in Lo∣gick, may observe a double fallacy.

The first is fallacia homonymiae in the premises.

The second is ignoratio elenchi in the conclusion.

First, the homonymia or ambiguity is in the tearm (joyned toge∣ther) for the meaning may be either that faith and baptism are joy∣ned together in praecepto, in Christs precept, and that no man denieth: all that are commanded to be baptized, are required to believe, and all that believe, to be baptized, or joyned together in subjecto, that is to say, all who are baptized have true faith, and that none have true faith but such as are baptized; in this sense it is apparantly false, and none of the texts alledged prove it, for the thiefe on the crosse had faith, yet not the baptism we speak of; as also the Em∣perour whom S. Ambrose so highly extolleth in his funerall, and many thousands besides; again, Iulian the Apostata, and all other, who after they came to years renounced their baptisme and Christian profession, had baptisme, yet no true faith; which, as M. Cornwell himself will confesse, cannot be lost totally or finally.

Secondly, in the former syllogisme there is ignorantio elenchi, he concludes not the point in question, they who most stand for the baptizing of children will not have faith and baptisme severed: for they baptize children into their fathers faith, and take sureties that when they come to yeares of discretion they shall make good the profession of the Christian faith which was made by others at the font in their name, and for them: nay, so farre are they from excluding faith from infants that are baptized, that they beleeve that all the children of the faithfull, who are comprised in the co∣venant with their fathers and are ordained to eternall life, at the very time of their baptisme receive some hidden grace of the Spirit, and the seeds of faith and holinesse, which afterwards beare

fruit in some sooner, in some later. Neither is this any paradox or new opinion: for S. Ierome advers. Lucifer. and Austin ep. 57. ad Dard. and Zanchius de tribus Elohim affirm,

that the holy Spirit moveth upon the waters of baptisme, and that as the Spi∣rit in Genesis 1. 2. rested upon the waters, incubabat aquis, that he might cherish and prepare them for the producing of living creatures; so the holy Ghost resteth upon the waters of bap∣tisme, and sits as is were abroad upon them, and blesseth them, and thereby doth cherish the regenerate and animate the elect.

S. Leo speaketh most elegantly and fully to this point in his ser∣mons of the birth of Christ, omni rena••ce••i aqua baptismatis in∣star est uteri virginalis,* 1.63 ••adem 〈…〉〈…〉 qui reple∣vit & virginem; & peccatum quod ihi 〈…〉〈…〉 conceptio, hic mystica to••••it abl••tio.* 1.64 And 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5. factu•• est homo nostri generis ut nos divinae naturae poss••imus esse consortes: originem quam sumpsit in utero virginis, posuit in 〈…〉〈…〉: dedit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quod dedit matri: obumbratio Spiritus qu•••• facit ut Maria pareret salvatorem, facit ut regeneret undae credontem:

to every regenerate Christian the water of baptisme is in stead of the Virgins wombe, the same Spirit replenishing the font which filled the Virgin; and the sinne which there his holy conception prevented or evacuated, here the mysticall ablution takes away. And again, Christ was made a man of our nature, that we might be made partakers of his divine nature; the birth or originall which he took in the Virgins womb he hath put in the font of baptisme; he hath given that to the water which he gave to his mother; by the like over shadowing of the Spirit the water regenerates a beleever, whereby Mary brought forth a Saviour.

As for the rest of his arguments, they are like rotten wyer, they will not endure the streining, and they are alread••e broken in pieces by another. See the declaration against the Anabaptists printed at London for R. W. 1644.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Of which see ••ore Argu∣ment 4.
• * 1.2

  Ioh. 3. 5.
• * 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not i••.
• * 1.4

  Revel. 21. 27.
• * 1.5

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.6

  Acts 16. 15. & 33. 1 Cor. 1. 16.
• * 1.7

  ••. 33.
• * 1.8

  Institut. l. 4. ••. 16. par. 6. Nisi forte arbi∣tramur Christ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 suo adventu Patris gratiam, imminuisse aut decurtasse, quod execrabili blas∣phemiâ non vacat.
• * 1.9

  Nota.
• * 1.10

  Ita Zachaeus postquam fide justificatus e∣rat, dicitur fili∣us Abrabae, Luc. 19. 9.
• * 1.11

  1 Cor. 10. 1.
• * 1.12

  L. 2. De error. Anabap. p. 129. Opinio Anabap∣tistarum est sa∣cramenta esse allegorias quas∣dam bonorum operum, ut cir∣cūcisionem in∣terpretantur signum fuisse coercendarum cupiditatum, baptismum sig∣num esse af∣flictionum.
• * 1.13

  See more of this in the an∣swer to A. R. infra.
• * 1.14

  Edward Bar∣ber. p. 13.
• * 1.15

  Joh. 4. ••.
• * 1.16

  Bullinger ad∣ver. Anabap. l. 6. Cum id quod ma••us est infantes habe∣ant, rem scilicet signatam, grati∣am Dei & re∣missionem pec∣catorum; quis illis id quod minus est, sig∣num, aquam videlicet, de∣negabit?
• * 1.17

  1 Cor. 7. 14.
• * 1.18

  Edward Bar∣ber. p. 17.
• * 1.19

  Martyr. loc. Commun. cla•••• quartae c. 8. Si tantum ci∣vilem purt••a∣tem prolis inde susceptae add••x••ris, 〈…〉〈…〉 quam infideles. habeant? illocum enim filit si •• matrimoni•• procreentur legitimi sunt; & ut justi b••redes admittuntur. Quare videtur Paulus quiddam aliud indicasse quod liberis infidelium non sit datum, sed quod ad ecclesiam Dei pertineant, & ad electionem 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ p. 823. 824.
• * 1.20

  1. 6. 20.
• * 1.21

  2. ••. 11▪
• * 1.22

  L. 1. de pec. me∣rit, & rem. ••. c. 26. l. 2. de voc, Gent. c. 8. l. ••. con. Pelag.
• * 1.23

  Cyp. ••p. ad Fi∣dunt.
• * 1.24

  Placuit ut quicunque par∣vulos recentes ab uteris marū baptizandos ne∣gat, anathema fit.
• * 1.25

  Salvatur om∣nes qui r••nas∣cuntur in C••ri∣sto, insan••es, ••ueri, juvenes, senes.
• * 1.26

  Comment. in c. 6. ad Rom. ecclesia ab A∣postolis traditi∣onem accepit etiam parvulis dare baptis∣mum.
• * 1.27

  L. 10. degen. ad lit c. 23. Consuctudo in∣quit matris ec∣clesiae in bapti∣zandis parvu∣as nequaquam sp••rnenda est, nec ullo modo superflua depu∣tanda, nec om∣nino credenda nis•• Apostoliaa esset traditio.
• * 1.28

  L. 4. de bapt. infant. Quod universa tenet ec∣clesia nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostoll••a traditum verissime creditur.
• * 1.29

  L. de pec. mer. c. 26.
• * 1.30

  Harm: conf. sect. 13. c. 20. Iamnamus A∣nabaptistas qui rigant bapti∣zandos esse infantulas re∣cens natos a fidelibus: nam juxta doctri∣nam evangeli∣cam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••∣regnum Dei, & sunt in foedere Dei, cur itaque non doretur iis signum foederis Dei? cui non per sanctum baptisma initi∣arontur qui sunt peculium, & in ecclesia Dei?
• * 1.31

  Har. conf. sect. 13. c. 12. Datur baptis∣mus etium infantibus qui & ipsi 〈…〉〈…〉 Christo consecrentur socundum mandatum ejus, sinite prevulos &c.
• * 1.32

  Confes. Gal. Art. 35. Affirmamus insantes sanctis parentitus natos esse ex Christs authoritate baptizan∣dos.
• * 1.33

  Artic. 34. Nos. infantes eadem ratione baptizandos & signo 〈…〉〈…〉 esse credimus, qua ollm in Israele parvuli circumcidebantur; nimirum proper ejusidam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 infantibus nostris factas.
• * 1.34

  Artic. 9. Damnan•• Anabaptistas qui imp•••••••• 〈…〉〈…〉,
• * 1.35

  Art. 13. Re∣tinemus & in∣fantium baptis∣mum quia cer∣tissimum est promissionem gratiae etiam ad infantes perti∣nere.
• * 1.36

  L. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 7. Si quis rebap∣tizare quem∣piam de mini∣stris. Catholicae secta fuorie r••∣t••ctus u••a cum eo qui piacub••ra criman commi∣sit, & hic ••i perfuasum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ultimo suppli∣cio percellatur.
• * 1.37

  Gastius de Anabap. error. l. 1. p. 178. Viennae uno die multi ob catabaptismum sub••er•• sunt. funibus enim ita ligati erant, ut alier al••••um post se traberet donec omnes pracipites ruerene suffocaren••urque▪
• * 1.38

  How his Chronicle, p. 456. & 579.
• * 1.39

  Ad Hil. ep. 89. tanto ma∣gis pro infanti∣bus loqui debe∣mus, quanto minus ipsi pro se loqui pos∣sunt.
• * 1.40

  Obj. 1.
• * 1.41

  Sol. 1.
• * 1.42

  If they al∣ledge that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a name cō∣mon to women aswell asmen; it is true, when the article •• is joyned to it, but the A∣postle useth the masculine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 28. & v. 29. ••.
• * 1.43

  Obj. 2.
• * 1.44

  Sol. 1.
• * 1.45

  Obj. 3.
• * 1.46

  Sol. 1.
• * 1.47

  Obj. 4.
• * 1.48

  Sol. 1.
• * 1.49

  Adhuc in u∣tero positus spi∣ritus accepti gratiam desig∣navit, habuit intelligendi sensum qui ex∣ultandi habe∣bat affectum.
• * 1.50

  Cal. l. 4. instie. ••. 16. Quos ••pl••no lucis suae fulgore illustra∣tu•• us est domi∣nus, cur non iis quoque in prae∣sens, si ita libu∣eritexigua scin∣tilla irradia∣ret?
• * 1.51

  L. 1. de pec. mer. & remis. c. 9. Dat sui spiritus occul∣tissimam gratiam, quam etiam latenter infundit & parvulis.
• * 1.52

  Syntag. disp. par. 2. c. de bapt. utraque ipsis inest actu primo non secundo, in semente non in messe, in radice non in fructu; interna spiritus virtute, non externa operis demonstratione.
• * 1.53

  Obj. 5.
• * 1.54

  Sol. 1.
• * 1.55

  Obj. 6.
• * 1.56

  Sol.
• * 1.57

  Object. 7.
• * 1.58

  Sol.
• * 1.59

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 11. 26.
• * 1.60

  Obj. 8.
• * 1.61

  Sol. 1.
• * 1.62

  L. de exord. Anabapt. p. 340 Christus simul circumcisus & baptizatus est, nempe dominus amborum popu∣lorum, ideo & sacramenta amborum as∣sumpsit.
• * 1.63

  Ser. 4.
• * 1.64

  Ser. 5.