A just vindication of the covenant and church-estate of children of church-members as also of their right unto bastisme : wherein such things as have been brought by divers to the contrary, especially by Ioh. Spilsbury, A.R. Ch. Blackwood, and H. Den are revised and answered : hereunto is annexed a refutation of a certain pamphlet styled The plain and wel-grounded treatise touching baptism / by Thomas Cobbet.

SECT. III.

MElancton is the next witnesse, who is called in to give evi∣dence to confirme the 2d. 6th. and 7th. Proposition. I am sorry that these bookes cited are not at hand, so that I cannot so well discover the ill dealing, which I suspect; upon the 1 Cor. 11. 15. hee is said to affirme;

In time past those in the Church which had repented them were baptized, and it was in stead of an ab∣solution: wherefore repentance must not bee separated from baptisme.

For baptisme is a Sacramentall signe of repentance. It's evident that Melancton here speakes of the baptisme of growne ones; those in the Church which had repented were baptized — and so in like case of baptizing adult persons, repentance should not bee separated from baptisme. But to Melancton himselfe, it is a non sequitur, that therefore Infants ought not to bee baptized, because they cannot repent; witnesse the answer he maketh in his Common places unto that objection against Paedobaptisme. Loco de Baptismo Infantum. It is most true saith hee,

that in all adult per∣sons (Baptisme) faith and repentance are required, but in the case of Infants this sufficeth, that the holy Spirit is given them by baptisme, &c.

As for that definition of Baptisme, that it is a Sacramentall signe of repentance it is imperfect, nor yet will it follow thence, that none else should bee baptized, but such as actu∣ally repent; no more then in that circumcision was a signe of Heart circumcision, and therefore of repentance, Deut. 10. 16. Jer. 4. 4. Deut. 30. 6. that none but adult persons were fit to bee circumcised.

Melancton is againe quoted Proposition 6. for saying there is

no plaine commandment in Scripture that children should bee baptized.

And if hee did say thus, doth this prove, that there is

no command at all, because not plaine or expresse, scil. in so many words: you shall baptize children? there is a command to bee deduced from Scripture, by necessary consequence, in Melanctons judgement; witnesse the foure arguments which hee drawes from necessary consequence of Scripture to prove it, Loco de Baptismo Infantum: and witnesse his hand subscribed at Wittenberg, amongst others, to that Article with its explication touching Paedobap∣tisme, as necessary in respect of divine command, as before wee mentioned, Proposition 7. Melancton in his answer to the Anabap∣tists Articles is quoted, but no words mentioned, that hee should speake, unlesse the Authors cite him for mentioning the story of Cyprian and the other Bishops determinations about Paedobap∣tisme, which were impertinent, in as much as Origen is here quo∣ted for saying, that Paedobaptisme was a tradition of the Church. Now Origen was before Cyprian, and the Church whose tradition it's supposed Origen saith it was, was long before Origen, so that Cyprian did not first ordaine Infants Baptisme, the Authors them∣selves being Judges. I have not that booke of Melanctons, and I cannot divine what his words were, unlesse they were mentioned. And I wonder if they were for their purpose, they set them not downe. I conclude then of Melanctons testimonies, as of the rest, that they are wrested.