¶ A most sure and strong defence of the baptism of children, against the pestiferous sect of the anabaptists, set forth by that famous Clerk, Henry Bullynger: & now translated out of Latin into English by John Veron Senonoys.  Genesis. xvij. chap. 
I will be thy god, and the god of thy seed after thee.  
Thou shalt read the contents of this book, in the two. pagyne after this.   

¶ The contents of this book.  

i That rebaptizatyon or baptizing again is not of god, & that there is but one baptism.  
two That the baptism of children is of god  
iii That the baptism of children hath continued in the church of Christ ever since the times of the Apostles.    

To the reader.  
I have, good christian reader, already proved and set forth these articles that follow, against these erroneous devils the Anabaptistes.  

i The spirit, which repugneth against the spirit, which speaketh in the holy scriptures, is not of the father of truth but of the devil, the father of lying.  
two Of the simplicyte and learning, that aught to be in godly preachers.  
iii Of the vocation and calling unto the ministry & office of preaching against them that thrust themselves unto it, being not called.  
iiii Of the unity of the church, against the sects of heretics.  
v That Christ did not suffer only for original sin.  
vi That a sinner is received to grace as often as he repenteth, and that no man is without sin.  
seven That salvation & righteousness dependeth not of our works, but of faith  
viii That the souls, which are departed from the body, do not sleep but live in Christ.  
ix That a christian may execute the office of a magistrate.  
x That a christian magistrate is not only profitable, but also most necessary to a christian common weal.  
xi That we ought to be obedient unto magistrates.  
xii That it is not lawful to resist the magistrates. which things if thou dost read diligently, I trust thou shalt be well enarmed against this pestiferous sect. Beware of them, for they are worse than all other herytyques have been, yea, they are renewers of all old heresies. So far ye well.  
And pray to god that all erroneous sects being vanquished, his glory may flourish for ever and ever. Amen.    

¶ To the right worshipful Master Thomas Fletwod, controller of the kings majesties Mint, in Southwark, John Heron wisheth peace of conscience, and increase of divine knowledge and understanding from god the father, through our Lord jesus Christ.  
IT is not for naught, 
Ignorance is the mother of all errors  right worshipful Sir, that of all men, ignorance hath been counted the mother of all errors. Which thing too be most true, we do now at this presence, plainly perceive and see. By godly learning, the erroneous sect of the papists is in a manner proflygated and overthrown, so that the chief maintainers of it are clean ashamed of their old occupatyon, I mean, 
What godly learning doth.  of their Idolatry and superstition. But godly learning was never so diligent, in purging the field of the gospel from the rubbisshes of antichrists kingdom, 
What stubborn ignorance doth.  as stubborn ignorance is now busy in sowing it over, with cockle and darnill, with tars, and most pestiferous poison, which they do so over lay with sugar and honey, that is to say, with painted and coloured hypocrisy, blandiloquence and flattery, that a man at the first sight, would embrace this error and heresy, for a most wholesome doctrine, and unfeigned religion. But if he, putting on the spectacles of god's word, will look more narrowly upon it, he shall espy such a blindness and ignorance in their proceedings & doctrine, that by good right, he might marvel, that the very infants do not now, in this flourishing time of the gospel, perceive and smell out this devilish heresy. For who would not say that this cometh of devilysshe ignorance (unless he be blinder then the blindness itself, that they so shamefully deny the baptism of young infants and children? 
What is to deny the baptism of infants  Is not this too put our children, from that everlasting covenant which our lord god did make with Abraham, and in him, with all us that believe? I will (saith the lord) be thy god and the god of thy seed after the. 
Gene. xvii chapi.  Which promise Abraham believed, and therefore when he came home, he did both circumcise himself, & all the male children that were in his house. For why? circumcision was the seal of the people of god, which by the commandment of god was ministered unto all them that were comprehended in the lords covenant In stead whereof baptism hath been instituted in the new Testament. as the Apostle sayncte Paul. Colloss. two Chapter, Doth plainly testify. 
Circumcision instead of baptism  Sith therefore that children were circumcised in the old Testament, and long after instructed in the knowledge of the law: it followeth, & that by good consequence, the baptism ought to be ministered unto our young infants, whom we are bound afterwards to bring up in the faith, and true doctrine. This argument all the rabblement of the anabaptists, is not able to dissolve Suffer not therefore, O good christians, suffer not yourselves too be seduced by these smattering Anabaptists, which understand not the letter of the scriptures, wherein (I mean, in the bare letter) they do trust most. And no marvel thereof: For they are most shamefully ignorance in all those things, that serve for to expound and understand the letter. They know not the phrases of the scriptures. 

The Anabaptists are ignorance in those things that serve for to expound and under stand the letter.  
The chief causes of the Anabaptistes blindness and error.  
Novatus author of rebaptisation.  
How many ways this word baptism is taken in the new Testament.   They do not observe & mark how many ways one thing is taken in the scriptures and word of God. Which truly to the chief cause of their blindness and error. For if they had marked how many ways in the scriptures of the new Testament, this word baptism is taken, they had never renewed the old condemned heresy of Novatus, touching this foolish Anabaptism that is to say, rebaptyzaty on or baptyzing again. For baptism is not always taken for that outward sign & seal of the people of God, which is an outward washing of water, done and ministered in the name of the father, of the son, and of the holy ghost, whereby we are initiated into a true faith, and innocency of life: which kind of baptism John and the Apostles did minister, & now in the church of Christ, is by them administered, that be appointed thereto: but often times it is taken for the doctrine as matthew xxi Chapter, and Acts, the nineteen. Which place the Anabaptists do allege to maintain their error in this point. Otherwhiles this word baptism signifieth death or matyrdome, as Matthew twenty Chapter. Where Christ answereth to the sons of zebedee, after this manner: Can ye drink the cup that I shall drink? and be baptised with the baptism that I shall be baptized with? there the blind may see, that he did mean his passion that he should suffer. It betokeneth also the inward illumynatyon of the holy spirit of God, whereby the hearts of the faithful are illumynated & drawn, as Acts i Chapter. Ye shall be baptized with the holy ghost after these few days. Now as they are deceived in this thing by ignorance and lack of knowledge, so are they in all the other points. But now that the ignorant & simple might have an wholesome Antidotus and conterpoyson against this pestilent error, especially in this point of rebaptyzatyon, and baptism of children: I have here translated three most fruyctfull Dialogues upon this matter, out of Latin into english: which, if they be diligently perused, may enarme and fence the reader, against all the obiectyons that can be made and invented by these phantastycall and mad brains. And because that your worshipful mastership hath been always earnest in the defence of the truth, bearing a singular affection and mind, towards all them that are studious to set forth the glory of god, which godly affection and mind ye have many times (as I have been by credible persons informed) declared in your communication, towards me: I could do no less of duty, but to dedicate this little labour of mine unto you, in token of gratitude and thankfulness, sith that none otherwise, I am able to deserve or recompense that benevolent heart of yours, towards me. God of his mercy, vouchsafe with his holy spirit so to rule and guide your mastership with the worshipful gentlewoman your wife, that whatsoever ye shall do, or think in all your affairs, may be to the glory of god, & salvation of of your soul. Amen.   

¶ Three most fruitful Dialogues, treating upon the baptism of children, very necessary to be red of all christians, in these most paryllouse times. ¶ Simon the Anabaptist, joiada the true Christian. ¶ That rebaptizatyon or baptyzing again, is not of god: and that there is but one baptism.  Simon. 
I Have tarried here for thee, more than an hole hour, joiada, I was almost persuaded, I did almost believe, that thou durst not come because that thou haddest little trust and confidence in the other articles.  joiada. 
There is no article, that I am so sure of: it is so far, that I should be afraid to speak of it.  Simon. 
But I will prove that rebaptyzation is of God.  joiada. 
By what scriptures? 
Acts. nineteen. chapi.   Simon. 
By the xix chapter of the Acts, where it is expressly set forth, that the xii men, that had been baptized by John, or in the baptism of John, were baptized again by Paul in the name of Christ. If it was lawful after the baptism of John, to receive the baptism of Christ, why should it not be more lawful, that the baptism of the Bishop of Rome, should give place unto the baptism of Christ? For as those men of Ephesus, had been ignorantly and unwyttingly baptised with the baptism of John, and again were baptized by Paul: In like manner, we were ignorantly baptised with the baptism of the bishop of Rome: Ergo, we may lawfully be baptized again, with the baptism of Christ.  joiada. 
As many words as thou hast spoken, so many errors hast thou vomited and spewed out first, thou sayest that those men of Ephesus were twice baptised, which thing thou canst not prove, 
Ac. nineteen. cha. Baptism is not taken for water, but for the doctrine.  for the baptism of John, ought not here to be taken for water, but for the doctrine.  Simon. 
This is the only refuge that ye flee to, when ye be overcomen by the truth. But ye can not prove nor strengthen these your sayings with the scriptures, nor by any truth  joiada. 
But I will prove unto thee, that baptism is not always taken for the washing that is done in the water, 
Ihon. i. & three chapter Mat. xxi. chapter.  but rather for the doctrine. John i & iii chap. And of this thing, there be most sure tokens, signs, notes, as Mat. xxi. chap. where Christ asketh the Pharisees whether the baptism of John was of god, or of men, 
Baptism is taken for the doctrine for as the water doth wash away the filthiness of the body, so the true doctrine doth cleanse the soul from all errors & superstytyon. Act. xii. cha Apollo.  & sithence that it was of god, why did they not credit & believe him, understanding by baptism (as it most manifestly appeareth) the doctrine or testimony, which they ought to have believed,  Simon. 
Well, go to, put the case that in this place it is taken for the doctrine: yet notwithstanding, it followeth not, that in the Acts of the apostles, it should be taken for doctrine.  joiada. 
In the mean season, ye were to much overseen in this thing, & over blinded, saying most shamefully, that we did affirm without any truth, the baptism is often times taken for the doctrine. But go to, we will also prove, the baptism is taken in the Acts, for the doctrine. In the xii of Acts, Luke saith, that a certain Ive called Apollo, being an eloquent man & taught in the way of the lord, did come to Ephesus, and that he did teach diligently those things that were the lords, knowing only the baptism of Ihon. Here the very blind may see the Luke did speak, not of the water, but of the doctrine. The same Apollo's did teach and instruct those. xii men in the way of the lord. whom afterwards, Paul doth ask, whether after that they had believed & given credit unto the doctrine, 
What is to receive the holy ghost  they had been pacified in their hearts & consciences, by the holy ghost. (Here it is to be noted, that faith is not taken for that heavenly gift, 
Faith is here taken for the doctrine of faith.  that illumynateth the heart inwardly, but for the doctrine of faith, which one man doth receive of an other by hearing) But they did so answer, that Paul might easily gather by their answer that they knew not what the peace of consciences, nor what the holy ghost was. He marvelling therefore, 
In quid initiati fuissent This word to initiate, which we are compelled to use in this place, signifieth to instruct, or give instructyon in any kind of religion, science or knowledge.  what manner of doctrine this was, that had not set forth unto them, so necessary and principal points, did ask them whereunto they were baptized, not wherein: For he knew right well that men are baptised in water. But he asketh whereunto they were baptized, that is too say, initiated and taught, what at length was the mark that they did shoot at, sithence that they knew not yet the holy ghost? They made him answer that they were baptised, that is to say, initiated in the doctrine of Ihon. The Apostle did understand and perceive that they were not yet right well taught and instructed in the doctrine of Ihon. He beginneth therefore, and with express words setteth forth the doctrine of Ihon. Which words, if they were well weighed and pondered, they make altogether against you For thus are the words of Paul: joannes baptisavit baptismo poenitentiae: that is to say, John hath baptised with the baptism of repentance. What mean these words, 
What is to baptize with the baptism of repentance  he hath baptised with the baptism of repentance, but that John did preach repentance? or did teach how we ought to repent, that will be initiated in Christ or receive the first instruction in the religion of Christ? Afterwards he did speak of him that should come after him that they might believe in him, that is to say, in jesus Christ. Out of the which faith and belief, peace doth spring in the mind and conscience of man. Rom. v. 
Ro. v chap  chap. When they had understanded that they did receive the baptism of water in the name of jesus. The words that follow of the imposityon of hands, make me to expound this last, of the baptism of water. As I think now, I have sufficiently proved, that this place helpeth nothing the Anabaptists: for they, whom mention is made of, in the xix chap. of Acts, were not baptised again, but baptized once for all, and twice instructed and taught. 
Whether the baptism of John, & the baptism of Christ, be all one.   Simon. 
By this it should follow, that the baptism of John, and the baptism of Christ is all one, and that there is no difference between them.  
This can not be, for the doctrine of John did differre from the doctrine of Christ  joiada. 
In this thing ye are greatly deceived, for the doctrine of John, and the doctrine of Christ, are all one, and their baptism all one (Here I do speak of the baptism of water) and by this we do gather and conclude truly, that these men of Ephesus were not baptized with the baptism of John, (I speak of the water) for if they had been baptised with the baptism of John, it had not been necessary and needful, that Paul should had baptised them again in the baptism of Christ, for both their doctrine & their baptism are all one.  Simon. 
If the doctrine of John, & the doctrine of christ were all one, why did Luke write that Apollo was taught only in the doctrine or baptism of John, and that therefore Priscilla and Aquilla, did take him unto them, and did teach him more exactly in the way of the lord. 
What is meant by this, that Apollo was taught more exactly.  If the doctrine of John, and the doctrine of Christ were all one, what did need to teach him more exactly? for he that did know the doctrine of John, did also know the doctrine of Christ.  IOI. 
Luke saith, that they did expound unto him more exactly in the way of the Lord. The doctrine was all one: but in Apollo there wanted somewhat, which knew not all things exactly and perfectly. For these xii do say also, that they were taught and instructed in the baptism of John, whose doctrine for all that they understood not perfectly, although they were instructed in the doctrine of John, yet notwithstanding are they taught more exactly by Paul.  SIM. 
But Paul saith not that the doctrine is all one.  JOIA. 
Thou dost every foot bring darkness into the manifest light. Tell me, I pray thee, which is the sum of Christ's doctrine, and of the apostles?  SIM. 
And I do ask the whether Paul in the xix chapter of the Acts, did teach that Ihons and Christ's doctrine were all one?  IOI. 
To that will I answer after that I have herd of thee, which is the sum of Christ's doctrine, & of his Apostles. 
Note the obstnacye of the Anabaptists   SIM. 
I will not give the over hand, but persist and abide in the words of Luke, which are written, Act. nineteen chap  JOIA. 
Thou dost persist and abide in thy contention and obstinacy. And this are ye wont to do, either when ye have nothing to answer, and when ye perceive that ye are overcomen with the truth. Go to, I will declare what is the sum of the doctrine of Christ, 
The sum of the doctrine of Christ, and of the Apostles. Mark. i. Chapter. Math. iiii. Chapter.  and of the Apostles. Mark. i chap. It is written after this manner: jesus came too Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of god, and saying. The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of god is at hand, repent ye, and believe the gospel. Mat. iiii. chap. jesus departed into Galilee, & did begin to preach and say: Repent ye the kingdom of heaven is at hand. christ doth also send his Apostles, saying: As my father hath send me, so I do send you, 
John xx. chapter.  John. xx. chapter. But the father did send Christ to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins ergo, Christ sendeth his Apostles too preach the same. 
Luke xxiiii. Chapter.  This is manifest and plain by the xxiiii of Luke, and last of Mark. So it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from death upon the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached among all nations in his name, beginning at jerusalem, and ye shall be witnesses of these things. 
Acts ii iii. Chap.  The book of the Acts doth testify, that the Apostles did preach the same ii iii. chap. Haste thou any thing against so manifest scriptures?  SIM. 
Nothing: 
The doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of John be all one.  But now I ask the whether the doctrine of John, and the doctrine of Christ be all one.  IOI. 
I do prove and conclude by the places afore alleged, that it is all one. It is said that the fame of the doctrine of Christ & of the Apostles, is comprehended in this one thing, that men should repent, know the kingdom of god to be at hand, and believe in jesus Christ. Dost thou grant these things?  SIM. 
What then?  IOI 
John did teach that self same thing: ergo, their doctrine was all one, I prove the first proposityon by the third of Matthew: John baptist did preach in the desert of jury, & did say: Repent ye, the kingdom of god is at hand. In like manner, Luke i 
Luk. i. cha. John. i. and iij. chapter  chapter And thou child. etc. It is manifest by the first and third of John, that John baptist did preach the Gospel, Acts xix (Which place we have treated upon already) he preacheth the same, as we may gather by the words of Paul. For he speaketh there after this manner: John did preach the baptism of repentance speaking of jesus Christ, in whom they should believe. Here I do beseech the to confess and tell plainly, whether these things do not sufficiently prove that the doctrine of John, & the doctrine of Christ be all one.  SIMO. 
What dost thou gather & conclude thereupon. 
The anabaptists do teach the things that they can not prove by the scriptures.   IOI. 
That ye Anabaptists are again overthrown and that ye have taught that thing which ye could not prove by the scriptures and yet for all that, ye are so obstacle and stubborn, that ye will in no wise give place unto the truth. Who would have believed the to be so stiff necked, that I should be fain to drive the to it with the scriptures?  SIM. 
What make these things to the baptizing again?  IOI. 
Very much. for if the doctrine of John and the doctrine of Christ be all one, their baptism also is all one. 
There is no example of baptizing again in all the scriptures.  Ergo, ye have no example at all of your rebaptizatyon or baptyzing gain. Also they, whom mention is made of Acts xix Chapter could not have been baptized with the baptism of Ihon. that is done in the water and again be rebaptized by Paul. For so they should had been twice baptised with one baptism of water, and the one should had abolished the other, which thing can not be done by no mean. For their baptism is all one.  SIM. 
Thou sayest right well, if there were only one baptism. 

There is only one baptism which the anabaptists do divide.  
The doctrine is more excellent than baptism.    JOIA. 
Ye do not only divide the church, but also baptism. I do bring against thee, the words of Paul which saith: christ hath sent me, not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Now I do ask the whether of these two is more excellent, the doctrine of the Gospel, or the baptism?  SIMO. 
The doctrine is more excellent than baptism, for baptism, is annexed and joined, to the doctrine.  JOIADA. 
If Christ and John do agree in the doctrine, it followeth that they did also consent and agree in the baptism, ergo, their baptism is all one.  SIMON. 
It can not be alone, for the Apostles and Christ did baptize in the name of jesus, also in the name of the father, of the son, and of the holy ghost, John did not so: Ergo, it can not be all one baptism.  JOIADA. 
Christ himself did not baptize, but his Apostles in his name. 
John four Chapter. John i Chapter. Mark i Chapter. juke iii Chapter. John and the Apostles did baptize in the name of jesus.  John four Cham Where as thou sayest that John did not baptize in the name jesus, thou dost greatly err. For John i Chapter. Mar. i. chap also, juke the third Chapter, it is most manifest and plain by his own words that John did baptize in jesus. For there he doth expound his baptism, saying, I do baptize with water, but he that shall come after me, will baptize you with the holy ghost. What other thing is this, but that I do prepare you to Christ, which shall make you perfect. Is not this to baptize in the name of jesus? In what, I pray thee, did the apostles baptize, but in the name of jesus? 
Acts ii Chapter.  Acts ii Chap. See now what thou hast won, truly none other thing, but that with thine own words, thou haste confirmed and proved, that their baptism is all one.  SIMON. 
Yet he did not baptize in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost.  JOIA. 
Although John did not know Christ to be one god with the father, & the holy ghost. Whereby it should follow, that when John did baptize, and send or direct men unto jesus, that he did baptize & direct or send them unto a bare man. Which thing how ungodly it is, who doth not see? John Baptist did know Christ to be the son of god, equal with the father in all things, he knew also that the spirit of god did inhabit and dwell in him, which was given unto him after no measure, 
John i Chapter.  but of whose fullness all men did receive. John i Chapter. For this cause he attributeth so much unto Christ, that he did send all men unto him and prepared the people for him. furthermore he did baptize them in the name of jesus, because that he knew him too be one god with the father and the holy ghost.  SIM. 
These be thy reasons, & not the word of god.  IO. 
I will prove the these things by the word of god. When John did baptize Christ in jordan, the heavens did open, & he did see the spirit of god descending and coming down upon him. And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my well-beloved son, In whom I am pleased. Who will say now that John knew not the father & the holy ghost. John three 
John iii Chapter.  Chap. He doth celebrate and set forth with many goodly praises, the majesty of Christ, among all other things, speaking after this manner: He whom god hath sent, speaketh the word of god. For god doth not give him the spirit after a measure. The father loveth the son and hath given all things into his hand These things do testify and witness that John did know right well the mystery of the trinity and unity in Christ  SIMON. 
I grant that he did know as thou sayest, yet it followeth not thereby that John did baptize in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost.  IO. 
It followeth plainly. For I do ask the whether he that baptizeth in Christ, doth baptize in man, or in god?  SIMO. 
In god truly.  JOIA. 
Now I ask whether Christ touching his own godhead be separated from the father & the holy ghost?  SIMO. 
No, for there is but one god only.  JOIA. 
Now make thine argument after this manner: Christ jesus touching his divine nature, is not divided from the father and the holy ghost. And he that baptizeth in jesus, baptizeth not in his human nature, but in his divine and godly nature. Ergo, he that baptizeth in jesus, baptizeth in the father and the holy ghost. John (as it is proved before) did baptize in jesus Christ, that is to say, in him that should come after him: Ergo, John did baptize in the father & the holy ghost, for these sentences are of like syngnification and importance: he did baptize in god, he did baptize in jesus Christ, he did baptize in the name of the father, the son and the holy ghost. For, there is one god only unto whom we are brought, and grafted by baptism.  SIMO, 
I never understood this thing afore, for I thought that John had only begun with his baptism, but that the baptism of Christ had them at length begun, when he did send his apostles in the last chapter of Mark, and of Matthew. Which thing if it were true, the baptism of John, and the baptism of Christ could not be all one.  JOIA. 
Of this did come and springe the error of of the Anabaptists. Because that they think, that baptism was then ordained & instituted after that Christ did rise from death. And I do marvel, that they did fall in too this error, sithence that with plain testimonies of the scriptures it is set forth and expressed, that Christ had by his apostles, baptised before his death and afore that they had received the holy ghosts John iii 
John iii and four Chapter.  and four Chapter. After this jesus did come and his disciples, into the land of ivory, and there he did abide with them, and did baptize. John also did baptize before Christ, wherefore he was called baptist.  SIMON. 
Ergo, baptism hath his beginning and institution of man.  JOIADA. 
Truly John was a man, which thing no man can deny, yet notwithstanding, his doctrine and baptism, were not of man, but of God. 
Math. xxi. Chapter.  matthew one and twenty Chapter. But it is called the baptism of John, and of the apostles, not because it is theirs, but because it is ministered by them. I will speak more plainly. 
Math. xi. Chapter. how this saying. The law and the prophets were till John came.  Christ. matthew xi Chapter, saith that the law and the prophets were till John came, whereby Christ doth show that the thing that the Prophets did afore prophecy, to be or too come, was more fully set forth and declared by the preaching of Ihon. For the things the afore by the prophets were prophesied to come, under dark figures of words the self same things are set forth by John, as fulfilled and present, 
John beginneth with his baptsme, the gospel and new testament.  and are in a manner showed with the figure. The law had a mystical lamb: John did show the true lamb with his finger. John therefore doth begin first the gospel and the new Testament, and showeth that the Messiah is come. It was necessary then, that he should abolish the old signs, and change them into other, that should be without blood, worthy of the new testament. 
circumcision is changed into baptism.  For circumcision was changed into baptism. Therefore John beginneth baptism first, as a sign or seal of the people of God. But let us hear his own witnesses and testimonies of that thing. 
Math. iii. Chapter.  Mat. iii chap When he did see many of the pharisees and Saducees, coming too his baptism (that they also might receive baptism of him) he said unto them: Bring ye forth fruits, worthy of repentance. By the which words John doth plainly declare, wherefore, & for what purpose & use, he did minister baptism, although he should say, It shall not be sufficient to have your body washed in the water, but rather this, ye must have a respect unto, that ye be new men that ye be sorry and repent of your mysdeedes that are passed, and take heed of them, that are to come. There is no cause why ye should boast yourselves to be the children of Abraham, unless ye do follow the faith of Abraham. What did Abraham? he did believe in god, he was obedient unto the word of god, he did approve himself, or showed himself faithful in all things unto the same god. For I say unto you, the god is able, to raise unto Abraham, Children of these stones (that is to say of the gentiles) Now also the axe is laid to the root of the tree, 
What is to be understanded, by the unprofitable bows  where with the unprofitable branches that bring forth no fruit, are cut of. That is to say, the boughs, that did grow of the natural olive tree, I mean thee unfaithful Children, being cut of and cast away from the Testament of god, shall be destroyed and burnt. Understand therefore my words a right. Prepare your hearts against the coming of the Messiah, the new king, I do baptize you with water, and in a manner initiate you, or give you the first instruction in the religion of Christ, to the intent that ye be such, the will repent & receive Christ When he is received, he shall baptize you with the holy ghost, that is to say, 
Too baptism with them holy ghost  he shall seal and make you perfect, with his holy spirit, he shall pardon and forgive you your sins, he shall also endue you with fire, that is to say, with fervent charity. Study with all diligence to receive him worthily. etc. By these testimonies we do conclude and gather, that John did baptize first, and that he did also baptize in Christ. The apostles after that they had received Christ, did use none other baptism, but the same that they had learned of Ihon. Yea, Christ himself was also baptized in the baptism of Ihon. 
The baptism of John, is the true baptism, else Christ, was not well baptised.  If Ihons' baptism is not true, it followeth that christ was not truly baptized, and that he ought too be baptized again. Who is so mad too say so? Ergo, the baptism of John, is the true baptism, which christ did confirm and sanctify in himself  SIMON. 
I do agree unto all these things: but what do they make against rebaptyzatyon?  JOIADA 
This truely, that the men of Ephesus, whom mention is made of, Acts. the nineteen Chapter. Were not baptized again, sith that the baptism of Christ and the baptism of John be all one. If they were not baptized again, the anabaptists have no example at all, of their rebaptyzation. Whereby it followeth, that their rebaptyzatyon is not of God For they divide that one only baptism. Paul saith. One god, one faith one baptism, which is in the church of god, without the which, there is no baptism. Sith than that the anabaptists do forsake the church, 
The anabaptists have no baptism.  yea, do divide the church, and are fellows of heretics, they have no baptism. For they are not in the church of Christ. Ergo. their rebaptyzatyon is repugnant unto GOD, and is nothing else, but a new sect, against the unity of the church. 
Objection both foolyshye and childish.   SIMO. 
But thou dost dissemble this, that they do abhor the baptism of the bishop of Rome, none otherwise then in times passed, the holy fathers did abhor the baptism of heretics, or ministered by heretics. For they that had been baptized by heretics and scysmatikes, were baptized again.  JOIA. 
Who did ever baptize men with the baptism of the bishop of Room? Did the bishop of Room begin baptism?  SIMON. 
No, John did begin baptism, but the bishops of Rome did add many things of their own.  JOIADA. 
The things that were added by the bishop of Room, as salt Oil, coniurynges, etc. are they baptism, or part of baptism? 
Though the bishops of Room have added many things to baptism, yet it ought not to be called the baptism of the Byshope of Rome.   SIMON 
Neither of them, for then, neither Christ nor John, had baptized truly, which did not add those things.  JOIADA 
If these new added things are not baptism, nor yet part thereof, why do ye call it then the baptism of the bishop of Room? Or was ever any man that did baptize in the name of Clement, Bonyface, Leo, or Gregory?  SIMO 
No man.  JOIADA. 
In what then were ye baptized?  SIMON. 
In the name of the father, of the son, and of the holy ghost.  JOIADA. 
Ergo, ye were not baptized in the baptism of the bishop of Room, but in the baptism of GOD. And they that baptize you now, in what, or with what words do they baptize you?  SIMON. 
With water, and in the name of the father, of the son, and of the holy ghost  JOIA. 
Were ye baptised in the same and with the same word in your youth?  SIM. 
Yes truly.  IO. 
What needeth them this last baptism? dost thou not see the ye are stark mad?  SIM. 
When we were children we knew nothing of baptism. We vow now unto god pureness, & a life without sins.  IO. 
Can ye not do this without baptism? If ye could, ye needed no water, if ye could not, the virtue is in the water. Ergo, our salvation is alligated and bound to the elementtes, against the nature of faith and of the scriptures. What answer canst thou make here.  SIM. 
It is better, that we thus consecrate ourselves unto god. 
Anabaptists are like unto monks.   IO 
As monks did hear before times bind themselves unto god with there vows. Here poison is hidden, that ye do challenge nad attribute unto yourselves pureness of life, ye do detest & abhor other as unclean, & as the catharians in times passed ye do gather and assemble unto your selves a peculiar church, marking and sealing yourselves as though ye were the purest of all men. 
Rebaptyzation is a new sect against the unity of the church  Wherefore I may well call your rebaptisation a new sect against the unity of the church, which thing appeareth more and more by thy words Tell me, I pray thee, if your church is without sins, or is no more in the flesh where is then the lost & prodigal child the straying sheep, the field sown with cockle and darnel, the net that draweth all kinds of fishes, the supper or banquet where all they that are bidden, do sit also they that have not the bridegrooms livery. If ye be pure & whole, then have ye no need of Christ, the physician of the souls. O most bold and shameless hypocrites, O disguised and masked hery tykes, who hath bidden you, to make division afore time? Or if ye be so holy & pure, when will ye of charity, bear with us, our heavy burdens, wherewith we are overcharged and burdoned, that ye may fulfil the law of Christ? When will ye have compassion of our infirmities? When will ye that are strong, take us that are weak, unto you? Why do ye cut of and contemn the sick and weak members? What are ye but schismatics?  SIMO. 
Thou hast not yet told why the ancient fathers did baptize them again, that had been baptised by heretics.  JOIADA. 
They were not baptised again, 
It is no baptism unless it be ministered in the name of the father, the son, and of the holy ghost.  but they were baptised as they that had not been baptised. For heretics did deny the trinity, the god head of Christ, and the holy ghost. Besides that, they were not of the church: Ergo, they had no baptism, nor did baptize in the name of jesus, whom they did deny. Moreover, the custom of rebaptising, or baptyzing again, was not commonly used in the church. For they that had been baptized in the name of the father, of the son, and of the holy ghost, were not baptized again, but were received by the imposition of hands, and also were admonished to persist and abide in the sincerity of faith. This therefore helpeth you nothing, but rather doth make against you. Among the true christians, ye have no example at all of your rebaptisation, but among these ancient heretics, that have been already condemned of the church. For ye do renew the heresies of Aupentius. 
The Anabaptists do renew old heresies.  Novatus & Pelagius.  SIM. 
What manner of men were they.  JOIA. 
In the year of our lord. Cc.lu there rose in Room, a ceraine man, called Navatus, a very arrogant, proud, obstinate and bold man He did teach, 
Nonatus' error.  that a man after baptism was pure and clean, which pureness if he had ones lost through sin, he could never be forgiven. And if any man for fear and dread, or necessity of death, had denied Christ, that he ought not any more to be received into the church (though he lamented never so sore for his fall) but that he ought to be separated, and as a dampened creature, too be shunned of all men. This thing did cause a counsel of grave and holy men to be gathered at Room, 
A counsel against Novatus.  which by the scriptures, being truly understanded did condemn this opinion, as ungodly and herytycall. Yet in the mean season, Novatus doth not leave of, nor yet recant his ungodly opinion: but rather did assemble and gather a peculiar church, condemning the churches, where sinners and repentant persons were, he did call his church pure. Therefore were the Novatyans, 
Why the novatians were called Catharians.  called Catharyans. Whom he did receive into his church, them did he bind unto his error & consecrate unto his unpure cleanliness, by reqaptization or baptizing again. I do not bring these things out of mine own head, but out of those ancient doctors, Cornelius, Ciprianus, Dionesius, Alexandrinus, and Eusebius. Of whom some did live in Novatus time. 
The novatians & Anabaptists are like in all things.  Now if thou dost diligently look upon these ancient novatians, & the anabaptists of our time thou shalt find very little difference between them, for as Novatus being openly convinced in that most famous counsel of learned Bishops, doth not forsake his error, but obstinately doth defend it. so the anabaptists do at this present. For how often have they been overthrown in the open disputations, that have been kept with them in Tigure, Sanctogallum, Berne, Basile, Constance, argentine, and August? And yet for all that, they will rather lose their life, then for sake their error: yea, they do gather & assemble peculiar churches, they baptize again, they condemn our churches as unclean, they do attribute unto themselves, pureness of life, to be short, they do all things that Novatus did. In the mean season, they are ambitious, arrogant, proud, puffed up, and very hypocrites.  SIMON. 
I understand that the anabaptists are Novatyans.  
What sayest thou of the other two?  JOIA. 
Aupentius was bishop of Milan, 
Aupentyus condemneth the baptism of children.  afore Ambrose, of the sect of Arrius. He did condemn the baptism of children His error was condemned in the counsel of Miluent.  SIMON. 
But it followeth not thereby, that infants must be baptized.  JOIADA. 
Verily it followeth, which thing we will prove by and by.  

¶ The second Dialogue. That the baptism of children, is of God.  SIMON. 
Whatsoever thou sayest, I will prove by most strong arguments, that the baptism of children is not of god.  JOIADA. 
And I will gladly hear how thou canst do it. 
The chief Arguments of the Anabaptists against the Baptism of infants.   SIMON. 
In the last of Mark, Christ saith to his apostles go throughout all the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: He that believeth not, shall be condemned. Also in the last of matthew it is written after this manner: All power is given unto me in heaven, and in earth going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing in the name of the father, of the son and of the holy ghost. By these it seemeth to follow, and that necessarily, that baptism ought only to be ministered unto them that can be taught and instructed. For he saith first, teach them, and then afterwards: baptize them, whereby it followeth also, that baptism is a sign of the faith that went before. For he saith: he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, Let us now add and join unto these, and ponder diligently both the examples and facts of John, and of the apostles, and that which I say shallbe manifest and plain. For John did baptize them only, that did confess their sins. 
Acts ii Chapter.  Acts ii Chap. Luke doth write after this manner: And they which received gladly the word, were baptized. Philip doth then at length baptize the steward of Queen Candace, after that he had declared unto him. the .liii. Chap. of Esay, & had questioned with him of his faith. 
Acts. viii. Chapter.  Acts. viii. chapter. All the apostles after that they had preached the Gospel, and that the faith was received, did baptize the faithful. It followeth then, that baptism as a sign is due unto them that can both hear and receive the doctrine. Infants, because that they want the use of reason, can neither hear nor receive the doctrine, & therefore they have no faith. For Paul teacheth that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of god. Rom. x. Chap, 
Roma ten  Sith then that Children can neither hear, nor understand the word of god, they can not believe. Ergo baptism is not due unto them, which is a sign of the faith that goeth before. If thou canst, 
A solution to the arguments of the Anabaptists.  answer me to these: I will tell and set forth, mine other arguments hereafter.  IOI. 
Thou hast rehearsed the chief and principal foundatyons of the anabaptists, that have any show or appearance, but this is no new thing unto us, which have learned and red in histories, that above three hundredth, xlviii. years agone that is to say, in the year of Christ. M.C. lxxxii. there have been heretics, 
The sum of the Anabaptists arguments.  that have taught the same doctrine. But because, that ye do lean upon a weak & brickle foundation, your foot shall easily be subverted & overthrown, in all your doctrine ye do most urgently beat this into men's heads, the baptism is a sign of the faithful or of them that have faith already. Infants or young babes have no faith. Ergo baptism ought not to be ministered unto infants. In very deed (if the words be well and truly expounded and understanded) we do gladly grant this thing unto you: That baptism is a sign of the faithful people. But we do not deffyne, cyrcumscribe, 
This word fidelis, faithful or fidel ought not to be limited as the Anabaptists will have it  or limit the faithful, as ye do: for if no man should be baptized but they that believe truly, and from a sincere heart, judas, Simon, of Samaria, Demas. and other hypocrites, had never been baptised. Let no man thus take my sayings, although I would have baptism to be ministered unto them, whom it is manifest and plain to be infidels, but mine intent is to show, that by this word, fidelis, faithful, some what more is to be understanded, than the Anabaptists do express,  SIMO. 
What canst thou make of a faithful but a faithful? I can not understand how infants and young babes can be faithful, sith that they do want the use of reason.  IO. 
But in this business, we do so speak of the faithful that we do in no wise exclude the children from the number of them, sith that the children and infants are of god whom god doth always admit and receive into his church among the faithful.  SIM. 
It behoveth the to have proved the same, 
Who be the fideles & faithful. Gene. xvii Chapter. O comfortable saying, both to us and too our children.  as I have already proved the contrary,  JOI. 
I will prove it. Genesis xvii. chapi. Where god doth make a covenant with Abraham. the lord doth peculiarly comprehend the children in the covenant, for he saith. I shall be thy god, and the god of thy seed after the. And afterwards he commandeth the infants to be circumcised upon the eight day, & to receive the sign of the Testament. Whereby it followeth that god is not only the god of them that be of age, and can believe in God, but also of the infant, 
Children are fideles or faithful and be in the church the members of Christ.  which for lack of age can not yet believe, for they through grace and the promise, are received in to the covenant and number of the faithful.  SIM. 
I care not for the old Testament of the jews, these old things are abolished by the gospel.  IO. 
By jesus Christ the ceremonies are abolished and the figures fulfilled, 
What part of the old testament is abolished by Christ.  but the covenant made with Abraham, standeth still.  god were not our god, and the God of our seed, and should be made by Christ more unmerciful and more strange, than he was to the aunciaunte fathers before Christ. Which to think, were a foolish thing, that I should not say an ungodly, specially sith that in the new Testament, 
The faithful are the children of Abraham. Roma. iiii. Gala. iiii. Mat. viii. Luke xiii and xix Chapter. John i Chapter.  also the faithful are called the children of Abraham. Rom. iiii. Gal. iiii Mat. viii. Luk. xiii. & xix Chap. Besides these, Christ which express words, doth say: Suffer young children to come unto me, for to such doth belong the kingdom of heaven. Paul speaking of the children of the christians, saith: Your children are clean: How should that be, unless it were thorough grace, mercy, & the promise of god? It followeth then, that the children of the christians, are of god, & aught to be numbered among the children of god.  SIM. 
These things do altogether repugn unto the scriptures and gospel, as though the carnal birth should avail some thing before god, whereas John saith: Which were not borne of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, or of man, but were born of god Ye say that the child doth belong to the church, because that his parents are of the church.  JOIA. 
We do say this through the grace & mercy of god, whereof is the promise: The children are of the church, not for their carnal generation & birth, but for the promise of god, which he hath promised, that he will be the god of the children.  SIM. 
What if the parents of the child, 
Whether the children of them, the feygne themselves to believe aught to be baptised Act. viii. Chapter  should feign their faith, and not believe truly: should not these children be borne of unchristian parents, and therefore ought not to be baptized?  JOIA. 
I ask thee, Simon, did Simon Magus of Samaria, believe or not?  SIMON. 
He did not believe, but he did feign himself to believe.  IOI 
What if thy sayings be repugnant unto the scriptures?  SIMO. 
I do not think it.  JOIA. 
I will show the therefore. Act. viii. chap. it is written after this manner: When they of Samaria had given credit unto Philippe, which preached unto them of the kingdom of god, & of the name of jesus Christ, they were baptised both men & women. Then did Simon Magus believe also and being baptised did join himself, too Philippe  SIMON. 
He did believe, that is to say he did confess the faith with his mouth and said that he did believe.  JOIADA 
This that I say, this word fidele, or faithful is of a larger sygnificatyon, and can not be so narrowly taken, which thing thou thyself dost grant with me, being constrained thereto, by the authority of the scriptures. But I ask thee, why did Philip baptize him, sith that he did not believe truly? Didst thou not say before that baptism ought too be ministered unto no man, except he doth believe truly? and that baptism is a sign of the faith that goeth afore?  SIM. 
Because that he said with the other, that he did believe in Christ, Philip doth not see the heart, but being content with the confession of the mouth, doth pronounce and baptize. 
God only seeth the heart.   JOIA. 
So thou shouldest have spoken and confessed, that god only seeth the heart, and that we ought to be content with the outward confession, & upon this confession to baptize. Sith then that the father of the infant, doth confess the faith with his mouth, and saith that he believeth in Christ jesus, moreover doth believe and confess that god is his god, & the god of his seed, and that he doth therefore bring his child unto baptism, it is convenient & meet, that we believe his words: & though some time we doubt of the words of the father, yet know we that the child shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and that the carnal generation doth make nothing to this, but that they are, and shall be called the children of god, which pertain too the free election and gratuite promise of god. Do not all men know, 
Ezechias.  that Ezechias being a faithful king, was borne of a wicked parent? But yet this thing did harm or hinder him nothing at all: 
Esau.  even as Esau got no profit thereby, that he was borne of a godly parent: ergo the election of god doth remain free.  SIM. 
What if the child that is brought to baptism, were not of the elect? were it not better that a man should than at length be baptised, when we should see & perceive that he is of the elect? For they which are not elected, are not of god, & they that are not of god, ought not to be baptized.  JOIA. 
When shouldest thou then baptize him that came at the evening in too the vinyeard? when shouldest thou baptize the thief on the cross? By this mean no man should be baptised, and baptism should be abolished, for the election of god, is not always known unto us: yea, we should by that mean, take that upon us which belongeth to god only: 
God only knoweth who be elected and who be not.  for god only doth search the heart & knoweth only, which be elected, & which be not. I do let pass, that we could not thus avoid the hypocrites. For Simon Magus did feign his faith whereby ye anabaptists do judge & measure the election, and yet he was not elected. 
Ishmael and Esau were not elected, & they were circumcised.  Other that are already of age may do the same. But tell me, were Ishmael, and Esau elected or not?  SIM 
They were not elected.  IO. 
When they were yet babes and infants, were they numbered among the people of god, or not?  SI. 
I can not tell.  IO. 
But it behoved that to know it, sith that thou takesse such matters in hand. That they were of the people of god, I prove it by the circumcision They were circumcised by the commandment of god: circumcision was the sign of the people of god, ergo, in their infancy they were the children of god, and also they wear of the people of god, yea, though they were not elected. It is plain and manifest by the life that followed, the they were not elected and chosen.  SIM 
I could well grant, that they were of the people of god, but I can not reckon them among the faithful.  JOIA. 
Are not they, that be of the people of god, faithful?  SIM. 
They that be of age are faithful infants and young babes, can not be so for they can not profess their faith.  IO 
Ye sing always one song, hast thou not heard a great while agone, that children, though they can not confess their faith, are reckoned among the faithful Or is god only the god of them that are of age, and not also of the children? Or did Christ suffer only for them that are of age, and not also for the Children?  SIMON. 
He did suffer for the satisfaction of all the sins of the whole world.  JOIADA. 
Have the Children any sin?  SIMON. 
They have the original sin. 
Children are restored by christ, and not only they that be of age.   JOIADA. 
Sith than that Paul sayeth, that whatsoever was fallen by Adam, the same was restored by Christ, and not only they, that be of age, but also Children, be lost in Adam, It followeth that children are restored again by Christ, If they be restored by christ, they are of God, & aught to be sealed, with the seal of the people of god Baptism is the seal of the people of god Ergo, children ought too be baptized.  SIMON. 
Prove that baptism is the sign or seal of the people of god.  IOI 
I prove that by your own confession. For ye say that baptism is the sign of the faithful. 
Acts. x. Chapter. What is to receive the holy ghost.  I prove besides, by the words of Peter, which Acts. x. Chapter speaketh after this manner. Who can forbid them to be baptized, that have received the holy ghost as well as we?  SIMON. 
But children have not received the holy ghost.  JOIA. 
In this place to receive the holy ghost, is too receive a witness that we are of god, which receiveth us, and that we are cleansed and purged by god. 
Act. x. xi. xv. Chap.  This may be proved by the x. xi. and xu Chapter of Acts. Children are cleansed & purged by God: ergo, they have the spirit of god. If they have the spirit of god, they are of God, and baptism is due unto them: as it is sufficiently proved by the old and new Testament.  SIMON. 
If Christ should say The kingdom of heaven belongeth unto them, I would easily agree to thee, but he saith not unto them, but unto such.  JOIADA. 
But thou most think and consider, that there must be some likeness and affinity between the things that are compared together. I can not say, If thou wilt be saved, do as judas did, for judas is not saved: but damned. If the children were not of god, nor the kingdom of heaven theirs: the Lord had not said. If ye will enter into the kingdom of heaven: be ye made as these children are. Therefore when he sayeth: unto such, he showeth that children are such, as he will have them to be, that are of god.  SIM. 
It were better, to prove with express testimonies of the scripture, that children have the spirit of god.  IOI. 
By what arguments, wilt thou have those things that are plain and manifest, to be proved unto thee? But hear thou, a more plain testimony. Paul. Roman. viii. faith: that he that hath not the spirit of god, is not his. Whereby it followeth that he, which is of god, hath the spirit of god, the children are of god: Ergo, they have the spirit of god. 
Children have the spirit of god  If they have the spirit of god, then ought they by good right to be baptised. For Peter sayeth: who can forbid them, that have received the holy ghost, to be baptized.  SIMON. 
I will not contend. Howe beit I marvel, that it is so expressly said. teach ye, baptising. Again, that Peter baptised them which received gladly the word: so likewise Philip did baptize the steward of Queen Candace. 
How the places alleged by the Anabaptestes aught to be understanded.   IO. 
Both the places and examples, which thou hast brought & alleged, aught to be understanded of them that are of age, and not of children. Christ did not send his disciples to preach the gospel unto children but unto them the were of age & had the use of reason. Nor we do not teach, that children ought to be baptized in those places, where the gospel was never preached. But where the word of god & the holy gospel, hath been both preached & also received by faith, it is no doubt, but there it is both taught & believed, that the children are of god, and that it is the will of god, that the children, which be of god should be sealed with baptism, & in a manner brought unto god. 
The doctrine is greater than that baptism  Therefore they are not excluded from the people of god, but are received and reckoned among the people of god. Or else tell me Simon, whether of the two is greater, baptism or the doctrine?  SIMON. 
The doctrine is greater than baptism.  JOIADA. 
What is the doctrine?  SIMO. 
The holy gospel: For Mark saith: Go throughout all the whole world, and preach the gospel unto every creature: matthew likewise: Teach them to keep what soever I have commanded you.  JOIADA. 
Doth then this gospel teach that the children are not of God?  SIMON. 
No, else it should be harder & more unmerciful than the law.  JOIO. 
Doth Christ command his disciples to preach that children ought too be rejected and cast away?  SIMON? 
No, But rather he doth chide his disciples because that they rebuked them, that brought children unto him.  JOIAD 
Thus I do conclude then, sith that in these words of christ. (Teach baptize) the doctrine is more excellent and greater, and yet children are not forbidden it, but rather brought unto it: It followeth that they are not forbidden baptism, which is less, 
Infants that die without baptism are not dampened  but rather ought to be brought unto it. Thus it is manifest and plain, that this commandment of Christ standeth with us, and not with you.  SI. 
It should follow that the infants which die without baptism, are not dampened.  IO 
That followeth plainly, & also this doth follow, that thou being overcomen with the truth, dost seek how to bring me into an other purpose, lest I should bind the more straightly.  SIM. 
I confess that I can say nothing against so manifest truth. But I have brought this of the children, to the intent that thou shouldest teach and instruct me in this point.  JOIA. 
justifying & salvation is much less bound to the outward elements than in times passed in the law. 
Why the infant is baptized.  Heb. ix. chap The infant therefore is not baptised for this intent, that by baptism, that is to say: by the outward washing of water, he should be made the child of god, but he is therefore baptised because he was afore the child of god through grace & promise. Wherefore if they die afore that the water of baptism be poured upon them, they are nevertheless the children of god, & are saved through the grace and promise of god, by the force & strength of the covenant, by the satisfaction of jesus Christ, that he made on the cross, for all mankind. In the generality of mankind, not only they, that are of age, but also children are included.  SIMO. 
By this mean, we should need no baptism. For if the child is already before the child of god, what good doth the water? whereby this also should follow, that baptism is bare water. 

We ought to speak reverently of the Sacraments The outward elements & signs being omitted & left in necessity can not damn one.  
The baptism of blood.    JOIAD. 
We must speak more reverently of the sacraments. None of the faithful is so alligated and bound to the elements, and outward things, that they may condemn him if they be omitted and left in necessity: for the blood of jesus Christ, hath cleansed him. I do call necessity, as when a child departeth before baptism, or when a man, being converted to the faith, is afore he can be baptized, taken to martyr do●n, which thing was often times done in the primitive church, for unto him the cross was in stead of baptism, wherefore the ancient fathers did call it the baptism of blood. Howbeit no man ought to neglect or contemn the order that Christ hath instituted, nor to despise baptism, if he may have it. If he condemneth or doth neglect to receive baptism when he may have it, he is no christian, but the disciple of julianus & Porphirius For if baptism were unprofitable, Christ would not have instituted it. All things that Christ hath given and left unto us, are excellent, holy, and profitable. Ergo, baptism is not only profitable unto us, but also most necessary: Farther more, we do add this also, that baptism touching the mattyer, is water, and yet it ought not to be contemned and cast away, or esteemed as the common water of the well. For the water is only part of it, and a certain sign. 
The whole action of baptism containeth great mysteries  But the whole action containeth a great mystery, and an honourable sacrament. Wherefore it was called by the holy fathers, a purging, & remission of sins, also, regeneration or renewing, and other like names. Not that the water hath the strength to purge or renew. For then Simon of Samaria, judas, Himeneus, Phyletus, and other false brethren and hypocrites had been cleansed and renewed, for than were washed with the water of Baptism. But it is plain and manifest, that they were not purged inwardly, but defiled with all iniquity and wickedness, that they were not the children of god, but the children of the devil. When therefore these godly & spiritual things are attributed unto baptism, they be not attributed unto the outward washing, but to the whole action, which containeth the faith of the minister, of the church & of him that is baptised, also the grace, election & promise of god. It is then chief attributed unto thee, which is signified by the pouring on of the water.  SI. 
what is signified them? 
What is signified by the pouring on of the water.   IO. 
That he which is baptised, is of the people of god, & that he is cleansed inwardly by the grace of the holy ghost, the wholesome water, that he is washed by the blood of Christ. & initiated unto a new life, even as water doth wash and cleanse the outward filthenesse.  SIM. 
very well, Sith, then that the mysteries of batisme are so high excellent, & holy, why, 
Circumcision was in times passed, a great sacrament.  I pray that are they given & ministered to infants, that are not able to receive so excellent things?  IO 
Was not circumcision in times passed, a great sacrament, a sign of the people of god, & an initiation or entrance into the true faith and innocency of life. Deu. x. Hier. iiii. Roma two & iiii Cham And yet it was given & ministered to the children, which long after were instructed in the law. Deu. vi. Why should we not do the same? Why should we not seal our children being newly born with the seal of the people of god? & when they be of age, bring them into knowledge of the gospel? Of this, 
Confirmation.  did spring among aunctant father's confirmation or bisshoping, that is to say, an establishing of those things, that were begun in baptism. The children were brought forth, they were asked of their faith, of the lords prayer & other necessary articles, wherein they were instructed & confirmed. Wherefore they that did bring the children to baptism, are witnesses that the child which is brought, is borne of Christian parents, asking both in their name, and in the parent's name, that the seal of the people of god may be given & ministered unto the child. Wherefore they be called in our vulgar tongue godfathers & god motheres, because that they bring the child to god, and witness that he is of god, promising that they will bring up the child in the true faith, if need should require. If ye ask, by what scriptures we do strengthen these our sainges, we do bring unto you the Analogy, or conveniency of the ceremones of the old law, that is to say, of circumcision: For even as in circumcision the children were brought unto the Lord, so we do read in the gospel the children were brought unto Christ.  SI 
I do let these things pass now, & return unto the first. Thou didst say if I remember well, that where Christ is not preached, that men must be taught first and then at length baptised. 
They ought not to go about to baptize where the gospel is not preached.   JOIA. 
So it is, nor it can be done none otherwise (as thou thyself dost know) for if any man should come in to Greekland where the Turk doth now raygn, & there would baptize, afore he had taught: should not lose his labour, for men being not yet taught what baptism is, or what it signifieth, would neither themselves receive baptism, nor suffer it to be ministered unto their children.  SIM. 
Did not, I prai that, the jews know, the god was their god & the god of their children?  IO. 
They kenws it right well, & therefore they circumcised their children.  SIM. 
what needeth them any preaching among the jues, that knew god already before? Why did they not by & by bring & intiate the children by baptism unto Christ?  IO. 
The Apostles did preach baptism against circumcision. The jews which tooth & nail defended circumcision. Therefore there was need of long preaching among the jews, that they might understand the baptism should be in stead of circumcision.  SIM. 
The anabaptists do say that ye teach these things without the scriptures.  IO. 
They should easily understand the baptism is come in the stead of circumcision if they would diligently look upon the use of them both. For in baptism, as in times passed in circumcision, the name is given unto children. So it is written. Luc two chapter. But these things are of little weight among you. Therefore we do refer all our sayings to the Acts of the Apostles. x. xi. xv. and Collosse. ii chapte. For there Paul doth comfort the faithful that were of the gentiles, & biddeth them that they should not be sorry, because they were not circumcised: for why? Baptism was the circumcision of the faithful.  SIMON. 
But there he doth plainly and with express words speak of the circumcision that is done without hands, understanding thereby a renewing of the mind & of the inward man.  IO. 
We speak of none other. But in the mean season Paul doth mean that Jewish circumcision, that was done in the privy member with a flint stone, and with hands. I say that ye are circumcised, O ye colossenses, and have a circumcision, not that circumcision that is done with hands, but in stead of the bodily & outward circumcision, ye have Christ's circumcision, that is to say, baptism. For as by circumcision, the cutting away of affections was signified: so by the washing, done in the water of baptism, the purging & cleansing from sin, is fygurated & betokened. That this is the true meaning & sense of this place I will prove by the very words of Paul In Christ (saith he) ye are complete, which is the head of all rule & power, by whom ye are circumcised with the circumcision that is made without hands, when ye did put of the sinful body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, being buried together with him, through baptism, in the which also ye be risen with him, by the faith wrought in you of god, which raised him from the dead. Bring hither to this place that vi to the Rom. & confer them together, and thou shalt understand the baptism is called the circumcision of Christ, & also the baptism hath been placed in the stead of the circumcision. Upon these things I do conclude after this manner: Young children were in times passed, circumcised. Baptism occupieth the place & roum of circumcision: ergo, our children must be baptised  SI. 
What, on the viii day?  IO. 
We are bound neither to time nor too place, but we are free from all those things by Christ All things then being considered, 
We are free from all outward ceremonies of the law by Christ.  it is manifest and plain, that the baptism of children is of god, against the which, sith that the anabaptists do repugn, it is without doubt. that they do contrary the gospel, the election of God, and the everlasting covenant. They are therefore over bold & rash, they are open violatours or breakers of the covenant of god, unfaith full against god, sith that they do exclude and debar them from the covenant of God, whom gods grace doth comprehend in the covenant.  SIMON. 
Yet ye have no express word of God, the children ought to be baptised.  JOIA. 
Shall not all that we have hitherto alleged and brought, prove the same? But go to, put the case that we have no express word thereof in the scriptures. Tell thou, where have ye one express word the children ought not to be baptized?  SIM. 
Teach baptyzing. Again: They came and confessed their sins. Item: They that received the word gladly. were baptized. 
Baptism is in the stead of circumcision.  And he that believeth and is baptised.  JOIA. 
I have answered already before to all these: but so ye are wont to repeat every foot, your bald reasons and arguments. 
The Anabaptists are prompt & quick to speak, but not ready to give place to the truth.  For ye are very prompt & quick to speak, but not so ready to give place to the truth. I have not yet heard in all thine allegations, any such saying or sentence. Children ought not to be baptised.  SIM. 
But that doth follow of the places afore alleged.  JOIA. 
This is neither commanded there, nor yet forbidden. Besides that, your consequences are false, and without foundation. If ye be nothing ashamed of your false consequences, we will be nothing ashamed of our true. Therefore when ye cry out saying. Where doth the scripture teach that children ought to be baptized? we cry again: Where doth the scripture forbidden to baptize them? Ye do answer in the last of Mark. We bring against you. Gene. xvii Mark ten i. Corinth. seven. Act. x. Colloss. two Chap. Moreover, we do submit these our sayings and writings, to the judgement of all godly persons. Whether that it be more like unto the truth, that they do exclude & debar the children whom Christ hath washed with his blood, from the covenant of god (for why do they deny unto them, the sign of the covenant: and of the cleansing?) or that we do teach the children to be of god, redeemed by Christ jesus, whom he biddeth & willeth to be brought unto him, & also too be baptised? judge thou Simon, and tell me whether of them is more like to be true.  SIM. 
If the matter be considered by itself, all contention being laid aside, the which ye say is most true, and most weighty. But this I do wonder and marvel at, that thou dost say, that the baptism of children hath continued in the church, ever since the time of the apostles, which apostles did never baptize children. Here I do most earnestly desire the to bring forth whatsoever thou hast yet in store, I will gladly receive all truth: for many of us have thought hitherto, that the baptism of children was brought in by the bishop of Rome   

¶ The third Dialogue. That the baptism of children hath continued in the church of Christ, ever since the apostles, unto this time.  JOIADA. 
No man can deny, but the the bishop of Rome & the fathers have added certain things to the baptism of Christ, but no man that is wise, will say that it had his beginning of them, that is to say, that did begin the baptism of children. Those things then that were added, and were repugnant unto the word of god, were taken away again, lest any man should make any business for it. As for that, that ye bring against us, that the apostles did never baptize children, no man living is able too prove it. For I will show no small arguments, that the apostles did baptize children, whereby thou shalt easily understand that the baptism of children hath continued in the church of Christ, ever since the apostles time, & that it is no new invention of the bishop of Rome. 
i Certain arguments against the Anabaptists.  First, we do make our argument upon the force & strength of the precept and commandment of christ & of the doctrine, after this manner: Christ did send his disciples to preach the gospel & to baptize: ergo, he did send them to baptize children. 
The prove of the consequence, or argument   SI. 
I deny the consequence  IO. 
But I will prove it after this manner It is so far, that the gospel should: reject & cast back the children, that it doth rather bring than unto Christ. Now the doctrine is greater than baptism i Cor. i. cha. If the, which is greater, that is to say, the gospel is the children's, that then, which is lass that is to say, baptism shall be theirs, Ergo, the apostles did baptize the children  

ij  The second argument may be made and gathered upon the nature of him, to whom baptism is due, and which is able too receive baptism. As many as god doth reckon among the fideles or faithful, they are fideles, or faithful. For Peter did hear this saying of the Lord. That god hath purified or made clean, call thou it not common or unclean. Acts. x. chapter. He doth put the children in the number of the faithful: Ergo, the children are of the number of the fideles or faithful, and ought to be counted & reputed of us among the fideles, or faithful, unless we will repugn against god and be stronger than he. Now it is most certain, that the apostles did baptize all them that christ commanded them to baptize. Christ commanded them too baptize the faithful (as ye yourselves do grant and confess) Ergo, the Apostles did baptize the children. The second proposition (which is, that the children are of the number of the faithful) is known well enough.  

iii.  The third argument is gathered upon the fact of Peter, which is peculiar, but yet in it the public administraction of baptism is touched. He could not forbid them the water of baptism, that had received the holy ghost, but sealed them as the people of god. Ergo, he could not deny baptism unto the children, sith that he had learned in the gospel that the children be of god, & that the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Who would think, that any man is meet for the kingdom of heaven, without the holy spirit?  

iiii.  We do make & gather the fourth argument upon the strength & force of circumcision, in stead whereof, baptism is in the church of Christ. As many as were the servants of god, did afore all things, labour & endeavour themselves, to circumcise their children. josu. v. Exo. iiii. The Apostles were the most faithful ministers of god: Then did not they omit or leave the thing, that was not brought in, in stead of the circumcision, Ergo, they did baptize, not only them that were of age, but also children.  

v.  fifthly we do thus reason upon the use & custom of the Aposltes. The Apostles of Christ did direct all their doings to the conveniency & example of the old testament.  
This we do prove by the .iiii. Evangelists, the Acts of the apostles, by the epistles of the Apostles, Rom. xv. two. Cor. two. two. Tim. iii. two. Peter i chap. Ergo, they did order baptism after the Analogy and figure of the old Testament. The going through the red sea, 
The going through the read sea, is a figure of baptism  was a type & figure of the baptism that was to come i Cor. x. cha. Children were in the figure (for both men and women went through with their children) Ergo the apostles did not deny baptism unto the children. The custom & manner of the scripture (which custom and manner is used almost among all nations) is not to rehearse by name, women & children, and yet nevertheless it doth include them, for in the name of the father of the family, or of the good man of the house, all his whole family is comprehended, as in the chief or head. If this were not, women should be in no small jeopardy, if therefore they were not of god, because that they be not circumcised. All these things are done, by the means & help of a figure that is called Synecdoche. The sixth argument shallbe taken out of the manifest and express testimonies of the apostles. The apostles did baptize all whole households and famylies, ergo they did baptize children also, for the children are in the number of the family or household. This we do prove by the xvii of Gene. For Abraham doth circumcise all the male children that were in his house. For he understood the promise of god, that saith. I shall be thy god, & the god of thy seed. Likewise in the new Testament, when the goodman of the house, had herd & believed the gospel, that is to say, the god was his god, & the god of his seed also, he caused all them that were in his house both great and small, to be baptised. Thus the apostles did baptise hole households and famylies. That the children do pertain unto the fathers household & family, it is plain & manifest by the xii of Exodus & two. of the Acts: this do I inculcat & beat the oftener into men's heads, because that I see the Anabaptists to be at this point that they do exclude the children from the family & household. for they can not deny but the hole households were baptised by the Apostles. But who doth not see, that this cometh of mere contention? For though they could prove that there were no children at all in the famylies & households, that the apostles did baptize, yet had they not proved that all families or households were, or be without children: wherefore we do make again our argument after this manner The Apostles baptised all whole households, ergo, they did baptize children, sith the children be the principal & chief part of the family & household. But let us put the case, that there were no children in those families & households, that the Apostles did baptize, yet do they pertain & belong to the household, & are reckoned in it, and if there had been any, they would have baptised them. For they did baptize the whole household. The fault than should not have been in the Apostles nor in the children, that they were not baptised: but this had been the cause that they had been baptised, because that there were none: For if they had had children they would have baptized them.  
seventhly, we do gather by the histories & chronicles that the baptism of children hath continued ever since the apostles time, unto this time. Origene, which in the year of our salvation. c.c. & xii did live in the church of Alexandria, doth in his v. book, that he did writ upon the epistle to the Romans, testify and witness that he hath received the baptism of children, from, or of the Apostles. After this time, about the year of our Lord. C.c.lu. the holy man Cipryan was, he doth prove, & that with no small arguments, the baptism of children, in the iii book of his Epistles, and viii. epistle Adfidum, To fidus. In the year of our lord. c.c.c.xx. Lactantius did write in the four book of his divine Insttution, the baptism was come in the stead of circumcision whereby all nations should be gathered unto the faith, & into the church. 
Lactantius in his iiii. book, & iiii. chapte  Jerome which did live about the year of our lord c.c.c. & lxx. doth with plain & express scriptures prove the baptism of children to Leta and against the Pelagians. In the same self time and xl years after. Augustyn, being a man endued with great holiness of life, with exceeding great erudition & learning, & with a sharp and exact judgement did teach in Aphrica. This man writeth many things of baptism against the donatists, to Marcellinus & Petilianus, where he doth manifestly say, 
christ could not be baptised afore the baptism was instituted by John. For the law did regne till them.  that the church hath received the baptism of children, from the apostles. I have brought these things therefore that thou mayst see & understand, that the baptism of children is no new invention, & that they which teach such things do lean to no truth, but to plain error. For although christ was not baptised, till he was xxx years old, yet being an infant he was circumcised upon the eight day, that I should in the mean season let pass, that baptism was not yet instituted, which had his beginning of Ihon. But now we will strike up our sail clothes, and show how unkunninglye ye gather your arguments, when ye do reason after this manner. We do not read that the apostles did baptize the children of the faithful: Ergo, they ought not to be baptized. If we should only go by conjectures and reason, it is more likely, that the Apostles did baptize the infants then otherwise in the family, and household of Stephana, of Lydia, of the keeper of the prison, & of other, if at lest, there were any infants in those families and households, 
Do not think good reader that we go about to defend unwritten verities.  which examples ye shall never be able to confute. There be many things done both by Christ and by the apostles, that never were written. Nor we can not make our argument after this manner: This thing was not done. ergo, it may not lawfully be done. That we should grant unto you the the apostles did baptize no children, yet have ye not proved therefore, that children ought not to be baptised. Again we may not to this affirmative. (The apostles did baptize them that were of age & did believe) infer or bring in, this negative (Ergo children ought not to be baptised) for we may never, neither in the profane nor yet in the holy scriptures, make our argument, a facto ad ius, 
To argument or reason a facto ad ius is when we go about to prove a thing to be lawful because the it was done afore, or else to be unlawful because it was not done afore  but than it is lawful to bring the fact and deed for a law, when it is proved that the deed was done rightfully.  SIMON. 
As I do hear the controversy is of the fact, and of the right or lawfulness.  IOI. 
Thou sayest truth if any thing be lawful, as soon as thou hast done it, thou hast done well though that none of the apostles did it afore the. Therefore baptism ought not to be denied unto infants, because that we do not read expressly, that the apostles did baptize infants. Both because that it may be, that they did baptize infants (as we have proved & showed already, and hereafter, if need be, will show more largely) & yet it was not written, & also because that no man's facts ought to be prejudicial unto the law, much less the things that are left undone. Therefore, if it were written any where with plain & express words of the apostles after this manner: The apostles did not baptize infants, yet it should not follow that they ought not too be baptized: but we ought too inquire and search, whether that they left it undone, because that it was not lawful, Christ did not baptize. 
Christ did not baptis & yet we ought to baptize.  Ihon. iiii. Ergo, after or according to your saying, we ought not to baptize at al. Who is so mad to say so? For the Apostles did baptize & that lawfully. Ergo, If the apostles, did baptize lawfully, though christ him silf did never baptize, we shall also lawfully baptize infants, though the apostles did not baptize. There is no diversity at all, yea, we have gotten the better end of the staff, sith that we have Christ the did not baptize, & yet we ought to baptize, and ye only have the apostles. Bring ye therefore any law that forbiddeth to baptize children. We do not go about by these reasons & examples, as by some strong foundation, to prove or strengthen the baptism of infants (For we have many other strong arguments & foundations) But we will show, the ye do both rashly & lyingly say, that the apostles did never baptize infants or young babes. For ye have no testimony of that thing. And though ye had never so much, yet it should not follow therefore, that infants ought not to be baptised: For upon a thing that is done, or left undone, nothing can besureli concluded, but only upon that, which is sure by god's word to be lawful. Again, we did bring so many reasons & examples to this intent, that we might prove that it is more likely, that they did baptize children than otherwise.  SI. 
Thou dost boast much of foundations, 
The children are as well of the people of god, by the strength of the covenant as their parents.  but thou bringest forth very little. I pray thee, which be these strong foundations.  IO. 
I have cast this foundation, that the children of the faithful are as well within the church, and among the Children of god, as the parents & that by the force and strength of the promise, as well as they were in the old Testament. Besides the, circumcision (as touching the sacramental meaning) was the same thing unto them, that baptism was unto us. Did I not already both say & prove these things? Why sayest thou then that I have brought yet little or nothing?  SIMON. 
Why dost thou take all things out of the old Testament.  IO. 
I know what the matter is, ye cast away the old Testament, for ye see that the baptism of children may be proved & defended by it Did not both Christ and his Apostles a allege the old Testament, when so ever they would prove and strengthen their sayings Or tell me now when Christ doth bid the jews to search the scriptures, doth he not send them to the old Testament?  SIM, 
I do not deny that.  IOI. 
Why do ye blame us then, if we following the example of Christ, do strengthen & confirm our sayings with the scriptures of the old Testament? 
The new Testament & the old are included one with in an other  The new testament is included in the old, and the old doth shadow & prove the new. If thou be sufficiently persuaded in this conclusion, let us pass forth to the other.  SI. 
Certain things do please me well, but that thou dost reckon & number the children in the family and household, I do not see it proved yet.  IO. 
Didst thou never see then, that men are borne of men? & that parents (I mean fathers and mothers) do nourish, keep, & bring up their children? Haste thou so cast of all human reason, understanding and affection? But yet in this most plain matter, I will bring and allege the scriptures. Acts ii Chapter. We read after this manner: And all they that believed, were together, or in one place, and had all things comen among them. Here I do ask thee, whether the faithful had their children with them, or not? If they had them, why should they not be then of their family and household. If they had them not, why do we not read then, that the faithful took thought, because they might not have their children with them? Or was the spirit that governed them so cruel, that it did teach them to put away their children,  SIMON. 
We will not say, that they had not them with them, or that they did not bring them up, but that they were not in the family and household of Christ.  JOIADA. 
Whom do ye comprehend then, under the name of family or household?  SSMON. 
Such as be of that age already, that they may know what the law is, & what sin is. For he that will be baptized, must repent: sith that infants can not repent, they can not be comprehended under the name of the family, or household.  JOIADA. 
Why dost thou still make up a rope of sand, have we not proved already before that, not only they that be of age, ought too be baptized: But year so stiff necked that ye will in no wise believe, that any may be baptized, unless he may repent of his misdeeds. And by and by ye do conclude that, ergo, children ought not to be baptized. But in the mean season, ye have not yet showed any law the orbiddeth to baptize the children. We (as we have declared before already) do know, 
Isaac. Agar. Ishmael.  that Isaac being an infant was so of the family & household of Abraham that he did cause his father to put away the bond woman, with her child. For Paul saith with Moses: The son of the bond woman shall not be heir, with my son Isaac, he was heir, than without doubt he was of the family, for they that be not heirs, as servants & free men are of the family. Exo. xii. We read after this manner: If any stranger will come to dwell among you, & keep the passover of the lord, let all his male children be circumcised, & then he shall keep it well. Why is it said, all his male children? Doth this pertain only to them the be of age? It is your part then to prove, that they which receive the seal of the church of god, according to the religion of their parents, are not of the family and household of their parents. But I will bring an oher testimony. In the xxi of Acts, Luke writeth after this manner: And after certain days, we departed from thence & they all brought us on our way, with their wives & children. Were all these children of age? Or if they were not of age, were they not of the family & household of their parents? What miracle, or what affection was it if the men did only bring forth the apostle on his way, with their wives & young men? But this was the great affection, that the fathers with their wives, did bear & draw their children with them, as in such a business it is wont to be. Now, they did not draw with them, other men's, but their own children. Ergo, they were of their family.  SI. 
What though they pertain to their family & household? Doth it follow therefore that they were baptised?  IO. 
How should then Paul say, that he hath baptised the household of Stephana, which he had not baptised, if there were children in it, whom he had not admitted or received? Again, in the Acts, it is said. He was baptized (that is to say) (the keeper of the prison) & all his household. 
At the begining of the church the faithful were wont to follow the example of Abraham and of his posterity.  Why will ye not see that at the beginning, the faithful were wont to do as Abraham & his posterity, which did circumcise all their servants, & not only their children? And in the xii of Exodus (as it is said already before) all the male children of the family, are commanded to be circumcised & yet there no mention of faith, or of the knowledge of god (which things ought to be cared for above all things) is made there.  SI. 
Thou seemest to me always to leave those things, the make against thee. For in the epistle to the Corin. Paul nameth such a family and household, doth manifestly declare, that not infants & young babes, but such as have reason & understanding, aught to be understanded. For he saith: ye know the house of Stephana, that they are the first fruits of Achaia, & have given themselves to the service of the saints be ye obedient to them, and to all the work & labour with them. Why do ye not speak of such a family & household?  IO. 
We have said already, & that often, that this is a synecdochical phrase, or manner of speaking: such as is i Cor. x.. Al our fathers were under the cloud, for infants were also under the cloud: but no express mention is made of them. All went through the sea, but the infants could not go through They went through then, that went not thorough, but were born by them that went thorough. So there were some in the family of Stephana, that believed first of all Achaia, there were also some of the congregation that could not yet believe in deed, for lack of age, nor give themselves to the ministry & service of the Saints. All were baptised in Moses: he speaketh all things of the fathers that is to lay, of the ancestors & grandfathers whom notwithstanding, we do so take, that they that were then children, are now called fathers by Paul. For the people of Israel was of them. Therefore, not only they that were of age, were baptised in Moses, but also the infants. For if they that were then infants, were not baptised in the going thorough of the red sea, then Paul said not well that all were baptised in Moses. For they were also (as we have said afore) the fathers of them that came after.  SIM. 
This was a figure, what shalt thou then prove by it?  IO. 
I am well content. It was a figure that as the infants were then of the family as well of the earthly father, as of the heavenly, and were signed or sealed with their sacraments, that so now, they that are the children of the christians, sith that they are the children of god also, aught to use the sacrament of the children of god. Thou canst find no starting hole, to escape at. For ye do foolishly upon facts and examples, bring in a negative: yea, rather upon neither facts nor examples, that is to say, ye do unwisely make your argument, after this manner: This thing was done, as we may prove both by testimonies & examples: Ergo, that thing ought not to be done. For what other thing can ye allege for yourselves: but we do not read, that the apostles did baptize infants: ergo, they ought not to be baptised. We do not so: but we might stay our selves upon facts & examples (if ye would stand to) after this manner. The infants of the hebrews were all baptised under the cloud, & in the sea●, as well as ours. For Paul doth altogether prove there in the foresaid place, that they were no less initiated with our sacraments, than we are our selves. First & formest, than it followeth, that in Paul's time, 
The fathers had the same sacraments that we have  the apostles were wont to baptize infants. Secondly, that whosoever denieth that he doth depravate & mar the sentence of Paul. For what other thing doth he there, but make all things equal? and that we are not above, or superiors unto them, nor they inferyours unto us? For he attributeth the same sacraments unto them, that we have, & the same unto us, that they had, as Colloss. two. Now all those ancient fathers could not have been baptised as well as we, if we be not all baptised with our family & households. Them all therefore being baptised and made equal unto us it is manifest and plain, that as all their infants were baptised in the red sea in Moses that so in the apostles time, all the children of the christians, 
This figure Senecdoche is when either some whole thing, is taken for part of it, or part of it for the whole, as ye shall hereafter have examples enough.  were baptised in Christ. It is then Sinecdochically spoken of the children of Israel: They went all through the sea, where as, after the letter or literally, the going thorough, is applied only unto them, that were in health, & of age to go through theirselves. And all they did eat one spiritual meat, where as they only did eat, that were spiritual, & yet nevertheless it is spoken of all them that did eat. In like manner, if paul in this place had added this word (All) & so had said: All they of the house of Stephana have given themselves to the ministery & service of the saints, yet by the force & strength of this figure Synecdoche we should understand, that there were infants in the family and household, and that they, which had believed already, had given themselves unto the Lord. For this is the nature of this figure Synecdoche, that when there is some whole body, that hath many parts, which in some thing are like, & in some thing unlike, if any thing is spoken of the whole body, the same may be understanded of a singular part of it: Again, if any thing is spoken of any singular part, the same may like wise be understand of the whole body. Learn ye this that I say, by familiar examples. All whole jury went forth unto him: Here ye see, that all jury is put only for them, that went forth unto him, & that there be to manner of Synecdoche, the one whereby that which containeth any thing, is taken for that, which is contained, as the country of jury, for all the inhabitors: & the other, whereby, it is said that all the inhabitors went forth, where as part only did go forth unto him. Contrary wise in Isaiah. 
The daughters of Zion.  iii. Because that the daughteres of Zion, are waxed proud, there the daughters are part of Zion. and yet they are taken for all the whole people, and especially for the princes and rulers, which ungodly did rise against the Lord. Exo xvi. All the congregation did murmur against Moses. But how did the children murmur, which knew not what was done? 
The anabaptists are ignorant in those things that serve to expound the letter which they stick to always.  If they did not murmur & grudge all the congregation did not murmur: For the infants were of the congregation. Now see, I pray that, what prating smatteres ye are, the thing, that ye trust most upon, ye are most shamefully ignorant in. For ye stick to the letter, but ye are ignorant in the thing, that doth most chiefly serve to understand & expound the letter. Tell I beseech that, Simon to whom is it said: Do not take the name of thy Lord god in vain. Thou shalt not steal, & such like?  SI. 
To them that were of age, which are the people, & congregation of god.  IO. 
Ergo, because that these things can not be said unto the children, shall they not be of the church & people of God? God forbidden: For Infants were the members of the people of god, & fathers of nations & peoples. Gene. xxv. It is plain and manifest then, that what soever is spoken, to any whole body or generality: 
Mark ye this.  And in the same generaletye there is some part, to whom that which is spoken, is not applied, yet notwithstanding it is of the body, yea, though certain thing do pertain nothing unto it. Again, if any thing be spoken to part of the body, or of the generality, which not withstanding, doth not pertain unto the part: It pertaineth so to the whole body, that it toucheth and admonisheth only those parts, that may be subject unto that, which is spoken. Thou art mine inheritance, O Israel. To whom is this spoken? Is not this spoken to the whole posterity of Israel? But children do not understand it. It followeth not therefore, that they are not of the inheritance or of the peculiar people. But though it is a part, that understandeth not what is said, yet nevertheless it pertaineth to the whole body. In like manner, when Christ saith: Go ye, teach all nations baptizing them &c. The apostles did teach as many as were able to receive the doctrine, & baptised as many, as were able to receive baptism,  SI. 
Therefore I do think the infants ought not to be baptised, sith that Christ saith so expressly: Go thorough out all the whole world, & preach the gospel, whosoever shall believe & is baptised etc. Going forth, teach ye all nations.  IO. 
This is the only refuge that ye always flee to, although Christ, had instituted baptism there, where as John & the apostles did both preach & baptize long afore, when Christ was yet a live: 
The contention was among the apostles touching the preaching of the gospel to the gentles.  There was a contention among the apostles, whether the gospel ought to be preached to the gentiles, or not. Which contention did rise partly of a false conclusion & conjecture, & parttely of a likelihood. The false conclusion or coniectur was this: Christ is promised unto us, ergo he doth not pertain or belong to that gentiles. Who is so without understanding, which doth not perceive, that this can follow by no mean? The messias is promised unto us that be jews, ergo, he doth nothing pertain to gentiles. For it may be that he is also promised to the gentiles, which thing the scriptures do testify in many places. In the same self manner do ye gather your argument, but falsely: The writings of the apostles do testify & witness, that they did baptize them, that had both hard & believed the word: ergo, they did not baptize infants. For these ii sentences may both be true. The apostles did baptize them that believed: &: the Apostles did baptize infants. Ye do make an indefinite proposityon, an exclusive or negative proposition, that is to say, ye do make of a sentence that affirmeth, a sentence the utterly deneith. For both these are negatyves: No man ought to be baptised, unless he doth believe, &: Infants ought not to be baptised. Ye were not hitherto able to prove any of them by the scriptures. The likelihood whereby the apostles were moved to think, that the gospel ought not to be preached, unto the gentiles, was this: In their first mission & sending, they were forbidden to go into that way of the gentiles: which word might had caused them to contend & strive, and that stoutly, that Christ was minded to keep himself for the hebrews only. If ye had now any such word, O lord god, so ye would triumph against us. Mark thou therefore. These ii commundementes (Go ye & teach all nations baptizing them: &: God through out all the whole world, & preach the gospel) were a dispensation & an abolisshing of this interdict or prohibition (ye shall not go into the way of the gentiles.) For they had already before both taught and baptized, which thing either ye do not mark, or else ye do dissemble it craftily. He doth therefore open the whole province of all the whole world unto them the were afore included & in a manner shut up with in the borders of Iury. These places then are set against the first, 
Antithesis is a figure where by one contrary is set against the other.  as two Anttytheses.  SI. 
The place the thou hast alleged before out of the second of the Act, doth make greatli against thee. For it should follow, the infants had both sold & distributed their goods, & many other things might be gathered thereupon.  JOIADA. 
When ye gather your argument after this manner: If the infants be numbered among the faithful: It followeth, the they did sell and distribute their goods, the they did pray & break bread, for they the believed, did so. Who doth not see, that ye expound all things after the letter, & yet ye do not weigh & ponder it? The infants are of the family & household of their parents, which thing we have proved sufficiently before, whom sith that ye had rather to comprehend under the name of houlshold stuff, then of the faithful, ye do not only in this thing, most ungodly, but also most cruelly. It is not requieted in this figure Synecdoche, that whatsoever is spoken or said of some whole body the same be verified of all parts. For then it is no Synecdoche: When that which is spoken, may be verified of all parts, it is no trope nor figure. But then it is a true synecdoche, when either some part is taken for the whole body, or else the whole body for part thereof. As in Exo. xxiii. where it is written: That all the male kind shall appear before the Lord thrice in the year, here thou seest this word (All) Tell me now, were all the children in the cradles carried from all Palestina thrice in the year to Jerusalem? If thou say est that it was so, ergo the infants (according to thy reason) did vii days eat unleavened bread, did sow fields, did offer the first fruits. Which thing sith that they did not: it followeth that the male children are not comprehended. If they were not brought, than this is not true that all the male kind did thrice in the year appear before the lord: & though at the first sight, it seemeth to have a show, that all the male children are commanded to come to the three feasts, yet for all that, they are only bound by the law, that are of the age, that may hear & understand the doctrine, or offer the first fruits, or bear about branches of trees according to the variety of the feasts & fashion of the rights As it is written Deut. xxxi of the coming to the lecture or reading of the law: it appeareth the those children did come, which did alredi begin to understand, what was red.  SI. 
What is this figure Synecdoche, or from whence doth it come?  IO. 
Synecdoche, is compounded of Sin, 
Whereof synecdoch cometh.  eke, and Dechome. As if a man should say: When I do take an whole body, I do understand some thing a part, or by itself of those things, the are together comprehended in the same body. It may in latin be called comprehensio, howbeit it agreeth not all together with the Greek word. But what do we strive for the word? Tell me now, have these things that we have reasoned upon he thereto, satisfied thee?  SI. 
I have nothing to say against so manifest scriptures. Nor it is not decent that a man should repugn against the truth. I would that thou shouldest take mine objections although, they did proceed from an ignorance person, which yet coveteth to be taught and instructed.    

¶ Imprinted at Worceter by John Oswen.  
ANNO. DO. 1551.  
☞ Cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum.