THE COPY OF A LETTER SENT TO A GENTLEWOMAN ONE OF THE SEPARATION IN HOLLAND. In Answer to a Letter of Hers, written to her Sister, being a member of one of those Societies, commonly (though falsely) called the new Anabaptists in London.  
Wherein are briefly set down their reasons against the baptising of Infants: together with the grounds of their denial, of sprinkling water upon the face in any name whatsoever, to be Baptism: And them of the Separation justly charged for not walking answerable to their own Principles.  
By R. B.  
LONDON; Printed in the year of liberty, 1642.   

THE COPY OF A LETTER Sent to a Gentlewoman, one of the Separation in Holland:  
Mistress M. B.  
AND our friend in the common Faith, we wish grace and peace through the knowledge of our Lord jesus Christ, to be multiplied unto you, & unto all that love our Lord jesus Christ in sincerity Amen.  
We have understood dear friend, from your Sister and ours, that you desire to have communicated unto you, the grounds of our now practice, which your request we think reasonable, and ourselves bound to satisfy you in. Our holding and practising of a communion of Saints in Church fellowship, separated from such as with whom the believer hath no part: 2. Cor, 6.15. we think you seek not a reason of it being that which you are convinced of as well as we; nor do we think that you seek to be informed, that there is an ordinance of God to be submitted unto, by believers, called Baptism: but your inquiry is as we conceive, wherefore we who have (as we have been told) had that done unto us in our Infancy, which is commonly called Baptism, should notwithstanding repute ourselves as unbaptised persons, and should become baptised, as if we had 〈◊〉 Baptism before, for which our practice, we present you with these ground●● only premising, that to be baptised is one of the counsels of God which may not be rejected, Luke. 7.30.  
First, infants are not the subjects of Baptism, or are not the persons whom God hath appointed to be baptised.  
Secondly, the sprinkling water upon the face, which is all that we ever heard of (that we had) is not Baptism.  
Thirdly, that which we in our Infancy had, if sprinkling was Baptism, and Infants the subjects yet by the Separations own grounds was not God's Ordinance seeing the Church was false, where, and the ministry by whom we had it, and where there is neither true Church nor true Ministry, there can be no true religious administration, and as well as Mr. Can, may manage separation from the Nonconformists principles: may we manage our practice from the Principles of yours, and Master Can, we think therein doth well, it being the course which the Lord takes with the Jews, and Paul with them of Corinth, 1 Cor. 7. and Luke 13.15.  
But to the first of these three. Infants are not the subjects of Baptism, as appeareth to us by these reasons.  
First, there is in all the word of God no command given to any person or persons, officers, or persons out of office, to baptise them: Now if the word of God be true, where it saith; all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction, in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work, 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. the Scriptures giving no direction in the doing of nor unto any to do that work, it can be no good work, and there are of works, but good and bad, and our being so often called to the Law and to the Testimonies, and our being bid to give heed unto that sure word of prophecy, that shineth as a light in a dark place, with an affirmation that if we give heed thereunto we shall do well, cannot but imply at the least, that we shall omit no duty, while we do but what is written: and the Baptising of Infants not being by God enjoined unto, or upon any, nor by his word recorded to have been done by any, it can be as no good work, so no work of light; and the Servants of God may not walk in darkness. Hence do we in one respect decline that practice as an unwritten unverity.  
Secondly, Infants have not in them those requisites that are necessary in that service, which are, R●●●●tance from dead works, and faith towards God. Heb. 6.1. & Act. 8.36, 37. 〈◊〉. 2.38. and we think that of the English common Service Book, will be no objection of yours; saying, yes they do perform them by their sureties?  
If you object that though repentance and faith were requisites in persons of years yet it followeth not that those or either of them, are required of Infants, who by reason of their tender years cannot perform them:  
We give thereunto three Answers.  
First, as little as we find in the Scriptures, of the requiring of faith and repentance at the hands of Infants do we find of the Baptising of Infants: wherefore if the not requiring of Faith and repentance from Infants, be a sufficient exemption to them, from demonstrating either; then in like manner by the same proportion, will the not requiring of Infants to be Baptised, and the not requiring of any to baptise them, be a sufficient exemption both to the one, and to the other: That is our first answer.  
Secondly, We find that in all Ordinances, whereunto both old and young indefinitely had access, that which was a requisite in one person, was a requisite in every person, and was found indefinitely both in old and young. To eat the Passeover, Circumcision was required, to precede, and that was all that was required, Exod. 12.47 48, 49, 50. To Circumcision was required that the persons were Males, borne in Abraham's house, of his Children or strangers, or bought with his money of all the Heathen that were round about, Gen. 17.12.23.27. Exod. 12.44. these requisites we say, being all that were minded, suited with the condition of every one, and for us to hold out access to Christ in his Ordinances, to one by this way and to another by that, what is it but to make the Scriptures to be of private interpretation, and to make Christ who is one, and his way one, to become divided? this is to us likewise considerable.  
Lastly, that which will give admittance to one Ordinance, will give admittance unto another of like nature: now if the Sacraments (as they are called) or the new Covenant, be like the new Covenant, viz. spiritual, which who dares deny;  
Then that which will give admittance unto Baptism, will give admittance to the Lords Supper: and thus have we such as neither have faith, nor ever professed to have any, admitted to the Church, and to all the Ordinances thereof, and what is this but to make the new Covenant as carnal as the old, and the subjects of the one as carnal as the subjects of the other: and the blood of Christ to be of no more value, than the blood of Fulls and Goats, that could not take away sin, Heb. 8.6, 7, 8. 1 Cor. 11.27 28.  
Thirdly, the faith of the persons (that ever have any) baptised in their Infancy, in the use of their baptism when they come to years, can be built but upon humane Testimony, commonly that of a Parish Clarke: and to have our faith stand in the truth of men, is to have a foundation for it, like that of the wisdom of men: which is opposed to the demonstration of the spirit and power of God; 1 Cor. 2.3, 4, 5.  
If you object their, being circumcised in their Infancy.  
We answer, that it viz. Circumcision left a mark in their flesh, which they could not but take notice of: and therefore their knowledge of their being circumcised depended not upon the testimony of others.  
Fourthly, they cannot rise with Christ in Baptism, for they being Infants are only passive, and rising with Christ in Baptism, being a part of Baptism, or being by Baptised persons done in Baptism, they cannot be baptised, the one half of Baptism, being the act of the baptised seeing they cannot act, Col. 2.12. Like as they cannot partake of the Lords Supper that cannot eat, let the administrator do unto them what he can.  
And thus we come to the second head, viz. That sprinkling of water upon the face of any person young or old is not Baptism, let it be done in what Name or with what Ceremonies it will: which is proved to us by these reasons.  
First because that the word which is translated into English, Baptise, signifieth to dipp into water, and as sprinkling water upon a thing, is not dipping the thing into water, but the contrary: so is sprinkling water upon a thing not Baptism, but contrary to it, Thatthe Greek word which is translated baptise, so signifieth viz. to dip into water, we have the Testimonies both of the Translators of the Scriptures, of Paraphrases, Expositors, and others, we will not here trouble you with many. Isaac Causaben in his notes upon Math. 3.6. they were baptised in jordan, saith thus, the manner of Baptism was to plunge the person Baptised over head in water, and is that which the word Baptising fully declareth; and by and by, it was not for nothing that some have disputed for the plunging of the whole body into water in Baptism, for they urged the very word. Doctor Downame in his Book of Divinity hath the same words in effect. V●sinus, in his Catechism in the title of baptism ingenuously confesseth, that the East Churches did Baptise by dipping the whole body into water, in the 409. Page of his Book, and this signification: Ainsworth in his Annotations 〈◊〉 Numb. 
●●lvin● In●ons. Chap. 〈◊〉 441.  11. Levit. 15. confesseth that word to have, but had we not these and a multitude of other Testimonies, the Scriptures in declaring the practices of God's servants, give us light enough, john 3.23. john baptised in Aenon, because there was much water there: which argueth a use of much water in baptism, else that which is there rendered as a reason of his Baptising in denon, cannot be reasonably expounded, Math. 3.4 5 6, 7. jesus came unto john to jordain to be baptised, and is said to come up out of the waters when he was Baptised, which intimateth, that he went into the water to be baptised, as the Eunuch and Philip are both said to do, Acts 8.36, 37, 38. Besides these Testimonies and practices, the correspondency which the Apostle makes Baptism to hold with burial, in 1 Cor. 15. and Rom. 6. Col. 2. holds out the same thing.  
And lastly the commission given to the Apostles, and Disciples of Christ, is to make Disciples, and to baptise them, Math. 28.19.20. Now no rational person will say there, that the face is the Disciple, no more than they will allow us to say, the nose is the face, yet if the face was the Disciple, that is not so much as Baptised, how much less the Disciple;  
And we should ask these part baptizers, but that we cannot truly call it baptising, how they know the face should have that besprinkleing which they use. If they say the face is the most honourable part:  
We answer, that it is not our honour, but our cleansing from our filthiness which is by Baptism set forth: and no person endued with reason to set out the cleansing nature of water, would take that to wash, which is free from filth, and how know they that honour should sway us in this case, and whereas they say that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision, they will make it out by their practices, for Circumcisions room was the privy parts, (if we mistake not) which they in their sprinkling used instead of Baptism do decline. But to sum up all this, if Baptism be a dipping of the whole body into water, as is proved by Testimonies, both divine and humane, then where no part of the body is dipped into water, there can be no part of Baptism, as there is not in that besprinkling, which now adays is falsely called Baptism.  
Come we now to the grounds, upon which they of the Separation do proceed, they affirm, that the Covenant of which they hold baptism to be a seal, is made but with believers and their seed; and that the seal is no seal where no precedent Covenant hath been: now the Parents of the most of them, by their own confession, were ungodly and unbelievers, as the children of the Separation, notwithstanding their pretended Covenant commonly prove, and so had no covenant made with them, nor with their seed, nor as they affirm, had their seed, any Covenant made with them till they became believers.)  
From which consideration we may frame this argument.  
If where no Covenant hath gone before, the Seal of the Covenant be set to, it becomes no Seal, then where no Covenant hath gone before, Baptism being the Seal of the Covenant, if it be set to, becomes no Baptism.  
But where no Covenant hath gone before, the Seal of it be set to, becomes no Seal.  
Ergo, where no Covenant hath gone before, Baptism being the Seal of the Covenant, if it be set to, becomes no Baptism.  
And thus are they quit of their Baptism, by their own grant: for they which have no Baptism, but that which they had when they were without the Covenant, have no Baptism at all.  
Again they commonly affirm that Baptism upon the Baptizer is essentially requisite, that the baptism administered by him may be in force for say they baptism acted, by one unbaptised, unless he had a call like john the Baptist, is a nullity: and thus if it be possible their baptism is Worse than naught, they themselves being out of Covenant when they had it and having it for the most part, by persons out of covenant, and by unpaptized ones, or at the best by persons that successively have re●●●ved their Baptism from Rome, where they say all administrations are Antichristian and void, for Baptism in Rome by the most eminent of them, even by learned Ainsworth, is called an Idol, and lying sign, and let all men judge whether the being under an Idol, and lying sign, will enable persons to communicate true Baptism. Lastly the Scriptures and Arguments produced by the Separation and others, for the baptising Infants, we shall briefly sum up and answer and then will leave o●● grounds with ourselves to your judicious censure.  
The grand argument of theirs, in confidence of the strength of which they insult like unto Goliath against the Armies of Israel, is, to all those that are within the Covenant doth the Seal belong: but all the children of believing Parents are within the Covenant Ergo. Here we humbly ask, what covenant it is they intent: if the old Covenant, to the old Covenants Seals we send them, if they say they are all within the New Covenant, we must needs say they speak falsely, if God be true, who is so; for Abraham Isaac, and jacob were believers, by the Scriptures own Testimony, and yet of their children God testifieth, though the number of them be as the sand, yet but a remnant of them shall be saved, Rom. 9.27. And of isaack's children, God loved one, and hated the other, Rom. 9.13. And God's New Covenant was not made with Ishmael, Gen. 17.19.20. Now if the New Covenant be as jeremiah reporteth, jer. 31, 32, 33, 34. and as is expressed, Heb. 8.8. and 10.15, 16, 17. Then God who keepeth Covenant must needs (to be true in what he promiseth,) writ his Laws in the hearts of all believers children, they being within his Covenant, and except that nethlesse doctrine may be allowed for truth, that men may fall from grace, believers children must all be saved, which yet the Scripture denieth, Rom. 9.27 Isaiah. 1.9. and Rom. 9.29.  
They further affirm that the covenant made with Abraham and with his seed is made with the faithful and their seed, to speak in their own words, in that Abraham was but faithful, and they think so of themselves; foolishly erring in not considering, that they (if they be within the Covenant) come in, not in the place of Abraham, but in the place of his seed, and so are not abraham's, Fathers of the faithful, there being but one that ever had that Privilege; now they being themselves but seed to Abraham, and the promise reaching but to his seed, and not to his seeds seed, their Children are manifestly excluded the promise or Covenant, unless they become Abraham's seed, and the Apostle teacheth us but one way by which the Gentiles do become the seed of Abraham. Gal. 3. and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and Heirs according to the promise, so likewise Rom. 9.8. and they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with the passions and lusts: Gal. 5.24. and Luk. 19.9.  
Lastly, the Lord teacheth us how to understand the seed of Abraham to whom the promises were made, that were made to Abraham and to his seed, in Gal. 3.16. now to Abraham and to his seed were the promises made, he saith not, and to seeds, as to many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ: wherefore unless these persons would run into manifest wickedness, (we might say Blasphemy against God) in making themselves Fathers of Christ, their greatest honour lying in their being Children unto him, (if they be so) the promise cannot descend through them unto any person: The promise being but to Abraham, and to his seed, which is Christ, and to those that are Christ's seed, which to be, is more than to be seed to them, Isa. 53.10. compared with Rom. 9.8. and Gal. 3. Vlt.  
Their next hold is that of the Apostle, Act. 2.39. for the promise is to you and to your Children, and to all that are a fare off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, whence they conclude believers to be within the Covenant, with their seed.  
But we here likewise expostulate in three particulars.  
First, What that promise is:  
Secondly, who these people were (to whom it was proposed) 〈◊〉 the proposal of it.  
Thirdly, what is the extent and Latitude of that promise: the promise as is most plain in ver. 17. and 33. of that Chapter, is the gift of the holy Spirit, which God at this time poured out upon the Disciples. and Peter in his speech holds out no more: Repent saith he, and be baptised every one of you, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  
Secondly, it is no less plain & manifest that the persons to whom Peter so speaketh, were in his Judgement, as yet converts. For all that he heard from them was what shall we do, and we find the Jailor went further in his expressions, and yet Paul bids him believe in the Lord jesus, intimating that he not yet believed, though he had made a further inquiry after Salvation then these men.  
The last thing proposed, was the extent of that promise, what is might be; the place itself we think in that particular is clear enough, for Peter's exclamation must be considered, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call, for to no more of them, nor of their children, nor of them a fare off, than the Lord our God shall call, doth Peter in any wise apply that promise.  
If you object that he applieth the promise there to no more of them a fare off, than the Lord our God shall call: but he applieth it to them and to their Children, absolutely without the reservation of being called of God. etc.  
We answer, that if we take these at this time, to be unbelievers as the truth is, than who sees not the consequence? if we take them to be believers, than all believers Children must have the Holy Ghost, though they never be called, which who will own? Let them be believers or unbelievers, it matters not much in the question in hand, for they were jews, and therefore were in opposition to the Gentiles, who are there by your own Judgement, spoken of as a fare off, and to those a fare off, as the Objection yields, yea and that text also, belongs not the promise, but upon being called, and thus are your children by your own grant excluded the promise till they be called.  
The next hold they have is in 1 Cor. 7.14 which many strike at: we wish you to consider, that the same holiness of which the Child partaketh, is the unbelieving wife during her Infidelity a partaker of, and whether that be reasonably concluded that thence she may be Baptised, (which yet will hold as well as the other) we leave to you: The opinions of those that deny election, that hold free will and falling from grace, etc. We protest against and do abhor: but because we writ a letter, and not a Book, we must conclude as we do, wishing peace to all that obey God only, Amen.  
FINIS.