A brief ANSWER TO A DISCOURSE Lately Written by one P. B. TO PROVE baptism under the defection of Antichrist, to be the Ordinance of Jesus CHRIST, AND The baptising of Infants to be agreeable to the Word of GOD. Wherein is Declared (from his own grounds) that true baptism, and a false Church are inconsistent, and cannot stand together: And also maintained, That the baptising of Infants hath no authority from the Scriptures.  The simple believeth every Word: but the prudent man looketh well to his goings. PROV. 14.15. 
By R. BARROW.  
LONDON, Printed in the year, 1642.   

To the READER.  
ALthough divers of the learned have declared the baptism of Infants to be but a human tradition; as P. B. confesseth in his Epistle, page 3. yet notwithstanding, there be many that have, and do take upon them, to countenance the same by the Word of God, wherein they commit a double offence; one in seducing the people, and leading them to disobedience against Christ, Mat. 28.19. Mar 16.15, 16. whom they are to hear in all things, Acts 3. The other in taking the Word of Christ, and putting it as a sword into the hands of men to defend and maintain themselves in such their disobedience against him; amongst whom, one P. B. hath lately taken part in publishing a book to prove the baptism of Infants to be agreeable to the word of God, but (as many times it falleth out when men undertake to defend an evil cause) he hath so bewrayed the error of that doctrine, that in the judgement of any, who are but indifferently acquainted with the Scriptures, there needs no more be said to discover the falsity thereof, and sinfulness of his own practice in the same things wherein unadvisedly he accuseth others. One instance i shall give thereby to cause the Reader in pursuing his discourse, to take notice therein he fighteth against himself, and in that thing most of all whereupon his whole building standeth, which is the perpetuity of the visible Church under the new Testament, page 1. and so by consequent of baptism, whereby the matter of the Church is differenced, page 3.4. wherein he maketh baptism to depend upon the Church; whence then it must needs follow, that unless he can find such a Church which hath successively continued from the first planting, until these days, he cannot assure himself that his baptism received, is the ordinance of Christ. But pag. 2.3. he confesseth that he knoweth not where any such Church hath continued, nor doth he believe that any can be found that can make such a continuance of the Church to appear: therefore he received not his baptism from any such Church, nor is it then by his own argument, the baptism of Christ, but a counterfeit, or idol come out of the bottomless pit, as he himself speaketh, page 6. Having thus destroyed his foundation, and impeached his own baptism, and the baptism of the Church of England, derived from the Church of Rome, a false state the mother of fornications, &c. as he affirmeth in the 3. page of his Epistle to the Reader, his whole building must needs fall to the ground, which thing being considered, I know it may be thought, that an Answer to such a Discourse should be altogether unnecessary; for he that impeacheth himself, needs no other to accuse him; yet nevertheless, hearing that some not well acquainted with the state of this controversy have by his misapplying the Scriptures in the handling of the same, been prejudiced against the truth, by him evil spoken of; for their sakes therefore is this brief Answer made, wherein not regarding to follow him to and fro, in all his vain wandering and tautologies (wherewith his book is stored) I have reduced his whole Discourse into such particular heads, as do either concern the perpetuity of the visible Church, the baptism of the Church of Rome, or the baptism of Infants, &c. which he undertaketh to prove; for Answer, I have made use of little, save only what I have found in his own writing, wherein indeed, is sufficient to discover the vanity of his opinion in these particulars, and to satisfy any that thereby have taken offence againg the truth; but all that is said, will appear to thee (courteous Reader) in the following Answer, and therefore I shall refer thee thereunto, and also unto the grace and guidance of Christ our Redeemer, in whose service I am always thine,  
R. barrow.   

A brief answer To a Discourse, lately written by one P. B. &c.  
FIrst, he saith, that the visible Church of Christ hath had a perpetual continuance in the world from the first plantation thereof by Christ and the Apostles, and shall so continue unto the end of the world; this he saith was prophesied, Esa. 9.7.59.21. witnessed, Luke 1.33. Acts 5.29. and confirmed, Matth. 16.18.28.20. and these Scriptures are stable and true, and so to be accounted by all the Saints, page 1.  
I answer, That these Scriptures, and all other, being delivered by the spirit of God, 2 Pet. 1.21. are stable and true, and so to be accounted of all the world, Acts 3.22.23. and yet are not therefore the several glosses and understandings of men given upon these or other Scriptures always stable and true, nor so to be accounted of any man. Before we give credit therefore to his construction of these Scriptures; we will a little examine how he makes the truth thereof to appear: he saith, that the perpetuity of the visible Church was prophesied, Esay 9.7.59.21. And the Word is yea and Amen, &c. whereupon then it must needs follow, that if the visible Church of Christ hath not had a perpetual uninterrupted succession in the world ever since the first plantation thereof, until these days, though this prophecy in itself be true, yet his understanding and interpretation thereof must needs be false. This rule the Lord himself hath given us, thereby to distinguish the true Prophet from the false, Deutron. 18.22. he saith, when a Prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, and if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is, not the thing which the Lord hath spoken, but the Prophet hath spoken it presumptuously. Now, as hereby we are taught to distinguish the true Prophets from the false, so likewise are we by the same rule taught, to know the true interpretation of every prophecy from the false, and therefore when any interpretation of any prophecy is given, and accordingly the thing follow not nor come to pass that is, not the thing which the Lord hath spoken in that prophecy, but it's a false interpretation, and he is a false Prophet that hath given the same, of whom we are taught to beware, Matth. 7.15. from which imputation, we shall now see how well he acquitteth himself.  
First, he telleth us, that the defection and falling away under Antichrist was very general and marvellous universal; and this he proveth, Rev. 13.8, 16. (to which also he might have added the 3.4. and 7. verses) and unless the defection under Antichrist had been thus universal, he saith the Waldenses, who appeared in the dawn of the day, could not truly have been called the first fruits unto God, as he conceiveth they were, pag. 2. We say so too, and also firm that the visible Church could not continue under that defection, because it's said, it was given to him to make war with the Saints, and to overcome them, and if to overcome them, they could not continue, for if they had not continued, than he did not overcome them and kill them with the sword, as it is said he did, Rev. 13.7.10. compared with Dan. 7.21.25. Moreover, it is said, that those which worshipped the Beast, were such, whose names were not written in the lamb's book of life; therefore the visible Church could not continue under that defection. But if it did not there continue, yet haply it might continue under the greeks? To this he answereth, that indeed the greeks did not always subject themselves to the Roman power, yet were they very little short in defection, in so much, that according to the measure whereby the Romanists are measured, they will stand and fall together; well but I demand (although the Church did not continue under the defection of Antichrist, nor yet under the greeks) whether he do not conceive that some man may be found able (though he cannot himself) to make it appear that the the visible Church hath continued elsewhere in the world? Unto this he answereth, that he believeth none can be found able to make any such continuance of the Church to appear, page 3. if any could, he would thank God for such a discovery. And who then can believe his exposition of Esay 9.7.59.21. &c. seeing that his own mouth testifieth that no man can be found able to make the truth thereof to appear; and therefore it must needs follow, that he hath given a false interpretation of the Scriptures by him alleged to prove the perpetuity of the visible Church; neither will he himself, nor any other▪ be able to clear him from the imputation of a false Prophet, and one that hath spoken presumptuously in the name of the Lord, Deut. 18.22. therefore having thus confuted himself in this point, I think it a needless thing for me to spend any more time in the confutation of it. But seeing he confesseth that none can be found able to make any such continuance of a visible Church (as he speaketh of) to appear, why are we by him blamed for not believing such a continuance, page 4. and why are we so often charged for not believing the continuance thereof under the defection of Antichrist, pag. 3.4.5. and 9 And why also are we accused for making Christ a widower, in not believing a perpetual succession of the visible Church of Christ, seeing he himself believeth no man can prove the perpetual succession thereof? What, would he have us believe that which he cannot believe himself? Herein he is much more uncharitable than the Pope; who requireth none to believe what he and his Church believeth not. If Christ must be a widower, except he hath always a visible Church in the world, than there is no salvation out of the visible Church, because none can be saved which are not first united to, and made one with Christ, (and then what shall become of those believers which in all ages have appeared, such as Jerome of Prague, John Hus, &c. who lost their lives for the testimony of Jesus, and were never members of any true visible Church: I hope P. B. will not say that they perished in their sins) and if they were saved, than were they espoused unto and united to Christ; and if so, than Christ hath, and so may have a Spouse, although no visible Church, but P.B. I conceive, was so studious when he wrote his book, to bring absurdities upon us, that he altogether forgot himself.  
Furthermore, seeing he cannot believe that any can be found able to make the continuance of the visible Church to appear, and that as he saith, The administration of baptism doth so depend thereupon, that by no means possible it can be had elsewhere, without a special commission given from heaven for that purpose, such as John the Baptist had, page 4. & 6. I demand where, or of whom P. B. received his baptism: from the visible Church he received it not, for he knoweth not where any such Church is, neither doth he believe that any man can make any such Church to appear to have continued in the world, if any could, he would bless God for such a discovery, page 3. & 4. Belike than he received it from one that had a special commission like to that of John the Baptists, at least by his discourse he would have us to think so, but I know it will appear that it was but a Bull.  
But being unwilling to receive this confutation from himself, or having begun a Discourse, so quickly to finish it, he proceeds, and tells us, that seeing he believes that none can make it appear that the visible Church hath continued from under the defection of Antichrist, than it is more than probable, that it hath continued under that defection, page 3. But I demand how that can be probable, seeing that but a little before he told us, and also proved, that the defection and falling away under Antichrist, was very great, and marvellous universal, and therefore were the Waldenses, who appeared in the dawning of the day, not unfitly called the first fruits unto God; for they could not be the first, if there had been a continuance, page 2. but he saith, 2 Thes. 2.4. it is said, That the son of perdition who exalteth himself above all that is called God; or that is worshipped, sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God, and therefore the Church hath continued under the defection of Antichrist, What is this, but I Sir, no Sir. But I answer, That the Temple here spoken of, wherein the Man of sin sitteth, and is worshipped, cannot be taken to be the Church of God, or that Temple of the living God. whereof Jesus Christ is the Head, Ephes. 1.22 and wherein God himself dwelleth and walketh, 2 Cor. 6.16.17. The reason is, because that in 3. verse of this Chapter it is said, That the Man of sin is not revealed until first there be a falling away, and therefore his coming is said, verses 9 & 10. to be withal deceivableness; in whom? (not in the Church, but in them that perish, who, because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, therefore God sent them strong delusions, that they should believe lies, that all they might perish, who received not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness verse 9.10.11.12. Whereupon it must needs follow, that that Temple or society wherein Antichrist sitteth and is worshipped; consisteth of persons departed from the faith, verse 3. who are by God justly for that cause given up to believe lies, that so they may perish and be damned; and therefore not in any wise to be esteemed the Church of Christ, or Temple of the living God. And this must needs be so from his own ground, seeing that by Antichrist here spoken of, he understandeth the Beast mentioned, Rev. 13. as appeareth by his applying this Scripture against Antichrist, pag. 2. Now, for as much as those that wonder after the Beast, and worship him, are said to be such, whose names are not written in the lamb's Book of Life, Rev. 13.8 he cannot therefore understand the same to be the Temple of God, where Antichrist sitteth and is worshipped (Unless he conceive that the Church of Christ consisteth of such persons, whose names are not written in the book of Life, which I suppose he doth not) and therefore I conclude from his own grounds, that the Temple spoken of in the 2 Thes. 2.4. is no more the Temple of God, than Antichrist, who sitteth therein, and is worshipped, is God himself, nor is otherwise to be esteemed, nor hath he any reason more to affirm the one, than he hath to affirm the other; from hence therefore it cannot be made to appear probable that the visible Church hath continued under the defection of Antichrist, but it must stand as P. B. at first affirmed, page 2. that under the defection of Antichrist it could not continue.  
But suppose it were probable, that the Church had continued under that defection, than he saith pag. 3. that baptism by which the matter of the Church is differenced, hath there likewise continued, and there also it will be probable, that his baptism derived from thence is the baptism of Jesus Christ. (Here we may take notice by way) that the best ground he hath for his faith in this particular, is but a probability: well, but seeing that he holdeth that baptism dependeth upon the true Church, than where no true Church is there can be no true baptism. Now, I need not here demand whether conceives the Church of Rome to be a true Church, because in his Epistle to the Reader, page 5. he desireth that none should think so of him, for there he saith, that he holds that state to be the mother of Fornications, the great whore, Sodom and Egypt, &c. therefore it must needs hence follow, that the Church of Rome hath not Christ's baptism; for thus he reasoneth, if the Church hath continued, than baptism by which the matter of the Church is differenced hath continued, page 3. But the Church of Rome hath not continued the Church of Christ, but is become the mother of fornications Sodom and Egypt, as he faith in his Epistle, page 5. therefore the baptism of Christ by which the matter of the Church is differenced, hath not continued in the Church of Rome; whereas therefore, page 5. he desireth those which hold that the Church and baptism hath not continued under the defection of Antichrist would show him the error and absurdity of such an opinion; he may easily discover the error and absurdity hereof himself, if he will but take notice of what he hath herein written, viz. That baptism differenceth the true matter of the Church from the false, pag. 3.4. whence it will necessarily follow, that if the baptism of the Church of Rome be the baptism of Christ which differenceth the true matter of the Church from the false, than Rome the false matter must thereby be differenced from itself, and become a true Church; as when at first she received Christ's baptism, and then shall Rome be no longer Rome, but a true Church and State, differenced from a false by her baptism which differenceth the true matter from the false; and therefore for any to hold the church of Rome to be a false church, as P. B. doth, and withal to maintain that she retaineth the baptism of Christ, whereby the true matter of the Church is differenced from the false, is as much as if a man should affirm even as he doth, that Rome is the mother of fornications, and also that Rome is the true Spouse of Jesus Christ, which is both absurd and contradictory.  
I will therefore conclude this point thus, Seeing that true baptism differenceth the true matter of the Church from the false, as P.B. saith, and yet the baptism of the church of Rome doth not difference her from the false matter, as he also affirmeth in his Epistle, page 5. therefore the baptism of the church of Rome is not that baptism of Christ, which differenceth the true matter from the false, page 3.4. Secondly, That Church which hath no other baptism than the baptism of Rome, which differenceth not the true matter from the false, cannot thereby be differenced from the false church; but P.B. and his church have no other baptism than the baptism of the church of Rome which differenceth not the true matter from the false, therefore, P. B. and his church, are not yet differenced from the false Church. Whether therefore Christ will own the same for his Spouse, or reject her as a Harlot sprung from the mother of Fornications and Harlos, may very well be a question without Question.  
But he saith, page 6. If the visible Church hath not continued, than baptism is ceased, and being ceased without a special commission, such as John the Baptist had at first to baptize, it can never be again obtained.  
To this I answer, That although baptism were ceased, as he intends it, viz. That there were no baptised persons in the world to be found, yet so long as baptism the Ordinance of God is found in the word, with a Commission serving to the end of the world for Believers or Disciples to make and baptise Disciples, as Mat. 28.19.20. Baptism may be again obtained without any such special Commission as that which at first was given to John the Baptist; for it will not follow, that because John the Baptist might not baptise before baptism was instituted & he commanded to baptise, that therefore Believers after baptism is instituted and commanded to make and baptise Disciples may not lawfully baptise such as are made Disciples, no more than it will follow, that because Abraham might not circumcise himself and his Males, before circumcision was instituted, and he commanded so to do; that therefore the Israelites after circumcision was instituted, and they commanded to observe the same, might not, without a special Commission, such as Abraham had, lawfully circumcise their Males. It was necessary indeed, that John the Baptist should have a special commission to baptise, baptism being not before instituted nor yet he, nor any other person required to baptise; as it was necessary to the first building of the Temple, that a pattern should be given, Chron. 28.11.12. but as then another pattern was not expected as necessary for the rebuilding thereof at the people's return out of captivity, who performed all things according to the first appointment and ordination, Ezra 3. so neither is it requisite, now baptism being ceased, that a new Commission should be obtained for the raising of it up again. But that according to their example in the former instance all be done according to the first institution and ordination of Jesus Christ, Mat. 28.19. If it be objected as in page 8. that the commission was given to baptised persons, such as had received their baptism from John, and therefore it intendeth none that are unbaptised; I answer, that this commission requireth all such persons, who by the preaching of the gospel, either are or shall be made Disciples unto the end of the world to be baptised, and Christ's voice must be obeyed in all things whatsoever he saith, Act. 3.22. and that without delay, as Acts. 22.16. therefore there lies a necessity upon all believers to be baptised. What is now to be done in this case? Baptised persons from whom they may receive the same as in a right line, P. B. believeth none can be found, pag. 2.3. for if none can make it appear that the visible Church hath continued, as he believeth none can, then can none make it appear that there are any baptised persons to be found in the world, and therefore aught cannot be had from any such, how then? why in the 2 Tim. 2.16. & 17. the Apostle telleth us; that the Scripture is profitable, and serveth for instruction in all righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect and throughly furnished unto all good works, and if unto all, then unto this of baptism; whereupon therefore I confidently affirm, that as at first, John the Baptist, at the command of God baptised others, though he himself was unbaptised: even so now (according to his example (which amongst other things was written for our learning, that we thereby might be taught what to do in the like case of necessity) Rom. 15.4. May a Disciple at the command of Jesus Christ, Matth. 28.19. having made Disciples by the preaching of the Gospel baptise them for the remission of their sins. Act. 2.38.  
If it further be objected, that this example is extraordinary, and therefore not exemplary; I answer, that every approved example, though extraordinary, serveth for our instruction and direction in the like extraordinary case; and this is warranted by Christ's own testimony, Matth. 12.3.4. where he declareth, that although in ordinary cases it was unlawful for any to eat the show bread, save only the Priest, yet in case of necessity it was lawful and warrantable, both for David, and also for soldiers to eat thereof, whereby he justifieth his Disciples, who in the like case of necessity, were enforced to do that which otherwise was not lawful to be done on the Sabbath day. This is our case, and hereby we justify our practice in the point in hand, and by all which it doth appear, that although baptism were ceased in that sense wherein he speaketh, yet seeing that that there is a commission already given for baptism, which by Christ himself is extended to the end of the world, there is no need of a new commission for the raising of it up again; and therefore, from that which P. B. speaketh concerning Nadab and Abihu, their offering of strange fire, which the Lord commanded not Lev. 10. he might more fitly have applied against his strange baptism, viz. the baptism of Infants, of which the Lord hath never spoken, then against the baptising of believers at his command, and according to his own institution, Matth. 28.19. but for want of better matter to fill up his book, he was, it seems, enforced to make use of vain words.  
But this is not all for although it be proved that there is commission and authority for Disciples to baptise, though they themselves be unbaptised in the case before declared; yet there is another thing whereat P. B. is greatly offended, and that is the manner in which this new baptism (as he calleth it) is administered (which according to the institution) is by dipping the whole man in water or burying the whole man under the water, Col. 2.12. Rom. 6. This although the Lord command the same, Mat. 28.19. and examples both of Christ himself, Mar. 1.9. Mat. 3.16. John the Baptist, Ioh. 3.23. Philip and the Eunuch, Act. 8.38.39. all of them giving witness thereunto, yet he cannot believe it to be so necessary, as that a person who is only sprinkled with water, should be esteemed unbaptised, p. 12. But what are his Reasons that persuade him thus to judge? he saith, at the most, sprinkling can be but a defect in the quantity of the element, and it's wonderful that a Nullity should follow thereupon. I answer, that it's wonderful that any should esteem that to be an ordinance of Christ, which Christ hath never ordained; but Christ never ordained sprinkling for his baptising but dipping Mat. 28.19. therefore sprinkling is none of Christ's ordinance and so by consequence must needs be a nullity; but he saith, by thus urging the Text, we place the substance of an ordinance in the criticness of a word, page 13. I answer, that we do place the substance of every ordinance in its conformity to the Word of God, which alone giveth being thereunto, and for any to do otherwise, it is very strange: but belike, he that by the word baptise will not understand to sprinkle, and accept the same for Christ's ordinance in baptism, which is as much as if by the word (circumcise) the Jews should have understood to prick the finger▪ & should so have practised and owned the same for the ordinance of circumcision in the judgement of P.B. he is a mere critic, and placeth the substance of an ordinance of a high nature in the criticness of a word, as he speaketh.  
And whereas it is said that baptism resembleth our burial and resurrection with Christ, which sprinkling cannot import, Rom 6. Col. 2.12 He answereth, that sprinkling or pouring water on the face doth hold forth both burial and resurrection, page 14. for those (he saith) that are sprinkled are under the water and buried, if not so, than he demandeth how they were baptised unto Moses in the cloud▪ and in the sea, when not so much as a hair of their head was wet. I answer, that by this reason as they should not be dipped in baptism, so neither should they be sprinkled, and yet shall they be under the water, and buried nevertheless; This sure is one of the mysteries which he speaketh of, that cannot easily be perceived, page 10. but seeing he thus urgeth the baptism of the cloud and of the sea in this and divers other places desiring that it may be well minded, as page 14.29.30. I desire to know, whether thereby he understandeth the baptism instituted by Jesus Christ, Mat. 28.9. if he do not, than I demand, why he so often urgeth the same for an example in this point? if he do, then further demand why contrary thereunto in baptising his Infants (as he would have it esteemed) he sprinkleth water in their faces? this practice of his to sprinkle water in the face, if persons may be baptised without water, must needs be a point of voluntary religion, as he speaketh of the Surplise, and baptised garments, page 15. and hereby any may see how pertinently he allegeth the Scripture. But he saith, that whilst we thus urge baptism to hold forth burial and resurrection▪ we lose that which it holdeth forth equally therewith (namely) the sprinkling of the conscience in the blood of Christ. Esay. 52.15. Heb. 10.22. Ezek. 36.25. Heb. 12.24. and the laver of regeneration and our washing in the blood of Christ, that blessed fountain, Acts 22.16. Heb. 10.22. 1 Cor. 6.11. Rev. 1.5. To which I answer, and deny that sprinkling in the blood of Christ is required to be holden forth in baptism, or that any of the Scriptures by him alleged, do prove any such thing, or make any mention at all of baptism, and therefore are not to be applied thereunto being only metaphors borrowed from those sprinklings used under the Law, Heb. 10.19.20.21, 22. which, although the matter thereof might or did set forth the blood of Christ, and the nature of it, being applied by faith, as 1 John 1.7. yet did not the same at all set forth the manner of baptism, which only is to be found in the institution, Matth. 28.19. and those examples which the Scripture affordeth us thereof, Mark 1.9. Matth. 3.16. Acts 8.38.39. together with that conformity and agreement with it, hath with death, burial and resurrection whereunto the Lord is pleased to resemble and compare the same, Rom. 6.4. 1 Cor. 15.29. Col. 2.12. And he that shall affirm that that act of sprinkling, used under the Law, is to be observed in baptism, because the matter thereof did set forth the blood of Christ, the matter of our cleansing may by as good reason maintain that all those particular actions required to be used under the Law for the cleansing of the leper (namely) the applying of the blood of his sacrifice to the thumb of his right hand, to the tip of his right care, and to the great toe of his right foot, ought also to be observed in baptism, seeing, that the matter thereof pointed out the blood of Christ as well as that did, which was used in sprinkling then which nothing more absurd can be imagined. As concerning our washing in the blood of Christ, that blessed fountain, the other particular in which he instanceth, and saith, that we lose by urging baptism, to hold forth burial and resurrection. I answer, that he is much mistaken therein; for as dipping in the judgement of the spirit of God is washing, 2 King. 5.14. compared with 10. so likewise unto washing by dipping is necessarily required much water, as is seen, John 3.23. whereupon it doth follow, that like as dipping of the whole man in water, and his rising again forth of the same, doth lively hold forth and represent his death, burial and resurrection with Christ, according to Rom. 6.3.4.5. Col. 2.12. so likewise his dipping or washing in much water, must needs be a full resemblance of his washing in that blessed fountain, the blood of Christ, set open to wash in for sin and for uncleanness, Zach. 13.1. We therefore by urging baptism to hold forth burial and resurrection, lose not that which ought equally to be holden forth therewith (namely) our washing in the blood of Christ, &c. But P. B. himself, who for baptism useth sprinkling, loseth both burial and resurrection, and that which ought equally to be holden forth with them both also, to wit, our washing in the fountain of the blood of Christ, for that sprinkling hath neither similitude, nor any proportion with any of them.  
But he saith that a thing that is dipped in water, is not therefore washed and made clean; to which I answer, that then much less is that which is only sprinkled with water therefore washed and made clean, but I have proved before that dipping is washing, and therefore he that is dipped, is washed, and consequently made clean so far forth as the ordinance of baptism doth require, that alone serving fully to demonstrate our death, burial, resurrection with Christ, and the washing away and cleansing us from all filthiness in the fountain of his blood Zach. 13 1.  
Yet this will not suffice, therefore he further urgeth, that in those Countries where baptism first begun, they dipped often, and also rubbed thereby to cleanse pag. 14. I answer that they dipped in those countries, where baptism first began, is most certain, and accordingly do we practise; and when P. B. can prove that they dipped often, &c. and also justify their practice by the Word of God, we shall therein also follow their example. But seeing that he conceiveth they dipped, and not only so but also dipped often, &c. Why then doth he accuse us▪ who dip but once, as though that were too often? and moreover if they used to dip where baptism first began, than is dipping the old, and so consequently the good way, Ier. 6.16. and why then doth he reproach the same as a new way, pag. 3. and doth not rather, as he would teach his reader in the frontice-piece of his book, walk in the old and good way, that he may find rest? Ier. 6.16. but it appears that he loves to wrangle, and therefore, now contrary to dipping often, and rubbing to cleanse, he saith, that a little water serveth to set forth our washing in the blood of Christ intended in baptism as well as a great deal, and the washing of a part, as the face, according to the present custom as well as washing of the whole man as appeareth by Christ's washing of Peter's feet, John 13.10. I answer, that a little water serveth not so fully to set out our washing in the blood of Christ as a great deal doth, and therefore, when the Lord himself would set forth this thing unto us, he doth it not under the resemblance of a little water, but of a fountain of water, Zach. 13.1. And hence it was, that his messenger baptised in much water, John 3.23. Neither doth the washing of a part set forth the cleansing of us from all filthiness. 2 Cor. 7.1. Like as the washing of the whole man doth, and therefore, that we might draw near in full assurance it's required (not our faces or feet) but that our bodies should be washed in pure waters, Heb. 10.22. Christ's washing of Peter's feet he applieth that as well as he doth the baptism of the cloud and of the Sea, and therefore, as I answered him in that, so I shall also in this; if he conceive that Christ by washing of Peter's feet would set forth unto us the manner of baptism. I demand then, why contrary thereunto, he useth to sprinkle his infant's faces, when he christeneth them? And why he doth not rather in a basin of water wash their feet? I suppose therefore, that he knoweth well enough, that Christ by washing of Peter's feet, would teach all his Disciples humility, John 13.15. and not to wash a part in baptism contrary to his own institution, Matth. 28.19. and example Mark 1.9. Mat. 3.16. But his great objection against the dipping of the whole man, is this (he saith) That it's hard to determine how it can stand with modesty and shamefastness, and yet in the countries where baptism first began, he urgeth against us, that they dipped often, and also rubbed, thereby to cleanse, page 14. Now, if he cannot determine how dipping once may be performed with modesty, &c. how will he determine how dipping often, and rubbing to cleanse (as he instanceth) could be performed with modesty and shamefastness? Surely he will conclude that they put on a linen garment. But there it will follow, that they baptise the garments, &c. Haply he will say not the garments but the persons in the garment, because that when he sprinkleth his infants he doth not strip them naked out of their clothes; neither yet will he say, that therefore he baptiseth their garments into the death and resurrection of Christ, but the infant that are therein. But if it must needs follow that they baptise the garments, &c. (in their behalf, I know though not in ours) he will determine, that it was but an error in respect of the subject, like to the baptism of an infant in the stead of a believer (as he pleadeth, page 12.) and therefore not worthy to be blamed or taken notice of.  
Having thus spoken his mind against the ordinance of Christ (to wit) the baptising or dipping of believers▪ which in derision he calleth the new baptism, page 3. he returns again to the former argument the baptism of Infants, page 10. which, he saith began many years before Christ died, or at least, before the Apostles left the world, which indeed, must needs be true, if it be the baptism which was instituted by Jesus Christ, as he pretends to prove by these reasons that follow.  
His first ground is from the Covenant of God made with Abraham, Gen. 17. which covenant, he saith was neither part of the new, nor yet of the old, chap. 17.18. because it was neither confirmed with the blood of Bulls, nor with the blood of Christ▪ which thing he saith, may seem new, but yet he desires to see the error that attends its. I answer, marveling that he should urge Infants, being in a covenant not confirmed with the blood of Christ, to prove their interest in baptism, and so by consequent in the blood of Christ; the blood of Christ is the blood of the new Testament, Mat. 26.28. Now, if that infants be not in this covenant confirmed with the blood of Christ, then can they have no interest in baptism which serveth (as he saith page 14.) to set forth our washing and sprinkling with the blood of Christ; there needs not therefore any more words be used to show the error that attends this new conceit urged to prove Infants right to baptism, when it not only excludes them from baptism, but also from salvation by Christ.  
But Infants being a part of the Church and members thereof before Christ, what doth let them from being so still? seeing (as he saith) the Lord hath never spoken one word thereof, but the contrary. I answer, that although Infants were of the Church before Christ yet the Lord hath manifestly declared, that they should not be so now, Christ the true promised seed being once come, as is seen, Gal. 4.22. &c. where the Apostle thus speaketh. It is written (saith he) that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman, 23. but he that was borne of the bondwoman was borne ●fter the flesh, but he of the free woman was borne by promise, 24. which things he saith, was an allegory, verse 25.26. the bond maid Hagar shadowing out the old covenant or testament and her son Ishmael which she bore to Abraham after the flesh, or by carnal generation, shadowing out all the fleshly and carnal Israelites which should proceed from Abraham in after generations. The free woman, Sara, pointing out the new covenant or Jerusalem, which is from above and teaches her son appointing out Christ, the promised seed as Gal. 3.16. and believers borne from above▪ or by promise, as Isaac was the spiritual seed of Abraham, as Gal. 3.29. and therefore he saith verse 28. We brethren, as Isacke was, are the children of promise; after this, to close up the full intent of the spirit of God in this thing, in the 29. & 30. verses, he showeth that by the carnal and fleshly seed Ishmael▪ his persecuting of him which was borne by the promise (to wit Isaac) whereupon he and his mother, was by the command of God, both of them together, cast out of Abraham's house, the Church, Gen. 21.10. thereby was foreshown, that when Christ the true Isaac should be borne, Gal. 3.16. and the barren woman the new Covenant or gospel, should bring forth and bear sons unto God (as verse 27.) then should the bond woman, the old and carnal covenant, with all the carnal ordinances thereof. Heb. 9.10. together all her sons, the carnal and the fleshly seed be cast out of the house (so saith the Text, verse 30.) Cast out the bond woman and her son; for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman, Ioh. 7.35.26. and therefore, although children carnally begotten were admitted members of the Church before Christ, yet are they not so now, but are with their mother the old and carnal covenant, with all the appurtenances thereof▪ are to be rejected (as was said before) and so also is P. B. his exposition of this Script▪ page 22. which by the sons of the bond woman only noteth such who have actually refused and rejected grace, as Ioh. 7.35.36. and thereby became bound (as though by nature, before they had rejected grace, they had been free) which is a manifest contradiction to the Apostle, who by the children of the bond woman understandeth all that are borne, as Ishmael was by fleshly generation, or all those who are not as Isaake, who was by promise (as before) Col. 4.27.28. with 3 29.  
His next ground to prove the baptism of Infants is this, because the Apostle exhorteth parents to bring up their children in admonition of the Lord, therefore they were of the Church, and so by consequent were baptised; but how doth he prove that they were of the Church? thus▪ because the Apostle, who had nothing to do with those who are without, 1 Cor. 5. exhorts their parents to bring them up in the admonition of the Lord. To this I answer, that the Apostle did not write this exhortation to the children who were without, but to their parents who were within; besides where the Apostle saith, that he hath nothing to do with those that are without, 1 Cor. 5.12. it's manifest, that he doth not mean that he hath nothing to do to exhort those that are without, to know and fear the Lord; for he was sent to preach the gospel to those that were without, that thereby they might be brought within, Act. 26.17.18. and he acknowledgeth himself a debtor to all men to the unwise as well as to the wise Rom. 1.14, when he saith, therefore that he hath nothing to do with those that are without, his meaning is, that he hath nothing to do to censure and deal with them that are without, for their evils of incest, whoredoms, thefts, &c. he was not by Christ made a Judge over men in those matters, 1 Cor. 5.12.13. no more than Christ himself was, Luke 12.14. From this reason of his to prove Infants to be of the Church, and therefore baptised, (viz.) because the Apostle exhorts their parents to bring them up in the nurture of the Lord▪ &c. It will follow, that because the Apostle Peter exhorts believing wives to be in subjection to their husbands, that so (although by the word they could not, yet) by their good conversation they might be won▪ 1 Pet. 3.1.2. that therefore their unbelieving husbands were of the Church, and baptised, or else the Apostle meddled with those with whom he had nothing to do.  
But he saith, it's an uncomfortable doctrine to hold that children are not of the Church; for if they are not borne members of the Church, than they are brought forth children to the devil, pag. 25. I answer, that by nature we are all alike the children of wrath, Ephes. 2.3. our being of the Church depending upon our new birth and generation, John 3.3. and if all that were not borne members of the Church shall be damned, then by P. B. his judgement, seeing he cannot prove any true visible church to be in the world, page 3. (and therefore no children to be borne in church) there shall none at all be saved. Is not this doctrine of his a very comfortable doctrine, for else what end doth he conceive was the preaching of the gospel ordained? Matth. 28.19. Acts 26.18.  
He hath yet another argument which must needs be answered, for in it there is great confidence placed, and it's this, the children of believers are holy and therefore may be baptised, 1 Cor. 7.14. To which I answer▪ that the Apostle doth not say, that the children of believers are holy, but he saith, That the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the believing husband, (that is) lawful for his use so that he may lawfully abide with her, and needs not for her unbelief sake put her away, (as was scrupled, verse 10.11, 12.) or else, if that she were not, than the children which he should beget of her were unclean or unholy, whereas being sanctified, or lawful to his use, they are clean, or holy (that is, legitimate) for the holiness of the children here spoken of, is not concluded from the faith of parent, but from the lawful use which the believing husband hath of his unbelieving wife; for so are the words, The unbelieving husband is sanctified by, or to the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by, or to the believing husband, or else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. This Scripture therefore proves no more holiness in the children of believers then in the children lawfully he gotten in the honourable estate of marriage by unbelievers, Hebr. 13.4. and so by consequence yieldeth no better warrant for the baptising of the one, than it doth for the baptising of the other; but I intend brevity, and therefore for further answer in this point, I refer him to A. R. his book lately printed, wherein the same is handled at large.  
These are the best reasons that P. B. can show to prove the baptism of Infants to be according to the word of God, which in regard they cannot give satisfaction to some, but they still notwithstanding do stick at the mater, (as they well may) and desire a precept, or an example to warrant the same, and therefore he promiseth to show both, page 29. but first he desireth that we would give him an example of an unbaptised persons his baptising of others, and of the refusing of Infants from being of the Church both which being before sufficiently declared, we will now take notice how he performeth his promise: First he saith, There are examples of baptising of households, as the jailers and Lydias, Acts 16. and the house of Stephanus, and questionless divers others, pag. 29. But I demand an example for the baptising of Infants, and not of baptising households of believers, such as the jailors, Act. 16.34. and Stephanus. 1 Cor. 16.16. and Crispus, Acts 18.8. and questionless divers others. This is a bad example, (for an example he will have it called though it be none at all) to prove that the baptism of Infants which must be thus declared: households were baptised, but in some households there are Infants, therefore Infan●s have been baptised. This is as plain an example to prove the baptism of Infants, as this that followeth is to prove the baptising of notorious drunkards swearers, thieves, murderers, &c. whole households have been baptised, but in some houses there are notorious drunkards, swearers, thieves, murderers, &c. therefore the Apostles baptised such, and such may be baptised. Who seeth not your folly? Another example as plain as this followeth, The whole Church of coloss were buried with Christ in baptism, but children were a part of the Church, therefore Infants were baptised, Col. 3.20.21. I answer, that the whole Church of coloss were buried with Christ in baptism, and that there were children in that Church to whom the Apostle wrote and exhorted to obey their parents in all things, Col. 3.20. But our question is about Infants, and not children in general, some whereof are grown to years of understanding, as these were to whom the Apostle wrote: for sure P. B. will not say he wrote to Infants, which could not understand what he saith. In Gen. 43.14. when Jacob sent his son Benjamin into Egypt, he useth these words concerning him and Joseph: If I am bereaved of my children, I am bereaved. Now, by his reason, Benjamin, who was about seventeen years old, and Joseph, who was about thirty years of age, should both of them be Infants because their father called them children; These examples will yield as little satisfaction to any that question the baptising of Infants, as his Reasons before answered.  
But although these examples fail, yet page 31. he saith, there is a plain command of Jesus Christ for the baptising of Infants; and it appeareth thus, Many nations appear to be Abraham's, and to have him for their father; now, all these nations in which there must needs be some children, by the express command of Jesus Christ, Mat. 28.19. are to be baptised. I answer, Abraham was to be a father of many nations, some whereof were his natural and carnal seed, borne after the flesh, as Ishmael and the Jews, who for unbelief, were rejected, and cast off, with the old and carnal Covenant or Testament, as was showed before; Others were so to be reputed in respect of their faith, and walking in his steps, as it is written, Rom. 4.11.12. where it is said, That he received the sign of circumcision, the seal of righteousness of faith, which he had before he was circumcised, that he might be the father, mark of whom (viz,) of all them that believe and walk in the steps of that faith, which he had before he was circumcised, according to which therefore it is said, Gal. 3.29. If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs, according to promise. These later, his spiritual seed by the express command of Jesus Christ, Mat. 28.19. are to be baptised, go ye (saith he) and make Disciples, or believers all Nations, and baptise them, and he that believeth (as Abraham the father of all that believe did, Rom. 4.11. Gal. 3.29. and is baptised, shall be saved Mark 16.15. But what is all this to prove the baptism of Infants which believe not, and therefore are none of Abraham's seed, who only are to be baptised? no more than that which followeth which is nothing at all; being the same in effect with this. The Nations that are made Abraham's seed, the nations that are saved, the kingdoms which shall become the kingdoms of our Lord must needs receive Christ's badge. This is granted, but proveth nothing less than the baptising of Infants, seeing none are made Abraham's seed but those which are first made Christ's, Gal. 3.29. that wake in his steps, Rom. 4.12. and do his works, John 8.36. Neither do any kingdoms become the kingdoms of the Lord, but those that fear and serve him, that kiss the son, Psal. 1.10.11.12. hear his voice, Acts 3.22.23. and have him to reign over him, Luke 19 27. Nor doth the Scripture declare the salvation of any more than those only which believe, he that believeth on the son, hath everlasting life, but he that believeth not shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him, John 3.36. therefore in refusing to baptise Infants who believe not, we curtail not the nation that are made Abraham's seed, &c. I should have thought (but that he denyeth a national Church, page 39) that he would have all nations of people to be baptised, but seeing he denyeth the former, I cannot charge him with the later but by this that is said, it appeareth how he hath proved the baptism of Infants from Matth. 28.19. and other his instances then which nothing could possibly be alleged more opposite thereunto, but herein he doth not seem strange to me, finding his whole discourse not only (Weak, empty and impertinent) but so repugnant and contradictions to itself; so that a man in the reading thereof▪ may very well judge, that he wrote the same intending to desert and render the cause evil and nought which he pretendeth to maintain, or else desiring to obtain to himself a name amongst those vain janglers, mentioned 1 Tim. 6 who desire to be teachers, when they neither know what they say, nor whereof they affirm, verse 7. And so I leave him and the consideration of that which is said to those for whose sakes it was first intended, desiring that it may accomplish its proposed end.  
Col. 2.8. Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.  
Jerem. 10.3. The customs of the people are vain.  
2 Thes. 2.15. Therefore brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our Epistle.  
FINIS.   

Page. Line. Scapes. Correction. 2 15 for firm, Affirm. 2 18 for had not continued, had continued. 5 9 for there also it will, Than also it will. 5 10 for by way, by the way. 5 14 for whether conceives, whether he conceives. 6 18 for be a question without Question, may very well be a question. 6 32 for and commanded, and they commanded. 7 22 for aught cannot, it cannot. 7 41 for soldiers, for his soldiers. 8 5 for that that there is a that there is a. 8 33 for his baptising, his baptism. 9 21 for further demand, further I demand. 10 3 for with it hath, which it hath.  
In the Preface. page. 2. line 9 for pursuing, read perusing, in the same line, for notice therein, read notice how therein.