A CHRISTIAN PLEA FOR CHRISTIANS BAPTISM: Raised from the grave of Apostasy.  
OR, A SHORT TREATISE, Being a reproof of some things written by A. R. in his Treatise, entitled, The vanity of Childish Baptism.  
In the Answer whereof, The lawfulness of Infant's Baptism is defended, the sufficiency of our Baptism received in the state of Apostasy, shown: and the deficiency of the Arguments brought against it manifested, by sufficient grounds and reasons drawn from the sweet fountains of holy Scripture.  
S. C.  
Ezek. 37.12, 13, 14. O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, etc.  
2. Chron. 30.18 19 The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.  
Jer. 9.25.26. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will punish all them which are circumcised, with the uncircumcised. Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are cut off into corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these Nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.  
Rev. 11.1, 2. And there was given me a reed like unto a rod, and the Angel stood, saying, Rise and measure the Temple of God, and the Altar, and them that worship therein. But the Court which is without the Temple cast out, and measure it not: for it is given unto the Gentiles, etc.  
LONDON: Printed by T. P. and M. S. and are to be sold by Ben. Allen in Popes-head-Alley. 1643.   

TO THE CHRISTIAN READER, Grace, Mercie, and Peace be multiplied, etc.  
HAving considered, that the weakness, and frivolousness, of the Arguments brought by A. R. against Baptism, deserved no Answer; and conceiving that most of them were publicly confuted in print 
* By Ainsworth, Wilkinson, Clifton, Robinson, & divers others. , before any of them were thus published, I thought not to have meddled with them in such a public way.  
But further considering, that the said Arguments of his, were divulged in print, and might do much hurt amongst some ignorant people, who would do better if they knew better; I thought it meet to help to take off this new vizard, put upon the Anabaptists old outworn arguments, and so to pull down this little tottering turret of Babel; because that in this false fire, and light of the sparks of these crackling thorns, the makers thereof delight still to walk, and some are yet deluded, by such frothy Divinity, and smoky clouds of subls me sophistry; without due trial of them, by the light of God's Word; or weighing them in the balance of the Sanctuary.  
Wherefore, in obedience to God, and love to his people; I have here undertaken to use my talon in vindicating the lawfulness of Christians Baptism, raised with them out of the grave of the Apostasy of the man of sin, which hath been for many years, in which Apostate estate, and wretched condition, the name of God hath been greatly profaned, his institutions (though not destroyed) yet highly abused, to the destruction of many souls; out of which state, God hath called some, who have obeyed his voice, and come out of Babel to Zion; and are as dearly beloved of God, as the penitent Israelites, whom God in former time brought from Jeroboams apostasy to Judah, where they kept the feast, unto the Lord, and were both young, and old, accepted of him, though they retained the Circumcision which they received in that apostate estate, where there was neither true visible Church, ministry, worship, nor government, but all diabolical, and Apostatical: yet (God having reserved his own ordinance pure unto himself) the evil of the manner being repent of, by them; the thing itself was not commanded to be administered upon them again.  
And surely, God could have commanded that Circumcision [done in Apostasy, by a wrong administrator, and by a false power, and upon a wrong subject,] to have been esteemed as not done at all, and that the parties when they returned from that Apostasy, should have been circumcised again; but he would not, no more hath he commanded us to be baptised again, though we were baptised in an Apostate state: for Baptism is as durable as Circumcision, and God is as able to purge baptism now, as he was to purge Circumcision then.  
But Mr. A. R. hath taken upon him to prove the Baptism which we Christians received (in the state of Apostasy) to be none of God's Baptism; but insufficient; In the prosecution whereof, he allegeth several particulars, by which he would disprove the same: which particulars are examined, and his inferences from thence answered in the ensuing discourse.  
But it would not have been amiss, if he had well considered (for abridgement of his work) that baptism, being (by his own confession) a great ordinance of the New Testament; To make it less general, or less durable than Circumcision, or inferior thereunto, would be to make Christ less faithful in his house then Moses; and inferior to him: But baptism is more general than Circumcision: And Christ is more excellent than Moses, and Baptism is as durable as Circumcision. Therefore seeing Circumcision was not worn out by those; Baptism is not worn out by these.  
Think not (Christian Reader) that I intent to plead for the Apostatical Church of Rome, or any of her daughters, or for their ministry, worship, or Government! So fare am I from this, that I utterly renounce, and disclaim the same; and leave the Justification of them to the disposition of those who account them no worse than Heathens that never knew the truth; and seek to lessen their sin by labouring to vindicate their supposed innocence, teaching them [in this] to plead ignoramus, and not guilty, when they are justly accused for committing of sacrilege. Yea, and Gods definitive sentence pronounced against them, and his just judgements executed (and daily executing) upon them, as appeareth at this very day, since the sharp arrows of the Almighty have been (and are still) so generally scattered abroad, to the destruction, and ruination of those persons; not only for their abuse of common meats, and drinks, and other temporal blessings; but chief (and above all) for the abuse and profanation of spiritual things, as (the profanation of) Gods holy word, and ordinances, which they distribute to all sorts of sinners that come under the notion of a verbal profession, though very vile in their life and conversation. All which is of us not to be lessened, or excused, as if it were not sacrilege (or theft in an high degree) but rather to be lamented, that those persons who draw near unto God with their mouths, and outwardly pretend to stand for Christ, and fight for his true Religion; (taking upon them to defend the same, some with the Word, others with the sword) against those who do oppose them) should have their hearts so fare alienated from God, as so much to take his holy Name in vain, and profane his Sabbaths, as those do who on that day pour out their meat-offerings and drink-offerings, in the idolatrous high places, which being a defilement unto the Land, are by the laws of God destinated to destruction. For these and the like abominations (I say) we ought to mourn 
* Ezek. 9 : and that they should so steal his ordinances, and abuse his Word, to the destruction and ruination, spewing, and rooting out of themselves, and their posterity, from those good and fruitful lands wherein God of his mercy had planted them.  
These and the like evils, were the causes why God did bring upon his people Israel of old, divers heavy and sore judgements, as pestilence, famine, and sword, and wild beasts to devour both them and theirs, yea though they were circumcised in flesh, yet because they were not circumcised in heart, God threatened to visit them with the uncircumcised in flesh 
a Jer. 9.25, 26. , and make their Cities desolate without inhabitants, and their houses without man and their land utterly desolate: and that he would remove them fare away, and never promised to bring them again from captivity, nor prophesied good unto any but those who were upright in heart; even the tenth part, (or rather less) which were the holy seed, the substance 
b Isa 6.11, 12, 13. , and the remnant 
c Cap 10.21. .  
Wherefore, it evidently appeareth, that in an idolatrous estate, and Apostate condition, there is no true comfort, or consolation to be expected; though they have and enjoy baptism as of old the Jewish Apostates had, and did enjoy Circumcision, but as these are sinners in like manner as those were; so these may expect the same measure of punishment (from the hand of God) as those had: yea, considering that these have their own actual sins, lying upon them 
d Rev. 9.18.20, 21. Rev. 18.24. ; and the sins of the wicked Jews both active and imputative, statively imputed unto them 
e Mat. 23.34, 35, 36.32.33. Rev. 11.8. : It should make them to tremble at the Word of God, which must be fulfilled, which hath declared, that judgements are prepared for scorners 
f Prov. 19.29. ; and that the portion of the wickeds cup, shall be snares, fire and brimstone, burning storms and tempests 
g Psal. 11.6. : and that hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure; and that their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth shall descend into it 
h Isa. 5.14. .  
But as the Lord hath called us out of the sink of Sodom, and grave of Babylonish and Egyptian Apostasy (where our Lord was crucified;) so we must not dishonour him so fare as to cast away his holy vessels, or any good thing of his which we have received; for God is able to purge those things which are his own; upon our repentance; So that the evil manner of receiving Baptism doth not argue but that the thing in itself is good, and may be applied to the same end and use for which it was first given. Therefore as we are come out of Babel, so let us labour to imitate Zion, set forth unto us in the Scriptures; which doth teach us not to lay again the foundation, but to go on unto perfection 
i Heb. 6.1, 2. , [even as the children of Israel did when they went up from Jeroboams apostasy, to keep the feast in Judah;] and not (Babel-like) confound both ourselves and others, as those do, who deny, and disclaim the ordinance of Baptism, which they have received in Apostasy; which Baptism they conceive to be no more than a natural, or moral act, and not a divine ordinance: thinking to take more advantage against the same, in the prosecution of it, then is given them either from their doctrine, or practise, or any rule revealed in God's Word.  
Yea, they entangle themselves so in the briars, and thorns of the wilderness (not knowing by their own grounds which way, or how to take up baptism) that they are driven now to hold a Church all of unbaptized persons; and that though none of them be baptised, yet the said Church may set apart one or more of her unbaptized members, and give them authority to baptise themselves and others 
* For this see Mr. Spilsburies' treatise of Baptism, p. 38 li. 7.8. 9 10. lin. 33. to li. 40. p. 39 lin. 31.33. ; and yet they grant that baptism may be where there is no Church, and so (casting away the baptism which they formerly received) they are driven (in taking up their new baptism) to affirm that an unbaptised person or persons may and must baptise themselves, and after that baptise others, else true baptism can never be had: but I wish they would apply the counsel to themselves which they give unto others not to depend upon human and unwritten traditions, but upon the Word of God, which is the only rule for every divine action. Here you see after what manner they lay down, and take up baptism. But,  
Touching Mr. A. R. his manner of baptising, he doth not tell us in particular, but in general, he saith, Men and women must be dipped; he doth not declare the particular manner how they must be dipped, but reserveth that; which thing would be known: In the mean time seeing this subject by way of answer and opposition to them is treated on, by divers persons; amongst whom, one of them is a Poet of their own 
* M. Fleetwood against dipping. , I insist not much thereon.  
In bringing his last particular (concerning the subjects of baptism) he shooteth so awry that he misseth the mark, and doth not speak clear out: for he speaketh of Infants in general, without putting a distinction between the Infants of Idolaters, and the Infants of true Christians.  
By which it appeareth (as also by the rest of his words touching this matter) that he judgeth all Infants to be in one visible estate, which to think is very erroneous.  
If God had commanded the Infants of Idolaters to be circumcised, as he commanded the infants of the faithful Jews and prosolites. And 
a Exod. 12.48.  if God in baptising the Israelites infants in the Red sea 
b 1 Cor. 10 1.2. Psal. 77.16.17.19.20. , had baptised an Infant of wicked parents; if God had destroyed the infants of Abraham with the infants of Sodom 
c Gen. 18.24. , and the infants of Israel with the infants of Egypt 
d Exod. 12.29.  in that extraordinary way: we might have thought the infants of Idolaters and the infants of true Christians to be all in one visible estate; But God commanded no infants to be circumcised but those which were in Covenant with him 
e Gen. 17.14. , neither did he baptise any other infants, but put a difference between the holy and profane, both by his words and actions 
f Gen. 18.17.19 20.25 32. Cap. 19.12.13. Exod 12.26.27.29. Josh. 1.13.14. 1 Sam. 15.3. . Therefore we have no warrant to judge both infants of believers and the infants of unbelievers to be all in one visible estate. For though God visiteth the iniquities of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those that hate him; yet he showeth mercy to thousands of those that love him, and keep his Commandments 
h Ver. 6. .  
The denial of Baptism to the infants of believers ariseth from many gross and ignorant mistakes of the true sense and meaning of many texts of Scriptures, as also from many foolish conceptions and idle dream●s, wherewith persons have intoxicated their minds, and wraped themselves into grievous absurdities. As in other things they bewray a great deal of ignorance, so do they in this about infants, and are driven (in maintenance of this error) to discover more errors in themselves, 
g Exod. 20.5.  and to strike at the fundamental principles of Religion.  
They suppose that those Scriptures which set forth the excellent privileges of the faithful and their seed, concern not infants at all, but only persons of years that are capable, and do profess faith, and repentance; limiting the seed to them of years only: or to Christ's person, barring out infants in their conceptions from visible union and communion with him.  
Where it is said that the Covenant of Circumcision was to be in their flesh 
* Gen. 17.13. , they interpret that flesh to be Christ, where Circumcision in Scripture is called the sign 
a Gen 17.11.  and seal of the righteousness of faith 
b Rom. 4.11. , they limit that to Abraham only, and Gen 17.10. (these words) this is my Covenant 
* For this see A. R. his second book. pa. 24 lin 13. 14. , they take literally to be a real Covenant, without taking the exposition, vers. 11. even as the Papists expound Matth. 26.26 This is my body, for his real and corporal presence. They also would (most absurdly) make Baptism less general, and more general than circumcision, which implieth a flat contradiction.  
Whereas it is said, He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved, etc. This they say cannot be applied to any infants; for, say they, infants have no faith either by action, or imputation: then they are driven forcibly to run upon another absurdity, that either Infants are saved without faith, are else that they are not saved at all.  
Circumcision they conceive was not a seal of the new Covenant; but of some carnal thing; but this is a carnal affirmation, like the judgement of him that saith, the Church of the Jews was constituted upon nature, and carnality; opposite to the spirit, and fare different from the Churches of Christ 
* Pag. 22.17.18.19.20. .  
These absurdities with many more, follow one another like links of one chain; yea this is an evil under the Sun, that those things which are old errors, by some now adays are esteemed as new truths. Amongst whom some there are in particular, who deny the heavenly state, and baptism of holy infants, and also the baptism of Christ received in the state of apostasy, not distinguishing between a thing well done, ill done, and not done at all: which distinctions ought to be observed, both in spiritual and temporal things.  
And considering (Christian Reader) that in many things we sin all, and are subject to err in our best actions, I earnestly desire thee to take nothing upon trust, which I set down, but duly try, and discreetly weigh the same in the balance of the Lords sanctuary; and if thou reap'st any profit by my poor endeavours, give the glory to God: and wherein I miss it, let me be informed, that the same may (by me) be reform; for the unchangeable truth of Jesus Christ we ought to love dearly, prise highly; and purchase it without ever parting from it, and cherish it, as the Lord doth put it into our bosom, and so become one with it, even like unto Jesus Christ who is the way, the truth, the life, and the light of those who in his light do see light; whose unsearchable riches I desire with all Saints, every way to comprehend: and therewith bid thee farewell. And so remain,  
Thy Christian Brother in the fellowship of the Gospel, S C.   

A REPROOF OF SOME things written by A.R. in his Treatise entitled, The vanity of Childish Baptism. In the Answer whereof, The lawfulness of Infant's Baptism is defended, the sufficiency of our Baptism received in the state of Apostasy showed, and the deficiency of the Arguments brought against it manifested by sufficient grounds and reasons, drawn from the sweet fountains of holy Scripture.  
Mr. AR.  
YOu have (in your title page and Epistle to the Reader) taken upon you to do that which you are not able; and promised that which you cannot perform, and affirmed that which you cannot prove, by Scripture: which is, that the Baptism of Infants is unwarrantable, and a mere device, brought into the world for politic and by ends, etc. and that therefore (it being the baptism in the Church of England) you have undertaken to prove it to be deficient, and none of God's Baptism.  
IN the entrance of your discourse you confess, 
Pag. 1.  That Baptism is a great ordinance of the new Testament.  
To which I add, that though every ordinance of the new Testament be great, yet there is a difference between them; for some ordinances are active (both in respect of the administrator and partaker thereof,) other ordinances are merely passive (in reference to the parties upon whom the same are administered) amongst which passive ordinances Baptism is one 
* So Mr. Spilsbery saith, the subject of Baptism is to be passive: See his Treatise, pa. 26. li 7. .  
That Baptism is so (as I have here declared) the Scriptures (Mat. 28.19. Acts 2.38.) which you have quoted, d●●xpresse, where the Apostles were commanded to baptise others; And the Disciples are not bidden by Peter to baptise themselves, but to be baptised by others. And (you may know that) the Eunuch baptised not (himself) but Philip (a baptised person) baptised him: Act. 8.38. And therefore (in this respect) baptism is unto us, as circumcision was to the Saints of old, (to wit) an ordinance, not acted by the subject (or receiver) but submitted unto, 
Josh. 5.  and suffered; so it is said, Joshua circumcised the children of Israel the second time, for they were uncircumcised. God did not require them to circumcise themselves, but Joshua (a circumcised person) was to circumcise them. Jos. 5.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 9  
And as to circumcision then, there was required, a right instrument, a right subject, and an enrighting power; so there is now required to baptism. But as circumcision was Gods, though the subject, and instrument, and power was not right; So is baptism now Gods holy institution, though done by a false minister, upon a false subject; and by a false power. And though these Antichristians have no command (or warrant) from God to baptise Apostates (or any other persons) no more than the idolatrous Israelites had to circumcise, yet as that circumcision then administered, after that manner (contrary to Gods revealed will) was not changed from being Gods, nor done over again, upon those that returned out of that Apostasy: So baptism now though it be administered by these Apostates, after such an idolatrous manner, and upon such idolatrous subjects, yet it doth not make a nullity of the ordinance.  
By this it appeareth, that you have laid the ground of your reasoning amiss (in bringing your five particulars) to make a nullity of our baptism which we have received in Apostasy, the insufficiency of which grounds of yours, shall be further showed in the examination of the particulars which follow.  
Your first particular ground (by which you say you will disprove the baptism in the Church of England) is, 
Pag. 2.  because (as you affirm) that the end for which baptism is there administered is to regenerate the infants there baptised; for proof whereof you repeat their form of words before, and after baptism, [but you mention not the 〈◊〉 of institution, which they pronounce in the act of baptising] and you would argue that because they declare that all men be conceived and born in sin; and because they say, that our Saviour Christ saith, none can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerated, and born anew, of water and the holy Ghost: and because the Minister beseecheth the people to call upon God 〈◊〉 Father through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bountiful mercy he will grant to the children that thing which by nature they cannot have, that they may be baptised with water, and the holy Ghost.  
And because the Minister and people pray thus We beseech thee of thine infinite mercies, that thou wilt mercifully look upon these children; sanctify them, and wash them with the holy Ghost, that they being delivered from thy wrath, may be received into the Ark of Christ's Church, and being steadfast in faith, joyful through hope, and rooted in charity, etc.  
We call upon thee for these infants, that they coming to thy holy baptism, may receive the remission of their sins, by spiritual regeneration, etc.  
Give thy holy Spirit to these infants, that they may be born again, and be made heirs of everlasting salvation.  
Also because the Minister (after he hath cast a little water on the children's faces openly forthwith, (without blushing 
* Lin. 28. ) saith: Now seeing that these children be regenerated, and grafted into the body of Christ's congregation, etc. And then exhorts the people to give thanks to God, for that it hath pleased him to regenerate the infants with his holy Spirit, and received them for his own children by adoption, etc.  
From these premises you would infer that the baptism is false, which ground of yours is very weak; yea the ground of your reasoning is amiss, and contrary to reason.  
For it is no right arguing to bring the mixing of their traditions as a nihilation of God's institution.  
And their confession that all men be born and conceived in sin, and repetition of the words of Christ, and the exhortation to call upon God the Father through Jesus Christ, that he will give them that of his mercy which (they confess) by nature they cannot have, that they might be baptised with water and the holy Ghost. Doth not argue that the baptism is not God's ordinance, for it is neither their high conceptions, or great estimations, or such verbal pronuntiations that doth destroy or make void Gods holy institutions: yet it is a profanation of the Name of God, and so it is of the ordinance, because the persons who administer the same, are Idolaters, and the subjects upon whom it is administered, are the seed of Apostates.  
Neither is it their beseeching God of his infinite mercies, that he will mercifully look upon these children, and sanctify them, and wash them with the holy Ghost; that will disannul the ordinance, and make it of none effect. Neither doth their praying, that the children may be delivered from God's wrath, and that they may be received into the Ark of Christ's Church, and be steadfast in faith, joyful through hope, and rooted in charity, etc. overthrow God's ordinance, and make the Baptism received no ordinance of God. Neither doth their acknowledging of baptism to be Gods, and to be holy, and there praying for remission of sins for the Infants by spiritual regeneration, (nor their ascribing regeneration to the holy Spirit) prove the baptism there administered to be no true baptism.  
And it is not their sprinkling or casting water upon the face of the children that maketh a nullity of the ordinance; though he without blushing say afterwards, that the children be regenerated; for whether he blush or not blush, that is not material; to prove the point which you brought it for.  
And though the exhortation which the Minister gives to the people together with the rest agreeth with their Catechise, the particulars whereof (concerning infant's regeneration) though they were confirmed by these Fathers 
* Jerome, Augustin, Zanchus, Peter Martyr, Dr Whitticar.  (which you have cited) to be noted 
* Pag. 3.  instead of many more, yet it doth not argue, but that the baptism holdeth firm, though in respect of the manner we allow it not, neither their additions thereunto; and though it be done by a wrong administrator upon an apostate, yet if that Apostate return from his apostasy, the evil of the manner being repent of, the action hath no need to be done over again, neither doth God so require it, any more than he required the apostate Israelites (when they returned) to be circumcised again; this you cannot deny, except you could prove baptism to be less durable than circumcision; as if Christ were less faithful in his house then Moses.  
Again you say, the end for which Infants are baptised in the Church of England, is to regenerate them, and that they may be born anew, and accordingly it is concluded in the Catechism; 
* Pag. 3.  and confirmed by all these Authors, and divers others well known to your Ministers, the maintainers of this doctrine, that in Baptism they receive the holy Spirit, that they are regenerate, and born anew; that they are made the members of Christ, the children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven. In answer to all which (you say) you shall say nothing, but only reason this with some other of their own principles, and practise, and thereby (you say) you doubt not but it will appear to all, how unfaithfully they have, and do delude the Nations in this particular.  
I answer. As for their unfaithfulness, and their deluding the Nations, I doubt not of it; but with what do they most delude? if not with that which they have (like thiefs) stolen away; So the whorish woman is said to delude, by commending the stolen waters, and hidden bread for sweetness and pleasantness, (and so enticing her lovers to commit fornication with her 
a Pro. 9.1.7. ;) so the Philistines thought the Ark to be a rare thing 
b 1 Sam. 4.7, 8, 9 , and so indeed it was 
c Ver. 22. , for it was God's Ark, and not theirs, but sacralegiously taken by them 
d Ver. 10.11. etc. , and put in their idolatrous high place for the honour of Dagan their God 
e Cap. 5. 1.2. ; yet it was not effectual to save them from enemies, but rather to destroy them 
f Ver. 3.4, 5, 6, 7, 9.10.12. : yet notwithstanding after it was brought back again, the people of God enquired of God by it, and had an answer from him, which was effectual for the delivering of all Israel whether they were Jews, or Prosolites of Palestina, or any other Nation.  
And though the Israelites in their apostasy deceived both themselves and others, by retaining still an outward profession of God, and practising his outward ordinances, yea, and though they sacrificed unto devils, yet circumcision was not worn out by them, nor repeated, when the Apostates returned, but remained true circumcision both to young and old: and they, and their holy seed, were perpetually, to have a part, and portion, in all the holy things of God, and always as their children came to be capable, they were to manifest (actually) the fruits of ●ods Spirit, both faith, and love, and all other graces: but if they afterward fell away, and so embraced the apostate condition (in which their forefathers formerly had been) though repentance and regeneration might be preached unto them, yet they had no part in Christ's kingdom except they did repent, and become new creatures again; like the incestuous person in the Church of Corinth, when he was renewed again by repentance. And if any of the members in the visible Church (though never so eminent) commit sin, they both may, and aught then to be admonished to repentance; Therefore it is no sufficient argument to say, [that because the Ministers preach repentance, etc. to them] that therefore the baptism which they received is false. Simon Magus after he had believed, (and therefore was in all visible account saved) was (upon committing of sin) admonished by Peter to repentance; (yet his baptism was true) and so Judas Iscariot though (he was) a Saint outwardly, yet afterward he appeared to be a devil.  
And so fare as the Church of England both have, and will defend the doctrine of perseverance in the regenerate, and members of Christ, they are in the right, though all the good deeds which they do (either in point of justification, or sanctification) shalt not avail them, in that estate; for the Lord abhorreth their best actions, as he did abhor the best actions of the Apostate Israelites, and therefore circumcision [as it was acted by them] was abhorred by him; but when any of them returned, he bond them not to be circumcised again, but accepted of his own jewels 
* So Mr Spilsburie granteth that the vessels of the Lords house, they were God's ordinances, & that whiles they were in Babylon, etc. Dan. 5.2, 3. but not in respect of the use and service the Babylonians applied them unto, etc. Though in themselves, simply considered, they were God's ordinance, ordained by him to a holy use, in which consideration (saith he) baptism may be said to be God's ordinance in the Church of Antichrist. For this see his Treatise of Baptism, pa. 35. lin. 20. to lin. 27. , though brought out of the sink and grave of Apostasy.  
And so whatsoever good these Antichristians do is evil (as they do it) but if God give any of them a sight of their sin, they are to repent of the evil of the manner: but for the good thing they have received, they ought not to throw it away, but own it as Gods.  
And surely a person may be esteemed to be regenerated, and born again, though in Gods secret decree he was never elected. And yet these learned Divines (as you term them) are not in such a great strait in defending this, though it be against the Arminians; for truth is more easy to be defended, than error.  
Touching that all likelihood (which you bring, by entering into their heart) because it is brought only as a supposition, as it is slightly proved, so it deserves to be slightly passed over. And your answer thereunto i● somewhat like it, 
Pag. 5.7.  being an answer to such a likelihood, therefore it deserves no reply: though in answer to these speeches of yours (which you bring as suppositions or likelihoods) you advise the authors thereof to leave off such juggling 
a Pag 7. l. 16. , and give glory to God in acknowledging the truth.  
But after all this you make a simple objection on their behalf, thus 
b Lin 21. 22.  Infants are elected, and therefore they may be baptised.  
To which you answer 
c Lin. 23.24. , that all Infants are not elected, and therefore all infants ought not to be baptised.  
To which I reply, that as the objection is without distinction, so is your answer thereunto; and therefore except they were explained, it were folly to answer either of them. For a man may be in God's secret election a Saint, and yet an Idolater, and so are the infants of idolatrous parents' idolaters, (in regard of their visible estate) yet we know not but that God hath elected divers of them, and will in his due time manifest them.  
But you make another weak objection for them: for you say, they will reply, That in regard some infants are elected, and none can say that this or that particular infant is not elected, therefore Baptism must be administered unto all, because we may not deny the elect their privileges, for fear of giving to others, that which belongs not to them.  
And to this mad and foolish objection (which you father upon others) you make answer, that if it be a warrantable ground for you to administer baptism to all infants, because that some particular infants are elected, then by the same reason it will follow, that baptism may lawfully be administered to every man and woman in the world, because amongst them also we may judge that some are elected: But this (say you) contradicteth the order and rule of Christ. (Matth. 28.19. Mar. 16.16.) and must be ranked amongst other of their sophisms before detected 
* P. 8 l. 6. 7. .  
To which I reply: That [some] infant's are elected cannot be justly denied; But to administer baptism to [all] infants for fear of omitting it to any of the elect, is to do evil that good may come thereof.  
Moreover, all the elect are not privileged to have the outward ordinance of baptism, nor any of them till such time as they are manifested unto us to be visible Saints; Again, we know Judas Iscariot, and Simon Magus were baptised, though not elected.  
Now the reason which is annexed to the objection, is nonsense, which is for fear of giving to others that which belongs not to them: for in administering Baptism to [all] they give unto others (besides the elect) that which belongeth not to them; therefore such manner of reasoning will not stand; I seldom have heard the like reasoning, except it were amongst those who deny Infant's baptism to be Gods holy institution.  
Now in your answer to this you cross yourself; in pag. 7. lin. 9, 10, 11. where you say, that God hath not said he will destroy any infants in hell, and it would be censorious for any to judge that they shall be damned, and yet you grant concerning persons of years that they are under the censure of damnation. Therefore by your own ground you cannot so freely baptise all men and women as you can all infants, and therefore it appears that what you build up with one hand, you throw down with the other.  
In the second part of your answer to this objection, you grant (for arguments sake) that baptism is to be administered upon the elect before they manifest faith, in which affirmation, you want a distinction, and explanation, for you ought to have made a distinction between faith inherent, and faith professed; that is, you should have declared that faith may be inherent in some only; and professed in others.  
Secondly, that all that profess faith verbally have not faith really; and all that have faith really, do not profess it verbally, or manifest it themselves actually.  
Again, you should have explained yourself, whether you mean by the elect, all the elect, or but some of them, all which you have omitted: wherefore I omit to answer you till you further explain yourself. But in the conclusion you affirm, that its true faith only manifested, and made known by confession of the mouth, that gives the elect admission to Baptism.  
To which I answer, that though we cannot know invisibly because it is the only office of the invisible Spirit, to whom all things are visible, yet we may judge of invisible things, by visible demonstrations; as the Saints before us have done; so God leaving unto us a rule whereby to judge the infants of believers to be elected, it is want of knowledge and charity which maketh some persons that they cannot judge so of them, nor put a difference between the infants of heathens and the infants of believing parents; for the infants of believers in the time of the Law could not be circumcised (according to Gods will) without a confession; but if their parents made a confession, it was sufficient to bring both them and their infants to have right to circumcision, and those infants were Jews (that is, confessors) though they could not make a verbal confession themselves actually and the like privilege the infants of believers have now under the Gospel, to have baptism, as the other had circumcision, which is one and the same in effect. But when any of the Jews apostated, they lost the name; and so these idolaters of Rome, and England are as those Apostates than were, and so is their offspring. And when we call the unbelieving Hebrews by the name of Jews (or Israelites,) it is but only for distinction sake: for as the dumb Idols were called Gods, and yet were no gods, so those are no Jews which confess not Christ 
* Rom. 9.6. and 2.28. ; but if any do embrace Christ in purity, both they and their infants have right to baptism, (as really,) as the infants of the believing Jews had right to circumcision they being in the covenant. Else Christ should be less faithful in his house then Moses. For infants were by God counted worthy of the sign 
a Gen. 17.11.  and seal 
b Rom. 4.11.  of his righteousness both before 
c Gen. 17.7.9, 10, 11.14. Exod. 12.48.  and under the Law 
d Jos. 5.7. Luk. 1.59. ; and Christ coming into the world, came not to take away any privilege from any infant which formerly enjoyed the same, but placed as great a one (if not greater) in the stead thereof, he came not to take away the types from the infants of believers, and bereave them both of substances and types, but seeing baptism is come in stead of circumcision, as the infants of believers formerly had right to circumcision, so the infants of believers now have right to baptism.  
Thus, though you have passed from your first particular, to your fifth, from the end, to the subject, yet I have given you a direct answer unto both.  
THe second particular, 
Pag. 9  which you bring (for disproof of the baptism in the Church of England (is, the manner in which baptism is there administered, which manner (you say) is sprinkling, or casting a little water upon the head or face of the child baptised, wherein (you say) they show themselves as contrary to Christ as in the former particular. Forasmuch as the institution of Christ requireth that the whole man be dipped all over in water.  
To which I answer, that there is little weight in this confused exception of yours, as may plainly appear in observing the particulars; for you lay it down ambiguously, in saying the [head] or face of the child; If you mean that because the face is a part of the head, that they in baptising the face, baptise the head, in it I assent unto you; but if by the head you mean the scull, (or hairy place of the head) if you say they baptise that part by sprinkling or casting water thereon, I doubt not but you are mistaken.  
But you would have the whole man to be dipped all over in water, and this institution you would father upon Christ; But in this your own bare affirmation (though not yours only) the Scripture will not bear you out.  
But for confirmation of this your opinion of dipping every part, you quote divers Scriptures, as Matth. 3.11. Mark 1.8. Joh. 1.26. Act. 11.16. and you tell us they point out a baptism [in] water, but not a baptism [with] water 
* Lin. 21. .  
To which I answer, that if they point not out baptism [with] water, than they point out a baptism [without] water, but I thought you had intended to speak here only of the baptism of water (for so the Scriptures quoted do) and if that be your meaning, I pray you to show (if you can) how these Scriptures (or any other) do point out such a baptism [in] water, and yet not [with] water: To say it is the baptism of water, and yet not [with] water, argueth an impossibility, and is (in the self same respect) a flat contradiction, yea, and contrary to reason.  
Indeed if you had not repeated it again 
a Lin. 24. , and that in the same terms without alteration, I might have thought it had been only an oversight of yours. But finding the same thing insisted upon again 
b Lin. 27. 29.  and again 
c Pa. 10. lin 8. , charity itself would not permit me to judge otherwise, but that your words seem to import, that persons may receive the true baptism of water [in] water; and yet not [with] water. For (after you have quoted Matth. 3.11. Ego men baptizo humas en hudati, I indeed baptise you in water, Mar. 1.8. E●o men ●baptisa humas en hudati, I indeed have baptised you in water. Also Joh. 1.26. Act. 11.16.) you say, all these point out a baptism [in] water, but not a baptism [with] water.  
And whereas 
* Pag. 9 li. 22.23.  the word [en] (in Rev. 19.21. Kai hoi loipoi apoct athesanente romthaia) signifieth with.  
You answer, that it never signifieth with, after this word baptizo.  
Another reason you allege from Christ's being baptised into the Jordan. 
Pag. 9 Pag. 10.  Therefore you conclude again that this word [en] (as used after this word baptizo) must signify [in] and not [with.]  
But you should take notice that if Christ received the baptism of water, he was baptised not only when he was in Jordan, but there was he baptised [with] the water of Jordan. Wherefore it plainly appeareth that the word [en] in this place signifieth [with] and therefore you have not done well to say it doth not. You allege Greek and Latin) Authors to prove that the word en (as used after this word baptizo) must signify in and not with.  
Which thing is contrary to the Scriptures which speak of the baptism of water, neither can such an affirmation stand with reason, but is contradictory to itself, and therefore not to be believed.  
But the dipping of the whole man all over in water is that you stand for; but yet you have not proved it to be of Christ's ordaining, you deny both washing and sprinkling with water, to be God's ordinance; and affirm dipping is the only right way: but seeing you deny the former, how will you take (or how have you taken) up the latter: if you hold it successively, to the successors you must then go, if you have not found (or cannot find) them which way then have you taken (or which way will you take) it up? But by one whom you judge to be an unbaptised person. Moreover, you tell us that the whole man must be dipped all over, but you declare not unto us the way and manner thereof; whether the subject must go into the water himself, or whether he must be put in by another, or only led in, or carried; or (if the party must go in) whether he must be lifted up, out of the water, and so dipped down again, or no; or whether, only that part that is above the water, (must be dipped, and that part under the water let alone) or if the subject be dipped all but a part, whether he must be dipped again in whole, or in part, or if there be any error in your dipping, in omission or commission whether it maketh a nullity of your ordinance, how your judgement standeth in these things I know not: you stand for dipping, yea and dipping the whole man all over in water; not only the feet, but also the hands and head; but what if some part or parts be missing? is it not true baptism? But furthermore how shall this baptism be done by a weak person, especially in great and deep waters (which thing you urge in your discourse) how shall this dipping of every part be done in such rivers where the stream is ready to carry them away (especially when he who is the baptiser is weak of body, and lifteth up the (man or woman) above the water) these things are to be observed also.  
But surely it is not good to presume above what is written in the Word of God, either in justifying of ourselves, or condemning of others. And if you do but well observe the manner how Philip baptised the Eunuch, 
Act. 8.36.38.  peradventure you may receive some light in this point, whereby you may be dissuaded from your total dipping: for it is said that Philip and the Eunuch went both down into the water, and there Philip baptised the Eunuch, which doth plainly demonstrate, unto us, that going into the water is no part of baptism; because the baptism was administered after their going into the water; for if it had been a part of baptism, than the Eunuch baptised himself, for he went into the water. But the Scripture saith, that they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptised him. Neither is it said, that Philip baptised himself (which by the same reason we may conceive he did, if going into the water were a part of baptism) but the Scripture noteth the going down into the water, and the being baptised with the water, as two distinct things. Neither is it said, that Philip baptised the Eunuch's feet, or legs, for the Eunuch was in the water before, and at the time of his baptism, but it is said, Philip baptised him; to wit, a part of him for the whole, which part in reason must be conceived to be his face, under which external noble part is comprehended the whole man, and all the senses of his body. So the Scriptures in divers places teacheth us to understand, that a part sometimes is to be taken for the whole; so it was prophesied, that the Son of man should be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth 
* Mat. 12.40. , and yet he lay not there so long, but risen before three days or three nights was totally expired; as appeareth by Matth. 27.46. and 28.1 6 7. Mar. 15.42. and 16.2.9. Luk. 23.54 56. and 24.1 36. Joh. 19.42. and 20.1.14.19. All which doth teach us in some cases of great concernment (as this was about Christ's) to understand that sometimes when the whole is spoken of, but a part is meant: For to confirm this, you may see here, that we have the words and testimonies of Angels, Apostles, Prophets, and Saints, yea and of Christ himself: If then in some things of the greatest concernment we may and must take a part 
a Luk. 24. Mat. 17.23.  for the whole 
b Mat. 12.40. , sure then in some things [of lesser moment] we may, and must take a part for the whole. For it is not to be thought that God hath tied to baptise every member of our body, (which shall be raised at the day of judgement) that the Apostles so did baptise; neither can you prove, that the Apostles did so baptise, except you mean that a part is to be taken for the whole, as I have showed before. And seeing that Act. 8.38, 39 (concerning Philip's baptising the Eunuch) is brought by you 
c See his book, pa. 11. lin. 1.  to prove (as I suppose) that Philip baptised every external part of his body, and that by way of dipping) prove the thing, I say, (if you can) and then you will speak to some purpose in maintenance of your total dipping. If you cannot do it, to what end then have you brought this Scripture which maketh against you?  
Consider, I pray you, that Paul after the Lord had smitten him down 
d Act. 9.4. , was without his sight, but was led unto Damascus to the house of Judas, and there remained, in a weak condition, (not having his sight) nor taking any food for the space of three days 
e Ver 8 9.11. , his body being so enfeebled 
f Ver. 18.19.  shall we think that it would not have been an act of cruelty (Egyptian like) to have dipped him over head and ears in cold water? which thing I suppose you hold. For you cry out for dipping the whole man all over in water, and why will not the same rule which you have for dipping every part serve for washing, or sprinkling the same parts?  
O but (say you) Baptism in the Church of England is not God's ordinance, because it is administered by sprinkling, or casting water upon the subject: & you except against infusing or pouring the water upon (and therewith washing) the subject 
* See A.R. p. 9 li 16. p. 1●. l. 3.  But if you did but consider and read the Scriptures with understanding, and good judgement, you might perceive this manner to be right according to the rules and coherences of Scripture; for sprinkling (or putting water upon persons in baptism) hath been not only an ancient custom, but an act of Gods own acting and ordaining. God opened the windows of heaven, and poured down water in the time of Noah, and this was his manner of baptising then.  
And God himself baptised the children of Israel in the Red sea, not by overwhelming them with water, as he did the Egyptians, but by sprinkling or infusing water upon them 
g Psal 16.17.19.20. ; and yet Paul gives it the denomination of baptism 
h 1 Cor. 10.1.2. , and therefore though baptism be administered by sprinkling it is the very right baptism.  
And surely you have not well considered (or at least not explained yourself) in saying, that the washing of cups is not a putting or infusing water upon the cups 
i See A. R. p. 10. li. 21. 22.23. ; If you mean that it cannot be done by imposing water upon them, I affirm and will prove that it may be done by washing without dipping: whether they be cups or platters. But you should have considered that persons wash their faces by putting water thereon, this common experience teacheth us: so the Prophet Eliah washed his hands by water poured upon them 
* 2 King. 3.11. , done by his own servant Elisha; and in reason a man may with more ease & less trouble dip his hands, then his face: yet you may see the Prophet made clean his hands by having water poured upon them. And therefore (if reason itself would not teach us) the Scripture would, that cups may be wash d by pouring water upon them, and made as clean, yea cleaner than if they were dipped without cleansing or washing: but by this objection of yours you would intimate that so fare as you dip so fare you wash: or else of what weight is your speech of washing cups by putting them in water after your manner of dipping.  
Again, we may consider that sprinkling was appointed of God in the time of the Law; the ashes of the Red heifer mixed with living water 
* Numb. 19  was for this use, of sprinkling the people.  
And I suppose you cannot deny but ou● baptism answereth that, as well as the baptism of Noah in the A●k or Israel in the Sea. And I doubt not but that the baptism of Noah was a resemblance of our burial with Christ: neither dare I affirm otherwise, but that the baptism that now is, is a like figure answerable to that; but Peter telleth us it is not the washing away ●f the filth of the flesh, but it is a baptism which saveth us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Pet. 3 20, 21 And sprinkling and washing hath a similitude with the death, burial, and the resurrection of Christ: for those that are sprinkled and washed with the blood of Christ, are dead unto sin, and do live unto righteousness. The Law was their Schoolmaster to lead them unto Christ; but sprinkling was a part of the Law, an action of God's appointment, therefore it was to lead them unto Christ: and if we do but observe, we shall understand that the Red heifer 
* Num. 19  was a figure of Christ, the kill of it, and burning it on the Altar, signified the death of Christ, and his bitter passion; the Ashes being to be mixed with living water, and so that water to sprinkle the people set all this forth unto them: It was to teach them that the blood of Christ was only sufficient to purge sin, it was therefore to teach them mortification of the old man, a dying to sin, and a living to righteousness, through the mercy of God, and the Messiah who was then to come; yea, and it did also really figure out unto them, God's gracious acceptation of them, and of that sacrifice for them, for so the turning of the  offering unto ashes did signify 
* Psal. 20.3. , and so the sprinkling was to put them in mind of the same; and whereas it was mixed with living water, and so imposed upon them, it was to teach them, that so their sins should be washed away through Christ: and to this the Apostle alludeth, where he mentioneth pure water. Now he that is a selfdenying Christian, dead unto sin, and so mortified, he is buried with Christ by a baptism without hands; And when he apprehends God's gracious love and mercy, and free acceptation of him through Christ, he may well be said to be risen with Christ: all these things the sprinkling was to teach them, to behold Christ's day afar off; And yet you presume to say, that sprinkling or washing without dipping hath no [similitude] with death, burying, and rising again 
* Treat. A. R p. 11. li. 24.25. : But why then doth the Scripture so plentifully set forth our mortification, repentance from dead works, dying to sin, and living to righteousness under such terms 
* Heb. 10.22.23. & 12.24. Eze. 36.25  as washing and sprinkling, if sprinkling and washing did not bear out a similitude thereof. And why doth the Scripture give that the denomination of baptism 
* 1 Cor. 10.1.2. Luk. 12.50. Isa. 52.14. , which was not done by dipping them (or plunging them) in the element. Surely these things being rightly considered, it will evidently appear, that the baptism done by sprinkling and washing is not only a full resemblance of our mortification or washing from our sins, and the cleansing of our souls by Christ's blood, and so a dying to sin, and a living to righteousness 
a 1 Cor. 6.11. ; a putting on of Christ 
b Gal. 3.27. , etc. but also holds forth unto us the death of [Christ] and his bitter passion 
c Luk. 12.50. , yea self-denial, and forsaking of all for Christ's sake, as much, yea, and much more than dipping the whole man without washing can do.  
Yea the Apostle Peter intimateth that the external baptism is a washing away of the filth of the flesh (holding forth no more than an external ordinance can hold forth. This Peter could speak by experience, for he knew that Simon Magus, who believed outwardly had the outward washing, and yet manifested himself afterwards to be in the gall of bitterness, and in the bonds of iniquity 
a Act 8.23 ;) but the baptism which is only available to salvation, is the answer of a good conscience toward God, that is the baptism indeed which saveth by the resurrection of Jesus Christ 
b 1 Pet. 3 21. : Now he that hath his heart sprinkled with the blood of Christ, he may fully assure himself that he shall be saved, and so he is risen with Christ though he want the outward baptism (which you grant is nothing in comparison of Christ 
c In the second Treatise, pa. 17. ) and so he having part in Christ who is the resurrection and the life 
d Joh. 11.25. , he shall not be hurt with the second death. Rev. 2.11. and 20.6.  
But this your dipping of the whole man all over in water, you would have to hold forth not only death and burial, but also a rising again: and for this end you mention some words of the Apostle Paul, Col. 2.12. Buried with him by baptism, wherein you are also risen with him, etc. Rom. 6.4.5. We are buried with him by baptism into his death. And if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also in the likeness of his resurrection. And in 1. Cor. 15.29. St. Paul amongst other arguments to prove the resurrection hath these words, What shall they do which are baptised for dead, if the dead rise not at all; why then are they baptised for dead?  
Answ. The first Scripture (Col. 2.12.) speaketh of a resurrection then present, and the other Scriptures (Rom. 6.5. 1. Cor. 15.29.) speak of a resurrection to come. Now in the resurrection at the day of judgement the blind shall receive their sight 
* Rev. 1.7 Job 19.24, 25, 26.27. , though the eyes which are the instrument of their sight are perished; and though a person have lost his legs, or his arms, or any external member of his body, (that is not superfluous) yet he being not thereby killed is (according to his capability) still to believe, that all those breaches shall be made up in the resurrection: now if you should happen to baptise such a one by dipping which hath such defects in nature, as the want of his legs, arms, or eyes, etc. will you say that that baptism setteth forth unto him no more but only the raising of those external parts which you then dip; than you will have it to set forth a blind (or lame) resurrection. But if you will say, the baptism he receiveth at your hands setteth forth the resurrection of all the parts, both those parts that are missing, and those parts that are not; those members that are baptised and those members that are not baptised: then the case is evident that (the eminents part (or parts) of the body being baptised) the said baptism setteth forth the same benefit unto the rest of the members; for in the resurrection if one member be had in honour, all shall be had in honour.  
For further explaining of the matter, I put this ordinary case unto you, (and desire you to consider thereof) Suppose a man come unto you to be baptised, and wanteth one, or both of his legs, arms, eyes, or other external members, what now is to be done in this case? Peradventure you will say that you cannot baptise those members that are not to be found; So say I too: But what then? if those members were (or are) to be found? must you needs seek for those; to baptise them with him? You will say, No! that would be a senseless thing to baptise that which hath no more life in it then a stone! I also affirm the same. But what is further to be done? will you proceed and baptise this believer, or leave him unbaptised? You will say, He is a believer, though he want his eyes, legs, arms, etc. and therefore he must be baptised, though he want those external members. Yea, but then I ask you whether you do not conceive that your baptism is a burial, and a rising again, and whether you do not believe that it setteth forth unto the lame man the resurrection of [all] his members, as well as if all his members had been baptised; I suppose you will say, Why not? there is no reason can be given to the contrary, considering that those members shall be raised with the body at the resurrection. But then I desire you to remember this, and bear in mind what will follow, namely, that baptism setteth forth the resurrection of those external members which were never baptised, and therefore that which you esteem to be no baptism, or but a baptising [in part] setteth forth the resurrection of the [whole] body; and so totally of [all] the members thereof, and belonging thereunto; so that the face (or eminents part of a man) being baptised though the rest of the members are not wet with water, yet this baptism holdeth forth the resurrection of the whole body. I mean not only a spiritual resurrection, but a translation of the natural body into a spiritual body, and this is the resurrection the Apostle speaketh of when he saith, What shall they do that are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why then are they baptised for dead? 1. Cor. 15 9  
Your conclusion of this point 
* Pa. 12.  which is grounded upon a supposition, I reject, because it openly contradicteth the Scripture, 1 Cor. 10.2.1. Pet. 3.27. Matth. 20.22. Luke 12.50. Isa. 14.15. For you say, that he that is not dipped, is not baptised; and that all those that have the administration of baptism by sprinkling, or by any washing without dipping are unbaptised. Which I deny, and that from the grounds before alleged; remember (I pray you) how you urge the greatness of the quantity of the element, to be of such necessity to baptism, that except a person have so much, wherein he may dip the whole man all over, baptism cannot be rightly administered upon him; and so by your grounds not administered at all.  
And this is one of the particulars, by which you would disprove the baptism in the Church of England.  
Now, though in the Church of England the manner of baptising is by sprinkling, washing, or pouring the water upon the most eminent part of the subject, which is there presented to be baptised, yet in the Church of Rome, and in some places of England, and the dominions of Wales, they have used, and do use dipping of persons in the ordinance of baptism; which is a thing [in respect of the manner] pleasing unto you (and therefore in this second particular not here excepted against by you) for in striking at the manner, you have in this touched nothing, but [only] their washing, sprinkling, or pouring of water upon the party, whereon it is administered.  
Your third ground (or particular) by which you labour 
* Pa. 12. at lin. 26.  to disprove the baptism in the Church of England, and make it to be of none effect, is, because of the Antichristian power, authority, and office of ministry by which it is administered: and so you conclude, that because their power and authority is not of Christ: therefore the baptism is not from Christ 
* Pa. 13. lin. 1.2. .  
To which I answer, That I grant they have no enrighting power to administer any of the holy things of God, no more than the Apostate Israelites, yet as that Antichristian power by which they did administer, destroyed not circumcision, but that it remained true circumcision: so baptism, (being as durable as circumcision) it cannot be worn out by these Apostates, no more than circumcision was by the other.  
And what right had the Philistines to the Ark? or what authority had the Babylonians to steal the vessels of the Lord? or what power had Idolaters to lay sacralegious hands upon any of his holy institutions? Surely they had no such commission, either from God or Christ, so to do; yet, I hope, you will not say, that the Ark was no Ark, the vessels no vessels, the institutions (as in themselves) nothing at all; for than you would openly contradict the Scripture 
* 1. Sam. 4. & 5. Dan 5.3.23. Ezra 6.5. Ezek. 43.8. Rev. 11.2. . The like may be said concerning Gods institutions under the defection of Antichrist, the marriage, is marriage; though the manner be not performed lawfully: the Word is the Word of God, and baptism his own, though in apostasy.  
And whereas you say 
* Pa. 13. at li. 25 , that as the Lord Jesus Christ hath no where in his Word ordained or appointed any women to administer his baptism. Nor no more hath he any where in his Word authorised any men by any false power to administer his baptism.  
I answer. The like may be said concerning circumcision; We read not that any woman had authority (from God) to circumcise 
* And yet Mr Spilsbery in his Treat see of Bap p. 33. lin. 47.48. saith, he seethe not but that in case of necessity a woman might lawfully circumcise, she being no where prohibited. But by the same rule of his, a woman may lawfully baptise. : yet the act being done by Ziporah [a woman] it was not false circumcision; and God (who is the God of order) never gave wicked men any order to circumcise, or any one by any false power to administer his sign, and seal of the righteousness of faith; and yet though it were administered in that Apostate estate, of Israel by apostates, and upon Apostates, yet it made no anullitie of the ordinance, but was the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith to those that returned out of the grave of that Apostasy.  
Therefore the ground which you draw by similitude from the civill ●ates (applying the same comparatively to the spiritual) will not serve your turn. For the King's Proclamations are his, though proclaimed by any: which thing you would have to be nothing 
* Pa. 13. p. 14. ; for in speaking of the ordinances of the commonwealth, you include them all, and so you would infer that what an Antichristian ministry doth, if it be done by a false power, the action (whether it be baptism, or any other thing) it is false: but this your ground will not hold. For the King's lawful acts are real, and substantial, though the dispensation of the same (in respect of the party dispensing) be contrary to his mind and will. As if the King command that none in his Realm shall marry persons together, but the Christian Magistrates. But if the Priests do the same contrary to the King's command, shall we say the Parties are not married, and that the marriage is false and counterfeit? this I conceive you will not affirm 
* For than their children begotten (in th● estate) are bastards.  So your former ground being groundless, your comparison is frivolous.  
And considering that God's ordinance of circumcision was real and effectual, though administered by a false power, you cannot say that it was none of God's ordinance, for than they should have been circumcised again: so the like may be said concerning baptism. Therefore your other comparison and application 
* Pa. 14. at l 26  [in this case] about Jannes and Jambres rods, etc. (2. Tim. 3.9. Exod. 7.10. ver. 11.12.) is of no weight, but rather a wresting of the words of the Scripture, for you can gather no such conclusion out of Paul's words, neither by any part of the Scripture itself, or necessary consequence; for though these Antichristians (in opposing the truth) are like Jannes and Jambres, yet because they draw near unto God with their mouths, (and their hearts fare from him) they are rather like the Apostate Israelites.  
For which Papist (of the grossest of them) will deny verbally that Christ is come in the flesh, that there are three persons in the Trinity; etc. so fare are they from denying it, that they abhor those that say to the contrary, and are ready to burn them with fire and faggot. Such a kind of zeal have they for him whom they know not rightly, but in their superstitious works deny him: And (by your own confession 
** Pa. 15. l. 20. ) the Church of England doth in their nineteenth Article profess, that the visible Church of Christ consisteth of faithful men, etc. this is a real truth; And yet these persons (I say) do deny Christ, because they submit not unto him as he is Prophet, Priest, and King. And yet notwithstanding we will not say but that these Apostatical persons have baptism, and as much right unto it, and power and authority to administer it, as the Apostates of old had to receive and administer circumcision. But the Temple, and the Altar, and the worshippers must be measured, when the Court which is without (by God's command) must be left out, and not measured, because it was given to the Gentiles. Rev. 11.1, 2. 
*** Christian Reader, understand that whereas Mr. A.R. hath (in his treatise of Baptism, p. 12. to 22. p. 31.32.) spoken against the power and authority, and office of ministry, which the man of sin hath given to the Ministers of Antichrist, I contradict him not in this, but do judge them (in the same visible estate) as jeroboam apostatical priests were, though they have baptism as the other had circumcision.   
Fourthly, (you 
* Pag. 23. to p. 24. lin 4.  say) the ground from which baptism is there administered, is the repentance and faith of the sureties; the evidence whereof you bring out of the Catechism: where they declare, that repentance and faith is required to baptism; and that the infants perform it by the sureties, who take upon them to answer for the infants.  
Answ. That repentance and faith is required to baptism is true; but seeing the sureties are not able to perform it for themselves, much less can they do it for others; It is not Noah, Daniel, or Job that can save any sinner from God's wrath 
a Ezek. 14.14 ; the righteous are scarcely saved themselves 
b 1. Pet 4.18. ; how then shall the wicked undertake, so presumptuously to answer for any, especially for those whom God (in his revealed will) hath made no promise to save; yet though the members of the Church of England do presume so fare, it doth not make a nullity of the ordinance, no more than the Philistines presumption in taking the Ark of God 
c 1. Sam. 4.10, 11. and 5.1. , or the men of Bethshemosh their looking therein 
d & 6.19. , made it to be no Ark of God; neither doth men's traditions destroy Gods institutions; for God's pillars and posts are still his own, though Idolaters do set theirs thereby 
e Ezek. 43.8. .  
But though some in the Church of England do baptise by sureties, (which they commonly call godfathers and godmothers) yet others see it to be vain and popish, and do baptise their children without them, these [in respect of the ground which you have here instanced] you cannot object against.  
Now, the ground wherefore the Church of England doth administer baptism, is taken out of God's Word; (at least pretended (by them) so to be) how Christ declared that little children belong to the kingdom of God; and he took them up in his arms, & laid his hands upon them and blessed them, etc. yea from the very institution of Jesus Christ unto his disciples, Matth. 28.19. Mark. 16.16. this I say (though it be the ground whereby they administer baptism, as (peradventure) the ground of the Apostates of Israel circumcising, was taken from the commission of God given to Abraham) yet these Idolaters (like the Apostate Israelites) are sacralegious abusers of this holy institution of God.  
Thus having answered directly to your four particulars, which you have brought against the baptism in the Church of England; I now proceed to answer your fifth and last particular; (to wit) concerning the subjects which you treated of, in your first particular, where you passed from the end to the subject.  

Pag. 24.  THe subjects (say you) on which baptism is there administered are infants.  
To which I answer, that you have omitted a material word, for you should have said the infants of [Idolaters] but when you speak of infants [in general] without denoting what sort of infants you mean; you speak in the air!  
But you grant that the Scripture holdeth forth, that disciples (or believers) only are to be baptised; which is really my judgement, that only believers (or disciples) are to be baptised, as formerly they were to be circumcised; and as Abraham himself had no command to circumcise all nations, or seeds, (or any apostate whatsoever, though the offspring of his body) but those that were the seed in covenant with God 
* Gen. 7.14. , so the Apostles had no warrant to baptise any other, but believing men and women, and their holy seed; according to the great commission of our blessed Saviour, where all nations were commanded to be baptised, only upon this condition, that they should become disciples, Matth. 28.19. Mar. 16.16. Act. 2.38. And I grant with you, that to be a disciple of Christ is to abide in him, and to continue in his words, Joh. 8.31. such are Christ's disciples indeed, and are made free by Christ 
* Joh 8.36. ; such as bear the cross, and come after Christ, forsaking all that they have; But know this, that free Justification cometh not by any act of our own, but by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed unto us 
* Isa. 63.3.5 & 53.10, 11, 12. Rom. 3.6. Rev. 1.5. & 5.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. . And therefore holy infants may be said in one respect to do all these things; Christ himself hath declared, that they receive the kingdom of God; and such holy infants are his disciples indeed; such have born the cross divers times, suffering with their holy parents, for the same cause; and they resist not the will of God in any thing; these are not all infants, but only the infants of believing parents, whom we ought to judge as righteous, and as holy (till they manifest otherwise) as any other Saint on earth, though he profess great things; these are those heavenly creatures, to whom the Gospel ought be applied though they are uncapable to receive it actually; yea when the Gospel is verbally applied to the parents, their infants are not exempted, but received, according to Christ's words unto Zacheus, To day is salvation come to this house, for as much as he also is the son of Abraham 
* Luk. 19.9. . Christ hath promised life to those that choose life, and also to their infants; and therefore the same infants have faith imputatively, for he that believeth not, shall be damned. So that it appeareth, that salvation cometh not but by faith in Christ.  
For as much then as the Scripture is so clear, that these holy infants are saved, and seeing that salvation cometh not without repentance and faith: It is too much presumption to say, that infants are destitute of faith and repentance; though all the men in the world would grant it.  
But I do wonder what is the main ground that doth drive you, or, the greatest reason (or conceit) that doth draw you so to determine concerning infants 
* Pag. 25. , as if they were destitute of the heavenly gifts and graces of God's Spirit; Is it because they cannot verbally express (or actually perform) such things, as those of riper years can do? If this be your greatest reason, it will not bear down the least weight in the balance of God's sanctuary; as may easily appear.  
But though baptism in the Church of England be administered upon the wrong subjects (namely the seed of Idolaters) and though eternal life be sought and promised by them another way than God hath appointed; yet to affirm, that because some infants are not meet subjects of baptism, that therefore no infants are, is a saying founded upon the sands, and fetched out of the fond fictions of men's brains, and not from the word of God.  
Your best way had been this, to have searched into the records of holy Scripture, and observed the nature of the ordinance of circumcision, and compared the same sign 
a Gen. 17.13.  and seal 
b Rom. 4.11.  of righteousness with baptism 
c Col. 2.11, 12. , and so to have found out the equivolence which the one hath with the other, and then you should have examined whether the circumcision of Apostate Infants were according to the will of God, and if it were not, whether they were commanded (by the Lord) at their returning, to be circumcised again; If it had been so, than you might have had ground to have beaten down the baptism, which is received in the Church of England: but this is not the way you take; but instead of this you shoot at rovers; not keeping to the matter in hand. And till it can be proved that the circumcision of infants was none of the Lords circumcision, I must still say, that the baptism of Infants is the Lords baptism; wherefore stand to your cause, and bring forth your strong reasons. For as yet your reasons are very weak, though you conceive you have brought them to such an issue, that, you say 
* Pa. 26. , you shall now proceed no further therein: yet (I say) except you can make void the covenant of Abraham so much, that it doth not appertain to the infants of believing parents, as well as to the parents themselves, and that the application of the Gospel appertaineth not to them also, and that the general commission of Christ includeth not infants, [which you can never do while the world stands, seeing the Scripture (in this point) is so clear against you] I must still say, that the baptism of such infants is lawful, and warrantable; yea for as much as it was acted by God 
a 1. Cor. 10 2 , and instituted by Christ 
b Mat. 28.19 M rk. 16.16. , it ought to be practised by his Saints, perpetually to the end of the world 
c Mat. 28.20. ; and the further you go on in gainsaying this truth the greater is your sin.  
For, all unbaptised persons to whom the application of the Gospel doth appertain, are expressly commanded (by Christ) to be baptised.  
But the application of the Gospel appertaineth to the infants of believing parents.  
Therefore all such infants (if they be not already baptised) are expressly commanded (by Christ) to be baptised.  
The first part of this argument is proved from Mar. 16.16.  
The second, namely, that the application of the Gospel appertaineth to these infants is proved.  
1. By the covenant of Abraham, which was a covenant of life, 
Gen. 17.7.  generally made with God's visible Church both young and old.  
Secondly, by the testimony of Christ, that they are part of the furniture of his Father's kingdom 
d Mar. 10.13.14. , and these vessels though they be but of [small] quantity 
e Isa. 22.24. , yet they are spiritually holy, and therefore have a right to baptism, the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, (as really) as the infants of the believing Hebrews had right to circumcision the sign and seal of the same righteousness of faith.  
Therefore this administering or baptism upon such holy infants, doth not prevent the administering of baptism upon disciples (or believers) as you falsely speak 
* Pa. 27. .  
For seeing the infants of believers are not placed among dogs, and whoremongers without, they are within the new Jerusalem, and have right to the holy City, and the privileges thereof 
f Rev. 22.14.15. . For Jesus Christ (who is yesterday, to day, and the same for ever, Hebr. 13 8.) never gave them such a dismissi n, that they should not be members of his visible Church, as heretofore they have been, (Exod. 12.48.) but rather he hath confirmed them therein, (Jer. 30.20.) for all the promises of God are yea, and Amen, in Christ. 2 Cor. 1 20.  
Therefore, I desire rather to magnify the mighty power of God by which the infants of Israel were baptised 
g 1 Cor. 10 1 2.  in the days of Moses, (before the Law was given on mount Sinai 
h Joh. 7.22. ) then deny them baptism now in the days of the M ssias, or call the baptism of such infant's a device of man's brain, and no baptism of Christ, as you have here presumptuously (or (at least) ignorantly) done 
* Pa 28. , you plead 
i Pa. 28 li. 15 16.  against the baptising of infants destitute of faith.  
But those infants are the infants of idolatrous parents, whom we are not to name among the living in Je●usalem 
k ●sa. 4●  till either one or both of their parents repe●t, or till they renounce their parent's sin, according to that in Ez k 18 14.17. And the baptising of those infants I do not allow of, but would have them to be put by; but some of them being baptised (though not aright) shall we say that that baptism is no baptism, or that it is another baptism than the baptism of believers; no surely, there is no more external baptisms of water, than there were external circumcisions. Now if you can prove, that there were (appointed by God) divers external circumcisions, both in respect of the nature, end, and use thereof, (one circumcision for infants, another for elder persons) and that the circumcision of infants prevented the circumcision of Believers; than you may with more colour of truth say, that the baptism of infants preventeth the baptism of believers, and make the baptism of infants a different thing from it, which thing you can never do.  
But peradventure you will say, (by infants here) you mean the infants of wicked and idolatrous parents, and not the infants of the faithful.  
To which I answer, that then you should have so expressed; But I would have you to mind, that though the act of baptising idolaters be different from the [baptising] of true Christians (in respect of the manner, effect, and application thereof) yet the [baptism] is one and the same, even as the circumcising of the apostate Jews, and of those that were not Apostates, did not argue but that the circumcision was one and the same, but differed in the manner of administration, and in the application thereof.  

Pa. 28. lin. 19 to lin. 28.  Whereas you say, that the baptism of infants as it is by authority ordained in this kingdom, doth thus fare prevent the baptising of believers, that hereby no native can be baptised upon faith, seeing all are to be baptised in their infancy, when they are destitute of faith: wherefore if all other Kingdoms and Nations did the same, than the commandment of Christ, for the baptism of disciples (or believers) would be quite prevented, and destroyed out of the whole world, as well as it is out of this Kingdom.  
I answer, that though the natives infants in the Church of England be not baptised upon their faith; because Idolaters have no faith 
* Rev. 22.15. ; yet if any do return out of that Apostasy, they are not to be baptised again, no more than the penitent apostate Israelites were circumcised again; because (God having purged the evil of the manner of administering his ordinance) the ordinance is really accounted with God, (and aught so to be esteemed of his Saints) as done upon a right subject. 
a Christian Reader, see Mr. Henry Barrow [a Martyr in Queen Elizabeth's time] his discovery, (pa. 114. and so forth to the end of the discourse concerning this matter) where he handleth this particular point at large. .  
And though we had no right to baptism (as we stood) in that estate, but wickedly usurped the same, yet being come out of Babel, that which is Gods, we have a right unto; although we received the same before we separated from Babel; Even so the Apostates of Israel (in their apostasy) had no right to the circumcision 
a Psal. 50.16. Hos. ●. 2, 3, 4. Jer. 9.25, 26.  they received in that apostasy, but when any of them returned to Judah 
b 1. Chron 30.13. , they were not commanded to be circumcised again, because they then had a right to that circumcision which they had formerly received in that idolatrous way in which they had walked.  
Even as a man which stealeth goods from the owner thereof, hath no right unto them; but if he bring the same back to the owner, and the owner give him that which he formerly stole 
* The stealing of a thing doth not alter the property thereof, or make the thing to be nothing. , than he hath a right unto them.  
So when we were in the idolatrous assemblies, we were runaways, and apostates from God, and thiefs to God, like Jeroboam and his crew, but when we returned, we came and tendered to God that which we had stolen from him; even as the penitent Israelites did their circumcision; and as God did not command them to be circumcised again; no more hath he commanded us to be baptised again; but is graciously pleased to bestow upon us those false gotten goods, which we unjustly did reset, and receive, from the hand of our old mother, 
Prov. 9.17. Rev. 9 21.  that whore of Babylon, which stole them from God: who ordinarily doth mix her own traditions with Gods, to make her own ware to pass in sale.  
Whereas you say, that the baptism of disciples (or believers) is out of this kingdom of England: Indeed I hope it is not so. For there are a number of baptised believers who do baptise their infants, and so long as they so do, the ordinance of baptising disciples (or believers) will not out of the land where they are now, or wheresoever (by God's providence) they shall be cast.  
And you should mind that the baptism in the Church of England appertaineth to believers, therefore, it is theirs properly; and though idolaters (by God's permission) sacraligiously abuse it, yet they do not destroy it, but rather destroy themselves with it, as the Philistines 
* 1. Sam. 5.9, 10.  in retaining the Ark. But I could wish that you would put a distinction between [baptism] and baptising, the manner of baptising being theirs, but the baptism properly Gods; appertaining to his Church, as well as the outward court (in the Law) appertained to the Temple 
* 2. Chron. 4.9 .  
Further (you say) that if any shall here object and say, the discovering of the evil of this form of baptising is needless, seeing divers persons see it already to be so frivolous and naught, that they much dislike it, and will not have their children baptised with godfathers, but upon other grounds, namely, from the covenant made with believers, and their children, upon which ground also, they of the separation use to baptise their children, wherefore their arguments should have been likewise answered.  
To this you answer:  
1. Although some few see this form of baptising to be sinful and naught, yet what is this to the rest of the whole Nation, who yet make conscience of that Idol to this day?  
2. Although they of the separation, and some others, do mend the matter (as they think) in the baptising of their children otherwise, and upon other grounds, yet what is all this to their own baptism, being naught by their own confession; and a nullity also, even from their own grounds: for they grant, that no children save only believers children, are in the covenant, or have right to baptism; then most of themselves had no right to baptism, their parents (by their own acknowledgement) being ungodly: whence it will follow, that they themselves being baptised in their infancy, had not the baptism of Christ, and so by consequence are yet unbaptised persons: Thus is their own baptism clearly made void from their own grounds, and how then can their children be now baptised in the right of such parents, who are yet unbaptised themselves?  
To all which I reply: That though I hold the discovering of the evil form of baptising to be needful, yet I dislike your evil proceed in the discovery thereof.  
But whereas you speak of the form of baptising, and the form of baptism both in the objection 
a Pa 28. l. 33.34.  and the answer which you make 
b P 29 l. 6 , I suppose, you intent the set form for baptising, mentioned in the Common Prayer Book, and this (I conceive) is the Idol, which you say 
c li. 8 9 , many make conscience of to this day; and if this be your meaning, I will not oppose you, because I am of that mind, and so are the best informed Christians that the Common Prayer Book is vain and Popish, and meeter for [Babel's brats] then for [Simons babes], and better beseeming time-serving [Massmongers] to be occupied therein, than the faithful, laborious, and painful Ministers of the Gospel.  
Whereas you say, the separation and some others do mend the matter (as they think) in the baptising of their children otherwise, and upon other grounds.  
I answer. If by the separation you mean those that are come out of Babel, (I say) I know none (either young or old) that have right to baptism in Babel, or if they walk in any of the sins of Babel, and will not be reclaimed; they have no right to any of God's ordinances, because they are not visible Saints. And therefore they cannot have such grounds for baptising their infants, as the Saints have for baptising theirs: for those that are out of covenant themselves, as they cannot lawfully apply the covenant to their seed, (nor to themselves) no more can they apply the seal of the Covenant; neither is it lawful for them to baptise any at all, whether believers or unbelievers, for it is sacrilege for any that are not visible Saints to administer or partake of any of God's ordinances.  
And whereas you ask the separation (and these some others) what all this is to their own baptism, which (say you) is naught by their own confession.  
Answ. Here I suppose you do not take along with you the distinctions of the separation; for we say that when we were in Babylon, the baptism we received was not properly ours, but God's baptism, appertaining only to visible Saints. And though we hold the manner of [baptising] to be naught, yet the [baptism] in itself we affirm, and have proved (and will still further prove upon occasion) that it is good; but the baptism of the holy Infants of believers administered upon them out of Babel, we hold to be good in every respect, and that it hath no need of any purgation. And I suppose you allege nothing against the baptism we administer now, but only the minority of the subject (which you account in no better an estate than a heathen.) And because we have not such a multiplication of the element as may dip a man in, all over.  
As for those some others besides Separates, which, you also say, do mend the matter, I know not who they be, if they are not separated from the unclean thing, they are unclean; and how do they mend the matter, that are not amended themselves?  
We do not say, that no children, save only believers children, are in the covenant, or have right to Baptism; you here mistake us (or else mistake yourself) for we affirm that some unbelievers children are in the covenant, though their parents are out of the covenant; and we also hold, that some believers children are out of the covenant, though their parents are in the covenant; but such of their children as are infants, and (also such of years) which depart not from the steps of their righteous parents) we judge to be in the covenant; Now, I say, if by children you mean infants, than we still affirm, that all the children of unbelievers [in their infancy] are out of the covenant, (so far as men can judge) and have no right to baptism, [their parents being ungodly.]  
For how can the infants be said to be godly, in visibility, [either by action, or imputation] so long as their parents are visible idolaters, either personally, or statively: Surely, where the guilt of original sin is not to be judged to be imputatively done away by Christ, the visible seal of the forgiveness of that sin ought not to be applied, but their guilt of original sin is not [in Gods revealed will] declared (and therefore is not of us to be judged) to be imputatively done away by Christ.  
Therefore baptism (which is the visible seal of the forgiveness of that sin,) ought not to be applied unto such persons.  
And though we affirm, that we had no right to baptism in the state of Apostasy, (our parents being then Antichristians) yet it will not follow (as you would infer) that we had not the baptism of Christ: neither by our own grounds, nor from any ground you have, or (I suppose) can allege against the same; And therefore there is no place for you to build any just consequence that we are unbaptised persons; yea though you upon this unnecessary consequence build an affirmation, that our own baptism is clearly made void even from our own grounds; and upon this conceit of yours, you ask how then can their children be now baptised in the right of such parents, who are yet unbaptised themselves? and so you take for granted, that which you cannot prove. For I think in this particular concerning the baptism of such infants, you may seek your opposite among the Babylonians, for I conceive no Separate will in this oppose you.  
But (you say) the grounds which Separates and others do urge for the baptising of Infants, shall be further examined and answered (if God will) in another Treatise.  
To which I answer, that there shall be a Reply made thereunto with all speed (God willing) in another Treatise.  
Next you add, that if any shall think it strange and unlikely, that all the godliest Divines, and best Churches, should be thus deceived in this point of Baptism for so many years together.  
Let them consider (say you) that all Christendom (except here and there one, or some few, or no considerable number) was swallowed up in gross Popery for many hundred years before Luther's time, which was not until about 100 years ago.  
To which I answer, that all this is nothing at all to the point, for the apostasy of Israel was for many hundred years; and yet the Saints, I suppose, did not doubt but the Apostates were deceived in the point of circumcision; howbeit not simply in circumcising, or in circumcising of Infants, (for that was the ordinance of God) but in circumcising in apostasy, and imposing the sign upon Apostates, and their apostate seed, Therefore (the Prophet Isaiah saith unto God) thou hast forsaken thy people, the house of Jacob: because they are replenished from the East, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and please themselves in the children of strangers. Isa. 2. So these Apostates are not deceived (simply) in the act of baptising, or in administering it upon infants (only as they are infants) but because they baptise in that Idolatrous and Apostate state, and administer the sign upon the infants of ungodly parents.  
In comparing the Baptism of Infants with the abominable hierarchy, you foully miss, (especially if you mean the infants of godly parents;) you might as well have said, that the circumcision of Infants was as bad as Jeroboams hierarchy which he made of the lowest of the people 
a 1. King. 13.33, 34 . But considering that the circumcision of holy Infants was the same sign 
b Gen. 17.11.  and seal 
c Rom. 4.11.  of the righteousness of faith which Abraham had; and considering that baptism is come in the stead of it, and that it is no less general than circumcision, nor inferior thereunto 
d Col. 2.11, 12. , you may perceive that the baptism of Infants is an ordinance from heaven.  
But the hierarchy are the army of Locusts, which came from hell, and were hatched in the [smoke] of the bottomless pit 
e Rev. 9.3. , which smoke is somewhat like to Bishop Hals foggy Divinity, which you have set down 
* Pa. 30. at li. 8.  for memorandum. In whose judgement (you say) the baptism of Infants hath less warrant, than the hierarchy; but this his erroneous judgement, will stand you in no stead, neither will his challenge 
* Lin. 27. 28, 29, 30.  nor the judgement of any other (though never so much noted) avail you any thing at all, in this your opposition of the baptism of the infants of believers. Neither can Bishop Hall on the one side, nor you on the other side, (with all the help you can get) overthrew the baptism of Infants; for all your words without the authority of Scripture is but wind; for it is presumption (or ignorance at the best) in Bishop Hall and you: so to speak concerning Infants baptism, as if the Scripture owned it not.  
But all which you have here said doth not overthrow our baptism which we received in the Church of England; for if Apostates should wear out God's ordinance of Baptism, any more than the Apostates of Israel did wear out the ordinance of circumcision in the time of Israel's Apostasy (before Christ was manifested in the flesh) it would argue a great weakness, and imperfection in Christ, as if he were not so faithful in his house as Moses, or as if Baptism were of smaller value, and sooner worn out then circumcision.  
But you (in the entrance of your Treatise) have granted it to be a great ordinance of the New Testament. To which I further add for conclusion, that as circumcision was not worn out, but was so permanent that it remained till Christ's first coming, and till he took away the beggarly rudiments of the old Covenant: so baptism hath not nor shall not be worn out or taken away, but remain as permanent, till Christ come to give us the substance of all his ordinances; the accomplishment of all his promises, the enjoyment of that immortal and unchangeable inheritance which shall never be worn out, or taken away, but remain from everlasting to everlasting.  
FINIS.   

Errata.  
PAg. 12. lin. 7. for Christ's, read, Christ. li. 15. leave out these words, that the Apostles so did baptise. p. 13. l 8. in the Marg. for Psal. 16.17, r. Psal. 77.16.17.