A RELATION OF A DISPV●● OF BAPTISM of INFANTS of CHRISTIANS. At Holgate in the County of Salop, Maii. 30. 1650. Betwixt P. PANTER, D. in Divinity, Rector of the Place, And Mr. BROWN, Preacher to the Anabaptists in that Circuit. LONDON: Printed for Thomas Vere, dwelling at the upper end of the Old-Bayly. 1650. A Relation of a Dispute of Baptism of Infants of Christians. BEing come into the Hall of Holgate, and the Question put to Mr. Browne, of the cause of his secession and separation from the Church of England, in which he was brought up, and had for certain years been an instructor of others. He answering with a distinction (as he termed it) of the name of the Church (from the true Professors whereof he said, that he had not receded.) It was asked, whether he did hold with the people of England, professing as they did, according to the Articles of Doctrine and Faith authorized in the same; whereabout, after some tergiversation, he called for the Book of Articles, and after some turning over it, pitched upon the Baptism of Infants; which (and no other at that time) he seemed to give, for the cause of his separation: he spoke somewhat of original sin; but that Question being woven and wrapped in the other, it was thought sufficient to speak of either for both: and indeed, the Baptism of Infants was that which overnight he had desired to be handled, and wherein he could not but come prepared with all the answers and shifts which could be devised; especially he knowing what arguments the Doctor would chief urge, by a disciple of his there present by him, who had been brought to the Doctor not long before for satisfaction. The Doctor albeit not liking of such Meetings, (knowing how often such Conferences do end in Wrangling) yet that they should not have occasion to brag of refusing the Challenge, did not decline the Dispute; and albeit the other shunned to be the actor, and by arguments to prove his reason, or disprove the baptism of Infants (still taking himself to the defenders part by negatives, which are easier than proofs) albeit the Church of England was in possession of that custom without prescription, and therefore should have been ejected of her custom by reason and Divine Law, it not only being the custom of the Church of England, but also of whole Christendom from all time out of mind or record, the beginning of which custom the Separatist could not show (for albeit once he said, that it begun 200. years after Christ's birth, in the days of Innocentius Pope, yet being desired to show that by evidence, he passed from it) which is the mark and rule proposed by the Ancients for knowing Divine & Apostolic Ordinances & Customs, whatsoever hath been universally kept in the Church, the beginning of which cannot be found out, that is presumed always to have proceeded either from our Saviour, or his Apostles. He standing at this, and holding close to the Negative, the Dr. asked him, what proofs, and from whence should they be sought? He answering, out of Scriptures, the Scriptures of truth, (as he often mentioned & seemed to brag of them) it was replied, that the Question would be about the meaning of Scripture: who therefore should be the interpreter and pointer out of the mind of God in them? Should it not be the Universal Church of Christ, the pillar and ground of 1 Tim. 3. 15. Truth? by whose consent Heresies and Errors in all Ages had been judged, as the stile of the Canons and Conclusions of Counsels do show, Ita credidit, tenuit docuit semper Catholica Ecclesia, and would he not follow the wholesome direction of Vincentius Lirinensis adversus haereses, taking the Scripture always, Cum catholica interpretatione, which is not adding to the Scriptures, but declaring the sense and meaning of them; which (as the Eunuch humbly acknowledged to Philip, saying, How should he understand without a guide?) Acts 8. 31. are not only in allegorical Prophecies, (as Mr. Browne pleaded) but also in Commands and Ordinances about the Sacraments, not so obvious and open to every one; wherein, if the express Letter be holden to (as he still craved and urged for Infant Baptism) than what shall be said of the other Sacrament in the words, Hoc est corpus meum, hic est sanguis novi Testamenti? which words the Anabaptists do leave out in their administration. And indeed, if this way be followed (as some of his Disciples there present declared, except they saw and read the name of Infants expressed in the Text, they would not receive it, Thomas-like, as by some present was returned to them) not only Infant baptism, but all the Articles of the Creed shall be called in question, as appeared by Mr. Brownes Questions concerning Arrius, Macedonius and Pelagius (when the Dr. named them as condemned by the Doctrine of the Church,) what they did hold, and for what they were condemned? Which M. Brown said he knew not, for their books were not extant, not only doubting of the justice of the proceed against them (as appears) and giving great suspicion of a favourable construction of them, as with Pelagius they hold, and more. Always he still provoking to the Scriptures, held up the same to the people (although it was but a Translation of the Bible, and done by these men, and that Church which they account Antichristian, and no Church, I mean by the Church of England) the Doctor seeing his resolution, lest the meeting should have been broken up without doing any thing, as was expected, resolved to take the part of the Actor, and by their own weapons (as they boast) take them which way they would, to deal with them. First proof. Matth. 28. 19 And first argued from the Ordinance of Baptism, which being universal, To baptise all Nations without exception (expressed in the words as they required) why should not Infants be understood to be included, And when one Nation was entered in Covenant by Circumcision, Infants were circumcised; why not then, when all Nations are to be entered in Covenant with God, Infants baptised? they being a part of Nations, as Mr. Logane argued afterward from the etymon of the word Nation, being from Nati, born, so that all that are born aught to be included they being able to satisfy Christ's command of coming to him, which by our Saviour's own declaration & acceptation of those who were brought to him (albeit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Sucklings, not able to walk on their own feet) was proved; Suffer (saith he) little children to come to me, and forbidden them not, for of such belong the Kingdom of heaven. But Mr. Browne answered to the Doctor, That it did not follow, that Infants were included in the Command because they were not excluded, or excepted; for then (saith he) the baptism of Bells, and Horses, and of his Hat, were included, because they are not mentioned to be excluded: And (as having a great advantage) did call the people to hear the absurdity of the proof brought; wherein as he was very impertinent and ridiculous, in bringing an instance altogether, extra subjectum quaesiti, without the bounds of the Question, and the subject thereof, which are all Nations, (neither Bells nor Horses being of the Nations) so that there needed no exception of them, the very name of [Nations] Here M. Brown did cavil at the word Sacrament, and Initiation, because not Scripture words: as if expositions of Scripture should be always in its own terms, which would make progressum in infinitum. excluding them: but of Infants (if they had been intended to be excepted) there was great need of expressing the same, they not only being a part of the Nations, but also in use and custom from the days of Abraham, to be entered in Covenant with God, by a Sacrament of initiation: Which use and custom, if our Saviour had intended to have broke off, or altered, he would (no doubt) have done it by a dictum est antiquis etc. sed ego dico vobis, as he did in altering the Law of Divorcement, and other Precepts, which past currant among their ancestors, Matth. 5. 22, 27, 31, 33, & 34. so he would have said here, in the appointing of the new Sacrament, Baptism, (termed the Circumcision of Christ, Col. 2. 11.) It was commanded to the ancients, that they should circumcise every male of eight days old; but I say to you, you shall not baptise, before they can give a Confession of their Faith. Here Mr. Browne (although by the Laws of Dispute bound to the active part, and to be the prover of his exception of Infants, as being an Affirmative avouched by him, for affirmanti incumbit probare) yet did nothing that way, but sought to wrangle upon the words, and that by so dark Inferences, and Consequences, as were no ways agreeable to what he required of us, as clear and express proofs in particular of our Position. First, he alleged, That they should be made Disciples The Adversaries exceptions against the Proofs. [in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] before they be baptised, because the Pronoune [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them] in the Command [Baptising them] is of the Masculine Gender; which (said he) cannot agree with [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which is Neuter. But for answer: As the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in the Text, albeit the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be; so the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 repeats not the Verb (it is not the use of Grammar) but the Noun going before, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 albeit diversi generis, and that by the Figure Synthesis, which respecteth more the thing then the name, as Grammarians know. Next he objected, That the first Disciples were taught before baptised; which albeit granted, yet doth not follow that always it was to be so, and that their Children might not be baptised after them, before they were taught: For Christ's Commandment was not only for that time, but to dure for ever; and not only to remain in constituenda Ecclesia (in the Church, when it was first a gathering) but also in constituta, when it is gathered. Neither the order of the Precept maketh against this order of baptising first, and then teaching; seeing (as S. Matthew hath the words) it is so, baptising and teaching them; albeit the English Translation Matth. 28. 19 (rendering the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Teach) doth express teaching first. But indeed, the word signifieth not only to teach, but in general to Disciple, or make Disciples, that is, Christians, (for these two words were Acts 6. 1. Acts 9 10, 36. Acts 11. 26. in the beginning reciprocal) which not only by teaching, but also baptising, may be done: as not only our Saviour's own words (expounding the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by two Participles, baptising them, and teaching them) do declare; but also the words of S. John the Evangelist: where crossing the rumour made to the Joh. 4. 1, 2. Pharises of our Saviour, as making more Disciples than John, he subjoineth, albeit Jesus himself baptised not, but his Disciples, insinuating Baptism to be a way of Discipling. And the common use of speech, is to call one a Disciple as soon as he is put to School, and Earnest given, although for a long time the Child learn little or none; and a Soldier when he taketh Sacramentum, though he yet cannot handle his Arms. Neither the joining of the two parts of the Commandment together, Baptising and Teaching, proveth the exercise there of jointly, more than our Saviour's Command, at the first sending out of his Disciples; Go preach the Kingdom of Heaven, heal the Sick, Matth. 10. 7, 8. cleanse the Leper, raise the Dead, cast out Devils did bind them to teach, before they cured or raised from the dead. Second proof From Acts 2. 38, 39 From answering the Adversaries Exceptions, and vindicating the Proof, the Disputer did proceed to prove positively, that Children were included in the Command of Baptism, as it is cleared by the words of Peter, in the first descending of the Holy-Ghost, who was to bring all our Saviour's words into their mind, and direct them in all truth. Repent ye therefore, and be baptised every one of you in the Name of Jesus, and ye shall receive remission of sins and the gift of the Holy-Ghost; for the promise is made to you and to your Children, and to those that are afar off, even as many as God shall call. Where, in the reason or encouragement to take Baptism, the Children are comprehended and invited, as appeareth; for wherefore should their right to the Promise be mentioned. Mr. Browne answered first, that it was spoken to the Jews (meaning, as I apprehend, that they had an hereditary Covenant and Sacrament;) but if it was so, than it would follow at least, that the Children of the Jews were to be baptised. But the Dr. urged, That the Promise is said to belong to them that were afar off, even as many as God should call; which were not the Jews, as Mr. Browne affirmed: for see Vers. 5. 10, they that were even farthest dispersed from Judaea, were present at the Feast, and were astonished at the marvellous gift of the Holy-Ghost, and heard Peter's words, and therefore had part in the answer with the present, in the second Person, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to you: but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all that are afar off, are the Gentiles, as the phrase of speech is used, Eph. 2. 13. But you who were afar off, are made nigh: before, they were aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers, etc. So that not only the Jews and their Children, but also the Gentiles (being once called) and their Children have Title unto the Promises, or the Promises are made to them. Here he did cavil, that they behoved first to be called, before they obtained the Promise; because it is said, even as many as God shall call: but who doubteth of that (said the Doctor?) Nevertheless it will follow, that as to the Jews (albeit as yet the Parents were only called) the Promises were made both to them and to their Children; so to the Gentiles (of whom we are) albeit the Parents be first called, yet the Promise is made to their Children also, if they be baptised; for only upon the receiving of Baptism, the Promise was to be effectual. Hence he fell a questioning, Whether Children were capable of remission of sins, and of the gift of the Holy-Ghost (who is called the Promise of the Father, Acts 1. 4.) especially by Baptism? At which he and his company mocked, saying Naamanlike, Can a little sprinkling of water do it? Albeit it be the expression of the Holy-Ghost himself by S. Paul, Tit. 3. 5. calling Baptism the washing of new birth and renewing of the Holy-Ghost. Which gave occasion to the third proof following: to wit; ●●ird proof. ●●…. 5. 26. That Infants of believers (being a part of the Church, Christ's Spouse) are sanctified by the washing of water, in the Word; the Argument was thus: The Church is sanctified by the washing of water, in the Word; But Infants are a part of the Church, Therefore must be sanctified by the washing of water, in the Word. Mr. Browne answered first to the Conclusion, ●●ainst the ●●● of Lo●●●. denying their sanctifying to be by Baptism, but by the blood of Christ: To which the Dr. replied, That prima causa non tollit secundam, nor the principal, took away the effect of the instrument; Christ's death, though it have virtue enough, yet it must be applied by some mean; and Baptism to be one of these means, appeareth not only by this place, but also by Rom. 6. 3, 4. Col. 3. 12. Whosoever are baptised unto Christ, are baptised into his death; we are buried with him by Baptism into his death. After, he begun to cavil about the Proposition called major, That the sanctifying of the Church here, is expressed not only by Washing, but by the Word. To which the Argumentator did grant, That to the Church in adultis, it was; but the Question was, of that part of the Church which as yet were not capable of the Word: wherewith else then with Baptism are they sanctisied? either so, or not at all (to speak in the way of God's ordinary dealing, not of his absolute power:) Beside that, the Word there may be understood of the Sacramental Word, which coming to the element of Water, maketh it a Sacrament, and giveth the virtue and blessing: For unde est (saith Austin) that aqua corpus tangens animam abluat? est a verbo. Hence he fell to the denying of the minor, That Infants were not a part of the Church, using the distinction of visible and invisible, that they were not of the visible Church; which is as much, as not to be of the Church Militant at all: for, beside that the Church and the Profession and Sacraments thereof are visible, and so compared to a City on a Mountain; none are of the invisible ●●tth. 5. 14. Church but such as are of the visible, it being but a part of the whole, qualified in certain respects; so as she is not discernible to man, but to God, who alone knoweth the hearts of the children of men: neither can there be any Church but that, which is called either by Word or Sacraments, as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Company of the Called, doth prove: beside, the children of the Israelites were of the visible Church. Fourth pro●●●… 1. Pet. 3. 21 Hence the Dr. argumented, from the similitude of Baptism and the Ark of Noah, which for the exactness of it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as Beza rendereth it) correspondens exemplar; others, expressa forma, such as in Wax, or Coin: whence he argued thus by a double Argument: first, The Ark of Noah is like Baptism, & caetera; But without the Ark, by God's appointment, none were saved: Therefore, without Baptism none saved ordinarily, and so the Infant's salvation by you hazarded: secondly, Baptism saveth as the Ark; But the Ark saved Noah and his household, Heb. 11. 7. Therefore Baptism (by Gen. 7. 1. the Law of example) saveth us and our household. To the first he answered, with an upbraiding of Popery; which the Argumenter said he had no reason to challenge, who complied so much with them in other things: but the Question was not, What the Papists, but what the Scriptures said, whom he made his Judge. To the second he answered, That no young ones were in the household of Noah: against which it was insisted by the Disputer, That if they had been, they had not been excluded, the reason for their safety in the Ark being the same in young ones and elder Children, because they did belong to Noah, who had found favour with God. Neither was Gen. 6. 8. it the personal Faith of Cham, that made him be received into the Ark: last of all, he fell to cross the first words of S. Peter, by his following words; [Not the laying away of the filthenesse of the flesh, but the ask of a good Conscience towards God, through the resurrection of jesus Christ] Whereupon the Dr. began to clear these words; showing, that nothing was intended in them derogatory to Christian Baptism (for then he should give with the one hand, and take from it with the other;) which if it were, why did he mention Baptism, and not a good Conscience alone? But what he speaketh against the putting away of the filth of the body, is against their washings and purification (for to the Jews dispersed he writeth;) which also the Apostle to the Hebrews, almost in the Heb. 9 10, 13. same expressions, doth, calling them Ordinances, or justifications of the flesh, and purifyings, as touching the cleanness of The words of S. Peter contain non oppositionem to Baptism, but Appositionem the flesh: like to which, Baptism doth not save us, as not being a putting off the silth of the flesh, but the ask of the Conscience; or, that which maketh the Conscience ask God, and cry, Abba Father: for it is a Metonymy, effectus pro causa, it's the ask of the Conscience towards God, that is the mean or cause instrumental of our approach to God; it being the Laver, or washing of new birth, and so making us the Children of God. Here the Answerer startled; What? (saith he) Are we made God's Children by Baptism? Whereupon some present, not evil affected, would have mitigated or denied the assertion: but the Arguer not moved, asked Mr. Browne, Whether that were so strange an expression to him, who had so often uttered it both Child and Minister? Had he forgotten the words of the English Catechism (Answer to the very second Question?) To which he replied, That he had indeed sometime taught so, but he was otherways enlightened now, so that he accounted it Blasphemy. Then (said the Arguer) the Apostle blasphemeth, calling it the washing of new birth, Tit. 3. 5. and our Saviour himself saying, that a man is borne again by the Water and Spirit. To these words of Scripture he replied nothing, but talked still of regeneration, and making the sons of God by Faith; which (indeed an effect rather of regeneration and holy Spirit than a cause) he endeavoured to confirm by these words, Gal. 3. 2. Received ye the Spirit by the Law, or by the hearing of Faith; (& joh. 1. 12. where he speaketh of the first receivers of Christ being in the world, as appeareth verse 10. & 11. before) where, as Gal. 3. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hearing of Faith is the hearing of the Gospel, which is the Doctrine of Faith (for it is opposed there to the Law of Moses;) so the Spirit there spoken of, is the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, to the doing of Miracles, as it is after, verse 5. not the ordinary gift of sanctification, for then all the Churches of Galatia had been inwardly sanctified: beside that, receiving of the Spirit by Faith, doth not exclude the Sacraments, every one working in their own way and order; for, particulares affirmantes nec contradicunt, nec contrariae sunt. ●●fth proof, ●rom exam●●es. acts 16. 14, 15. Here the Answerer did call for an example of Infant-Baptisme in all Scripture, and did read to all the Auditors an example of believers baptised. Wherefore the Arguer brought first the example of Lydia's household baptised, where mention is only of her hearing and believing: next, an insinuation of john's, That little Children had their sins forgiven in his Joh. 2. 12. Name; where there is an expression of the form of Baptism (at least a part of it) as 1 Cor. 6. 11. But now ye are washed, sanctified and justified in the Name of the Lord jesus. To the first he begun to cavil, that Lydia had not a Husband, which was more than he could affirm; howsoever, she had a Family, said the Arguer. To the second he said, first, that these Children were of ripe years, as having john's Epistle directed to them; next, that In the Name of the Father, was in the power of the Father, which he said it signified principally and properly (apparently mistaking himself, for frequently saying properly and principally, for he cannot be so ignorant to think either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Synonyma, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significare magis robur quam nomen ex vi vocis, for that is proper;) thirdly, that the words, 1 Cor. 6. 11. were said to them of years, who sometime were thiefs, etc. fourthly, that the distinction there was not of age, but of gifts; and some were called Little Children, for their gifts of mind accordingly. Against which the Arguer did insist; and first, that it did not prove that they were of ripe years, because S. john wrote to them; for Epistles may be designed for them that are not yet able to read them: as whatsoever was written before, in former ages, was written for our instruction, Rom. 15. 4. Next, suppose they had been able to read then when S. john wrote, yet he putteth them in mind of forgiveness of sins before obtained, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Atticè pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is praeteritum perfectum: but the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 14. being a Diminutive, with the opposition not only to Fathers, but also to young men, (the like of which, is not when there is a Spiritual Childhood only insinuated, for then the opposition is only to perfect men) do sufficiently show their age. Neither is the Question, to whom the Apostle speaketh in that place to the Corinthians; but whether there, Baptism and the form of it be not insinuated? So that [In the Name of the Father, or Son,] as there in the 1 Joh. 2. 12. Name of the Lord Jesus, are parallel and like phrases: neither doth the use of the word [Name of God] sometime transferred to signify his Power (whether in Greek or Hebrew) make any thing against the form of Baptism insinuated in the words of S. john; for when we are baptised, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and Holy-Ghost, not only is it in Name and Authority from him, but also in the Power of him, accompanying the calling of his Name upon us. Neither if any should object, (which he did not remark) ● Joh. 2. 14. That they are said to have known the Father, doth that prove, that either they had that knowledge before Baptism, (although when he wrote, it may be they were beginning to know him) or that even then their knowledge was such as the Anabaptist requireth, for Children begin betimes to know their Parents, (according to that of the Poet, Incipe parve puer risu cognoscere matrem) and to this small measure of knowledge, accompanying Infancy itself, the Apostle seemeth to allude, writing to these little ones, as he alludeth to that which is incident to youth-head and old-age, writing to the other 2 distinctions of age, wisdom in old men, & strength in young men. Beside that, the receiving of Baptism is a sort of acknowledgement of the Father, not mental but real; whence Sacramentum fidei, & professionis Christianae dicitur, although after following. Sixth proof, From the types and figures of Baptism. This proof the Adversary did shift, saying, That it was nothing to the purpose what was among the Jews, and that they had no reference to our Sacraments; That a type could not be a type of another type: where the Disputer asked, If Baptism was to be called a type? the other answering, That it represented Christ's death and burial. The Doctor insisted, That albeit in a large extent of the word it might be called a type, yet not according to Ecclesiastical use of the word, in which it is joined to figures & shadows, which are abolished; for Baptism is not a shadow, but a putting off of the body of sin, Heb. 10. 1. Col. 2. 11, 12. yea, S. Peter saith, the Ark was a type of baptism. 1. Old Circumcision, answering to the Circumcision of Christ, which is Baptism, Col. 2. 11, 12. Always, albeit he shifted them, here I set them down, and first Gircumcision, to which not only succeeded, but answereth our Baptism: Now it was bestowed upon Children, as soon as possible for Nature to endure it; and God had dealt more hardly with our Children then with the Jews, if he had not provided for us a mean, and conveyance of Grace to us, as well as to them his Covenant. Here they said, they recommended their Children by prayer to God; but this answereth not to a Sacrament, which the Jews had beside prayer. 2. Baptism in the Sea and Cloud, 1 Cor. 10. The second prefiguration of Christian Baptism, was the baptism of the Israelites unto Moses in the Cloud and Sea; wherein as the Children were as well as their Parents, yea, pars magna (for the Fathers were but a many of them, not all, nor most part) so in the baptism unto Christ should our Vers. 5. Children be. Seventh proof●… The Prophecies. The Prophecies may be added here to Isaiah 49. 22. Behold, I lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and my Ensign to the people, and they shall bring their sons in their bosoms, and their daughters upon their shoulders. Eighth proof, From the necessity thereof to all. The last proof brought, was the words of our Saviour; joh. 3. 5. Except a man be borne again of Water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God: Unto which the Adversary made this poor answer, That it was spoken of a Man, looking to the English Translation, not to the Greek. Where the Disputer marveling of his impudency, asked him what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified, and what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whether, or not, the name which John hath in the words of our Saviour, be not nomen speciei, a common name for all mankind, without difference of sex, or age? which albeit he could not deny, yet he still said, That in that place it signified a Man, and not a Child; which, as it was Petitio principii, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the begging of the Question, (as the Logicians call it) so it might be convinced out of the very next words of our Saviour, Whatsoever is borne of the flesh is joh. 3. 6. flesh, and whatsoever is borne of the Spirit is Spirit. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever begotten of man, is here declared to stand in need of new birth; yea, the same name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered Man, is used by the Evangelist, speaking of Circumcision, (Accipit joh. 7. 23. homo circumcisionem Sabbatho) which was meant of Infants. The Doctor seeing no answering upon their part, but mere shifting, or shameless denials and oppositions of the Truth, rose, with this saying, That what he had brought, was sufficient for modest spirits, and submissive to the Truth; to obstinate people nothing was sufficient. There were divers passages betwixt the company and him; as that Infants were blessed by Christ, by laying on of his hands, and prayer: to which the Anabaptist answered, That they were not baptised; but no marvel of this, for neither was baptism craved by the bringers of them, nor they that brought them baptised before, for they were not Disciples, as appeareth by the Text, the Disciples forbade them: moreover, the Faith of the bringers was not such, as to obtain baptism, either to themselves or their Children: for it doth not appear, that they brought them to Christ out of any other opinion, then that he was a Prophet, or holy man, whose prayers might be steadable to them. Other either words or passages, as not being material, I pass; only I add an Epigram of the Doctors, in commiseration of Infants defrauded of baptism. VIderat innumeras Infantum flere catervas, Séque ope destitui, subsidiisque quaeri; Ecquis (ait Christus) nostros audaculus amnes Clausit? munifico me prohibet que frui? Vellite, pastors, vallum convellite dextris, Oppositosque obices, & reserate lacus. At que salutari pueros respergite Lymphâ, Et Patris, & nomen fronte ferunto meum; Nos tutelares ipsa incunabula jactent, Omnis & aufugiens vis inimica fremat. The same in English. GReat companies of Infants weeping, And bemoaning much their woe, That no man reached his hand helping, The depth of evil to bring them fro; Our Saviour saw it, and in wrath He said, Who was so bold to stop The streams and fountains of our Grace, That they on Infants should not drop? Pull Shepherds, pull, the Dam's throw down, The Sluices d'ope, and let them run; With saving Water sprinkle there The Children that are brought to me, And let them on their foreheads bear My Father's Name, and mine; that We To Infants in their Cradles may Be Patrons, Tutelars, and God; And that the Enemy flee away, And by them make no more abode. FINIS.