SOME REMARKS UPON THE Anabaptist Answer[ Sold by John Harris] TO THE Athenian Mercuries: AND Some upon His ANSWER, Who Styles Himself PHILALETHES PASIPHILUS. LONDON, Printed for John laurence at the Angel in the poultry. MDCXCII. Ad R. Dom. Authorem. Ut terrae cumulis Adamas plus, pulvis& auri, Et Facibus multis unica stella poli; Sic {αβγδ} immensis parvula scriptis Plus, Venerande Senex, vestra pagella valet. Cecinit Dîgratia Clavecastri. SOME REMARKS UPON THE Anabaptist Answer[ Sold by John Harris] TO THE Athenian Mercuries, &c. THE Covenant of God with our Father Abraham, 17 Gen. 7, 8, &c. being the first Ground upon which Children were admitted with their Parents into the Church, and had a Church-Ordinance administered to them; if God hath repealed this Covenant, and nulled our Fathers Charter, the controversy between us and the Anabaptist and Antipaedobaptist is at an end. The first of these Answerers tells us, p. 19. That it is plainly repealed. Whether it be so, we shall see presently. Before I proceed, this I lay down for Truth, viz. God did never make a Covenant with his People expressly; but if he did repeal it, he did repeal it expressly. For Instance, Moses 29 Deut. 1. tells the People, beside the Covenant God made with Israel at Horeb, he made another Covenant with them in the Land of Moab. This we red, 10, 11, 12, 13 v. of the same Chapter. So that here are two Covenanrs. But there is another Covenant above Four Hundred Years before either of these, with our Father Abraham; so that there are three Covenants: But Moses does not mention our Father Abraham's Covenant. But as for these two Covenants, God expressly repealed them. That in Horeb which was long before this in Moab, he declares the repealing of it in Mercy and Love, before they went into Captivity, 31 Jer. 31, 32, &c. 8 Heb. 8. But that in Moab he declares the repealing of it in Wrath, after their return from Babylon, for their great Sin, in rejecting of Christ, 11 Zech. 10. That I might break the Covenant which I had made with all the People. You may red the People, in 29 Deut. 10, 11, 12, 13. with whom this Covenant was made. But here he does not break the Covenant with the Children firstly and only: But with the Parents firstly, for rejecting Christ, as the 12& 13 v. declare. Yet here again he had a respect to the poor of the Flock that waited upon him, and whom he fed, 7& 11 v. But not one Word of Abraham's Covenant, the Father of Believers, being repealed. I prove it further, no Repealing. In 2 Ephes. 11, 12. the Apostle declares the miserable Estate of us Gentiles, before Christ came, and the Gospel was Preached amongst us. I will name but Three of the things whereby our miserable state is set forth. 1st. Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel. {αβγδ}, the Dutch render Citizen-ship, i.e. The Church of God contained in the Commonwealth, say they, and so others; and that must be the meaning: For in 19 v. showing what a Change is made by our embracing the Gospel, Now ye are no more Strangers, but {αβγδ}, Fellow-Citizens, which cannot be meant of the Civil Commonwealth More I could say, but this is sufficient. , impossible for all gentle Churches to be Fellow-Citizens in that sense: But their Children were Fellow-Citizens with their Parents, that is, Church-Members, and the greatest part of the Church too. How many Children might one Father have? They are Fellow-Citizens with the Saints, that clears it more. And yet more, They are of the household of God. But Children are part of the House, they build up the House, 25 Deut. 5.9. When therefore we red the Apostles Baptized Housholds, I do not question at all but they Baptized the Children too, if any were in the House: It does not concern us to prove there were Children in those Houses, 'tis enough for us, Children are a part, and a great part too of the household. 2ly. The Second thing in which our Misery consisted, We and our Children were without Covenant of Promise. No share, neither in Abraham's Covenant, nor Horeb, nor Moab. 3ly. As we were without the Covenant, so without the Seal of the Covenant, we were not Circumcised, v. 11. But Circumcision came in with Abraham's Covenant. Circumcision is not of Moses, but of the Fathers, saith our Lord, 7 John 22. So then to be without Church-membership, without Covenant, without the Seal of the Covenant,[ of which all the Jews Children were Partakers] is a miserable state: Such was our state once. But now, saith the Apostle, v. 13. in Christ Jesus ye who are far off, &c. The Apostle tells us what we Gentiles get by believing in Christ, viz. We partake of as high Spiritual Blessings, and all church-privileges, both we and our Children, as ever Jews did or do; which is the Scope of all the Apostles Discourse from the 13 v. to the end of the Chapter: If our Children be not taken in, the Apostles Discourse, in the 19 v. is not true; nor are the Gentiles Miseries, as to the three Heads I mentioned in the 11 and 12 v. taken away, but remain still. To the same purpose doth that Verse, 11 Rom. 17. speak; and that 1 Cor. 7 14. Your Children are Saints. Had Paul told all the Citizens in Corinth, Unless you be Believers in Christ, all your Children are Bastards, I believe Paul had not come out of Corinth alive. The Apostle speaks in the Verse but of one Husband and one Wife, and the Children of such Parents were as Legitimate before Faith, as any of the Anabaptists are. They were a Godly Seed, according to 2 Mal. 15. For here was but one Man and one Wife, according to that Verse, before Faith. What is meant by the Word Godly in that Text is another Question, the Word is not so in the Hebrew. If it be meant the Image of God, in which Man was created, that surely did not rise, because he made but one Woman; but from the State wherein he created them. Had he made Adam Three Wives, and they had continued in their pure Estate, their Children had been a Godly Seed in that Sense. It was from this Covenant the Great God made with Abraham and his Seed, and not with other Nations, that they were separated from other Nations, and so were called the Holy Seed, 9 Ezra 2. 7 Deut. 6. and 14.2. But now to this Anabaptist. That the old or first Covenant, for their incovenanting is repealed, is plain, saith he, Pag. 9. proved. He took away the First, that he might establist the Second, 10 Heb. 9. I answer, These Terms Old and First are given to the Covenant God made with Ifrael, after he brought them out of the Land of Egypt, 8 Heb. 9, 13. But Abraham's Covenant, which was made about 400 Years before this Covenant, when Isaac and his Seed were not yet born, to go into Egypt[ which is the Covenant in question] is not so called. So that you begin with your Sophistry already. Ignoratio Elenchi. As to the Text, Did you observe the Coherence? It seems you did not. See then 10 Heb. 4. the Apostle Asserted, That it was impossible for the Blood of Bulls and Goats to take away Sin. He proves it, v. 5. from Christ's bespeaking his Father when he came into the World, 40 Psal. 6. where he enumerates all the Sacrifices for the Expiation of Sin, v. 5, 6. Lo I come, saith Christ, v. 7. The Apostle repeats the whole Testimony, v. 8. Then God showing his Acceptance of this Sacrifice of Christ, v. 9. he concludes, He took away the First, that is, all the Levitical Sacrifices, and established the Second, that is, the Sacrifice of Christ. What is this to the repealing our Father Abraham's Covenant? Are Sacrifices things visible, palpable, the same things with a Covenant, To be the God of Abraham, and his Seed for ever? Let me try your 2d. 'tis said that Hagar and her Son are cast out, viz. The Legal Covenant,[ I say so too: But Sophister, you are still beside the Question; speak ad idem, if you will dispute; 'tis Abraham's, not Sinai's Covenant, that is the Question] and fleshly Seed, and no new Law is added to bring them into the Gospel-Church by Baptism, i.e. the fleshly or natural Seed as such.[ I say so too, no fleshly Seed that cleave to Hagar's Covenant shall be Baptized.] Then you add, Now is the Ax laid to the root of the three, 3 Matth. 10. Wherefore is this Text quoted? The Question was, Whether God hath nulled our Father Abraham's Charter, does this Ax cut it down? I pray give us the Sense of this Text. I suppose this Ax will cut down an Anabaptist tho he be dipped, if he does not bring forth good Fruit. 2. But what must the poor Children[ for so is our question about Children] be cut down because they bear not Fruit? You will not allow them any Seeds of Faith or Grace; and what, must we look to reap Wheat, where no Seed is sown? To bear Fruit, and have no Root? 3. If it respects the whole Church of the Jews, if the Parents be cut down, the Children are too, I yield; but that still is beside the Question: For our Question is, the Parents standing, are the Children cut off? This is all this Author brings to prove the repealing of our Father Abraham's Covenant. One thing I observe in several of your Pages, because you would be sure to exclude Children from Baptism, you describe the Subjects of Baptism, by the Acts of such Graces, and Spiritual Works in their Hearts, which Children cannot perform. And I say, if such only be the Subjects of Baptism, and Ministers bound to baptize only such, I would never baptize Child nor Adult Person while I live. You Anabaptist may, who can see into Mens Hearts, which we poor things cannot do. I pray, Sir, let a Visible Believer be the Subject of Baptism. 1. I am sure 'tis a Visible Ordinance given to a Visible Church. 2. Simon Magus believed, and was baptized, 8 Acts 13. Was Philip blamed for baptizing him? 3. Whence is it, that some of your dipped Members walked pretty soberly before Dipping, but after Dipping grew very vicious; and others not only fell off from their dipped Societies, but[ which with you I believe is an heinous Sin] joined with the Church of England, zealous for the Common-Prayer-Book, and the Appurtenances,[ which your Mr. tombs the Antisignanus of the Anabaptists, improved his Learning to defend] grew mere Formalists. Surely those were but Visible Believers when you dipped them. I could speak much to this, and that with trembling, how far Men have gone, and lived for 10, 20 Years, so as none of your dipped Members did exceed them, that might well be baptized, yet how they ended, is sad to speak. As to Acts of Grace, I pray tell us, Are not infused Habits before Acts? Are not Principles before Operations? Are not Seeds before Fruits? I pray give us a Reason, why if God giveth or infuseth a Principle of Love, Fear of his Name, or any other Grace in the Heart of a Child, why not as well the Principle, the Habit, the Seed of Faith? I regard not Dr. Taylor's Authority, whom you and your other Anabaptists so cry up; what he was, the pious, Orthodox and learned Mr. Anthony Burgess, hath described him to be an Hotch Potch Errors in the doctrine of Original Sin, as in other Points. , &c. I believe our Lord Jesus before Ten Dr. Taylors, That every Child which goes to Heaven must be regenerated; the Filth they bring with them must be cleansed, Without Holiness, they shall not see Heaven. Whoever is born a Child of Wrath by nature, must first be reconciled and justified, else must not stand at the bar of God; and if this can be without a Principle of Faith, and all other Graces, let him give us but the Word of our Lord for it, then I believe him. Can you Anabaptist or Dr. tailor tell us infallibly, how God works, and what God works in Childrens Souls, when you cannot tell us how he frames the Body 11 Eccles. 5. ? Hath God tied up himself to the Ears, to Preaching, because Faith comes by Hearing to the Adult? What if the Child[ suppose Isaac] cannot Act, cannot God Act? Does the Ordinance depend only upon the Child, or Baptized Person? Hath God nothing to do in it? Did God institute Circumcision, which had its Spiritual Significations as well as Baptism, adding such a threatening to them that dare omit it? The Circumcised Child could not Act, did not God Act, I know no such difference between Circumcision and Baptism, that Children may not be as capable of this, as of that. Children have need of the things signified in Baptism. when and where he pleased, as to the inducing these Spiritual things signified in the Ordinance; while Man Circumcised the Flesh, did not God Circumcise the Heart where he pleased? Did God Institute the Ordinance in vain? The most Saints that we red of in the Old Testament, were such from their Childhood; you rarely red of Converts after a wicked Life. As to what you say, p. 19. They who were baptized, did experience the Death of Sin in their Souls before they were baptized, but Children cannot. Therefore, &c. Say you so? Did all that John baptized experience; nay, did the Converts in 2 Acts, the jailor in the 16 Acts, experience the Death of Sin in their Souls before they were baptized? What, in three or four hours space to come to experience the Death of Sin, when many Christians who walk with God as well as Anabaptists, after Ten, after Twenty Years Spiritual Warfare, if you put the Question to them, Do you experience the Death of Sin? With sadness of Heart will tell you, They experience the Life of Sin, and fear very much their own Condition, because they cannot experience the Death of Sin more. What, because of the Conviction of some vile Sin, and Terrors upon that Conviction, Sin under this Conviction and Terror doth not act as before, is this an Experience of the Death of Sin? What Divinity do these Anabaptists broach? But now to Baptizing. May the Children of Visible Believers be baptized? I say Yea. Both these Authors say No There is no express Command given by Christ to his Apostles to baptize Children, Ergo. I deny the Consequence. I. Because there was no need why the Lord should give an express Command to baptize Children. II. Because tho there be no Command {αβγδ} declared, yet there is a Command included in the Command given by Christ to his Apostles, To teach and baptize all Nations. For the First, There was no need. For all the Apostles were Jews, bread up in the Jewish Church, and they knew the way of God there with Parents and with Children; they were Members with their Parents, in Covenant, and under the Seal of the Covenant. Now had it been the Lords Pleasure to change this his way towards the Gentiles, I am assured that Christ, who was faithful in his House as a Son, would have declared and made this known to his Apostles, that Jews and Gentiles should know it, as I am sure he gave them a Command, To teach and baptize all Nations. The Apostles would have declared this counsel of God. Let us suppose[ as we may well suppose such a thing] those Three Thousand who were admitted into the Gospel Church in the 2 Acts, to be all Married Men, their Wives all with Child, and all to be delivered on that Day of Pentecost, when their Husbands were admitted: Had these Women been all delivered by Six in the Morning, their Children had been all born Church-Members, under Covenant, and a right to the Seal of the Covenant; but had they been delivered at Six at Night, when their Husbands were admitted into the Gospel-Church, now their Children, are no Members of this Church, under no Covenant, nor Seal of a Covenant. You that call thus for express Scripture to baptize them into the Church, do you bring us express Scripture for casting their Children out of the Church, and bringing their Children as to these their privileges, into the state of the Heathen;[ the thing is so evil, and lay such a Block in the way of the Gospel's Reception] else all your scribbling signifies nothing. As to that Question, about the Jews admitting Proselytes into the Jewish Church, with Circumcision, Baptism, and a Sacrifice, if the Question be stated thus, Whether this be true or no? I Answer, So far as I may believe any thing with a human Faith, I believe it to be true. Observe how I state the Question, If Rabbi Joshua saith, they were Baptized, and not Circumcised, this is plainly against the Text. If Eliezer say they were Circumcised, and not Baptized. There are divers others whom Dr. Buxtorf, Selden, Ainsworth, Lightfoot, Men versed in the Jewish Writings as much as Sir N. Knatchbull, affirm this. Lightfoot quotes, affirming they were Circumcised and Baptized. And one thing is observable, whereas it is objected, Why should Children be baptized, since they have no Understanding? They Answer, It is a Tradition: They privilege a Person, tho he know it not; but they do not dispriviledge a Person without his knowledge. This is good; a privilege may be put upon a Person[ a Child Baptized as well as Circumcised] tho he himself knows not of it. Thus the Jews. Both of you cry out, Superstition, God commanded only Circumcision. Stay a little, not too fast. While the Church was in Families, the Fathers were the Priests, the Lord commanded only Circumcision to the Jews; but when he gathered all these Families into one Church, set up his Polity in it, and made his Covenant with them as a National Church at Sinai, he required more than Circumcision, they must wash their clothes, 19 Exod. 10. I do not think there was Water enough to dip all the Congregation in the Wilderness. The Command is given to the People, not only to the Adult: Their Children were part of the People I hope. So Jacob, 35 Gen. 2. All his household must be clean, and change their Garments. There was the Sacrifice, 24 Exod 5. Upon these Texts of Scripture, the Jews say, they ground the Admission of Proselytes into their Church: As Israel was taken into Covenant, so shall the Heathen Proselytes, by Circumcision, Baptism, and a Sacrifice. Why they should be admitted otherwise than the Jews, I know no reason. After they were incorporated, their after-Children were not Baptized, so far as I understand. I wish there were no Superstition worse than this in Churches. According to this, there was no need for Christ to give Command to baptize Children, for it was in practise Hundreds of Years before John baptized. If it was Superstitious, as you say, then there was more need of a Command from Christ to forbid it, which he would have done be sure. The Ground of this practise of the Jews with Proselytes, was as old as Sinai's Covenant. The Baptism of John was to another end, not to admit into the Jewish Church; for here Adult Jews in great Numbers, were in a solemn, public, unusual manner baptized: The Pharisees did not question what his Baptism was, nor what it meant; but they questioned his Person, his Authority, being that he denied, that he was either the Messiah, or Elias, or that Prophet; which does not deny, but Baptism in Admission of Proselytes was in practise before. 2ly. I say there was a Command included, in that Command our Lord gave to his Apostles, To Teach and Baptize all Nations. Teach the Parents First, and if they embrace the Gospel, then baptize their Children, tho as yet not capable of teaching, no more than Isaac was; but I doubt not by reason of the Covenant Isaac was reputed as his Father was. I look on all the Children I baptize, as Believers with their Parents, who do Educate them in the Faith of Christ, else I would baptize none. 11 Rom. 16. If the Root be Holy, so are the Branches. If the Parent be a Believer in Christ, so are the Children If a Parent be a Disciple of Moses, so is the Child. . If the Parent be a Mabumetan, the Children are so too; they go with the Parent. In all Nations, Cities, Houses, the Children are a part of them all. But we must have express Scripture; away then with Consequences. No, I will not. There is no Adult Person baptized, but 'tis by consequence: Deny it if you can: Then we will try if we cannot prove Children of Visible Believers to be baptized by consequence. No less than Seven Syllogisms, Philalethes brings against it. His last is, 'tis substantially, and severely forbidden by the Word of God, to baptize Children. I wonder where? If it be Substantially, must it be Severely too? Name the Texts. But for all your high Words, and your provoking Language, loading the Athenian Authors Surely they were bread Scholars not Taylors. ,[ unknown to me by Name] with as much Contempt and Scorn, as I have red a Piece a good while. Before you shall take us off from performing our Duty to God, by Dedicating our Children to God in Baptism, He having a double Right to them; 1. By Nature. 2. By Covenant; we prising, not contemning his Grace, manifested in his Covenant, you must do these things. First, You must name the Text, where the Lord hath expressly repealed our Father Abraham's Covenant, and cut off the Entail from his Seed, as he hath done other Covenants. Secondly, You must prove that God makes Covenants without Seals; That our Father Abraham's Covenant standing, there must be no Seal annexed to it, as it was before. Tho Circumcision being a bloody Seal, must of necessity be removed[ Christ having shed his Blood] yet there must be another. Thirdly, You must prove, that our Lord, when he took away the Partition-Wall between the Jew and gentle, Ephes. 14. set up the Partition-Wall between the Believing Jew, and his Children; and now brought the Children of Believing Jews, as to Church-Membership, Covenant, and Seal of the Covenant, into that Condition Heathens and Children were in before their Faith in Christ. Fourthly, You must prove that it was Christ's intent and purpose by his coming, to make the state of the Church under the Gospel, to be far worse, as to Parents and Children, than it was under the Law: It is so be sure by your Doctrine: Then, Parents and Children had a Covenant to pled and lay hold upon God by, but now none; then they had a Seal of a Covenant to strengthen their Faith and improve, but now there is none. Such Parents, and such Children as have improved[ as there are such] their Father Abraham's, and their Baptismal Covenants, and have found the benefit of them, they would not be without them, let the Anabaptists make as light of them as they please. It is de facto, a worse state, Reason itself being Judge. Do you prove that Christ intended it. I believe our Lord, who when he was upon Earth, shewed himself so indulgent and kind to poor Children, will hardly give you Thanks for this Dishonour you have cast upon him. Fifthly, You must prove that the Apostles Discourse in 2 Ephes. from the 13 v. to the end of the Chapter, is in great part false: For it is evident that the end of his Discourse is to show, That however our Estate as Gentiles before Christ, was in itself, and comparatively with the Jews, v. 11, 12. very miserable, yet now by Faith in Christ, both as to Saving, and as to church-privileges,[ for He expressly mentions church-privileges] our state is as good as the Jews ever was, or is: That the Apostle in 2 Col. 11, 12. intends that Baptism[ the initiating Ordinance into the Gospel-Church] doth succeed in the room of Circumcision,[ the initiating Ordinance into the Jewish Church] Zanchy, and the most Learned Expositors that I see, agree. And that it is so, the Apostles Discourse in this 2 Ephes. 11. will clear it. The Jews were Circumcised, but we Gentiles Uncircumcised: Now how is this part of our Misery as it was a Church-Priviledge taken off, I know very well how it is taken off, 2 Col. 11. but I speak as to a Church-State. but by Baptism, another Church-Priviledge? And who were the Subjects of Circumcision we all know. I know the Anabaptists do not like it, no more than that young Scholar in Oxford, whom that Learned Reynolds in his Lectures on the Apocrypha twice mentions, who in his Disputation, would ever deny the Conclusion. He did nor like that, because it was ever against him. Sixthly, You must prove that we Believing Gentiles are not grafted into that Olive-Tree, 11 Rom. 17. from which the Branches were broken off; and that to have our Children with ourselves, under a Blessed Covenant, and the Seal of the Covenant, as those Branches were, to help our Faith, to lay hold upon God for our God, is no part of the Fatness of the Olive-tree. We take it to be so, and have many times blessed God for it. Seventhly and Lastly, You must prove, that when we poor Gentiles have embraced our dear Jesus by Faith, taken him for our Prince and Saviour, that now our Children are as unclean, as they were while we were Heathen and Unbelievers in him, contrary to 1 Cor. 7.14. Here are Seven things to answer your Seven Syllogisms. If you can expressly prove the first,[ I stand upon the Word expressly here, because God hath expressly repealed; and you call for express Scripture for Infant-Baptism, and I hope you will be honest Men, buy and sell by the same Measure] and if you will Substantially and Severely prove the other; then, Sir, whereas you have made Seven Syllogisms, one might have served the turn: But if you cannot do thus, then if you add Ten Syllogisms more, which make Seventeen in our County, you must give us leave to go on to Baptize the Children of Believing Parents. I call him or her a Believer in Christ, who 1. Is convinced and sensible of his own Sin and Guilt, and the dreadful Danger of it. 2. Who feels himself helpless and hopeless in himself. 3. Willing to accept of Christ upon his own Terms. 4. His Conversation doth not give the plain lye to this his Profession. 5. Gives up himself to All the Institutions of Christ with Church-Discipline. This Man I call a Visible Believer, tho there may be much hypocrisy under this, but De secretis non judicat Ecclesia. And this Man's Children I shall not fear to baptize. That you are all baptized by consequence, you must yield it. He that believeth may be baytized. But I believe. Ergo. Is not this baptizing by consequence, and can you baptize any other way? I will take your Medium, which you stand much upon. The Children of Visible Believers are Believers. Therefore they ought to be Baptized. They are reputed so by God. For the Antecedent. They are Believers, or Infidels; but they are not Infidels. Therefore they are Believers. Believers and Unbelievers are Adversa {αβγδ}, one of them they must be. They are not Infidels I prove. They that have a Jus, a Right to Promises, and may, if they were able to speak, claim a Promise of God, are not Infidels. But the Children of some believing Parents have a right to Promises, and might pled them the first Day they are born, if they could speak. Therefore they are no Infidels. The mayor I think cannot be denied. Tell us where there is any Promises made to Infidels, which they remaining such, may pled. The Minor I prove. 112 Psal. 2. The Generation of the Upright shall be blessed. 20 Exod. 6. showing Mercy unto thousands of them that love me, &c. 20 Prov. 7. The just Man walks in his Integrity, and his Children are blessed after him. 44 Isa. 3. I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seeed, and my Blessing upon thy Offspring, &c. Children of such Parents have a Right to these Promises, and may pled with God for Blessing[ choose what Blessing they will, Christ himself in whom All Abraham's Seed are blessed] Mercy, his Spirit; and that by virtue of his Free Promise to them, as Children of such Parents, whom he is freely pleased thus to Honour, that their Children shall fare better for them, have they but Hearts to improve them. 2ly. They with whom God is in Covenant are no Infidels. But God is in Covenant with the Seed of Believers. Therefore they are no Infidels. Tell us where God is in Covenant with Infidels? The Child of a Believing Parent, is a Subjectum Capax of Faith, as it is of Regeneration. Faith is a Gift of God to the Adult. He can give it as well to the Child as to another; and if God will repute them for Believers, having taken them into Covenant, what is that to you, shall you oppose it? His Pleasure was to give to Abraham first[ to Isaac and Jacob after] the Promise of the Blessed Seed, and he Believing, to make him be called, the Father of them that believe, tho they be not Circumcised, 4 Rom. 11. The Father of us all, 16 v. Of many Nations, v. 18. which is, By virtue of his Covenant with him and his Seed. Circumcision, The Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, which he calls His Covenant, must be administered not only to Isaac his own Seed, at eight Days old, but also to the Child of a Gentile-Proselyte of the same Age, 17 Gen. 12. All that bore his Seal, were his Seed: This concerns us Gentiles, and shall they who are his Seed be called Infidels? Does God repute and call them so, when he calls them his Chiidren? 16 Ezek. 20, 21. and 23 chap. 37. Why then do you make them so? I have heard a grave Disputation in N. E. between those Worthies, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Tho. Hooker, Mr. Shepherd, &c. Q. Whether we are justified by the Act, or Habit of Faith? Mr. Cotton was for the Habit of Faith. Mr. Hooker he owns the Habit of Faith, and doth not doubt but God gives it to Children. Calovius a Learned Lutheran, he gives several Reasons to prove that little Children may have Faith. Why the Faculties of the Rational Soul in Children should not be capable to receive a Divine Impression from God, as well as of the Adult, when both are Passive in that Work of Regeneration, I cannot understand. 3ly. They who are Saints are not Infidels. But the Children of Believing Parents are Saints, 1 Cor. 7.14. They that will have their Saintship there to be only Legitimacy, I question whether their Brains be Legitimate. Then the Apostle, 1 Cor. 1.2. and 2 Cor. 1.1. by the Saints, understand those that are Legitimate. Where are Infidels called Saints? 4ly. They who are Members of the Church are not Infidels. But the Children of Believing Parents are Members of the Church with their Parents. Therefore they are not Infidels. The Minor I proved from 2 Ephes. 19. We will take Christ's Word for it, 19 Mat. 14: Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of God, saith Luke, 18 Luke 16. That the Church on Earth is here meant, I doubt not; unless there be some other Word joined, which will force it to be meant of the Church Triumphant. 8 Matth. 12. The Children of the Kingdom shall be cast out. Out of what Kingdom? Not Heaven above, I hope. You will have it, the Kingdom of Glory, because it makes against you. But what do you get by it, if it should be meant so? Shall they be Members of the Church Triumphant, and not Militant first? Of the Kingdom of Glory, and not the Kingdom of Grace first? What strange doctrines have we here? Hence being Members of the Church, they must be baptized; the Initiating Ordinance of the Church belongs to them. And it is further proved from 5 Ephes. 25, 26. Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of Water; that Baptism is meant here by washing with Water. 5ly. They that are Christian Disciples are Believers. But the Children of Believing Parents are such, 15 Acts 1.10. compared with 21 Acts 21. Had Circumcision been in force, the Children of these Believing Gentiles had been Circumcised: But the Ground of it was, because they were Disciples first. 'tis enough for me they were reckoned among Disciples. Water, all agree in it, that I see; nor do I know any shadow of Reason why any should deny it. The Invisible Church is contained in the Visible Church; and washing it with Water, is a Visible Ordinance belonging to the Visible Church, and some Children of Godly Parents do belong to the Invisible Church. Christ gave himself a Ransom for his Church, 25 v. If they be not of the Church, Christ did not die for the Children. Mr. Grantham tells you he died for all. 5ly. As for the Mark in the Flesh, which you mention, p. 12. which was made by Circumcision, from whence they might learn Spiritual things, 1. I Answer, Let these Circumcised Children be let alone with their Mark, and neither Parent, not any other instruct them, what the meaning and signification of it is, and see what they will learn from their Mark. So that it depends wholly upon the Teacher to learn them how to make use of it. And thus Parents having instructed their Children in the Nature of their Baptism, and taught them to pray for the Benefits of their Baptism, have come to understand their Baptism, as much as they their Circumcision. I have known it, when the Parent catechizing his Children, and turning the Substance of their Catechism into a Form of Prayer, and their Baptism with it, they have understood it, and improved it, as much as many, if not most, of your Adult dipped Persons. 2. What if the Circumcised Jew die before he be a Year or two old, what does he learn from his Mark? 3. I said before, God hath something to do in the Ordinance, and not the Child only. 4. As to what they object against Children, because they cannot put forth any Acts of Grace, this strikes as much against God's Wisdom in appointing Circumcision: They had best teach him how he should appoint his Ordinances. Tho Children were Circumcised on the Eighth Day, yet they were not to eat of the Passover till they were about 10 or 12 Years old, when by their Parents catechizing of them, while the Lamb was taken up on the Tenth Day, they were instructed in the meaning of the Passover. But to understand the meaning of the Lord's Supper, is much harder, being wholly Spiritual. Then we come to another Q. p. 11. Why Sprinkling, not Dipping? Section 3. I have taken peculiar notice of the words of our Liturgy here, so that your Author is mistaken, the thing is very well. I wonder the Athenian Gentlemen would admit this Question These Anabaptists keep such a Prating and scribbling about Sprinkling, when I know no Sprinkler, no such thing in practise that I know or hear of. I suppose they are Gentlemen of the Church of England, by the Answer they give to the Question: But they have wronged their Church and Common-Prayer-Book, which command no such thing. The Book speaks only thus, The Minister shall dip the Child in the water, so it be discreetly and warily done; and if the Child be weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it. But not one Word of Sprinkling. With what Face then do these Anabaptists make such a Clamour about such a Word and Thing, which is not. Both of your Books have given us a Specimen of your Critical Learning, in teaching us what every body knew before, forsooth. What Baptizo signifies, viz. To Dip, or plunge under Water: But still both of you writ as Deceivers; Why did you not put the Word Only in, that it signifies only to Dip; which of your Cloud of Witnesses say it does so? We should soon confute them out of Scripture, 9 Heb. 10. {αβγδ}. He does not say, there were divers things Baptized, whicih is true; but Divers Baptisms. But if there be only one way to Baptize, viz. By Dipping, then the Word Divers must be left out. So that we may baptize some other way beside Dipping. I cannot but observe the 7 Mark 3. In this Verse the Pen-man uses {αβγδ}, For washing, in the 4 v. he changes the Word, and uses the Word {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}. Do the Anabaptists Wives, when their Tables are foul, carry them to the pounds or Rivers to baptize them? Do they not pour Water, and so baptize them? The Word is {αβγδ}. Did the Pharisees baptize their Beds, by plunging them under Water? What, to spoil them? How often of late have I seen a Person baptizing of Vessels, by pouring Water into them, but not by Dipping? How were they baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. By Dipping? Were there no Children baptized at that time? What a strain of Wit does Mr. Danvers show to make it serve his turn? But in vain. I doubt not when Elijah baptized his Hands, by Elisha's pouring Water upon them, his Hands were as clean as any Anabaptists are by Dipping, 11 Luke 38. with 2 Kings 3 11 v. I have met with no Lexicographer as yet, but render the Word by Abluo, Lavo,[ so Castelio, tho he were now a better critic than any Anabaptist] as well as Immergo. And that's the reason why all the Translations I see, use the greater, Baptize; because if they Translate it Dipping, they do not give the full signification of the Word. He that translates the Dutch into English, translates it Baptize every where. How do both these Authors insult over the Athenian Gentlemen, charging them with strange and prodigious Ignorance, for requiring a Proof of Female Baptism, by Dipping, they meant, if they did not express it, and the Printer omitted it. But how I should prove invincibly Paul baptized Lydia; yea, and the jailor, and others, by Dipping, I cannot tell; if they can, let them. My Thoughts are these, Christ was manifested to take away Sin, 1 John 3.5. This taking away of Sin, is set forth several ways. As First, By Sprinkling, 36 Ezek. 25. 12 Heb. 24. 1 Pet. 1.2. Secondly, By Burial, in two places only, 6 Rom. 4. 2 Colos. 12. 3ly. By Washing, Cleansing; and this more than any other way, 5 Ephes. 26. 3 Tit. 5. 1 Revelat. 5. 1 John 1.7, 9. 9 Heb. 14. 1 Cor. 6.11. 22 Acts 16. Paul being in a City, and in a House, whether he went out of the City to a River to be dipped, I cannot prove it. But however, washing is the thing I aim at. The Word {αβγδ} not signifying to sprinkle, I never use that, nor any Man else that I know; but signifying washing, a Word more frequently used: I pour such a sufficient quantity of Water[ some time I fear too much] as shall lively show forth washing. Man is known by his Face, not by his Heels: The Rational Soul having its Seat in the Brain,[ tho I might pour the Water all over, and so set forth Burial after our way more lively than your way] I think it may be sufficient: For I understand you Dip but part. Now he that is washed from his Sin, hath Sin taken away, as well as he that hath it taken away by Burial: 'tis Death, not Washing, is signified in Burial. Yet further, I have in the Heat of Summer offered my People to Baptize their Children by Dipping, if they will venture it; not because I do not judge the Baptizing by Washing to be as regular, but because the Word signifying both, Washing, and Dipping. And to let the Anabaptists know I am not against Dipping, provided there be no Dipping of them who were Baptized before; as is the practise of these Men: Whence it is no Nick-Name to call them Anabaptists, as this Author Philalethes tells us, but very proper; their Act being Will-worship, never instituted by Christ to Baptize Men in his Name twice, I weigh their Dipping no more than a Rush, being a mere Cheat. Besides, As they questioned John's Authority, we may well question yours. Prove your Call according to Scripture. Where were the dipped Churches that called you, and the dipped Presbytery[ or dipped Bishops if you would have it] that Ordained you regularly? There were Two Apostles at least to Ordain. Trace you to the beginning. The Anabaptists have not yet proved that the Three Thousand Baptized in the 2 Acts, were Baptized by Dipping. Nor can they prove it: They were the same Day added to the Church, 41 v. There were not Waters to dip them in; they need not have gone from Jerusalem to Jordan to be Baptized, 3 Matth. 5, 6. had there been Waters at Jerusalem to Dip in. John Baptized in Jordan, in Bethabara, and Aenon, because of much Water. He being a Prophet highly esteemed of the People, could as well have gone to Jerusalem, and Baptized there, had there been such Waters at Jerusalem, to dip Three Thousand in one Day. What if he cried in the Wilderness, 3 Matth. 3. at his first beginning to Preach? He could Cry and Preach in Herod's Court afterwards. Nor can they prove that they who were Baptized in Houses were Baptized by Dipping. Dr. Lightfoot saith, there was an express Maxim among the Jews against Dipping in any Vessel; that they went out to Rivers or pounds, there is no Word that speaks it: The Apostles were all Jews. We red, 24 Matth. 20. and 13 Mark 18. in the Destruction of Jerusalem, Christ directs his Discidles to pray their Flight may not be in the Winter. But they might be well clothed, tho' it were Winter. Hence I considered as to Circumcision, it might be administered in any Country, at any time of the Year, it was the same to all. But for Baptism, it is not so. In some Countries the Season so hot, that to refresh themselves, tho' there were no Sacred Baptism, they would Baptize themselves: But in other Countries, Baptizing may well hazard their Health, if not their Lives. Tho some from a Zeal to an Opinion, can endure Dipping, being strong Bodies, as the Moscovites, bread up hardly,[ but alas! pitiful Churches,] what is this to weaker Bodies and to Children. Christ it seems had a care of the Winter; they have the Advantage that dwell in Hot Countries as to Baptism; it was not so in Circumcision. It was said of one of the Roman Emperors, That he would not wish to be Caesar, to be obliged to walk through Britain, and to endure the Northern Frosts. It seems Italy and England are not alike. Nor yet have I done about this Dipping. If Christ hath put so much in Dipping as you have done,[ to tie Salvation to it, as that silly Woman, Had I died before I had been Baptized by Dipping, I had perished. And a Teacher forsooth, told a good plain-hearted Woman, Repentance, Faith and Good Works are not sufficient without this. What are they not sufficient for? Whether to a sound Christian to Salvation? You are a Liar and Deceiver, take which you will.] Then would Christ have left it plain how it should be administered. Both these Mens Books seem to give an Answer to what I never heard questioned, Other, p. 41 one page. 11. Is it to put the whole Body forward or backward, sideway,& c? This is not the thing. But the Question is, Are you so strong to take up their whole Bodies, and plunge them under Water; 〈◇〉 so you bury them, and not they themselves in any part? Or do they go into the Water first, whether to the Knees, Middle, or Arm-pits;[ bury themselves so far; among the Jews Women were set up to the Neck,] Then you dip the rest. I pray direct us from the Holy page., how it should be done, how John did it, that we may know how to Administer this Ordinance to Adult Persons not Baptized before according to Scripture, that our Consciences may be satisfied in our Administration. I do seriously seek Light from Scripture. Again, I suppose John did stand in the River Jordan, and a good while too, when he Baptized so many; must we also stand in the Water when we Baptize? Jordan was warmer than our Rivers. Whether they were Baptized in their clothes, we cannot tell. We can gather nothing from the Apostles, how they Baptized. I can tell how to Baptize a Child, as I said, and would, if Parents would venture it, and satisfy myself, but not an Adult Person. One thing I have heard from a Learned Professor of Divinity in a Foreign University, yet living as I think: He saith, That the Baptizing of Children by pouring of Water, and not Dipping, came in thus: In old time, when the Conversion was from Heathenism to Christianity, Persons of Quality being tender over their Little Children, were not willing to expose them to Danger by Dipping of them, and so not so forward for Baptizing them; therefore they did pour Water upon them in Baptism. Dipping is Essential, I grant, to Burial, but not to Baptism. Water is the Essential Material Cause. Dip a Man over Head and Ears in Milk and Wine, and 'tis no Baptism; it wants the Material Cause. And still I say, If this be applied, by Pouring or Dipping, its Baptism, one as true as the other. One thing I observe in Philalethes, he regards not the practise of the Church, Section 5. from the Apostles time, as Origen, and also Angustin saith Infant Baptism is; whereas this Author makes nothing of it. Verily then the Promise of Christ to be with his Ministry and Church to the end of the World, and of his Spirit likewise, have some, yea, much Dishonour cast upon it; to let his Church, the great Body of it in all Ages, the Eminent Saints for Holiness and Learning, to err so, in such a practise as this is; and that a pitiful few, and the Ring-leaders of them Erroneous, yea, Heretical, should be the first Bringers of a Truth to Light in one of our latter Centuries. If Infant-Baptism be an Error, tell us who was the first Author of it? If you ask, If the Denial of Infant-Baptism be an Error, tell us who was the first Author? I answer, Before Auxentius and Pelagius, two notorious heretics, that denied Infant-Baptism, tell us who ever denied the Baptism of the Children of Visible Believers? Tertullian does not speak of the Children of Believing Parents: Besides there is another Spot upon Tertullian's Name. Both these Authors are very angry with the Athenian Gentlemen, for mentioning the German Anabaptists; and tell them in all Societies or Professions there will be some vile and corrupt Persons. It's very true: But 1st. It is very observable who were the First, the Ringleaders in any Sect or doctrine; and they were heretics, and in Germany very corrupt Persons. Do you prove the History of the German Anabaptists to be false if you can; when so many worthy, both Godly and Learned Men, have given us an account of them. 2ly. Why do you in your Writings tell us what kind of Persons they must be that are the Subiects of Baptism? As. That the glorious internal Work of the Spirit must appear i●●●em, p 11. In another place, Their Faith must be the Faith of the Operation of God? Again, They must experience the Death of Sin, before baptized, p. 19, 〈◇〉. When we come to observe your dipped Persons, many of them we find nothing like to what you talk of. The Author, sold by John Harris, p. 13. tells us, They differ not from Orthodox Christians in any Essentials— no, nor in Fundamentals of Church-Constitutions, save in the Point of Baptism, &c. For the first Part, I leave you to your Orthodox Grantham, a Messenger( forsooth) of the Churches. A very wise Interpreter of the Angels of the Seven Churches. For the latter part, you differ but so much from others, as to Null all Churches but yourselves; and that is a Difference with a witness. This is proved. 1. By your Principle. 2. By your practise. For your Principle. Baptism is the Form of a Church. Thus one of your Teachers affirmed to me and others. Forma, est causa per quem res est id quod est, saith our logic. What any thing is, it is by it's Form. Baptism is only by Dipping say you; this is your doctrine. Lay then the Argument thus: They that have not the Form of a Church, are no Church.[ Very true, where there is not the Forma, there cannot be the Formatum.] But they that are not Baptized by Dipping, have not the Form of a Church. Ergo. They who are not baptized by Dipping, are no Church. 2ly. It is proved by your practise, you will hold Communion with no other Churches but yourselves, and this you justify by your wretched abusing of the Text, 2 Thess. 3.6. to which I have answered elsewhere, and add this only to it now, You are the Disorderly Walkers, who slight and cast off our Father Abraham's Covenant, cut off the Entail to his Seed, when God hath not, and shut them out of the Church, laying them in that miserable Estate we were in before Christ, 2 Ephes. 11, 12. Let those that impose upon Churches look to themselves, that they be not guilty of Schism. I impose nothing[ but what I am sure Christ hath] upon Anabaptist, Independent, Presbyterian, Church of England Members, provided they walk as become Christians, I give Communion to them all, bearing with the other Differences. I hear of a very worthy Brother, who hath an Anabaptist joined with him in Office, and such Adult as will be dipped,[ rejecting their sormer Baptism] he Dips them; but at the Lord's Table they sit down all together. This latter I like very well: But for the former, If our Brother do baptize Children by Dipping, then there may be something in it; else, he hath one joined with him, that condemns and nulls his Act; which I think is absurd to admit; for he will baptize them, whom he hath baptized before. This is but Confusion. As that is our Misery in England, either Persecution, or Confusion; both which the Bishops might have prevented, had they pleased. I thought to have spoken to him who makes the Covenant with our Father Abraham, 17 Gen. 7. to be a Covenant of Works; but I saw it would take up more Paper than I intended. He hath his Answer by that worthy and now blessed Saint of God, Mr. Flavel. I only say this, 'tis but righteous with the Lord to infatuate them, who slight his Grace. I have but one Word to the Anabaptists. Many of you had Godly Parents, one or both, who in Obedience to God, blessing of God for their Father Abraham's Covenant, gave you up to God in Baptism. Now I desire you to Answer in the Presence of God, 1st. Did you, when you came to Years of Understanding, seriously and solemnly before the Lord, own your Parents Act, and give up yourselves to God, as they did? 2ly. Have you blessed God since for your Father Abraham, and your Baptismal Covenant? 3ly. Have you improved these Covenants, to lay hold upon God by them, to be your God for ever? 4ly. Have you begged of God to perform his part of his Covenant,[ God must begin first] that you may in the strength thereof perform your part in the Covenant to them. 5ly. Have you experienced what an Advantage it is to a Soul, under Darkness, Temptation, yet to lay hold upon God by these Covenants? I pray do not tell God you were but sprinkled[ which is but to tell him a lye, we have not known, nor do know any such practise] not Baptized. And will you prate and writ against that in Religion, which you never experienced, nor ever went about to experience? What is Religion without experiencing the Power of it? Others have experienced what I say, their Experience grounded upon the Scriptures I have mentioned, and blessed God for these Covenants. To some he hath eminently appeared in their Baptismal-Covenant, tho not dipped. You that have not done thus, you have dealt unworthily by God, and God hath justly given you up to this Error. FINIS. ADVERTISEMENT. THE Answer of Giles Firmin, to the Vain and Unprofitable Question put to him, and charged upon him by Mr. Grantham, in his Book, entitled, The Infant's Advocate: viz. Whether the greatest Part of Dying Infants shall be Damned? Which Advocate, while he shuts all Infants out of the Visible Church, and denies them Baptism, opens Heaven to all Dying Infants, justifying those of his Party, who admit them all as he doth, into Heaven without Regeneration. The Preface may be very useful for the Children of Godly Parents. London, Printed for John laurence at the Angel over-against the Poultrey-Compter. 1689. POSTSCRIPT. HE that stiles himself Philalethes, hath given us seven Arguments against Infant-Baptism, but his seventh hath more in it than all his six, had it been true: I waited for the Proof of it, and it came to my Hand after, I fear, my Copy is Printed. His Argument is, Baptizing of Infants in the Name of the Lord, is substantially and severely forbidden by the Word of God. Ergo. The Antecedent is proved by the 18 Deut. 20. It is not Commanded by God. Ergo. We are allowed Consequences it seems, then well enough. As to the Text, it speaks severely indeed, against those who are guilty according to that Text; for such were to die not only by the Magistrate temporally, but also eternally: Yet I fear not to say, there are many more thousands of Paedobaptists in Heaven than either Anabaptists, or Antipaedobaptists. The Text speaks of two sorts of Prophets. But what is a Prophet in the Old Testament? the Name is taken from speaking or uttering words, or Oracles that come from God immediately, seeing or receiving them by Vision; had the Spirit of God, foretelling things to come. We pretend to no such things, we cleave to the written Word, using Consequences from it, as you do. These Prophets, some could speak in the Name of the true God, pretending that God sent them, but did lie. What God had spoken by his true Prophets, they spake quiter contrary in his Name, oppose God to his Face. Such were found in Israel, 14 Jerem. 14.& 23.31, 32.& 27.15.& 29.21, 23. 13 Ezek. 6. 2ly. Some Prophets could speak in the Name of other gods, as they who Prophesied by Baal, 2 Jer. 8.& 23 Jer. 13. and these could teach Israel how to Sacrifice their Children to Moloch, 19 Jer. 5. Which of these Crimes do you charge upon us? As for the Command of God to Baptize the Infants of Believing Parens, I have spoken to it before; this Text does not scar us from our Duty. You have taken great Pains, to help your Reader understand the signification of the word {αβγδ} in the 2 Act. 38, 39. telling him it signifies Persons grown in Stature, as your learned Grantham tells his Followers: And who does not know this? but you should have added the word Only to it; then, had you looked into the New Testament, 2 Matth. 18. compared with 16 v. where it is the first time used, and in 1 Thes. 2.7. you would have seen your Confutation. I have Viewed two and twenty Texts more, where the word signifies as well little Children as grown Men. The Persons to whom Peter was speaking, were Bearded[ Da veniam verbo] Children, since the word {αβγδ} must signify such; and these Bearded Children had little Children, and the Promise did belong to them both, to you, and to your Children. The Text does not say, Repent and be Baptized, that the Promise may be to you and your Children; but it saith, Repent and be Baptized, For the Promise Is, to you and your Children, {αβγδ}: So that there was some Promise antecedent to their Repenting and Baptizing, and the Apostle doth exhort them and encourage them to Repentance and Baptism, from their being under the Promise. They who were Actual sinners, guilty of that great sin, they must actually Repent of their sin and be Baptized. Their Children who were not actually guilty of that sin, but being under the Promise, as their Parents were[ the Apostle is upon the same design, 3 Acts 25. Ye are the Children[ your little ones as well as yourselves] of the Prophets, and of the Covenant, which God made, &c.] the Children having need of the Blessings, and being Subjects capable of the Blessings signified in Baptism, as well as the Parents: As it was the Parents Duty to be Baptized, so it was their Duty to give up their Children to the Lord in that Ordinance, Dedicate them to him, and wait for his Blessing upon them in it, for they were under the Promise, under the Covenant. When the Apostle Preached to the Gentiles, Who were strangers from the Covenants of Promise, 2 Ephes. 12. they never use this Ground and Argument to bring them to Repentance and Baptism, but Peter in his two first Sermons to the Jews, useth it so that it is something for Parents, and Children with their Parents, to be under our Father Abraham's Covenant, which Gentiles believing in the Promised Seed to Abraham, are, he being the Father of Visible Believers in Christ,[ as he was a Visible Believer himself] as of the invisible. As to the Paedobaptists fawning one upon another, which Philalethes Charges the Athenian Gentlemen with, because they put into their gazettes a Note concerning Mr. Eliot, given them by an unknown Hand: I have but this to say, That Eminent Servant of Christ, Mr. Eliot, I knew him well, being a Member of the same Church into which I was admitted about threescore Years since. David had warlike Valiant Men under him, but there were three most eminent, 2 Sam. 23.8. God hath many precious Saints, but amongst them, some are more eminent than others, and our Eliot for Holiness, Heavenly-mindedness, Humility, self-denial, Zeal for God, and Charity, shall take his Place among the first three: This is the Holy Man whom God hath Honoured above all Men in the World, for many Ages, making him the Apostle, the first Gospel-Preacher to the American Indians, invading the Devils Kingdom, and setting up Churches of Christ in the midst of it, in spite of all the Power of Hell; so Zealous in his Master's Work, that for several dayes in one Week he was not dry, but pulled off his Stockings at Night, and wrung them, and put them on again. The Apostles when they went forth to Preach, had the Gift of Tongues miraculously bestowed upon them, and Cost them no Trouble; but Our Eliot,[ I call him Our, because he was a Member first of of our Church] he must Study, Labour and Pray hard, to learn the Tongue of that People to whom he was to Preach, a strange Language, having no affinity with other Tongues, and hath Translated the Bible into that Language. To Conclude, a Man that had such Communion with God, that if there were any public enterprise in hand, let Mr. Eliot carry it first to his God, and he would tell them whether it should succeed well or ill: Whence I do highly esteem of his judgement in the things of God, and in this particular of Infant-Baptism; and tho' I do think God hath his People amongst these Anabaptists, and so far I do Value them, but yet for Worth in all respects, one Mr. Eliot weights more with me than all the Anabaptists in England, tho' Philalethes be put into the Scale with them. FINIS. ERRATA. page. 4. in margin, for Errors r. Erroneous. p. 7. l. 24. for We r. He. p. 8. l. 16. for we r. he. p. 10, 11. red the first Paragraph in the 11th. page., beginning with Water, after the quotation of 5 Ephes. 25, 26. in pag. 10th. p. 14. l. 12. for even r. and. A BRIEF DEFENCE OF Infant-Baptism. WITH AN APPENDIX, Wherein is shewed, that it is not necessary that Baptism should be administered by Dipping. By JOHN OLLYFFE, Rector of Almer in the County of Dorset. LONDON, Printed for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's Church-yard: and are to be sold by John Woolfryes, Bookseller in Blandford. MDCXCIV.