An answer to a scandalous paper, lately sent to the right Honourable the Lord Mayor, touching a late dispute intended by the Anabaptists with the Presbyterians. As also, a briefe discovery of the grosse mistakes and confused puslements of Anabaptisticall spirits in the point of rebaptising, according to Mr. Saltmarsh, in somelate [sic] exceptions here recited. With a reply to the main arguments of F.C. the great Anabaptisticall champion, / by a well-willer and daily desierer [sic] of a happy settlement of truth and peace.

A Reply to the Anabaptiſticall Letter ſent to the Lord Mayor by a nameleſſe Author.

FIrſt, the Accuſation therein is falſe, his Lordſhip broke not his Promiſe concerning the Diſputation; For his Lordſhip promiſed, by the Accuſers own confeſſion, nothing but what the Honourable Houſes ſhould condeſcend unto, and ſince his Lordſhip was not ſought unto in the firſt place before the private Diſputation which was appointed, but by the multitude prevented, which they ſo much thronged to heare, having more puſlement, then practiſe in it, certainly his Lordſhip upon mature deliberation, well conſidered the many ill conveniences, which might inſue, upon ſuch a thronged deſireable Diſputation on your part.

Secondly, Your ſpreading of your hopes to get the day of your deſire, which was ſpread as you ſay, 30. or 40. mile, might upon the ſame ground as the former was, have prevented you if the multitude of City and Country could do it, and happy were it for both City and Country if there was not ſo much needleſſe diſpute and ſo little practiſe, which queſtionleſſe his Lordſhip well perceives.

Thirdly, Concerning his Lordſhips publiſhing an adjournment of the Diſputation to a convenient time, his Lordſhip declared ſufficiently that it was but untill he ſhould receive the pleaſure of both Houſes about the ſame.

Fourthly, Your taxing of his Lordſhip to turn your enemie by approving of the Remonſtrance: for anſwer unto which though ſomething therein may be excepted againſt, yet it was done doubtleſſe upon a mature an advice & to as good purpoſe as your diſputation might have proved: And if ſo many thouſand eyes looke upon his Lordſhip only as the furtherer of ſuch a Diſputation, though the ſame eyes look another way, his Lordſhip need not much to waigh that matter.

Fiftly, Whereas you conclude that the Clergie and his Lordſhip having debated the matter ſuſpect the truth of their cauſe and their owne ability as not daring to ſhew their faces in the open field, I am perſwaded rather the needleſneſſe of the Diſpute and thoſe far fetcht pretences of yours, diving more into a circumſtance then a ſubſtance, prevents the ſame, your own Weapons abroad ſufficiently diſcover your skill to be no ſuch Maſter Fencers as you pretend, and though ſeven Churches can joyne in one for a Confeſſion, it is moſt certain all the ſeven are not able to eſtabliſh one of thoſe ſeven, though the leaſt Congregation, into a practiſe of what they could all joyn in one to confeſſe.

In the ſixt place whereas you remember his Lordſhip to be tearmed one of the builders of Sion, queſtioning whether it be Gods Sion or the Synagogue of Scotland, and as you ſay plainly, that it is out of queſtion that the rule of Gods word ſhould be all our rule for Practiſe.

Stand to your word (Practiſe) and then what practiſe do you mean, if by Practiſe you intend Baptiſme of whom you pleaſe to beſtow it upon, you muſt either prove Baptiſme to be of more account then Paul makes it, or elſe lay by this your mention of Practiſe.

Laſtly, to ſum up all your perſwaſions, inſinuations and invectives, expecting to obtain your deſire in a publique Diſputation, rebaptiſing being found of no concernment to a Chriſtian life, and ſo plain diſagreeing to circumſiſſion for perſon, time and place, doth ſufficiently ſatisfie thoſe that are not ſo much taken up with circumſtantiall diſputes as reall practiſe in Life and Converſation, which in many by this meanes is much abated and eclipſed to that once they were, and if yet you ſtand in need of more work, cleare thoſe exceptions which Mr. Saltmarſh hath laid down, and there you ſhall find work enough to ſettle ſome that more nearly concern you, and not thus to looke abroad for ſuch a publique Diſputation.

And thus leaving that Letter of falſe accuſation, I ſhall give you in the exceptions of Mr. Saltmarſh againſt Rebaptiſing in his ſmoke in the Temple, page 10. &c. ſome of which I have here inſerted • ith little alteration.

1. That Anabaptiſticall Diſciples cannot ſo baptiſe as the firſt did, becauſe they are not ſo gifted and qualified as the Diſciples of Chriſt and the Apoſtles were.

2. That there was nver any one Diſciple in all the new Teſtament, that did baptiſe by way of Authority, but he was able to make out the truth of his calling and diſpenſation, either by Miracles, or Gifts.

3. Thoſe ought not now to Rebaptiſe that take it thus upon them, unleſſe they could give out the Holy Ghoſt with it, which they cannot doe.

4. That the Churches where Rebaptiſing is uſed where they pretend moſt full and pure practiſe of ordinances, yet have no greater giſts then other Churches. But more particularly now to the main Arguments of one of the chiefe of their Champions.

1. He argues thus: That which God hath joyned together no man ought to ſeparate, But faith or dipping according to the originall no man ought to ſeparate.

1. Reply, Though the major be true, yet the minor and the Argument are both falſe, for faith and baptiſme are not inſeparably joyned together, though the Apoſtles were ſent to preach and baptiſe all Nations, Math. 28.19. yet many afterward fell and periſht in unbeliefe; And on the contrary many have gone to Heaven that were never baptiſed, for we are all the Children of God by faith in Chriſt Jeſus, Gal. 3.26. and Baptiſme is not here annext, and although a man be baptiſed or dipt, if he believe not he ſhall be damned: All Chriſtians or Saints are not made ſo by Baptiſme, but by another worke.

2. Reply, By this Argument none now ſhould be baptiſed untill they were able to worke ſignes which Chriſt ſaid ſhould follow thoſe that did believe, Mark. 16.17. And if you will grant ſignes or miracles are ceaſt, ſo alſo is the ſpirit of deſerning who are believers.

But in the next place he cites the decree of Pope Inocentius the third, and the decree of Gregory to prove baptiſme Antichriſtian.

To which for anſwer, know that we have a far better ground, 1. becauſe they belong to the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. Secondly, they are called holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. Thirdly, which is moſt of all, they are redeemed by the blood of Chriſt, Jo. 11.52. And laſtly, The Apoſtles practiſe ſufficiently ſettles us, who baptiſed whole Houſholds, Acts 16.33. and yet none can affirme that all were believers in the houſhold, nor prove no Children to be there. And upon this practiſe of the Apoſtles it is, that ſo many of latter as well as former godly Divines have practiſed this.

And as for the Covenant in reſpect of the ſeales of Circumciſſion and Baptiſme, you and the reſt which would make it but an outward ſeale, are much miſtaken, for it is an everlaſting covenant, Gen. 17.13. and though Circumciſſion be taken away becauſe Chriſt is come, yet as Calvin ſaith, the grace of God which is the inward ſeale, and Baptiſme is a ſupply thereof.

Your ſecond Reaſon is, that there was a prefixt day for Circumciſſion, to wit, the 8. day, Gen. 17.12. but no day appointed for dipping or ſprinckling.

For anſwer whereof, know that although the eighth day be mentioned, yet the command was not abſolute for the 8. day, and this will appeare plainly in the example of the Children of Iſrael borne in the Wilderneſſe, by the way comming out of Aegipt, that were not circumciſed till afterward, Joſua 5.5. upon neceſſity circumſiſſion might be deferred, as the eating of the Paſſeover might be put off, Numb. 9.10.

Your third Reaſon is, that there was a precept for Circumciſſion to injoyn it from God himſelfe, Gen. 17.11. and an example, Gen. 24.4, But ſay you neither precept nor example in Scripture to baptiſe Infants.

For anſwer, there is a precept where both young and old are to be baptiſed, in Acts. 2.38, 39. Be baptiſed every one of you (ſaith Peter there) and to encourage all he is moſt expreſſe, and tels them the promiſe is made to them and to their ſeed, and to thoſe whoſe children were afar of even to as many as the Lord our God ſhall call: And there is alſo an example Acts 2. in the Infancie of the Church, where in one day three thouſand ſoules were added, which received the outward ſeale of Baptiſme, verſe 41. and the Children could not but partake of the ſame outward Priviledges with them.

But to proceed, Argument 2. you argue thus; That which is not of faith is ſin to the Church, or that perſon that doth it: But the Baptiſme of Infants is not of Faith, Ergo a ſin.

For anſwer whereof, to prove Baptiſme to Infants that are believers children to be of faith, againſt you thus;

In the 19 of the Acts Paul tels the Diſciples at Epheſus, That John babtiſed, ſaying; that the people ſhould believe and repent on him that ſhould come after him, verſe 4. this was a command which he gave to thoſe that were very ignorant, and had not learned whether there were a Holy Ghoſt or not, verſe 2. though afterwards Paul laid his hands on them to declare that they were baptiſed in the name of the Lord Jeſus, and they received the Holy Ghoſt, and thus theſe children of thoſe believing Parents being of the holy ſeed have right to Baptiſme, Acts 16.33. But to anſwer your Reaſons as you call them.

1. Say you, but Baptiſme puts Infants of believing Parents, into a ſtate of grace and Remiſſion of ſin before calling.

By which reaſon your owne Teſtimony is fully againſt you, proving formerly that Baptiſme hath no ſuch Prerogative.

Becauſe it is only the Election of Gods own purpoſe and grace, before the world began, that puts us into this ſtate of grace, which is manifeſted unto, and confer'd upon ſome before Baptiſme, Acts 8.36, 37. and upon others after Baptiſme, Acts 19.4. Baptiſme being only the outward Seale of the Church, and the work of grace upon the ſpirit, the inward ſeale as is formerly proved.

2. Baptiſme conſtitutes the Infants of believing Parents members of a viſible Church, for if believing husbands do not keep out unbelieving Wives, then are not their Children unclean, in ſuch a ſence as to be deprived of entrance into the Congregation. 1. Cor. 7.14.

3. Your next reaſon in ſubſtance is anſwered already concerning the Covenant of grace to be the inward ſeale of Gods Elect, and Baptiſme only the outward ſeale of the Viſible Church, whoſe Members not being elected cannot be ſaved, but muſt needs fall away and make a mock at Chriſt, Heb. 6.6. and only thoſe that have the inward ſeale they being baptiſed into Chriſt, whether Jew or Gentile are heires of Heaven, according to the promiſe, Gal. 3.27, 28, 29.

4. Your Reaſon is not ſound, for none is ſo unwiſe to think grace is intail'd to generation, but to regeneration, for it neither doth nor can follow that all that are baptiſed ſhall be ſaved, the contrary being already proved, and God is as well able to give Infants an habit of faith, ſo far to make them capeable of Aſcending to Heaven, if they die in Infancie as well as men and women, and therefore is it that to ſuch belongs the Kingdome of God.

5. The further you go the more you erre, where you draw falſe concluſions.

Firſt, That all baptiſed perſons are ſaved.

Or ſecondly, That ſome being in the ſtate of grace may fall away afterwards, and thus by your diving into an obſcure nicety, you race the foundation of Religion.

6. But now you undertake to prove, that baptiſing of Infants oppoſeth the Kingly office of Chriſt in faith and order, for proofe whereof you cite Math. 15.16. wherein Chriſt requires every one that is baptiſed to be a believer, unto which I anſwer it is moſt certain, and in the ſight and account of God none have a right to Baptiſme but believers, yet this is not in the power of men to diſtinguiſh believers from unbelievers, and therefore according to that of Matthew 28.29. where you read the place, go teach and make Diſciples, and that this muſt be done by baptiſing, and then teaching, ſo that Baptiſme in the firſt order is not oppoſed.

But to your third Argument, wherein you argue thus; that conſequence which is upheld by the tradition of men is deſtructive to the inſtitution of Chriſt; wherein you abuſe the Practiſe of thoſe whoſe ſufficient warrant from Scripture though you all carpe at never ſo long, yet can never clear, your endeavour being to make the priviledges of the Goſpell to the Children of believers, ſo far ſhort of what the Iſraelites under the Law did enjoy.

And thus forgetting the ſettlement of peace in the Kingdome, you make the breach very wide, oppoſing and interrupting a Reformation covenanted for and ſo much endeavoured after by all thoſe who deſire to live in a conſcionable obedience to the plain diſcovery of Gods holy will, clearly laid down in his holy and ſacred Word: whoſe deſires and bent, are ſet to further that work which the wiſe maſter builders now have in hand, daily importuning the throne of grace, that the work may be ſo carried on, that all thoſe that deſire to live a holy life in all godlineſſe and honeſty, may obtain the deſire of their ſoules, and the great endeavour of thoſe whom they have intruſted to carry on that work; who have managed all things ſo in Church and State, as none can have cauſe to ſay or gain-ſay their wiſdome, in an all mighty power aſſiſting them, and the great God of Heaven and Earth perfect his work and praiſe in this our Sion, ſo that at the laſt we may have cauſe to ſay, bleſſed is he that proſpered his own worke, and thus gloriouſly perfected the ſame, Amen, Amen.

FINIS.